And people will stop shopping there the first time they try to legitimately return something and find themselves denied, when they have done something wrong, and will start shopping at the competition.
Stores will find they lose money because they start mistreating people who have done nothing wrong, in favor of stores that are fair.
I think there actually was a rather large public fuss. I at least remember all the newspapers screaming about it. However, I think it would have been likely that there would have been inquries about it had a requirement to use the system not been enacted. There have been a lot of past accidents, but the responsible governing body seems to be pretty good about requiring various safety changes to be made after each one to keep people safe.
I don't however really recall anyone else getting killed as a direct result to their own stupidity. At least the idiot didn't take anyone else out with him.
Fair enough, but don't blame yourself if you get called on it if people find it offensive. (note: I've made that mistake myself, so don't take this as a sneer).
OK. This one's really short. I swear.;) (I gotta go out and do some things, so there's incentive).
I think we are falling into the same trap that far too many people fall into on things like this. There were problems in the past, caused by a variety of things (management, inexperience, just plain accidents) and so on. Instead of dwelling on the mistakes that have been made, and pointing blame here and there and saying "You fucked up! So did you! So did you!" and so on, which is really a waste of time, isn't it rather time to keep going since that's what we need to do instead of allowing a lull to start that could go on forever - BUT - at the same time, figuring out what we've learned definitely doesn't work, what does, and what can work with a little refinement -- and then applying those lessons?
Dwelling on the past is a good thing because you learn from it (one scene in The Lion King comes to mind in which it's pointed out that past events can and do and should influence the present and future), but discarding the lessons learned from the past is also bad (in the same scene the alternative, running from the past, is rightly described as a bad idea).
I think in the end looking ahead, with optimism that the bad faults will be corrected through hard experience, is what I'd rather do, and what I'd rather we all did.
I seem to be catching flak (not in this debate, don't worry) as being an "apologist", but what people don't realize when they make accusations like that is that extreme negativism is as bad as extreme optimism. I am really neither and I think I have a realistic view of all this, and I take offense at being painted with the big scarlet A.
Isn't refusing to listen to someone else's standng up and saying "Hey wait a minute" what caused the mess in the first place?
I think the fact that problems are being recognized and everything is stopped until a problem is fixed is a pretty damn good measure of the fact that people are taking the risk seriously. So is the fact that work is being done on a replacement and there is now a timeline in mind for retiring the shuttle.
People who continue to bash people who are doing the right thing are not helping any by making an already-thankless job of trying to do the right thing more difficult by screaming at them even when they do the right thing.
If I go speeding through a neighborhood, realize that's a problem because kids are playing in the neighborhood, and then get screamed at when I go through again a week later at a prudent speed and making sure to watch for kids, doesn't that seem a bit ridiculous to you to yell at someone who's doing everything they should be doing?
First, as I've said to another response to this, that article doesn't say anything or another about whether to continue the shuttle or use the CEV instead. It merely points out a lot of the things that nay-sayers are saying, like the fact that test flights are understood to possibly have problems, including problems that went unfixed and missed. That's why they're test flights.
It points out all the positive things that have happened that have been forgotten underneath all the ridiculous nay-saying. That's something that needs to be done.
It points out that the current overall head in the sand attitude is ridiculous.
It points out that upon realizing there was a problem, the right thing was done in deciding not to fly anymore at all until the problem can be fixed, and that means if the problem can't be fixed, to not fly anymore at all. It also points out that we know a lot more than we did before about what to fix.
It also, however, points out things that people keep missing when they respond to it. Namely, it never says that we don't need to start doing something else in the future. It points out that all the things that we're learning now and have learned in the past are going to rightly be incorporated into whatever we do next. It points out that it's right to have debates about that.
It appears that you, too, have missed the fundamental meaning of the phrase "test flight". If we expected test flights to not have problems, they wouldn't be called test flights and we wouldn't even bother to test anything new before it went into production!
Going to tell carmakers to stop testing their cars in heat, cold, rain, ice, snow, etc., to prove how durable they are? They'll just laugh if you try.
This kind of thing is why the general public needs a bitch-slap. They never listen.
This is a more brief reply this time, because we're starting to reach an equilibrium point where we point out everything that needs to be pointed out, but I still want to follow up on a few things.
Waivers aren't always a terrible thing. For some critical items, they are bad, but they are also used for things that, if failed, wouldn't result in loss of mission or vehicle. If a mission launches with some waivers on file, just pointing at their quantity isn't the best way to figure out how many problems there are. Instead, look at how many of those are affecting critical systems instead of something like "in the mid-deck, the third stowage drawer in the second row down is jammed shut and we don't have time to fix it so we won't use that one".
There are a lot of attitude problems that need to be fixed, although I don't think they're insurmountable. While all goverment agencies have a certain amount of stupid bureaucratic crap, and this one is no exception, the crap doesn't always, and hasn't always, stood in the way of doing the right thing. So I really do still think that it can be overcome. It takes effort, but if enough people care, and enough pressure is exerted to do it right, it can be done. I like to take an optimistic view.
The side-mount design flaw, as we both know, is one that can't be fixed without flying something entirely new. Fortunately, this is known, better now that we have proof that it doesn't work than before when we could just say "hey, there's probably going to be debris because everything else launched has had some stuff fall off it, so I bet there's going to be a problem". So if you look at designs for future cargo and crew launchers, almost all of them are inline, and the sidemount CEV/cargo pod still puts the part that has to reenter above most of where debris is shed, and it has a boost protective cover (as Apollo did) over the crew vehicle to protect it, so debris hits won't affect it. So that's being addressed. We just don't know when the flight tests are going to start for sure yet, though right now I think they're looking at 2008-2011 or so. Somewhere in there. Like I've said elsewhere and here, this stuff takes time, so one can't really say that nothing is being done about it. It is, it's just not ready to fly yet.
As for "someone screwed up and we shouldn't have done it this way" -- yes, that's true, but instead of being negative and pointing fingers and saying "you're an idiot" or whatever, I'd rather say "okay, yes, we've had problems, now what can we learn from this to put into the next design to fix them?" Like I've said, all the new designs are inline, and they also (Delta IV or STS) use already-flown components, in some cases man-rated components, instead of starting from scratch. I think that's a good approach.
Also don't forget that while 17 people have died so far, all of them were volunteers and knew the risks, including all the faults, and went anyway. Would I go on the Shuttle were I asked? You bet. I am willing to die for some things, and this is one of them. So that's another thing that's lost on all the nay-sayers.
Again, as for being able to do all the great things that need to be done -- I'd rather be positive than a nay-sayer who doesn't believe anything is possible. As long as we assume that something can't be done, it never will be. Negative prophecies have a way of coming true.
To pull a semi-famous (?) example out, in the Harry Potter books there's a prophecy that says that "out of these two people only one of them will survive and the other must die". or something similar to that. If you are one of the people referred to by the negative doomsday prophecy, you can choose to either accept your fate and stand there and wait for the end to come, or you can choose to want to live. It takes effort to do that because you have to then figure out what the threat is and how to combat it and get through a lot of trials on the way in which you can die, but if you want to survive in the end, you have to have the will to win, know w
Nowhere in that essay does it say anything about which system is better and what should be retired when. It says nothing about what we should do now, what we shouldn't do, same for what happens next. It applies equally well to a future in which the shuttle keeps flying for a while and to one in which it doesn't.
It is about the fact that tests are tests, problems happen, it's being handled better right now than it was before, we need to accept risk and stop being a bunch of pansies (that means the general public), and pointing out examples of things that wouldn't have happened if we were a bunch of wimps.
I don't know where you are seeing what you are seeing, honestly; I'm not seeing that in there. I'm seeing the bitchslap that the naysayers need to be getting because their ridiculous negativity is serving no one.
The last big death in Daytona that I'm aware of was a result of a driver basically saying "I don't like this safety system because I find it annoying and even though you have proof it works, I refuse to wear it".
The guy died from that same type of injury as a direct result of his refusal to listen to those who understand this stuff.
As a direct result of that accident, the use of the safety system in question is now directly required and you cannot drive without one. It is a shame that someone had to die to prove the scientists right, but in the end, there was no blame to place there except on those who do not listen but should.
In this case, the blame lies on those who should know better than to make idiotic statements of the sort they make.
While I'm sure there's a lot of people like ourselves who understand the need for risk, we need to ask ourselves where that idea comes from. Most myths have a basis in fact, after all. If you believe that this idea is mistaken, I'm curious: have you ever asked a politician or pundit why they believe the public doesn't want any risk? This is not a snide remark or a troll; I'd genuinely like to know.
If it's not coming from the public, then where is it coming from?
Unfortunately, there are way too many idiots out there who really don't know what they're talking about, so it's gotten to the point where I get very frustrated trying to hold debates. Most people will just say things without doing their research. Ugh.
Okay, now, here we go.
Yep. Quite true the Shuttle turnaround time is longer than expected, and this is one of the things I had in mind when I said that we didn't have enough experience to realize there would be problems. Aircraft are turned around in far less time and made ready to fly again, and since we have so much experience in that we didn't realize how different it would be to work on the shuttle -- which is also built in a far different way than a plane is, and it's something that had never been built before. I place no bad intentions or blame on this because it's just a fact of life that doing something for the first time takes longer than it does when you've got some experience.
Indeed, the shuttle is old, and a lot of things have been learned since it was built -- but then, there are a lot of other things that are old that work just fine; we could replace them and get more out of the replacements, but it's a big deal to do that.
A few examples of old things that are still in use: The Boeing 747 (1969, improved over the years). The VW Golf (1970s, also improved). The VW Beetle (1936, virtually unchanged until 1993, then discontinued). The Intel x86 microprocessor (1980s, updated over the years). And so on. Why do we still use these things today? Because the designs still work very well even though they are no longer new, and over the years it has proven to be expensive, a hassle, or similar to replace them. It is not necessarily a bad thing to keep using something that is old just because it is old. It is, however, important to add improvements that will improve safety and efficiency; that 747 has electronic controls today, for instance; new Golfs have computerized management and emission control systems; the Beetle, even though it looked much the same when it was discontinued, had modern improvements like better seatbelts, air bags, CD players, and so on. And so it is with the Shuttle: while some major design elements could not be changed, many under-the-skin. But now there's more interest in coming up with a successor.
It's also not such a bad thing necessarily to use a vehicle for a long time. Soyuz was designed for manned lunar flights and first flew in the mid-60s, but it's still in use today and works just fine and a number of variants exist for whatever job is needed.
The cutbacks you mention are all indeed true (and liquid boosters were considered, as were monolithic one-piece solid boosters, which were not done for political reasons). Keep in mind however that it's not really the engineers' fault that none of the better ideas were used. They were not used not because the engineers did not want to use them; they were not used because thbe bureaucrats decided for whatever reason that they did not want to provide the funding, probably so they could waste a lot more money by throwing it at the Defense "We buy hookers with your money" Department or something -- we need to be fair; NASA has done an amazing amount of great stuff with the money they get (about 1% of the budget) and it's not really their fault when they can't do the things they'd really like to. Instead, we need to blame the bureaucratic system that allowed vital safety systems to be removed.
It is ridiculous that nothing was done to fix the major problems that were fixable; however, some of them are inherent in the design, like foam shedding is going to be a problem as long as you have the crew cabin mounted on the side of the booster instead of atop it. That's something that can't be changed without a complete redesign; however, a lot of other safety issues have been addressed with ongoing upgrades, and that's a thing to applaud.
I am not so sure if I dismiss the value of experience too easily, though. While it is true that it didn't take
Elliot G. Pulham President & Chief Executive Officer
No country ever built an airplane by running for the hills and abandoning the program the first time a bolt sheared or a rivet popped during test flight. Our effort to conquer the seas was not cast on the trash heap of history the first time some ship sprung a leak.
These points seem to be lost on our current generation of lily-livered commentators and pundits, and even a few faint-hearted friends in Congress. In the wake of the successful launch of Discovery, a chorus of these "timid souls" seem willing to abandon human space flight at the first sign of evidence confirming that which we all know - putting humans in space is a tricky, difficult, unforgiving and risky business that is nonetheless worth it all.
I shudder to think where our country would be if this "do nothing, risk nothing" attitude had prevailed throughout our history. Our territories west of the Mississippi would likely fly the French and Mexican flags, railways would never have crossed the continent, and heaven knows the defense department never would have been allowed to fund the Wright Brothers and that risky, dangerous, flying machine contraption.
A test flight is a test flight. It is designed to ferret out problems and flaws. If you understand this, then you understand that, thus far, mission STS-114 has been a fabulous success that has generated a treasure trove of knowledge that will make future human space flights - not only of the space shuttle but of any spacecraft - better.
I normally balk at over reacting to anything that happens at NASA. In speeches around the country, I usually start by debunking the notion that NASA "is" space - pointing out that the largest space agency in the world is the U.S. Air Force, that NASA accounts for less than 10 percent of space activity world wide, and that, since 1996, commercial space activities have comprised the largest sector of the market.
But it matters what NASA does. The fact that hundreds of millions of people watched the launch of Discovery on television, a half-million showed up in person in Florida for the launch, and another half-million more had it streamed to their desktops should tell us all we need to know. Human space flight and space exploration is what captivates the minds and hearts of our people, especially our youth, and propels us forward.
Warts and all, foam shedding and all, the fact that virtually every newspaper in America (and most around the globe) has had space exploration on its front page for nearly every day of the past week should tell us something. We know it is dangerous. We know it will probably always be dangerous. And still we want to go, for in going lies all our hopes, dreams and aspirations.
For all those cranks, sots, killjoys and ignoramuses who think the launch of Discovery was a failure - sit down, shut up, and listen:
Spectacular Success No. 1 - Discovery is safely on orbit, docked to the International Space Station, and all indications are that she has suffered far less launch damage than any shuttle launched before. Human space exploration is proceeding. It is only the schedule of this exploration that will vary.
Spectacular Success No. 2 - Thanks to the efforts of thousands of NASA, contractor, and Dept. of Defense personnel (let's not forget that the Air Force plays numerous critical roles in every shuttle launch, and that U.S. Strategic Command is also heavily involved), the new launch observation and monitoring measures performed brilliantly. We've collected more data and imagery on this shuttle launch than on any human space flight in history. The systems worked. Because of that, we know we still have things to fix on the external tank.
Spectacular Success No. 3 - The NASA culture. Within moments of understanding that foam shedding is still a problem, NASA managers immediately and unequivocally decided th
Dude, the new designs are already being worked on. New hardware descended from either the STS or the Delta IV Heavy. One or the other will fly based on some stuff we already have. The "better ideas" (really, just different ones that are better in some ways) are coming.
SafeSimpleSoon.Com, for example, has tons of info on an idea that looks likely to work. You don't cancel one idea because you don't like it before the next is ready, though. You go through transition first, and the transition is just starting right now.
Wait -- I don't get part of what you're saying. "Goal of not killing them?" I'm not sure what you mean. This mission is largely a test mission although it also is important for ISS resupply. You have to test things, it's a normal fact of life.
As for going back to the Moon, etc. -- that's what the goal formally is now -- to return to the Moon and on to Mars. If there's funding and the interest -- I know I'd like to see it happen -- it will happen.
But you have to learn to crawl before you can walk -- and so much experience has been gained about working in space that will be invaluable that it's hard to say it was all a waste. There are still things that are yet to be learned, but what has been learned now is amazing -- and will certainly be put to use in the future. On the Moon and Mars, and in Earth orbit, and in yet other places.
You're right about the troll thing, and let's take that away. Now, I will respond to the rest of what you said, and let us stop being incendiary at each other and let's actually hold a good debate here.
Here's what I think, so far, in order:
The design lifetime of the Shuttle was for 100 flights per orbiter. That means that with a fleet of four, the design lifetime is 400 flights. Each orbiter has on average flown only about 25-30 flights, which means we are only 1/4 of the way through the design lifetime. Aircraft lifetimes are measured by the amount of time they've actually been flying rather than the amount of time they've existed.
While it is true that not all of the design goals have been met (which is a shame), keep in mind that no one had ever built a spaceplane anything like the shuttle before and therefore the only experience that it could be based on was that of airline service. It is now routine to fly aircraft long distances several times per day and work routine maintenance in around the schedule an airline must keep. This we do very well. But it turned out over time that the Shuttle was more complex to work with than anyone thought. While it seems easy enough to say that "they should have thought of that", is it really true? I don't think so. You only gain confidence in statements like that when you've had a lot of experience with the situation at hand -- which we didn't have with the Shuttle. It would have been great had it worked out that way, and we thought it would because we thought we knew what it would be like to operate it but it didn't happen. I don't think it's out of laziness or incompetence or anything else, but out of inexperience. Now we know more about what works and what doesn't, so in the future if a better spaceplane is tried, we will have years of Shuttle experience behind us as well as more years of expendable rocket experience. It will happen, but not yet.
In order to try again to build a shuttle replacement, we are going to have to get through the study phase. If there is serious incentive to build it, after the studies are completed, there will be designs, then testing. While it's easy to say "oh, if they were serious they'd be doing real work", the truth of the matter is still that these things take time. I think we'd all like to see it happen sooner rather than later, but we just can't get around the fact that major stuff like this takes time. Originally, in fact, the CEV wasn't supposed to be ready until 2014-2015 or so. Now, there has already been a lot of "let's move that up to 2010" debate. Can an entirely new system be built in a few short years? Sure. It's been done before, when properly funded. The Saturn family of rockets first began real flight testing in the mid 60s and was flying operational missions by the end of the decade. All that was needed was enough people to build it and the funds to build with.
There are actually designs in progress that are looking pretty good and are based on existing hardware so in theory they will take less time and money to complete. SafeSimpleSoon.Com has some great information, and these can be turned into flight hardware relatively quickly. See what I said above about what it took to design an entirely new system from scratch; if we're starting from existing hardware, it's not so hard.
I do not have my head in the sand. I am a realist and I know what is involved in these things. I'd like to see it all work out as much as the next person, but you can't just snap your fingers and make it happen.
Unfortunately, while space travel may some day be routine, it is not routine now and won't be with the shuttle. However, the lessons learned from it will be rolled into the next set of launch vehicles and, someday, into a more-practical space plane.
Unfortunately, far too much of the "public interest" I've seen these days is bitching and moaning by people who don't know anything about what they're talking about but just see idiotic news articles also written by people who don't really know what they're talking about and just write thin fluff pieces that have no real details included, and don't bother to do further research.
There has never been a 100% nominal sortie and there has never been a sortie without risk. The public has this idea that spaceflight is or should be risk-free, or at least as much as driving to work or flying commercially. Well, when you're in a mach 25 orbiter at 300 nm AGL in an environment where only 9 humans out of 6 billion are currently living, there's not much that's risk free. All in all, STS-114 is going well. It's doing exactly what it set out to do. It's delivered it's ISS module and completed replacement of a CMG. It's validated the new quality control photography. It is currently ops testing unprecedented inflight repair procedures. While we're talking about a few glitches, this is NOT something that compromises the survivability of the orbiter. If anything, this is something that increasing the engineering data on the TPS and can be used to improve TPS integrity on future flights, not to mention bettering the crew capacity for repair. As of flight day 9, STS-114 is a great flight.
This must be a troll, because it completely fails to take into account that all this is very new and you can't just pull something finished out of your ass and declare it working. Yes, I agree that they talk a lot before they do anything -- but if something gets funded to actually get done, they will do it. There was funding for this in the next budget bill, if I remember right.
If nothing comes of it but more talk and debate and no studies are done and no early work gets done within a couple years to make it look like something is being done with that money, THEN you can bitch.
Until then, sit down, take a stress pill, and think things over.
Apparently, you haven't read the many articles that are all over the space subset of the Web that describe the plans that are forming to build new rockets that will be able to carry people and cargoes, have you? You waste all this space saying "we should do this" and "we should do that" without realizing that... we are doing it! But this kind of thing isn't done overnight; it takes a while to complete.
Look again at the photos taken on the spacewalk. There is red glue on the gap fillers that is supposed to hold them in place. You've never glued anything down, thought it was glued, and then found that for some reason the glue let go and things came apart?
The gear lowering switch is also there because the astronauts wanted there to be a function that the computers couldn't do so that a crew would always be required.
The gear and doors are mechanically connected so that if the gear door opens, the gear must come down. If it does not, there are explosives that will force the doors open and the gear down. That's how important it is.
There is no gear retraction mechanism switch because there is no need to be able to raise the gear again and the system would be just dead weight. The gear comes down only in the last seconds before landing.
Slashdot Mirror
And people will stop shopping there the first time they try to legitimately return something and find themselves denied, when they have done something wrong, and will start shopping at the competition.
Stores will find they lose money because they start mistreating people who have done nothing wrong, in favor of stores that are fair.
I think there actually was a rather large public fuss. I at least remember all the newspapers screaming about it. However, I think it would have been likely that there would have been inquries about it had a requirement to use the system not been enacted. There have been a lot of past accidents, but the responsible governing body seems to be pretty good about requiring various safety changes to be made after each one to keep people safe.
I don't however really recall anyone else getting killed as a direct result to their own stupidity. At least the idiot didn't take anyone else out with him.
Fair enough, but don't blame yourself if you get called on it if people find it offensive. (note: I've made that mistake myself, so don't take this as a sneer).
OK. This one's really short. I swear. ;) (I gotta go out and do some things, so there's incentive).
I think we are falling into the same trap that far too many people fall into on things like this. There were problems in the past, caused by a variety of things (management, inexperience, just plain accidents) and so on. Instead of dwelling on the mistakes that have been made, and pointing blame here and there and saying "You fucked up! So did you! So did you!" and so on, which is really a waste of time, isn't it rather time to keep going since that's what we need to do instead of allowing a lull to start that could go on forever - BUT - at the same time, figuring out what we've learned definitely doesn't work, what does, and what can work with a little refinement -- and then applying those lessons?
Dwelling on the past is a good thing because you learn from it (one scene in The Lion King comes to mind in which it's pointed out that past events can and do and should influence the present and future), but discarding the lessons learned from the past is also bad (in the same scene the alternative, running from the past, is rightly described as a bad idea).
I think in the end looking ahead, with optimism that the bad faults will be corrected through hard experience, is what I'd rather do, and what I'd rather we all did.
I seem to be catching flak (not in this debate, don't worry) as being an "apologist", but what people don't realize when they make accusations like that is that extreme negativism is as bad as extreme optimism. I am really neither and I think I have a realistic view of all this, and I take offense at being painted with the big scarlet A.
Isn't refusing to listen to someone else's standng up and saying "Hey wait a minute" what caused the mess in the first place?
I think the fact that problems are being recognized and everything is stopped until a problem is fixed is a pretty damn good measure of the fact that people are taking the risk seriously. So is the fact that work is being done on a replacement and there is now a timeline in mind for retiring the shuttle.
People who continue to bash people who are doing the right thing are not helping any by making an already-thankless job of trying to do the right thing more difficult by screaming at them even when they do the right thing.
If I go speeding through a neighborhood, realize that's a problem because kids are playing in the neighborhood, and then get screamed at when I go through again a week later at a prudent speed and making sure to watch for kids, doesn't that seem a bit ridiculous to you to yell at someone who's doing everything they should be doing?
Don't take things people care about very much so lightly. They are not likely to find it funny.
First, as I've said to another response to this, that article doesn't say anything or another about whether to continue the shuttle or use the CEV instead. It merely points out a lot of the things that nay-sayers are saying, like the fact that test flights are understood to possibly have problems, including problems that went unfixed and missed. That's why they're test flights.
It points out all the positive things that have happened that have been forgotten underneath all the ridiculous nay-saying. That's something that needs to be done.
It points out that the current overall head in the sand attitude is ridiculous.
It points out that upon realizing there was a problem, the right thing was done in deciding not to fly anymore at all until the problem can be fixed, and that means if the problem can't be fixed, to not fly anymore at all. It also points out that we know a lot more than we did before about what to fix.
It also, however, points out things that people keep missing when they respond to it. Namely, it never says that we don't need to start doing something else in the future. It points out that all the things that we're learning now and have learned in the past are going to rightly be incorporated into whatever we do next. It points out that it's right to have debates about that.
It appears that you, too, have missed the fundamental meaning of the phrase "test flight". If we expected test flights to not have problems, they wouldn't be called test flights and we wouldn't even bother to test anything new before it went into production!
Going to tell carmakers to stop testing their cars in heat, cold, rain, ice, snow, etc., to prove how durable they are? They'll just laugh if you try.
This kind of thing is why the general public needs a bitch-slap. They never listen.
This is a more brief reply this time, because we're starting to reach an equilibrium point where we point out everything that needs to be pointed out, but I still want to follow up on a few things.
Waivers aren't always a terrible thing. For some critical items, they are bad, but they are also used for things that, if failed, wouldn't result in loss of mission or vehicle. If a mission launches with some waivers on file, just pointing at their quantity isn't the best way to figure out how many problems there are. Instead, look at how many of those are affecting critical systems instead of something like "in the mid-deck, the third stowage drawer in the second row down is jammed shut and we don't have time to fix it so we won't use that one".
There are a lot of attitude problems that need to be fixed, although I don't think they're insurmountable. While all goverment agencies have a certain amount of stupid bureaucratic crap, and this one is no exception, the crap doesn't always, and hasn't always, stood in the way of doing the right thing. So I really do still think that it can be overcome. It takes effort, but if enough people care, and enough pressure is exerted to do it right, it can be done. I like to take an optimistic view.
The side-mount design flaw, as we both know, is one that can't be fixed without flying something entirely new. Fortunately, this is known, better now that we have proof that it doesn't work than before when we could just say "hey, there's probably going to be debris because everything else launched has had some stuff fall off it, so I bet there's going to be a problem". So if you look at designs for future cargo and crew launchers, almost all of them are inline, and the sidemount CEV/cargo pod still puts the part that has to reenter above most of where debris is shed, and it has a boost protective cover (as Apollo did) over the crew vehicle to protect it, so debris hits won't affect it. So that's being addressed. We just don't know when the flight tests are going to start for sure yet, though right now I think they're looking at 2008-2011 or so. Somewhere in there. Like I've said elsewhere and here, this stuff takes time, so one can't really say that nothing is being done about it. It is, it's just not ready to fly yet.
As for "someone screwed up and we shouldn't have done it this way" -- yes, that's true, but instead of being negative and pointing fingers and saying "you're an idiot" or whatever, I'd rather say "okay, yes, we've had problems, now what can we learn from this to put into the next design to fix them?" Like I've said, all the new designs are inline, and they also (Delta IV or STS) use already-flown components, in some cases man-rated components, instead of starting from scratch. I think that's a good approach.
Also don't forget that while 17 people have died so far, all of them were volunteers and knew the risks, including all the faults, and went anyway. Would I go on the Shuttle were I asked? You bet. I am willing to die for some things, and this is one of them. So that's another thing that's lost on all the nay-sayers.
Again, as for being able to do all the great things that need to be done -- I'd rather be positive than a nay-sayer who doesn't believe anything is possible. As long as we assume that something can't be done, it never will be. Negative prophecies have a way of coming true.
To pull a semi-famous (?) example out, in the Harry Potter books there's a prophecy that says that "out of these two people only one of them will survive and the other must die". or something similar to that. If you are one of the people referred to by the negative doomsday prophecy, you can choose to either accept your fate and stand there and wait for the end to come, or you can choose to want to live. It takes effort to do that because you have to then figure out what the threat is and how to combat it and get through a lot of trials on the way in which you can die, but if you want to survive in the end, you have to have the will to win, know w
Nowhere in that essay does it say anything about which system is better and what should be retired when. It says nothing about what we should do now, what we shouldn't do, same for what happens next. It applies equally well to a future in which the shuttle keeps flying for a while and to one in which it doesn't.
It is about the fact that tests are tests, problems happen, it's being handled better right now than it was before, we need to accept risk and stop being a bunch of pansies (that means the general public), and pointing out examples of things that wouldn't have happened if we were a bunch of wimps.
I don't know where you are seeing what you are seeing, honestly; I'm not seeing that in there. I'm seeing the bitchslap that the naysayers need to be getting because their ridiculous negativity is serving no one.
The last big death in Daytona that I'm aware of was a result of a driver basically saying "I don't like this safety system because I find it annoying and even though you have proof it works, I refuse to wear it".
The guy died from that same type of injury as a direct result of his refusal to listen to those who understand this stuff.
As a direct result of that accident, the use of the safety system in question is now directly required and you cannot drive without one. It is a shame that someone had to die to prove the scientists right, but in the end, there was no blame to place there except on those who do not listen but should.
In this case, the blame lies on those who should know better than to make idiotic statements of the sort they make.
While I'm sure there's a lot of people like ourselves who understand the need for risk, we need to ask ourselves where that idea comes from. Most myths have a basis in fact, after all. If you believe that this idea is mistaken, I'm curious: have you ever asked a politician or pundit why they believe the public doesn't want any risk? This is not a snide remark or a troll; I'd genuinely like to know.
If it's not coming from the public, then where is it coming from?
Unfortunately, there are way too many idiots out there who really don't know what they're talking about, so it's gotten to the point where I get very frustrated trying to hold debates. Most people will just say things without doing their research. Ugh.
Okay, now, here we go.
Yep. Quite true the Shuttle turnaround time is longer than expected, and this is one of the things I had in mind when I said that we didn't have enough experience to realize there would be problems. Aircraft are turned around in far less time and made ready to fly again, and since we have so much experience in that we didn't realize how different it would be to work on the shuttle -- which is also built in a far different way than a plane is, and it's something that had never been built before. I place no bad intentions or blame on this because it's just a fact of life that doing something for the first time takes longer than it does when you've got some experience.
Indeed, the shuttle is old, and a lot of things have been learned since it was built -- but then, there are a lot of other things that are old that work just fine; we could replace them and get more out of the replacements, but it's a big deal to do that.
A few examples of old things that are still in use: The Boeing 747 (1969, improved over the years). The VW Golf (1970s, also improved). The VW Beetle (1936, virtually unchanged until 1993, then discontinued). The Intel x86 microprocessor (1980s, updated over the years). And so on. Why do we still use these things today? Because the designs still work very well even though they are no longer new, and over the years it has proven to be expensive, a hassle, or similar to replace them. It is not necessarily a bad thing to keep using something that is old just because it is old. It is, however, important to add improvements that will improve safety and efficiency; that 747 has electronic controls today, for instance; new Golfs have computerized management and emission control systems; the Beetle, even though it looked much the same when it was discontinued, had modern improvements like better seatbelts, air bags, CD players, and so on. And so it is with the Shuttle: while some major design elements could not be changed, many under-the-skin. But now there's more interest in coming up with a successor.
It's also not such a bad thing necessarily to use a vehicle for a long time. Soyuz was designed for manned lunar flights and first flew in the mid-60s, but it's still in use today and works just fine and a number of variants exist for whatever job is needed.
The cutbacks you mention are all indeed true (and liquid boosters were considered, as were monolithic one-piece solid boosters, which were not done for political reasons). Keep in mind however that it's not really the engineers' fault that none of the better ideas were used. They were not used not because the engineers did not want to use them; they were not used because thbe bureaucrats decided for whatever reason that they did not want to provide the funding, probably so they could waste a lot more money by throwing it at the Defense "We buy hookers with your money" Department or something -- we need to be fair; NASA has done an amazing amount of great stuff with the money they get (about 1% of the budget) and it's not really their fault when they can't do the things they'd really like to. Instead, we need to blame the bureaucratic system that allowed vital safety systems to be removed.
It is ridiculous that nothing was done to fix the major problems that were fixable; however, some of them are inherent in the design, like foam shedding is going to be a problem as long as you have the crew cabin mounted on the side of the booster instead of atop it. That's something that can't be changed without a complete redesign; however, a lot of other safety issues have been addressed with ongoing upgrades, and that's a thing to applaud.
I am not so sure if I dismiss the value of experience too easily, though. While it is true that it didn't take
Indeed I am not. Please look around at more than just Slashdot. This is going on EVERYWHERE all of a sudden.
In space, relative velocities matter. When reentering, speed relative to the ground matters.
The View from Here: Lily-Livered Pansies
Elliot G. Pulham
President & Chief Executive Officer
No country ever built an airplane by running for the hills and abandoning the program the first time a bolt sheared or a rivet popped during test flight. Our effort to conquer the seas was not cast on the trash heap of history the first time some ship sprung a leak.
These points seem to be lost on our current generation of lily-livered commentators and pundits, and even a few faint-hearted friends in Congress. In the wake of the successful launch of Discovery, a chorus of these "timid souls" seem willing to abandon human space flight at the first sign of evidence confirming that which we all know - putting humans in space is a tricky, difficult, unforgiving and risky business that is nonetheless worth it all.
I shudder to think where our country would be if this "do nothing, risk nothing" attitude had prevailed throughout our history. Our territories west of the Mississippi would likely fly the French and Mexican flags, railways would never have crossed the continent, and heaven knows the defense department never would have been allowed to fund the Wright Brothers and that risky, dangerous, flying machine contraption.
A test flight is a test flight. It is designed to ferret out problems and flaws. If you understand this, then you understand that, thus far, mission STS-114 has been a fabulous success that has generated a treasure trove of knowledge that will make future human space flights - not only of the space shuttle but of any spacecraft - better.
I normally balk at over reacting to anything that happens at NASA. In speeches around the country, I usually start by debunking the notion that NASA "is" space - pointing out that the largest space agency in the world is the U.S. Air Force, that NASA accounts for less than 10 percent of space activity world wide, and that, since 1996, commercial space activities have comprised the largest sector of the market.
But it matters what NASA does. The fact that hundreds of millions of people watched the launch of Discovery on television, a half-million showed up in person in Florida for the launch, and another half-million more had it streamed to their desktops should tell us all we need to know. Human space flight and space exploration is what captivates the minds and hearts of our people, especially our youth, and propels us forward.
Warts and all, foam shedding and all, the fact that virtually every newspaper in America (and most around the globe) has had space exploration on its front page for nearly every day of the past week should tell us something. We know it is dangerous. We know it will probably always be dangerous. And still we want to go, for in going lies all our hopes, dreams and aspirations.
For all those cranks, sots, killjoys and ignoramuses who think the launch of Discovery was a failure - sit down, shut up, and listen:
Spectacular Success No. 1 - Discovery is safely on orbit, docked to the International Space Station, and all indications are that she has suffered far less launch damage than any shuttle launched before. Human space exploration is proceeding. It is only the schedule of this exploration that will vary.
Spectacular Success No. 2 - Thanks to the efforts of thousands of NASA, contractor, and Dept. of Defense personnel (let's not forget that the Air Force plays numerous critical roles in every shuttle launch, and that U.S. Strategic Command is also heavily involved), the new launch observation and monitoring measures performed brilliantly. We've collected more data and imagery on this shuttle launch than on any human space flight in history. The systems worked. Because of that, we know we still have things to fix on the external tank.
Spectacular Success No. 3 - The NASA culture. Within moments of understanding that foam shedding is still a problem, NASA managers immediately and unequivocally decided th
Dude, the new designs are already being worked on. New hardware descended from either the STS or the Delta IV Heavy. One or the other will fly based on some stuff we already have. The "better ideas" (really, just different ones that are better in some ways) are coming.
SafeSimpleSoon.Com, for example, has tons of info on an idea that looks likely to work. You don't cancel one idea because you don't like it before the next is ready, though. You go through transition first, and the transition is just starting right now.
Wait -- I don't get part of what you're saying. "Goal of not killing them?" I'm not sure what you mean. This mission is largely a test mission although it also is important for ISS resupply. You have to test things, it's a normal fact of life.
As for going back to the Moon, etc. -- that's what the goal formally is now -- to return to the Moon and on to Mars. If there's funding and the interest -- I know I'd like to see it happen -- it will happen.
But you have to learn to crawl before you can walk -- and so much experience has been gained about working in space that will be invaluable that it's hard to say it was all a waste. There are still things that are yet to be learned, but what has been learned now is amazing -- and will certainly be put to use in the future. On the Moon and Mars, and in Earth orbit, and in yet other places.
You're right about the troll thing, and let's take that away. Now, I will respond to the rest of what you said, and let us stop being incendiary at each other and let's actually hold a good debate here.
Here's what I think, so far, in order:
The design lifetime of the Shuttle was for 100 flights per orbiter. That means that with a fleet of four, the design lifetime is 400 flights. Each orbiter has on average flown only about 25-30 flights, which means we are only 1/4 of the way through the design lifetime. Aircraft lifetimes are measured by the amount of time they've actually been flying rather than the amount of time they've existed.
While it is true that not all of the design goals have been met (which is a shame), keep in mind that no one had ever built a spaceplane anything like the shuttle before and therefore the only experience that it could be based on was that of airline service. It is now routine to fly aircraft long distances several times per day and work routine maintenance in around the schedule an airline must keep. This we do very well. But it turned out over time that the Shuttle was more complex to work with than anyone thought. While it seems easy enough to say that "they should have thought of that", is it really true? I don't think so. You only gain confidence in statements like that when you've had a lot of experience with the situation at hand -- which we didn't have with the Shuttle. It would have been great had it worked out that way, and we thought it would because we thought we knew what it would be like to operate it but it didn't happen. I don't think it's out of laziness or incompetence or anything else, but out of inexperience. Now we know more about what works and what doesn't, so in the future if a better spaceplane is tried, we will have years of Shuttle experience behind us as well as more years of expendable rocket experience. It will happen, but not yet.
In order to try again to build a shuttle replacement, we are going to have to get through the study phase. If there is serious incentive to build it, after the studies are completed, there will be designs, then testing. While it's easy to say "oh, if they were serious they'd be doing real work", the truth of the matter is still that these things take time. I think we'd all like to see it happen sooner rather than later, but we just can't get around the fact that major stuff like this takes time. Originally, in fact, the CEV wasn't supposed to be ready until 2014-2015 or so. Now, there has already been a lot of "let's move that up to 2010" debate. Can an entirely new system be built in a few short years? Sure. It's been done before, when properly funded. The Saturn family of rockets first began real flight testing in the mid 60s and was flying operational missions by the end of the decade. All that was needed was enough people to build it and the funds to build with.
There are actually designs in progress that are looking pretty good and are based on existing hardware so in theory they will take less time and money to complete. SafeSimpleSoon.Com has some great information, and these can be turned into flight hardware relatively quickly. See what I said above about what it took to design an entirely new system from scratch; if we're starting from existing hardware, it's not so hard.
I do not have my head in the sand. I am a realist and I know what is involved in these things. I'd like to see it all work out as much as the next person, but you can't just snap your fingers and make it happen.
Unfortunately, while space travel may some day be routine, it is not routine now and won't be with the shuttle. However, the lessons learned from it will be rolled into the next set of launch vehicles and, someday, into a more-practical space plane.
Unfortunately, far too much of the "public interest" I've seen these days is bitching and moaning by people who don't know anything about what they're talking about but just see idiotic news articles also written by people who don't really know what they're talking about and just write thin fluff pieces that have no real details included, and don't bother to do further research.
Actually ... can't be farther from the truth.
There has never been a 100% nominal sortie and there has never been a sortie without risk. The public has this idea that spaceflight is or should be risk-free, or at least as much as driving to work or flying commercially. Well, when you're in a mach 25 orbiter at 300 nm AGL in an environment where only 9 humans out of 6 billion are currently living, there's not much that's risk free. All in all, STS-114 is going well. It's doing exactly what it set out to do. It's delivered it's ISS module and completed replacement of a CMG. It's validated the new quality control photography. It is currently ops testing unprecedented inflight repair procedures. While we're talking about a few glitches, this is NOT something that compromises the survivability of the orbiter. If anything, this is something that increasing the engineering data on the TPS and can be used to improve TPS integrity on future flights, not to mention bettering the crew capacity for repair. As of flight day 9, STS-114 is a great flight.
This must be a troll, because it completely fails to take into account that all this is very new and you can't just pull something finished out of your ass and declare it working. Yes, I agree that they talk a lot before they do anything -- but if something gets funded to actually get done, they will do it. There was funding for this in the next budget bill, if I remember right.
If nothing comes of it but more talk and debate and no studies are done and no early work gets done within a couple years to make it look like something is being done with that money, THEN you can bitch.
Until then, sit down, take a stress pill, and think things over.
A phone company is a common carrier. A college/university is not. The phone company is obligated to offer service to everyone. The university is not.
Apparently, you haven't read the many articles that are all over the space subset of the Web that describe the plans that are forming to build new rockets that will be able to carry people and cargoes, have you? You waste all this space saying "we should do this" and "we should do that" without realizing that ... we are doing it! But this kind of thing isn't done overnight; it takes a while to complete.
SafeSimpleSoon.Com
Look again at the photos taken on the spacewalk. There is red glue on the gap fillers that is supposed to hold them in place. You've never glued anything down, thought it was glued, and then found that for some reason the glue let go and things came apart?
The gear lowering switch is also there because the astronauts wanted there to be a function that the computers couldn't do so that a crew would always be required.
The gear and doors are mechanically connected so that if the gear door opens, the gear must come down. If it does not, there are explosives that will force the doors open and the gear down. That's how important it is.
There is no gear retraction mechanism switch because there is no need to be able to raise the gear again and the system would be just dead weight. The gear comes down only in the last seconds before landing.