|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble
jeff findley wrote in
: An overwhelming desire to keep the crew safe isn't what stopped Apollo capsules from flying, but it appears to be what is killing any non-ISS shuttle missions. I don't know if I'd state it that absolutely. While the Congressional decision to cap Saturn V production spelled a definite end to Apollo, the argument could be made that post-Apollo 13 risk-aversion among NASA management played a role in NASA truncating lunar landings after Apollo 17 and not pushing for 18 and 19, despite the flight hardware already having been built. Certainly the marginal cost of those two missions would not have been that high. Bob Gilruth, in particular, felt that an accident on one of the remaining lunar flights could jeopardize future NASA programs. Re-reading Murray & Cox, or Dethloff, I'm seeing parallels between Gilruth's post-13 thinking and the current post-107 thinking among NASA management concerning the shuttle. So the roots of NASA's risk-aversion appear to go back quite a way. Even if NASA does start flying missions to ISS, it's going to be hard for them to justify risking a crew on the relatively new CEV beyond the "safety" of ISS. No question about that. The logic chain that NASA officials are using here could come back to bite them hard when the time comes to commit to fly CEV beyond LEO. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble
Dick Morris wrote:
The Apollo program returned orders-of-magnitude more scientific information about the Moon than all the unmanned flights put together. Which says more about the paucity of unmanned work than it does about the relative abilities of manned vs. unmanned work/science. Much is made of the manned scientific return while ignoring the inconvenient fact that serious (in terms of both quality and quantity) unmanned science was simply never even attempted. In the one area where we have both significant human and robotic/automated/teleoperated working being done, and a significant sized experience base in both, (deep sea science and commercial work), the unmanned side of the house seems to be carrying the day. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in I don't know if I'd state it that absolutely. While the Congressional decision to cap Saturn V production spelled a definite end to Apollo, the argument could be made that post-Apollo 13 risk-aversion among NASA management played a role in NASA truncating lunar landings after Apollo 17 and not pushing for 18 and 19, despite the flight hardware already having been built. Certainly the marginal cost of those two missions would not have been that high. Bob Gilruth, in particular, felt that an accident on one of the remaining lunar flights could jeopardize future NASA programs. Re-reading Murray & Cox, or Dethloff, I'm seeing parallels between Gilruth's post-13 thinking and the current post-107 thinking among NASA management concerning the shuttle. So the roots of NASA's risk-aversion appear to go back quite a way. A large factor, I've been told by veterans, is the massive departure of experienced personnel, starting immediately with Apollo-11 (when fully-qualified backup experts moved to replace those leaving), exacerbated as people were moved into shuttle, or entire contractor teams were disbanded. The final Apollo missions were being flown with a much narrower experience base than at first, and getting worse each flight. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble
general becoming more litigious and risk-averse. The process of hallerbization is not confined to NASA, nor did it occur overnight. Oh I think we should go, but with enough backup capacity to save the day when things go wrong. Like quick supplies to orbit capacity. If ISS is lost someday for lack of parts I wonder what you will say about me then? At least the co dependent shuttle ISS woulsd all be over and we could hopefully build the next generation vehicle HAVE A GREAT DAY! |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble
In the one area where we have both significant human and
robotic/automated/teleoperated working being done, and a significant sized experience base in both, (deep sea science and commercial work), the unmanned side of the house seems to be carrying the day. D. -- I think nasa doesnt push that much, its low prestige, and it might adversly effect jobs. IF we put all the $ being presently spent on ISS shuttle for unmanned exploration imagine what we could do. Continious mssions to all the planets, one to go take a close look at the sun, a nuclear powered in space booster for fast transit times. Note I dont advocate ceasing manned operations, but what were doing presently is a failure HAVE A GREAT DAY! |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble
In a sense, the decision has been made, since NASA has a safety
requirement that no NASA spacecraft should re-enter with a greater than 1 in 10,000 probability of loss of life (on the ground), and an uncontrolled HST re-entry has a 1 in 700 probability. The only question is how NASA addresses its safety requirements, by attempting a high risk robotic mission to de-orbit HST, or a low-risk (from a mission assurance perspective) Shuttle mission to deal with HST. My bet is that NASA pretends that the robots will work, the robot mission suffers extrement cost overruns, and is either cancelled, or is launched and fails to engage HST, leading to all sorts of second guessing 4 years from now, when O'Keefe is safely gone. I do not believe that O'Keefe has any interest in keeping HST alive, only in getting rid of the HST issue so that JWST and the Moon Mars program can move on. "Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ... jeff findley wrote in : "Jorge R. Frank" writes: Indeed, what is the probability of *any* spacecraft in a 28.45 degree inclination orbit coming down on NYC (latitude 40.4 deg N) or Moscow (latitude 55.45 deg N)? Especially if said spacecraft has no propulsion system and an L/D of zero? I'm going to guess zero. ;-) Seriously, this isn't worth spending money on. Not a whole lot of money, anyway - like I said earlier, any competent insurance actuary would tell you that, and were this a commercially-insured operation, probably nothing would be done. This being a government operation, the decision will be made on political and diplomatic bases rather than an actuarial basis. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble
In sci.space.policy LooseChanj wrote:
On or about 03 May 2004 14:38:16 -0400, jeff findley made the sensational claim that: An overwhelming desire to keep the crew safe isn't what stopped Apollo capsules from flying, but it appears to be what is killing any non-ISS shuttle missions. And that's the ****er of it all. We'd already pretty much thrown away the need for the shuttle's versatility (with the lone exception of Hubble), so the Columbia accident actually made more of an impact than it might have otherwise. If ISS weren't the *only* priority, would we be so willing to wallow in this fear of losting another crew? Yes, you would be wallowing inthe same fear,a s it has nothig to do with ISS. -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble
On Sat, 01 May 2004 21:51:17 -0400, "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote: CAPE CANAVERAL -- NASA for the first time Friday detailed its reasons for a controversial decision to scrap a servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope, saying the flight would entail higher risk to astronauts. I could point out that the risk of a non-ISS flight is no higher now than it was five years ago, that it entails no risk that was not already known before the first shuttle ever flew, that ISS would do nothing to save the crew of a shuttle that exploded on launch, and that several ISS flights (which are planned) carry more risk than a single Hubble flight. But those would be quibbles. The real problem is that our civilization's moral degeneracy has progressed to the stage that a man whose fat arse is parked in an office chair on Earth presumes to tell astronauts what they can and can't do in the name of their own safety; and that not only is that man not immediately dismissed as unfit to hold any public office on grounds of moral turpitude, he is actually retained as the administrator of NASA, of all things. The guff about manned Moon and Mars missions just caps it with a layer of irony. Apollo was as far as we got, and it's as far as we're going to get in the foreseeable future. Perhaps the Chinese will take over where we left off, in a reverse of last millennium; but our civilization has passed its high water mark. -- "Sore wa himitsu desu." To reply by email, remove the small snack from address. http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | April 2nd 04 12:01 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 2nd 04 03:33 AM |
Requirements / process to become a shuttle astronaut? | Dan Huizenga | Space Shuttle | 11 | November 14th 03 07:33 AM |
Booster Crossing | Chuck Stewart | Space Shuttle | 124 | September 15th 03 12:43 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |