LA Times: Critic says Space shuttle is "Inherently Unsafe"

But one of the report's broader conclusions — that the space shuttle
"is not inherently unsafe" — has prompted criticism from a chorus of
engineers and space experts, who say that two fatal accidents and
dozens of nearly catastrophic close calls show that the spacecraft is
unreliable. * *
*"I believe the shuttle is inherently unsafe," retired NASA
mathematician and rocket engine expert Jud Lovingood said this week.
"We have proven that and there are more problems waiting to jump out.
It is too complex. It is 1970s technology."
Lovingood's view was widely endorsed in interviews with members of
Congress, space policy experts and space engineers.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach), chairman of the House
subcommittee on aeronautics and space, said he plans to begin hearings
next month to examine the accident board's conclusions and the future
of the space program.
Rohrabacher also takes a dimmer view of the shuttle's safety than the
board does, but he praised Gehman's work and said he believes NASA's
deeply flawed culture, rather than inadequate funding by Congress, was
at the root of the Columbia tragedy
Indeed, O'Keefe said in an interview that Congress denied a NASA
request for supplemental funding of $50 million for the shuttle after
the Columbia accident. He estimated that it will require hundreds of
millions of dollars in extra funding to get the shuttle flying again.
Some experts say it's time to scrap the shuttle. That sentiment was
expressed earlier this year by Max Faget, a principal designer of the
shuttle.
"The bottom line is that the shuttle is too old," Faget said. "We
ought to just stop going into space until we get a good vehicle. If we
aren't willing to spend the money to do that, then we should be
ashamed of ourselves."
------------
I'm afraid negative articles like this one saying basically that the
shuttle sucks and shouldn't be funded anymore are going to impact the
amount of money Congress will vote to give NASA. It would be better at
this point to get some positive articles out there, not to begin a
negative spiral right before House and Senate committees start meeting
next week to discuss the space program.
Also, has anyone heard of "retired NASA mathematician and rocket
engine expert Jud Lovingood" before?
I don't believe the shuttle is inherently unsafe, do you?
Ellen
paragraphs excerpted from August 30, 2003 LA Times article:
Shuttle Report Misses Mark on Safety, Experts Contend

ElleninLosAngeles wrote in message
om...

Also, has anyone heard of "retired NASA mathematician
and rocket engine expert Jud Lovingood" before?

Yes, of course. Haven't you ever bothered to review the
transcripts from the Rogers Hearings? They're online.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)

"John Maxson" wrote in message ...
ElleninLosAngeles wrote in message
om...

Also, has anyone heard of "retired NASA mathematician
and rocket engine expert Jud Lovingood" before?

Yes, of course. Haven't you ever bothered to review the
transcripts from the Rogers Hearings? They're online.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)


4th time asking this, no answer.

Is Dwayne Allen Day in any way associated with Gehman?
Simple question. I even asked in PM and got ignored after
some stone walling.

Thanks,

PM

Paul Maxson wrote in message
...

4th time asking this, no answer.

Is Dwayne Allen Day in any way associated with Gehman?

He's associated with George Washington University, if I
remember correctly (like Gehman's John Logsdon).

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)

Is Dwayne Allen Day in any way associated with Gehman?

He's listed in the ACK section of the report.

I believe Logsdon was his PhD advisor.

Jan

Here we go again. I think the whole problem here is the definition of safe,
As I plainly heard at the press briefing, Spaceflight is a risky business. I
personally do not think the Shuttle was any more dangerous than anything
else loaded with an explosive mixture, and expected to fly at goodness how
many times the speed of sound!

I seem to think people are having problems with the amount of risk, however,
I would agree, the more complex a system is, the more chances there are of
something vital failing. Of course, at the moment, what are the
alternatives? None as far as I can see. Again in the briefing, I recall
comments about the reasons why there was not even a crew transport vehicle
on the drawing board, and a lot of that blame seems to have gone to the bean
counters. This stuff ain't cheap, appears to be the sound byte.


So, prepare yourselves, you are stuck with the Shuttle for, say... another 7
years at least?

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.514 / Virus Database: 312 - Release Date: 28/08/03

"ElleninLosAngeles" wrote in message

I don't believe the shuttle is inherently unsafe, do you?
Ellen

I'd like to see a balanced article on the shuttle system, but I haven't yet.

I don't think the shuttle is inherently unsafe. For both this accident and
the 51-L accident, the warning signs were there - they could both have been
prevented.

Jon

Jon Berndt wrote:

I don't think the shuttle is inherently unsafe. For both this accident and
the 51-L accident, the warning signs were there - they could both have been
prevented.

However, there are many warning signs that have not (yet) led to accidents.
You can't assume that they could have dealt with only the true accident precursors.
Dealing with all the warnings could well have too great a job for the available
time and budget.

Paul

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message

However, there are many warning signs that have not (yet) led to
accidents.
You can't assume that they could have dealt with only the true accident
precursors.
Dealing with all the warnings could well have too great a job for the
available
time and budget.

Paul

True, of course. But I'd like to know how much of what the ASAP (for
instance, see: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/asap/index.htm) brings up
is actually addressed. And for those concerns that are discarded, why are
they discarded? Does the ASAP actually have any real "pull"? Is it too great
a burden to properly and safely fly shuttle for much longer?

Jon

I don't believe the shuttle is inherently unsafe, do you?
Ellen


I do think its unsafe as there are too many critical systems with safety
waivers, no launch boost escape, and a wide variety other problems.