If columbia hadnt been lost would the shuttle still be flying?

On 1/25/2013 2:44 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 6fe074bb-9939-4de2-b04d-51091823da51
@h2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, says...

At least this will get us something to talk about other than spam

I'd rather let this group rest in peace along with the shuttle program.

Is that why you are posting to sci.space.shuttle?

On Mar 3, 4:13*pm, Taylor Hughes wrote:
On 1/25/2013 2:44 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:

In article 6fe074bb-9939-4de2-b04d-51091823da51
@h2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, says...

At least this will get us something to talk about other than spam

I'd rather let this group rest in peace along with the shuttle program.

Is that why you are posting to sci.space.shuttle?

I have been posting to scispace shuttle for perhaps 15 years maybe
more

although the program has ended I believe there are still things to
discuss

In article ,
says...

On 1/25/2013 2:44 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 6fe074bb-9939-4de2-b04d-51091823da51
@h2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, says...

At least this will get us something to talk about other than spam

I'd rather let this group rest in peace along with the shuttle program.

Is that why you are posting to sci.space.shuttle?

To counter Bob's insane rantings about what "could have been". Bob
seems to think the best way to continue the shuttle program would have
been to ground it for five to 10 years while it's completely redesigned
to "make it safer". This is despite the fact that it's clear that NASA
didn't have the money or the political mandate for such a thing.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

On 1/25/2013 2:44 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 6fe074bb-9939-4de2-b04d-51091823da51
@h2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, says...

At least this will get us something to talk about other than spam

I'd rather let this group rest in peace along with the shuttle program.

Is that why you are posting to sci.space.shuttle?

To counter Bob's insane rantings about what "could have been". Bob
seems to think the best way to continue the shuttle program would have
been to ground it for five to 10 years while it's completely redesigned
to "make it safer". This is despite the fact that it's clear that NASA
didn't have the money or the political mandate for such a thing.

To be clear, neither Jeff nor I nor others I'm sure are saying, "Eh, let
them die." Safety is an admirable goal. It's a WORTHY goal. One should
never forget about it.

BUT, there will never be perfect safety. There is "safe enough".

Was the space shuttle safe enough to make the JFK-MCO flight with 120
families with kids on board? Hell no. But it didn't HAVE to be.

Could it have been safer? Arguably yes. Could it have been made as safe as
Bob insists. Not in any realistic political environment. And note, that in
both cases, the issue was as much management/cultural influences as it was a
physical cause. (i.e. had NASA not been so accepting of O-ring burn-thrus or
foam detachment as they were we might still have Challenger and Columbia.)

I'm reminded of two folks:
Mike Rowe on Dirty Jobs. He did a great episode entitled I believe,
"Safety Third". He point was that while safety was critical to all the
myriad jobs he had done over the years, if safety was truly first, some of
them would never get done. (look at Alaska king crab fishermen. Or flight
paramedics here in the US).

And this:

http://www.skygod.com/quotes/ballsto...realworld.html

tl;dr - Mary Shafer: "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't
have the balls to live in the real world."

I suspect Bob has never been in the position where his decisions could
result in the direct result of a loss of life. I'm not talking about
"getting into a car" but decisions such as "calling off a search for missing
canoeists" or "putting 1 or more people on a rope over the edge of a cliff"
type decisions.

Others here I'm sure have at some point in their engineer careers have had
to tell someone "these are the risks, here's my recommendation" knowing that
their information and their decision could result in the loss of life. This
is never done lightly. By as Mary points out, if you play "what if" you
start to go down a road where nothing happens. Or if you insist on "perfect
safety" you never fly.

My heart goes out to the families of the astronauts who have died. But,
they did know the risks. It's not quite the same as a family of four
hopping aboard the 4:15 shuttle and being deluded by its safety.



Jeff

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

In article ,
says...

And this:

http://www.skygod.com/quotes/ballsto...realworld.html

tl;dr - Mary Shafer: "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't
have the balls to live in the real world."

One of the best Mary Shafer quotes.

I suspect Bob has never been in the position where his decisions could
result in the direct result of a loss of life. I'm not talking about
"getting into a car" but decisions such as "calling off a search for missing
canoeists" or "putting 1 or more people on a rope over the edge of a cliff"
type decisions.

Loss of life of a customer due to a malfunctioning copier or laminator
would certainly be a career ending event for the repairman who screwed
the pooch. But this is sci.space.shuttle, so Bob's professional
experience doesn't directly apply.

Others here I'm sure have at some point in their engineer careers have
had
to tell someone "these are the risks, here's my recommendation" knowing that
their information and their decision could result in the loss of life. This
is never done lightly. By as Mary points out, if you play "what if" you
start to go down a road where nothing happens. Or if you insist on "perfect
safety" you never fly.

Since my career has involved writing engineering software, I've never
faced this sort of situation either. But quality of the software is
still very important. After all, we wouldn't want a customer who's
using our software to make a mistake due to a software bug.

My heart goes out to the families of the astronauts who have died. But,
they did know the risks. It's not quite the same as a family of four
hopping aboard the 4:15 shuttle and being deluded by its safety.

Agreed, just as other dangerous careers have their well known risks,
astronaut is no exception.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

And this:

http://www.skygod.com/quotes/ballsto...realworld.html

tl;dr - Mary Shafer: "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't
have the balls to live in the real world."

One of the best Mary Shafer quotes.


She has a few good ones!


I suspect Bob has never been in the position where his decisions could
result in the direct result of a loss of life. I'm not talking about
"getting into a car" but decisions such as "calling off a search for
missing
canoeists" or "putting 1 or more people on a rope over the edge of a
cliff"
type decisions.

Loss of life of a customer due to a malfunctioning copier or laminator
would certainly be a career ending event for the repairman who screwed
the pooch. But this is sci.space.shuttle, so Bob's professional
experience doesn't directly apply.


No, but my point is broader than that. By day I do IT. But my
extracurricular activities do put me in positions where lives are on the
line.
I highly suspect that Bob has never been in that position, regardless of his
day time job.


Others here I'm sure have at some point in their engineer careers have
had
to tell someone "these are the risks, here's my recommendation" knowing
that
their information and their decision could result in the loss of life.
This
is never done lightly. By as Mary points out, if you play "what if" you
start to go down a road where nothing happens. Or if you insist on
"perfect
safety" you never fly.

Since my career has involved writing engineering software, I've never
faced this sort of situation either. But quality of the software is
still very important. After all, we wouldn't want a customer who's
using our software to make a mistake due to a software bug.

Agreed. And I'm reminded of Feynman's comments on the software team at NASA
prior to Challenger.


My heart goes out to the families of the astronauts who have died. But,
they did know the risks. It's not quite the same as a family of four
hopping aboard the 4:15 shuttle and being deluded by its safety.

Agreed, just as other dangerous careers have their well known risks,
astronaut is no exception.


Ayup.


Jeff

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net