"the biggest disaster in the history of space exploration"?

In article f1316a54-e7a8-46d9-ac66-38d4c28577c3
@v11g2000prb.googlegroups.com, says...

On Mar 3, 8:39*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article bfed4e2b-2f24-4ee2-b026-
, says...



you really dont need to risk lives to move freight

This is the *wrong* lesson to take away from the shuttle. *If a vehicle
is safe enough for a crew, it's safe enough for cargo. *The trouble with
the shuttle was that it simply wasn't safe enough for crew or cargo. *
Your repeated suggestion of flying the shuttle unmanned does not solve
the problem, in fact it makes loss of vehicle and payload *more* likely.

Note the total loss (not just loss of life):

1. *In addition to the crew, the Challenger disaster caused the loss of
Tracking Data Relay Satellite-2, the Spartan satellite, as well as
Challenger itself. *

2. *In addition to the crew, the Columbia disaster caused the loss of
the Spacehab double module, as well as Columbia itself.

Again, if the shuttle could have, should have, would have, been safer,
it would have been safer for the crew and cargo, which is a good thing. *

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

cargo satellites, etc etc are easily replaceable.

lives once lost cant be.

As much as it pains me to say it, this is a huge fallacy. There are far
more astronauts in NASA than are really needed to fly the shuttle and
staff ISS. If anything, an astronaut is easier to replace than a multi-
billion dollar satellite.

As human beings, we don't like to see people die, but it happens every
single day.

sure the shuttle should of never hauled people because it lacked
launch boost escape.......

but it could be adapted for unmaned operations. thats only a matter of
money

Again, you've been told over and over, this isn't a good idea. It would
be possible to fly the shuttle unmanned, but we wouldn't, just as cargo
aircraft, semi-trucks, and (most) trains, don't move around unmanned.
Automation can't deal with the unexpected, people can.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

In article ,
says...

" wrote:


cargo satellites, etc etc are easily replaceable.

lives once lost cant be.


Sure they can. People are a lot cheaper to build and have a much
lower capital value.

True. There are literally billions of people on the planet and that
number grows bigger by the second. At first glance, it would appear
that people are actually extremely plentiful and are, in fact, quite
easy to replace as evidenced by our ever increasing numbers.

There is no shortage of astronauts or astronaut applicants, despite the
*known* danger. Based simply on the law of supply and demand, the
shuttle is more than safe enough for people to fly.

Spaceflight is certainly safer than other pursuits, like climbing Mt.
Everest. A quick web search turns up this statistic:

To date, there have been 1,924 ascents of Mount Everest (more
than 1,300 different climbers), and 179 people have died.

If that data is accurate, that's nearly a 14% fatality rate for those
1,300 climbers.

From a 2005 NASA publication (admittedly dated):

There are currently 95 astronauts, 11 astronaut candidates and
46 management astronauts in the program; 132 astronauts have
retired or resigned; and 36 are deceased.

From above, I count 320 astronauts total (including the candidates). If
we count the loss of Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia, we have 17
astronauts killed while inside spacecraft. That's a fatality rate of
about 5%

This shows that US manned spaceflight has historically been about 3x
safer than climbing Mt. Everest, yet there has still been more than 4x
as many people who have been climbers on Mt. Everest than there have
been US astronauts.

Maybe Bob should be trying to put a stop to Mt. Everest climbs due to
the high fatality rate. To paraphrase Bob: the equipment lost on those
climbs can easily be replaced, the lives lost can't.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

On Mar 4, 8:37*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...



" wrote:

cargo satellites, etc etc are easily replaceable.

lives once lost cant be.

Sure they can. *People are a lot cheaper to build and have a much
lower capital value.

True. *There are literally billions of people on the planet and that
number grows bigger by the second. *At first glance, it would appear
that people are actually extremely plentiful and are, in fact, quite
easy to replace as evidenced by our ever increasing numbers.

There is no shortage of astronauts or astronaut applicants, despite the
*known* danger. *Based simply on the law of supply and demand, the
shuttle is more than safe enough for people to fly. *

Spaceflight is certainly safer than other pursuits, like climbing Mt.
Everest. *A quick web search turns up this statistic:

* *To date, there have been 1,924 ascents of Mount Everest (more
* *than 1,300 different climbers), and 179 people have died.

If that data is accurate, that's nearly a 14% fatality rate for those
1,300 climbers. *

From a 2005 NASA publication (admittedly dated):

* *There are currently 95 astronauts, 11 astronaut candidates and
* *46 management astronauts in the program; 132 astronauts have
* *retired or resigned; and 36 are deceased.

From above, I count 320 astronauts total (including the candidates). *If
we count the loss of Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia, we have 17
astronauts killed while inside spacecraft. *That's a fatality rate of
about 5%

This shows that US manned spaceflight has historically been about 3x
safer than climbing Mt. Everest, yet there has still been more than 4x
as many people who have been climbers on Mt. Everest than there have
been US astronauts. *

Maybe Bob should be trying to put a stop to Mt. Everest climbs due to
the high fatality rate. *To paraphrase Bob: the equipment lost on those
climbs can easily be replaced, the lives lost can't.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

The taxpayers arent paying for the hikers......

We are paying for the shuttle.

As such it should be held to a higher standard of safety.

Does anyone challenge this.

The shuttle wouldnt be retiring if columbia hadnt occured.....

On Mar 4, 8:12*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article f1316a54-e7a8-46d9-ac66-38d4c28577c3
@v11g2000prb.googlegroups.com, says...







On Mar 3, 8:39 am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article bfed4e2b-2f24-4ee2-b026-
, says...

you really dont need to risk lives to move freight

This is the *wrong* lesson to take away from the shuttle. If a vehicle
is safe enough for a crew, it's safe enough for cargo. The trouble with
the shuttle was that it simply wasn't safe enough for crew or cargo.
Your repeated suggestion of flying the shuttle unmanned does not solve
the problem, in fact it makes loss of vehicle and payload *more* likely.

Note the total loss (not just loss of life):

1. In addition to the crew, the Challenger disaster caused the loss of
Tracking Data Relay Satellite-2, the Spartan satellite, as well as
Challenger itself.

2. In addition to the crew, the Columbia disaster caused the loss of
the Spacehab double module, as well as Columbia itself.

Again, if the shuttle could have, should have, would have, been safer,
it would have been safer for the crew and cargo, which is a good thing.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

cargo satellites, etc etc are easily replaceable.

lives once lost cant be.

As much as it pains me to say it, this is a huge fallacy. *There are far
more astronauts in NASA than are really needed to fly the shuttle and
staff ISS. *If anything, an astronaut is easier to replace than a multi-
billion dollar satellite.

As human beings, we don't like to see people die, but it happens every
single day. *

sure the shuttle should of never hauled people because it lacked
launch boost escape.......

but it could be adapted for unmaned operations. thats only a matter of
money

Again, you've been told over and over, this isn't a good idea. *It would
be possible to fly the shuttle unmanned, but we wouldn't, just as cargo
aircraft, semi-trucks, and (most) trains, don't move around unmanned. *
Automation can't deal with the unexpected, people can. *

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

well if a unmanned shuttle like vehicle is lost the most that happens
is losing some bucks

when people die the long term consquences are far larger.

social security for the surving spouse and children, often mental
issues for those who remain and employees who screwed up, both shuttle
losses were ultimately management failures.

wrote:
The taxpayers arent paying for the hikers......

Well, not the U.S. taxpayers anyway. Do Nepal (and China?) fully
charge people for rescues?

rick jones
--
oxymoron n, Hummer H2 with California Save Our Coasts and Oceans plates
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

In article 8e0aa7ce-5ccc-4362-b2fc-ea1c3bf43667
@r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com, says...

On Mar 4, 8:37*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...



" wrote:

cargo satellites, etc etc are easily replaceable.

lives once lost cant be.

Sure they can. *People are a lot cheaper to build and have a much
lower capital value.

True. *There are literally billions of people on the planet and that
number grows bigger by the second. *At first glance, it would appear
that people are actually extremely plentiful and are, in fact, quite
easy to replace as evidenced by our ever increasing numbers.

There is no shortage of astronauts or astronaut applicants, despite the
*known* danger. *Based simply on the law of supply and demand, the
shuttle is more than safe enough for people to fly. *

Spaceflight is certainly safer than other pursuits, like climbing Mt.
Everest. *A quick web search turns up this statistic:

* *To date, there have been 1,924 ascents of Mount Everest (more
* *than 1,300 different climbers), and 179 people have died.

If that data is accurate, that's nearly a 14% fatality rate for those
1,300 climbers. *

From a 2005 NASA publication (admittedly dated):

* *There are currently 95 astronauts, 11 astronaut candidates and
* *46 management astronauts in the program; 132 astronauts have
* *retired or resigned; and 36 are deceased.

From above, I count 320 astronauts total (including the candidates). *If
we count the loss of Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia, we have 17
astronauts killed while inside spacecraft. *That's a fatality rate of
about 5%

This shows that US manned spaceflight has historically been about 3x
safer than climbing Mt. Everest, yet there has still been more than 4x
as many people who have been climbers on Mt. Everest than there have
been US astronauts. *

Maybe Bob should be trying to put a stop to Mt. Everest climbs due to
the high fatality rate. *To paraphrase Bob: the equipment lost on those
climbs can easily be replaced, the lives lost can't.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

The taxpayers arent paying for the hikers......
We are paying for the shuttle.

Irrelevant. Taxpayers pay salaries for plenty of "risky" jobs. The
shuttle may be one of the more risky ones out there, but risk isn't a
black and white thing, there are many shades of gray.

As such it should be held to a higher standard of safety.

Why?

I personally think the FAA should hold passenger carrying aircraft to a
higher standard due to the very high number of civilian passengers
carried by them. NASA astronauts know the risk. Most have multiple
advanced college degrees, so they're not stupid people. They know what
statistics are and know very well that they could become one themselves.

Does anyone challenge this.

Yes, I do.

The shuttle wouldnt be retiring if columbia hadnt occured.....

True, but it wasn't canceled immediately following the disaster.
Instead, it is being retired after ISS assembly is complete. In other
words, it's really not needed anymore.

The DOD pulled out of the shuttle program completely after Challenger.
Sure they used "safety" as a public facing excuse, but it was an excuse.

DOD really pulled out because the shuttle program was too costly (VAFB
could have launched a shuttle, eventually, with more money spent to
solve the few remaining problems there). Even at KSC, the shuttle flew
too infrequently and faced repeated delays, cost overruns, and etc. It
was a borderline hangar queen that DOD didn't want to deal with anymore.

The DOD is used to risk (to both people and multi-billion dollar
hardware). They weren't used to their big, heavy, expensive, top-
secret, satellites sitting on the ground waiting to be launched while
the shuttle's sat on the ground waiting for all of the fixes needed for
all of the problems that the Challenger Accident Investigation Board
publicly revealed.

Plus, by moving to Titan IV, DOD was in charge of *their* launch
vehicle. Maintaining control of every aspect of their programs is
important to the DOD. They weren't completely in control of the shuttle
program.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

In article 030eddbe-21b2-4a47-abb9-
, says...

On Mar 4, 8:12*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article f1316a54-e7a8-46d9-ac66-38d4c28577c3
@v11g2000prb.googlegroups.com, says...







On Mar 3, 8:39 am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article bfed4e2b-2f24-4ee2-b026-
, says...

you really dont need to risk lives to move freight

This is the *wrong* lesson to take away from the shuttle. If a vehicle
is safe enough for a crew, it's safe enough for cargo. The trouble with
the shuttle was that it simply wasn't safe enough for crew or cargo.
Your repeated suggestion of flying the shuttle unmanned does not solve
the problem, in fact it makes loss of vehicle and payload *more* likely.

Note the total loss (not just loss of life):

1. In addition to the crew, the Challenger disaster caused the loss of
Tracking Data Relay Satellite-2, the Spartan satellite, as well as
Challenger itself.

2. In addition to the crew, the Columbia disaster caused the loss of
the Spacehab double module, as well as Columbia itself.

Again, if the shuttle could have, should have, would have, been safer,
it would have been safer for the crew and cargo, which is a good thing.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

cargo satellites, etc etc are easily replaceable.

lives once lost cant be.

As much as it pains me to say it, this is a huge fallacy. *There are far
more astronauts in NASA than are really needed to fly the shuttle and
staff ISS. *If anything, an astronaut is easier to replace than a multi-
billion dollar satellite.

As human beings, we don't like to see people die, but it happens every
single day. *

sure the shuttle should of never hauled people because it lacked
launch boost escape.......

but it could be adapted for unmaned operations. thats only a matter of
money

Again, you've been told over and over, this isn't a good idea. *It would
be possible to fly the shuttle unmanned, but we wouldn't, just as cargo
aircraft, semi-trucks, and (most) trains, don't move around unmanned. *
Automation can't deal with the unexpected, people can. *

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

well if a unmanned shuttle like vehicle is lost the most that happens
is losing some bucks

when people die the long term consquences are far larger.

Not really. There are literally billions of people on this planet.
Outside of the philosophical and the religious, people just aren't the
irreplaceable commodity that you think they are. What does get lost is
the knowledge of that person. When an employee unexpectedly dies, you
have to train a replacement and that *does* cost money.

NASA has a surplus of astronauts. The loss of another shuttle crew
would be psychologically painful, but it would not cause an complete
loss of trained astronauts.

social security for the surving spouse and children, often mental
issues for those who remain and employees who screwed up, both shuttle
losses were ultimately management failures.

The direct costs you mention (social security and other benefits for the
surving spouses and children) were peanuts compared to the cost of the
shuttle sitting idle and awaiting upgrades deemed necessary for the
continuation of flight.

Sorry Bob, but there are just far too many people other than astronauts
which are involved in the shuttle program. Yes, they're the stars of
the show, but since this is a government operation, they're not paid
considerably more than the literally thousands of cast members behind
the scenes.

Jeff
p.s. I would *never* wish another shuttle disaster to happen, but $#*!
does happen. People die in all sorts of ways each and every day, but
new people are also born every day to take their places. I hate to say
it, but it really is the circle of life.
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

Jeff Findley scribbled something like ...
says...

cargo satellites, etc etc are easily replaceable.

We now have an opportunity to see what the Glory staff says about this.

/dps

On Mar 4, 2:42*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 030eddbe-21b2-4a47-abb9-
, says...







On Mar 4, 8:12 am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article f1316a54-e7a8-46d9-ac66-38d4c28577c3
@v11g2000prb.googlegroups.com, says...

On Mar 3, 8:39 am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article bfed4e2b-2f24-4ee2-b026-
, says....

you really dont need to risk lives to move freight

This is the *wrong* lesson to take away from the shuttle. If a vehicle
is safe enough for a crew, it's safe enough for cargo. The trouble with
the shuttle was that it simply wasn't safe enough for crew or cargo.
Your repeated suggestion of flying the shuttle unmanned does not solve
the problem, in fact it makes loss of vehicle and payload *more* likely.

Note the total loss (not just loss of life):

1. In addition to the crew, the Challenger disaster caused the loss of
Tracking Data Relay Satellite-2, the Spartan satellite, as well as
Challenger itself.

2. In addition to the crew, the Columbia disaster caused the loss of
the Spacehab double module, as well as Columbia itself.

Again, if the shuttle could have, should have, would have, been safer,
it would have been safer for the crew and cargo, which is a good thing.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

cargo satellites, etc etc are easily replaceable.

lives once lost cant be.

As much as it pains me to say it, this is a huge fallacy. There are far
more astronauts in NASA than are really needed to fly the shuttle and
staff ISS. If anything, an astronaut is easier to replace than a multi-
billion dollar satellite.

As human beings, we don't like to see people die, but it happens every
single day.

sure the shuttle should of never hauled people because it lacked
launch boost escape.......

but it could be adapted for unmaned operations. thats only a matter of
money

Again, you've been told over and over, this isn't a good idea. It would
be possible to fly the shuttle unmanned, but we wouldn't, just as cargo
aircraft, semi-trucks, and (most) trains, don't move around unmanned.
Automation can't deal with the unexpected, people can.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

well if a unmanned shuttle like vehicle is lost the most that happens
is losing some bucks

when people die the long term consquences are far larger.

Not really. *There are literally billions of people on this planet. *
Outside of the philosophical and the religious, people just aren't the
irreplaceable commodity that you think they are. *What does get lost is
the knowledge of that person. *When an employee unexpectedly dies, you
have to train a replacement and that *does* cost money. *

NASA has a surplus of astronauts. *The loss of another shuttle crew
would be psychologically painful, but it would not cause an complete
loss of trained astronauts.

social security for the surving spouse and children, often mental
issues for those who remain and employees who screwed up, both shuttle
losses were ultimately management failures.

The direct costs you mention (social security and other benefits for the
surving spouses and children) were peanuts compared to the cost of the
shuttle sitting idle and awaiting upgrades deemed necessary for the
continuation of flight.

Sorry Bob, but there are just far too many people other than astronauts
which are involved in the shuttle program. *Yes, they're the stars of
the show, but since this is a government operation, they're not paid
considerably more than the literally thousands of cast members behind
the scenes.

Jeff
p.s. I would *never* wish another shuttle disaster to happen, but $#*!
does happen. *People die in all sorts of ways each and every day, but
new people are also born every day to take their places. *I hate to say
it, but it really is the circle of life.
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

hi jeff, i challenge you to tell all the families of lost crews,
apollo one, challenger and columbia the real loss were the vehicles,
the astronauts essentiall disposable. wonder if they would agree???

get some nasa brass to say this.......... astronauts are disposable we
have plenty.

ooops no one will because up till now americans value lives, unlike
the muslims like bin laden who welcome death

jeff do you think the muslim way is better??

On Mar 4, 10:38*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:

The taxpayers arent paying for the hikers......

We are paying for the shuttle.

As such it should be held to a higher standard of safety.

Does anyone challenge this.

Yes.



The shuttle wouldnt be retiring if columbia hadnt occured.....

Bull****. *The shuttle is being retired because there are only a few
of them, they're old, and they're hideously expensive to operate
compared to the alternatives.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson

shuttle retirement was never seriously on the table till the columbia
loss....

go back and google, prove me wrong. nasa studied alternatives but the
CAIB required recertification or stop flying