NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble

(bob haller) wrote in
:


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.

And that will assure that the mission is too expensive to be funded.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

And that will assure that the mission is too expensive to be funded.

Look theres NO WAY we should be operating ISS and Shuttle without a fast parts
to orbit capacity.

Do too much with too little and one day you might loose the entire station for
lack of a spare part.


HAVE A GREAT DAY!

(bob haller) wrote:

And that will assure that the mission is too expensive to be funded.


Look theres NO WAY we should be operating ISS and Shuttle without a fast parts
to orbit capacity.

Why not?

Do too much with too little and one day you might loose the entire station for
lack of a spare part.

Only in a chicken-little universe.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

Richard Schumacher wrote:

What a bunch of worthless pussies we've become.


Now don't get down on pussies...kittens grow up to be pussies, a kittens
_rock_:
http://www.rathergood.com/punk_kittens/

Pat

On Tue, 04 May 2004 22:44:11 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

What a bunch of worthless pussies we've become.


Now don't get down on pussies...kittens grow up to be pussies, a kittens
_rock_:
http://www.rathergood.com/punk_kittens/

But not like badgers.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/badgers.html

Rand Simberg wrote:

But not like badgers.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/badgers.html


Try the Zoology Dragon on for size, you vicious pawn of the powers of
reaction:
http://www.rathergood.com/zoology/

Pat

On Wed, 05 May 2004 01:06:08 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:

But not like badgers.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/badgers.html


Try the Zoology Dragon on for size,

They're cute, but they're not badgers, with snakes. They're also not
irritating enough to be in the "I like the Moon!" class.

you vicious pawn of the powers of reaction

I like it--I appreciate your reaction to my blog. Maybe I should make
it my new blog motto.

Sander Vesik wrote in message ...
Having them within 10000 KM vs on earth is not majorly different. Look at
teh Mars rovers which are essentialy teleoperated. The limit is not just
not being stretched, its not even being looked at seriously.

Are you even paying attention to the mission? With a twenty-minute
round trip for commands, and a much longer latency for returning
images, they're lucky to get one decision cycle in a day. With
astronauts in Mars orbit, they could drive more-or-less real-time,
probably getting fifteen or twenty decision cycles of the type were
discussing in a day. With astronauts on the ground, even more so.

When I look at the MER missions so far, they're certainly doing a lot
of good science, but it's taken them three months to do what a
geologist on the surface could do in about a day.

Why do you care about the time it takes?

Because Mars is a big planet, and I'd like to see it explored while
I'm still young enough to dream about going there. At the rate we're
going, it'll take us thirty years. Too long.

-jake

On or about Tue, 4 May 2004 17:49:23 +0000 (UTC), Sander Vesik
made the sensational claim that:
In sci.space.policy LooseChanj wrote:
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?

you would be wallowing inthe same fear,a s it has nothig to do with ISS.

Yes it does. ISS only uses some of the shuttle's capabilities, which makes
other uses appear more frivolous. Such as hubble servicing. It's easier to
think of that *one* other planned use as expendable than in the case of having
a large backlog of a variety of flights. Another reason is the ISS safe haven
fallacy.

It occurs to me that a major difference between Challenger's aftermath and
Columbia's is "let's make sure that doesn't happen again" and "what if that
_does_ happen again". I'm afraid the next time it'll be "ok, this *IS* going
to happen again". If it's a shuttle, and I think it just might be, that's it
and STS is gone forever, and the will to take CEV anywhere interesting is kicked
in the nuts. If we lose a crew to the CEV, well oh **** wings *and* capsules
kill, and if a crew is lost with CEV in LEO, then we'll be off seriously
debating whether it's worth it to send men into space at all.

I certainly don't wish death on anyone, but I do sometimes wonder how a lost
astronaut during Mercury or Gemini would have influenced this. (Or, for that
matter, a real lost cosmonaut during Vostok.) Would people be more ready to
perceive space not as a conquered ground, but as something real and dangerous
and not expect absolute and utterly impractical zero loss perfection? IMO,
this might have actually made for a safer program, especially after the near
tragedy on Apollo 13. Not having lost anyone till that point, it's easier to
come away with the impression NASA could have gotten a crew back from the
middle of being interrogated by St. Peter. Please note I'm talking about
public perception in this post, the common man, and not anyone with a technical
background, and most certainly not an aerospace one.

And since I'm so smart, I'll predict the next shuttle failure (if one happens)
as being a more severe (at least in terms of consequences) repeat of STS-93.
Mainly because the gremlins do seem to enjoy pointing out we're not as safe or
as knowledgable as we'd like to think in terms of spaceflight, and an STS-93
type incident would put an end to the idea that we're safer on ISS flights
because there's somewhere to go to.

Ok I'm not that smart and my opinions are definately not the most informed.

And f**k anyone who even *thinks* I'm sounding like hallerb, because I *am*
willing to accept accidents and not insist on PR safety stunts to keep me
happy till the "next one" I can whine about. Oh, and f**k hallerb, sideways
with a rusty ginsu. Stuffie, whose existence I was reminded of a few minutes
ago via quoting, deserves much worse. And gosh dammit if you DO want to reply
via email take the hint in the middle of sig. Anything else I'm ****ed off
about isn't making itself known to my brane atm, so I'll end this post here
before it ends up being my magnum opus. And just might be too late anyhow.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen

Look theres NO WAY we should be operating ISS and Shuttle without a fast
parts
to orbit capacity.

Why not?



Do too much with too little and one day you might loose the entire station
for
lack of a spare part.

Only in a chicken-little universe.

D.
--

Heres something to ponder. A week from today the station has a failure
requiring some spare parts they dont have onboard. The parts would of come up
on the shuttle but with it grounded spares are in short supply. The trouble is
a oxygen envioonmeental one, with spares it would be no big deal.

After a couple weeks its decided to bring the crew home on soyuz. The partners
are concerned, they dont like leaving the station unmanned. Worse the present
soyuz just arrived, so no more will be available for many months. Russia tries
to speed the next one up, but really cant do much.

While the station is unmanned a slow leak is discovered and things go downhill.
another gyro fails, and russia is now using thrusters for station keeping.

At 3 nmonths unmmanned control is completely lost. They really aerent sure of
the cause, it nmight have been a minor debris impact. Worse the attached
progress isnt successful in statrion keeping attempts.

Military cameras indicate the station is in a tumble, it looks like the debris
impact migfht be the cause but without telementary no one is certain. The
stations batteries are all dead, and besides communication was lost quickly
when the tumble affected antenna pointing

With the shuttle still grounded, and soyuz unable to dock with a tumbling
station the death watch begins. Everyone under the ground track worries it may
hit them.

Now the 1 in a 1000 chance of killing someone doesnt is small comfort to
friends and family of those who died when the station broke apart pepering the
world with parts.

fortunately some came down in the pacific. But others hit europe china, and the
US. Russia was spared any majior hits, the start of a new conspiracy theory.The
idiots think Russia was trying to bomb us. Some blame terrorists.

But really it was our own stupidity A simple case of lack of quick spare
parts to orbit capacity

Oh yeah in the aftermath of the disaster nasa is neutered, only allowed to do
unmanned science probes that will burn up completely in the case of a unplanned
deorbit.

ISS ansd shuttle died together.

In another disaster!!!

The shuttle returns to operation. Its second flight aborts to orbit. Minor
damage prevents a regular landing. If they had a way to get some supplies to
the crew the problem could be fixed. With no way to do this the crew hangs out
for a long 2 weeks. Its finally decided to try a pacific bail out loosing the
orbiter.

Fortunately most of the crew survives, but with the high profile loss of the
orbiter the public starts asking why we didnt have after columbia the ability
to send spare parts and supplies to the crew.

NASA is trashed in the press, as being unprepared. The shuttle program ended
with the last lost flight. The partners decided to deorbit ISS for lack of
public support.



Now BOTH of these situations are entirely possible, and in both cases a fast
parts to orbit capacity could make all the difference in the world.

BOth of these would also make a wonderful disaster movies. Will nasa assist
whenb a movie might make them appear careless?

HAVE A GREAT DAY!