Slashdot Mirror
Commission Says NASA Failed on Shuttle Safety
Tsalg writes "The final report from the Stafford-Covey Commission concludes that out of the 15 recommendations they made, the 3 toughest technically are not met. The news was not official on the return-to-flight website but has been widely commented elsewhere. Says one of the task members: "It is NASA's job -- not the task force's -- to determine whether the risks are acceptable and whether it's safe for Discovery to fly." The commission said risk remained that pieces of foam and ice could break off and hit the shuttle at lift-off.
It also said the orbiter had not been sufficiently hardened and it lacked an in-flight repair system.Nasa has been aiming to launch shuttle Discovery as early as 13 July."
and honestly, does NASA have the billions it'll take to fix the shuttles up again? Will the public even care to pay for a program that would be down another two to three years? Five years between shuttle launches?
Why bother, I say.
NASA really needs to move on with the space shuttle. The only reason they been kept around so long is because NASA promised too much with the 1970s technology while shutting down competing technologies (e.g., space capsule and Saturn rockets) and that the shuttle contractors needed corporate welfare payments. They put all their eggs in one basket and the eggs are cracking. The NASA space monopoly should be broken before they lose the rest of their flying bricks.
I'm confused about why NASA has been using the shuttle for so long and kept patching it up. With the ancient design as a underlay base. (well I could imagine the issue of cost. But if Bush really wants to hit the moon anywhere soon for his base, which'll require alot of spacetravelling, things will have to be reviewed)
It's like like using a 386 processor but putting it in a really nice case with a flatscreen and pasting on stickers to make it appear competable with the P4.
The 386 might still do what it's designed for and does it well, but it's outdate and has become obsolete. The whole "risk factor" becoming more and more of an issue just shows the shuttle has had its time.
They should've been develloping another craft for space-exploration. (and I thought they did, with a craft which could just fuel up, fly to space and land back.. but it crashed? I don't remember)
Prior to the Columbia Disaster, NASA's fleet made numerous flights while being pelted with enormous chunks of foam as the shuttles were in their previously thought safe and stable condition. I'm still not convinced that the incident wasn't just a fluke.
Now, in order to ensure/improve the safety of a few dozen future rocket riders, should the government allocate millions of tax payer dollars?
I think that astronauts getting blown to smithereens shouldn't be unexpected, nor should it enrage anyone, no matter what the NASA chooses to launch astronauts into space in. It goes with the territory; risk goes hand in hand with riding rockets.
Falun Dafa is good!
General Products' #3? Oh, please. Let me count the problems with that:
Anyone seen where I left Kobold?
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
Its a pity the US doesn't ask the russians to give them the plans, if they are so advanced and only money was the limiting factor then it would seem the perfect conbination if the US supplied the money and the russians did the work.
Jonathanjk.com
No, they don't. Some engineers may understand some risks, but no single individual understands them all, and there is lots of evidence that NASA is not very good at synthesizing all the risks. Instead, further unrealized risks occur, such as those introduced by schedule pressure:
If you haven't read the Columbia Acident Investigation Board report, you shouldn't make such claims. And if you have read it, you wouldn't.
If they loose another ship, it will shut down NASA manned flight for 20 years. NASA has always been a difficult sell in Congress, and world is still too immature for international cooperation in projects of this magnitude. If you don't believe that, spend a day at the UN.
And Buran worked fine, and was in many ways superior to the Shuttle - it, for example, contained jet engines that allowed for a powered landing - Shuttle can't pull up for another landing attempt, Buran could.
The shuttle has at least proved that an unpowered landing is perfectly safe. It would be absurd to add the weight cost of engines and fuel just for a go around capability. A robust flight control system is far more efficient. Buran also had no viable electrical power generation. The vehicle was stuffed with batteries on its only flight! That is why it only ever flew a single orbit. So much for the "better" shuttle. It was a child's replica initiated by a paranoid Leonid Brezhnev. The Russians still do not use fuel cells 40 years after they were introduced on American Gemini spacecraft.
It also had no main engines - they were in the huge booster that mimic the shuttle main fuel tank.
..Making Buran one of the costliest and wasteful launch systems ever conceived. Each Energia flight threw away the 4 main H2O2 engines and 4 Kerosene/O2 boosters none of which was reused. Compare this to the shuttle where the SRB motor casings and the SSME's can be used many times.
Buran also had no firecrackers (solid rocket boosters), and instead used only liquid fuels - making challenger-style boom impossible.
Since Challenger, the SRBs have flown 176 times with a perfect safety record. I have always questioned why solid fueled boosters are looked down apon for human space flight. The new NASA administrator is almost certain to favor a derivative of the SRB for a CEV launch capability. You often hear that liquid fueled rockets are safer because they can be shut down. As a passenger in hypersonic I would not be happy to be flying hypersonically next to a highly pressurized fuel tank and have a malfunctioning engine shut down. That was ok on the Saturn because of the series staging and spare thrust capacity. But on the shuttle with parallel staging such a booster shutdown would be deadly. Such "firecrackers" will very likely be the basis of a launch abort system as well. That alone says something about the safety and reliability of solid fuel.
It only flew once, unmanned. A feat Shuttle can't do, by the way, as it can't land unmanned.
Another foolish and oft repeated misconception. The only reason the shuttle doesn't fly unmanned is the polical clout of the astronaut corps. Do you think a shuttle commander has a hand on the stick at anytime from launch to landing? NASA basically gives the stick over to the pilot when the shuttle is lined up with the runway and has enough energy to reach its end. If humans were not aboard the shuttle would be happy and capable of landing and rollout as well.
an ill wind that blows no good