|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"the biggest disaster in the history of space exploration"?
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"the biggest disaster in the history of space exploration"?
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"the biggest disaster in the history of space exploration"?
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..... |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"the biggest disaster in the history of space exploration"?
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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"the biggest disaster in the history of space exploration"?
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"the biggest disaster in the history of space exploration"?
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"the biggest disaster in the history of space exploration"?
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?? |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"the biggest disaster in the history of space exploration"?
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
just THREE YEARS AFTER my "CREWLESS Space Shuttle" article, theNSF """experts""" discover the idea of an unmanned Shuttle to fill the2010-2016 cargo-to-ISS (six+ years) GAP | gaetanomarano | Policy | 3 | September 15th 08 04:47 PM |
The world trade center "official story" is the biggest lie since "The Holocaust" | Michael Gray | Misc | 0 | April 18th 06 04:18 AM |
The world trade center "official story" is the biggest lie since "The Holocaust" | Michael Gray | Misc | 0 | April 17th 06 11:58 AM |