Throttle Up

Twenty years ago this morning I was a young engineer at the
Kennedy Space Center in Florida. I drove to work early to see
the STS-51L crew (I was a Judith Resnik fan, and always will
be) exit their crew quarters, which I could see from my office
window in the O&C Building. Just before they exited the
famous doorway where media and family members waited,
I saw the first snowflakes I had ever seen in Florida.

I didn't expect a launch, but damn if there wasn't one a few
hours later, just before lunch. I watched the liftoff from another
office window on the north side of the building because it was
still too cold and windy to go outside.

I had been startled awake at night by that "shuttle exploding"
nightmare many times. It was the same bad dream that every
other person who worked in the space shuttle program, from
managers to secretaries, suffered. They probably still do.
But on January 28, 1986, I watched the nightmare happen
with my eyes wide open.

I only remember parts of the rest of that day. I remember
watching backlit tumbling debris fluttering down from ten
miles up sparkling from reflected sunlight in the clear blue
sky. I remember watching a wing hit the ocean on NASA
Select many minutes after liftoff. I remember the empty drone
of the NASA Select audio feed in the hallway. I remember being
fuming mad when I heard the words "major malfunction" from
those speakers. I will never forget seeing the crew family
members being escorted back into the crew quarters.

I can't believe it has been twenty years.

I get grumpy every year when people talk about remembering
or commemorating Challenger. I have long believed that the
best way to remember the STS-51L crew would have been
to either develop a real escape system for shuttle crews
or to replace shuttle with an entirely different, much safer,
machine.

This past year, finally, NASA committed to building a
shuttle replacement, which will be a very good thing if done
the right way, but after watching the destruction of Challenger
and her crew, I have to say I'm not comfortable with the idea
of using one of those damn SRBs to launch the new machine.

Unfortunately, the agency still intends to fly more than a
dozen shuttle flights. I wish it wouldn't.

- Ed Kyle

"ed kyle" wrote in message
ups.com...
Twenty years ago this morning I was a young engineer at the
Kennedy Space Center in Florida. I drove to work early to see
the STS-51L crew (I was a Judith Resnik fan, and always will
be) exit their crew quarters, which I could see from my office
window in the O&C Building. Just before they exited the
famous doorway where media and family members waited,
I saw the first snowflakes I had ever seen in Florida.

I didn't expect a launch, but damn if there wasn't one a few
hours later, just before lunch. I watched the liftoff from another
office window on the north side of the building because it was
still too cold and windy to go outside.

I had been startled awake at night by that "shuttle exploding"
nightmare many times. It was the same bad dream that every
other person who worked in the space shuttle program, from
managers to secretaries, suffered. They probably still do.
But on January 28, 1986, I watched the nightmare happen
with my eyes wide open.

I only remember parts of the rest of that day. I remember
watching backlit tumbling debris fluttering down from ten
miles up sparkling from reflected sunlight in the clear blue
sky. I remember watching a wing hit the ocean on NASA
Select many minutes after liftoff. I remember the empty drone
of the NASA Select audio feed in the hallway. I remember being
fuming mad when I heard the words "major malfunction" from
those speakers. I will never forget seeing the crew family
members being escorted back into the crew quarters.

I can't believe it has been twenty years.

I get grumpy every year when people talk about remembering
or commemorating Challenger. I have long believed that the
best way to remember the STS-51L crew would have been
to either develop a real escape system for shuttle crews
or to replace shuttle with an entirely different, much safer,
machine.

This past year, finally, NASA committed to building a
shuttle replacement, which will be a very good thing if done
the right way, but after watching the destruction of Challenger
and her crew, I have to say I'm not comfortable with the idea
of using one of those damn SRBs to launch the new machine.

Unfortunately, the agency still intends to fly more than a
dozen shuttle flights. I wish it wouldn't.

- Ed Kyle


Although I live thousands of miles a way from Florida (in New Zealand) I
still remember that day well.
If memory serves me correctly, the first I heard of the tradgedy was when I
saw that now (in)famous fireball picture on the front of the evening paper.

Katipo

Katipo wrote:
"ed kyle" wrote in message
ups.com...
Twenty years ago this morning I was a young engineer at the
Kennedy Space Center in Florida. I drove to work early to see
the STS-51L crew (I was a Judith Resnik fan, and always will
be) exit their crew quarters, which I could see from my office
window in the O&C Building. Just before they exited the
famous doorway where media and family members waited,
I saw the first snowflakes I had ever seen in Florida.

I didn't expect a launch, but damn if there wasn't one a few
hours later, just before lunch. I watched the liftoff from another
office window on the north side of the building because it was
still too cold and windy to go outside.

I had been startled awake at night by that "shuttle exploding"
nightmare many times. It was the same bad dream that every
other person who worked in the space shuttle program, from
managers to secretaries, suffered. They probably still do.
But on January 28, 1986, I watched the nightmare happen
with my eyes wide open.

I only remember parts of the rest of that day. I remember
watching backlit tumbling debris fluttering down from ten
miles up sparkling from reflected sunlight in the clear blue
sky. I remember watching a wing hit the ocean on NASA
Select many minutes after liftoff. I remember the empty drone
of the NASA Select audio feed in the hallway. I remember being
fuming mad when I heard the words "major malfunction" from
those speakers. I will never forget seeing the crew family
members being escorted back into the crew quarters.

I can't believe it has been twenty years.

I get grumpy every year when people talk about remembering
or commemorating Challenger. I have long believed that the
best way to remember the STS-51L crew would have been
to either develop a real escape system for shuttle crews
or to replace shuttle with an entirely different, much safer,
machine.

This past year, finally, NASA committed to building a
shuttle replacement, which will be a very good thing if done
the right way, but after watching the destruction of Challenger
and her crew, I have to say I'm not comfortable with the idea
of using one of those damn SRBs to launch the new machine.

Unfortunately, the agency still intends to fly more than a
dozen shuttle flights. I wish it wouldn't.

- Ed Kyle


Although I live thousands of miles a way from Florida (in New Zealand) I
still remember that day well.
If memory serves me correctly, the first I heard of the tradgedy was when I
saw that now (in)famous fireball picture on the front of the evening paper.

Being "on base" at KSC, I was insulated from the media coverage
until I returned home late that evening. I did not see the repeated
replay of the long range camera shot of the shuttle stack breakup
until that night, many hours after the accident. We had access to
NASA Select at KSC, but that feed was shut off within an hour of
the launch and I never saw NASA replay the launch during that
transmission. I saw the event with my eyes, of course, but from
15 miles away. It was clear that something catastrophic had
occurred, but I could only guess at the failure sequence. (Several
days passed before the SRB failure mode came to light.)

By 1986, shuttle launches were hardly news. At KSC, I felt part
of a semi-obscure industrial enterprise no more important than
happenings at a shipping harbor. As a result, I initially viewed
the disaster on a personal level. Could I have done anything
wrong that might have caused the accident? How long before
shuttle flies again? Could I be laid off? It wasn't until I called
my parents and friends back in the Midwest, and watched the
evening news and the President's speech, that I understood the
true national and international impact of the disaster.

Challenger did affect me personally. I left KSC a few months
after the accident, not willing to work for two years without result.
I moved to Chicago, gave up scuba diving in favor of marathon
running, got a Masters Degree and a new career, met my wife,
and started a family. Without Challenger, my life would have
been much different.

- Ed Kyle

In article . com,
(ed kyle) wrote:

I have to say I'm not comfortable with the idea
of using one of those damn SRBs to launch the new machine.

Unfortunately, the agency still intends to fly more than a
dozen shuttle flights. I wish it wouldn't.

If people are willing to fly in them why shouldn't they? Provided they
know the risks and are willing to take them?

Where would the USA have been if after the first settlers died out,
everybody had said that it was too risky to colonise another world, and
stayed in Europe?

Nothing is without risk. In my view the best memorial to those who have
died is pick oneself up and carry on. The worst memorial possible is to
say that they died for nothing and give up. I accept that as you were
closer to them, your view may be different, but it is also coloured by
that experience.

Malcolm B

Malcolm Bacchus wrote:
In article . com,
(ed kyle) wrote:

I have to say I'm not comfortable with the idea
of using one of those damn SRBs to launch the new machine.

Unfortunately, the agency still intends to fly more than a
dozen shuttle flights. I wish it wouldn't.

If people are willing to fly in them why shouldn't they? Provided they
know the risks and are willing to take them?

There is much more to this equation than the will of the astronauts.
There will always be people ready to accept the personal risks
involved in space shuttle flight. But there are more risks. These
risks involve money, lots of money, and national prestige, and
the path towards progress in space. Another failed space shuttle
will mean more dead astronauts, sure, but it will also mean tens
of billions of dollars wasted and an even further diminished world
opinion of U.S. technology. It might also mean an end to U.S.
human space exploration.

- Ed Kyle

In article .com,
(ed kyle) wrote:

But there are more risks. These
risks involve money, lots of money, and national prestige, and
the path towards progress in space. Another failed space shuttle
will mean more dead astronauts, sure, but it will also mean tens
of billions of dollars wasted and an even further diminished world
opinion of U.S. technology. It might also mean an end to U.S.
human space exploration.

That didn't seem to be the implication of your comment " I have long
believed that the best way to remember the STS-51L crew would have been
to either develop a real escape system for shuttle crews ...."

If you are saying that the US should stop using the shuttle because it
is "wasted" money, than that is a totally different argument and has
nothing to do with the Challenger accident except in so far as it adds
factors into the reliability equation. I doubt that another accident
would "further diminish world opinion of US technology" - over here the
first accident didn't diminish it one little bit. Accidents happen. If
anything it raised questions about the opinion of US management and the
pressures under which they are places but not about US technology.

It could also only mean the end to US human space exploration if the US
people wanted it to. That would suggest a lack of will in the US to
continue with space exploration and, I would suggest, is to do with your
budgetary and internal problems rather than anything with shuttle
accidents. Far more people have been killed in Iraq than in space
flight, yet that continues.

Yes another shuttle disaster might end shuttle launches because there
wouldn't be enough to go around. But that again is a political issue
and nothing to do with accidents per se. Keeping them in all the VAB
because they are unsafe to use will end shuttle launches too.

Cars are unsafe but we go out in them because we accept the risk. The
shuttle is experimental, bigger, riskier, and more expensive, but
fundamentally no different.

Malcolm B

Malcolm Bacchus wrote:
In article .com,
(ed kyle) wrote:

But there are more risks. These
risks involve money, lots of money, and national prestige, and
the path towards progress in space. Another failed space shuttle
will mean more dead astronauts, sure, but it will also mean tens
of billions of dollars wasted and an even further diminished world
opinion of U.S. technology. It might also mean an end to U.S.
human space exploration.

That didn't seem to be the implication of your comment " I have long
believed that the best way to remember the STS-51L crew would have been
to either develop a real escape system for shuttle crews ...."

I think that a good memorial to all of the lost U.S.
astronauts would be a safe, productive human spaceflight
system. Safety and productivity go hand in hand.

If you are saying that the US should stop using the shuttle because it
is "wasted" money, than that is a totally different argument and has
nothing to do with the Challenger accident except in so far as it adds
factors into the reliability equation. I doubt that another accident
would "further diminish world opinion of US technology" - over here the
first accident didn't diminish it one little bit. Accidents happen. If
anything it raised questions about the opinion of US management and the
pressures under which they are places but not about US technology.

IMO, the shuttle accidents have damaged U.S. prestige by
preventing NASA from meeting its international commitments.

It could also only mean the end to US human space exploration if the US
people wanted it to. That would suggest a lack of will in the US to
continue with space exploration and, I would suggest, is to do with your
budgetary and internal problems rather than anything with shuttle
accidents. Far more people have been killed in Iraq than in space
flight, yet that continues.

War and exploration are two different animals. Vietnam
was underway when the Apollo fire happened, for example,
Those three astronaut deaths stunned the nation. Meanwhile,
the deaths of many thousands of U.S. soldiers in Vietnam
were more or less expected and accepted as a cost of war
(the fire occurred before the really big protest movement
started). In the months following the fire, NASA's Apollo
budgets were slashed as a result of efforts to fund the growing
war effort.

Yes another shuttle disaster might end shuttle launches because there
wouldn't be enough to go around. But that again is a political issue
and nothing to do with accidents per se. Keeping them in all the VAB
because they are unsafe to use will end shuttle launches too.

Cars are unsafe but we go out in them because we accept the risk. The
shuttle is experimental, bigger, riskier, and more expensive, but
fundamentally no different.

Indeed spaceflight will be riskier than other forms of
transportation (on a per-flight basis) for the forseeable future.
But it should be possible to build a system that is safer than
shuttle. There is good evidence that the Russians already have
such a system. Although Soyuz has suffered about the same
percentage of fatal accidents as shuttle, it has also had far less
down time than shuttle. And it costs an order of magnitude
less than shuttle too.

I think that U.S. astronauts, U.S. taxpayers, and NASA's
international partners all deserve something that works better
than shuttle.

- Ed Kyle

On 31 Jan 2006 21:37:34 -0800, "ed kyle" wrote:

Indeed spaceflight will be riskier than other forms of
transportation (on a per-flight basis) for the forseeable future.
But it should be possible to build a system that is safer than
shuttle. There is good evidence that the Russians already have
such a system. Although Soyuz has suffered about the same
percentage of fatal accidents as shuttle, it has also had far less
down time than shuttle. And it costs an order of magnitude
less than shuttle too.

I wonder what the cost would be if NASA licensed the design and built
it here in the U.S. ?

-- David

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 10:07:00 -0600, David Ball wrote:

On 31 Jan 2006 21:37:34 -0800, "ed kyle" wrote:

Indeed spaceflight will be riskier than other forms of
transportation (on a per-flight basis) for the forseeable future.
But it should be possible to build a system that is safer than
shuttle. There is good evidence that the Russians already have
such a system. Although Soyuz has suffered about the same
percentage of fatal accidents as shuttle, it has also had far less
down time than shuttle. And it costs an order of magnitude
less than shuttle too.

I wonder what the cost would be if NASA licensed the design and built
it here in the U.S. ?


A couple orders of magnitude more than what it costs the Russians to build.

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 16:10:15 GMT, Craig Fink
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 10:07:00 -0600, David Ball wrote:

On 31 Jan 2006 21:37:34 -0800, "ed kyle" wrote:

Indeed spaceflight will be riskier than other forms of
transportation (on a per-flight basis) for the forseeable future.
But it should be possible to build a system that is safer than
shuttle. There is good evidence that the Russians already have
such a system. Although Soyuz has suffered about the same
percentage of fatal accidents as shuttle, it has also had far less
down time than shuttle. And it costs an order of magnitude
less than shuttle too.

I wonder what the cost would be if NASA licensed the design and built
it here in the U.S. ?


A couple orders of magnitude more than what it costs the Russians to build.

So, the basic Soyuz advantage is that Russian workers are paid less
and their program pushes ahead after a fatal accident because they
understand that space flight IS dangerous and they don't suffer from
the amount of political correctness that we do so they don't have to
make a multi-year media spectacle about how much they are doing to
work on the problem, they just fix it and go on.

To be fair, they probably have easier to fix problems because they put
the crew compartment on TOP instead of partway down the side where it
gets hit by debris from the stack and is beside all that fuel that can
go boom. Even before STS-1, I wondered why NASA was going for
re-usable when the normal manufacturing cycle for so many things is to
go from re-usable to cheap and disposable.

I've often wondered what the ISS can accomplish that having multiple
skylabs well spaced out in the same orbit couldn't accomplish.

Since I mentioned skylab, I have been wondering what additional safety
problems their would have been (radiation, etc.) if we had launched
skylab into geosynch orbit.

-- David (not an aerospace engineer so please don't blame me if a question seems stupid to you)