|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Space station's safety must be addressed
http://www.floridatoday.com/news/spa...3editorial.htm
October 23, 2003 Space station's safety must be addressed FLORIDA TODAY editorial Astronauts are poised for launch to the International Space Station. NASA managers are itching to go, but some agency experts vehemently argue that safety problems on the outpost should keep the flight grounded. They're overruled, and the rocket lifts off anyway. Incredible as it sounds in the wake of the shuttle Columbia disaster, this happened before last Saturday's launch of a Soyuz rocket from Russia carrying two astronauts and a cosmonaut on a crew-exchange mission to the station. It reinforces in dramatic fashion what we called for less than two weeks ago -- an independent review of space station safety that, if necessary, should shutter the outpost and keep it unoccupied until its problems are solved. Unless that happens, we increasingly fear a serious accident could befall a station crew and endanger their lives. The pre-launch Soyuz debate was reported Thursday in the Washington Post, which cited NASA documents and interviews. The situation was this: Two officials responsible for making sure the living environment on the station is working properly refused to approve the crew's launch and took the extraordinary step of signing of dissent that warned about the "continued degredation" of station life-support systems. They and others argued the station should be abandoned for now because the grounding of the shuttle fleet is making it impossible to repair some systems and replace others that are faulty or not working. As a result, experts cannot properly assess the station's air quality or water and radiation levels. Meanwhile, some NASA medical officials say station astronauts have shown symptoms of headaches, dizziness and an inability to think clearly. NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe's response is that he did not believe the new crew faces an immediate threat, but that conditions could slowly deteriorate over the next six months to the point where the crew would have to head home. That doesn't satisfy us, and shouldn't satisfy an agency that had seven astronauts die in February after strong concerns were dismissed about the debris strike that felled Columbia. What we see is the flawed NASA "culture" so harshly indicted by Columbia investigators at work again by not erring on the side of caution, but pushing ahead despite known -- and in the view of their own experts -- unacceptable risks. It also follows a warning issued by a former member of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel that oversees NASA, who recently cited other safety concerns, including the ability of NASA and Russian ground controllers to properly manage the station's intricate operation. A serious problem exists, and it must be forcefully addressed before tragedy strikes again. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Space Shuttle | 150 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |
European high technology for the International Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 10th 04 02:40 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 2nd 04 03:33 AM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 01:32 PM |
Space station's safety must be addressed | Scott M. Kozel | Space Shuttle | 0 | October 25th 03 04:36 AM |