Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Space shuttle columbia lost

Recommended Posts

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 06 2003,20:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then where is the X-33?  The X-38 CRV?

That's right... cancelled due to mismanagement and budget cuts.<span id='postcolor'>

Don't know how much it's related but.....................

trever.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 06 2003,19:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I will agree with you that the tiles on the shuttle may not be the most elegant of solutions, but it has worked 111 of 113 times.  And in one of the accidents, the heat shield had nothing to do with the loss of the vehicle.<span id='postcolor'>

I have to wonder how much more quickly modern medicine could advance if the regulatory authorities would tolerate a 2% fatality rate during new drug testing.

I think 2 failures in 113 attempts is too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 06 2003,21:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think 2 failures in 113 attempts is too much.<span id='postcolor'>

It would have been bad enough with one casualty per failure - let alone 7. sad.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 06 2003,20:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 06 2003,21:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think 2 failures in 113 attempts is too much.<span id='postcolor'>

It would have been bad enough with one casualty per failure - let alone 7. sad.gif<span id='postcolor'>

Gah!

Life is a dangerous thing!

If I were to follow your line of reasoning, then we should make people stop taking the train! After all, 40 people died on a train in Zimbabwe last week as well! Damn it, if they cant take a technology that has been around for more than 100 years and make it 100% safe, then I know I wont be risking my neck getting onto a train, no siree!! tounge.gif

Life is a series of dangerous events that you live through. From that heart pounding shock when you almost get run over while trying to cross a street, to that tickle in your throat that turns into strep and would likely kill you if it wasnt for antibiotics. It is a good thing to reduce the amount of risk and danger in your life. But at some point, you begin to stifle the human spirit if you try to take the danger out of everything that we do.

Dont get me wrong, it's a terrible thing that those seven astronauts perished. But they got onto the shuttle knowing full well that they were embarking on one of the more dangerous activities that they could partake in. I wouldnt be surprised if, when that booster cut in, they all had thoughts of Challenger. Just like the crews of future shuttle missions will wince a little when the shuttle starts to experience turbulence on re-entry. The thing is, they will not ahve gotten on that shuttle at gun point. In fact I bet they will stand in line for a chance to fly it. Not because they are cowboys, but because they are professionals, and explorers and brave individuals that believe that the risk is worth it. Who are we to say they are wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I agree with Warin, it was terrible that they died but they knew the risks and accepted them. Most of them were also military people and as such fully aware of the possibility of dying in service.

Space flight is a dangerous thing. So was aviation too when it first streched its legs. There will be more casualties in future human space flight but it will be less and less once we get the hang of it.

Great progress always comes with great sacrefice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also agree with Warin.

It's not like these (wo)men were testing out new weapons or jumping off a cliff for fun, it was for the benefit for all of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry folks.  I will not be convinced that a 2% fatality rate for a peace time operation is acceptable, especially when the only real barrier to lowering the risk is money.

Denoir, if joining the military commits one to taking extraordinary risks for the betterment of mankind then why aren't medical research facilities filled with soldiers serving as guinea pigs?  Such service would probably save many many more lives for considerably less risk than having a military officer study how ants build nests in zero-G.

Warin, yesterday I asked a friend that if the 7 astronauts had landed safely, but then got hit by a city bus on their way to the hotel, would we be mourning their loss much more than those Zimbabweans?  So maybe we should wait until 2% of all Zimbabwean train passengers are killed before we start comparing Columbia's loss with the everyday risks of life.

Ok listen... To be perfectly honest I probably wouldn't be so bothered by the 2% risk if it weren't for the double-standard imposed by the authorities against allowing risk into other more important scientific research.  It's probably a poitically motivated double-standard.  After all, we won't see any tickertape parades for some fellow who survives a risky new anti-cancer vaccine, will we?  Not unless he undergoes the treatment at the ISS.

On the other hand, if the shuttle program were a private "for-profit" operation then the government regulators would have shut them down ages ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what does Abnutare ("shake one's head") have to do whit Bernadotte? wink.gif  Just curious smile.gif

Edit: now that i think about it... His avantar looks like some robot shaking his head wow.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're missing the point, Bernadotte.

When you step onto a train, you do it with the knowledge that there is risk involved. The reason so many people travel by train is because those risks are very very low. That doesnt mean they are not there.

When an Astronaut steps onto a space shuttle, they also know the risks involved. And due to the nature of the thing (hundreds of tonnes of volatile chemicals, plumeting back into the atmosphere) is is far riskier than getting onto a train. The difference is that those seven astronauts knew the risks when they did it. And NASA is not asking anyone who doesnt want to take those risks to fly on the shuttle.

If we all lived with your attitude towards risk, we would never have exploration or discovery, because everyone would be too afraid to take the chances required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First I said...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 06 2003,21:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think 2 failures in 113 attempts is too much.<span id='postcolor'>

Then you said...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 06 2003,21:o0)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If I were to follow your line of reasoning, then we should make people stop taking the train!<span id='postcolor'>

Then I said...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 06 2003,22:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So maybe we should wait until 2% of all Zimbabwean train passengers are killed before we start comparing Columbia's loss with the everyday risks of life.<span id='postcolor'>

Then you said...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 06 2003,22:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The difference is that those seven astronauts knew the risks when they did it.  And NASA is not asking anyone who doesnt want to take those risks to fly on the shuttle.<span id='postcolor'>

Now I'm confused.  If that's the difference then that means the Zimbabweans did not know the risks of getting on a train.  I must disagree.

And certainly nobody was forcing them to climb aboard any more than NASA was forcing the astronauts.

However, if your point was that the risks between the two activities is very different then I don't think I am missing it.  In fact, I've only tried to make 2 comments:

1.  A 2 % fatality risk is too high, especially if the only barrier to reducing the risk is economical.

2.  If a 2% risk is acceptable in one field of exploration then it should be acceptable in other fields like medical research.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 06 2003,22:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If we all lived with your attitude towards risk, we would never have exploration or discovery, because everyone would be too afraid to take the chances required.<span id='postcolor'>

With my attitude we'd all have paid a bit more taxes to see those 7 astronauts come back in one piece AND we might have cured cancer by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I don't agree at all that this disaster was a result of economical cutbacks. The STS is an incredibly complex machine with many components, many of them one of their kind. I find it very surprising that we don't have more space shuttle accidents considering that there are so many things that could go wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 07 2003,00:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">However, if your point was that the risks between the two activities is very different then I don't think I am missing it.  In fact, I've only tried to make 2 comments:

1.  A 2 % fatality risk is too high, especially if the only barrier to reducing the risk is economical.

2.  If a 2% risk is acceptable in one field of exploration then it should be acceptable in other fields like medical research.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 06 2003,22:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If we all lived with your attitude towards risk, we would never have exploration or discovery, because everyone would be too afraid to take the chances required.<span id='postcolor'>

With my attitude we'd all have paid a bit more taxes to see those 7 astronauts come back in one piece AND we might have cured cancer by now.<span id='postcolor'>

What makes you the ultimate arbiter of what is too high a risk? Are you in risk assesment at NASA? When NASA put the shuttles back into service after the challenger accident (which was not a fault of the orbiter itself) they obviously believed that the risk of catastrophic failure was low enough tu justify a return to service for the shuttle.

If the shuttle goes back into service after the Columbia accident, then people who know a lot more than you and I will have made that decision.

Now, as to your implication that if a 1.76% failure rate should be acceptable for the shuttle, then it should be good enough for other scientific fields, thats just a nonsensical way of thinking. The reason that you cant use such a failure rate in other research is that it is an unacceptable risk. Though, if you asked some cancer suferers if they would be willing to take a 1.76% chance of death versus being cured... how many do you think would risk it? Oligo...if you are out there... you've been involved in medical research. Can you give us an idea of percentages in experimental medicine??

Being shot into space is a dangerous occupation. Is a 1.76% failure rate too high? Lets see what NASA decides. In my opinion, it's not too high, if it advances our capabilities.

As for taxes and NASA.. well, the Canadian contribution has never suffered catastrophic failure, so my tax dollars worked wink.gif As for US taxpayers, I think there is a lot of pork barreling and mismanagement that eats up valuable funds... but at the end of the day, the manned space program budget has been steadily dropping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 07 2003,00:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't agree at all that this disaster was a result of economical cutbacks.<span id='postcolor'>

In 1998, Clinton ordered the design of a new generation of shuttles that were to be 10 times cheaper and 100 times safer.

Where are they?  confused.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 07 2003,00:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What makes you the ultimate arbiter of what is too high a risk?  Are you in risk assesment at NASA?<span id='postcolor'>

*Nope.  And thankfully, neither are you.  smile.gif

* not at NASA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 07 2003,00:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 07 2003,00:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What makes you the ultimate arbiter of what is too high a risk?  Are you in risk assesment at NASA?<span id='postcolor'>

*Nope.  And thankfully, neither are you.  smile.gif

* not at NASA<span id='postcolor'>

Shuttle launches up to STS-51L (Challenger):  25

Failures:  1

Percentage Failure Rate:  4%

Launches since STS-51L: 87

Failures:  1

Percentage Failure Rate: 1.14%

That looks to me like a good increase in vehicle reliability to me  wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 07 2003,01:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually, that's a very good point.  smile.gif<span id='postcolor'>

I know wink.gif

I would love to see NASA hae a 100% success rate with no accidents.  But all things considered, space flight is still totally in its infancy.  So it IS more risky than taking an airplane from NY to LA.  I imagine if you'd suggested to the Wright brothers 100 years ago that in just 100 years, it would be routine to fly tens of thousands of people around the continental US every day, even they would have laughed at you!  Manned space travel is just short of 42 years old.  And it's far more dangerous and technically complex than aviation.  In time, our great great grandchildren might look back at the shuttle and chuckle a little, much like we do when looking at the Wright Flyer.  Not so much in amusement, but more in wonderment at the daring of those pioneers.

LOL. As an aside:  a lookup for Yuri Gagarin turned up this non frames browser error message at Google: You! My red friend. Get yourself a new browser. biggrin.gifbiggrin.gifbiggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Feb. 07 2003,01:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">tounge.gif  Maybe because it's Yuri Gagarin?   wink.gif<span id='postcolor'>

Doh! Stupid fat fingers! smile.gif The search was done with the correct spelling wink.gif

I guess my position on this whole argument boils down to something that to me is a passionate dream:  

That someday men will move past the bounds of this planet and explore the vastness of space.  It's not a Star Wars, or Star Trek dream...those are fantasy.  The essence of this desire and drive has been known since the first primitive man looked at the horizon and wondered 'what is beyond that hill?'  Now, our frontier isnt one of a mountain, or an ocean.  It's one of an utterly bleak and hostile environment... so it's a frontier that will take more risks, and involve more danger than any of our ancestors experienced.  But to me the drive to explore, to know, to discover what is 'beyond that hill' is one of the brightest and best facets of homo sapiens.

Sorry for the rant...it's just something that I am very passionate about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 06 2003,08:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 06 2003,07:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 06 2003,08:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A counterpoint to that yahoo from two people who have a far better idea than that guy about the risks.<span id='postcolor'>

The whole counterpoint boils down to:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Both astronauts say whatever went wrong with Columbia will be found and fixed. Once that's done, both say they'd jump at the opportunity to fly in the shuttle again.<span id='postcolor'>

Space cowboys!<span id='postcolor'>

And?

So many people strike me as the sort that likely said to Leif Erickson 'You'll sail off the end of the world, you dopey bastard!  Just go pluder the English some more!!'  or 'Marco, are you serious?!?  You'll never get to China that way!'

It is not cowboy like to be one of the best trained people in your scientific field and be doing a job that puts you on the cutting edge of exploration.  If we all just sit back and minimize risks and never do anything dangerous...where will the human race be in 500 years?<span id='postcolor'>

That reminds me of a quote from an engineer working at NASA Ames Dreden center:

"People that insist on perfect safety don't have the balls to live in the real world."

I'll look for the source of it, but it was said around the time of Challenger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 06 2003,19:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sorry for the rant...it's just something that I am very passionate about.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes I am as well, but it all takes so much time, especially with most of our energy spent on fighting wars. confused.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about a self contained envoiroment propelled by the same engines on the deep space probes and a person in it smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 07 2003,00:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Though, if you asked some cancer suferers if they would be willing to take a 1.76% chance of death versus being cured... how many do you think would risk it?  Oligo...if you are out there... you've been involved in medical research. Can you give us an idea of percentages in experimental medicine??<span id='postcolor'>

In medical research the new drugs have always been so extensively tested on animals (required by law, not by the scientists involved) that fatalities very very rarely happen in human testing. And if they happen, lawsuits are filed almost always, even when the test subjects are always volunteers.

Actually the drug approval process is so slow and legislated that there have actually been demonstrations by for example HIV patients demanding access to experimental drugs not yet extensively tested. Their slogans were along the line of: "Let us take our chances with the new drug, we're dying here."

If you ask me, society has become way too protective. Voluntary risk taking is no longer acceptable as it used to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 07 2003,01:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 07 2003,00:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 07 2003,00:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What makes you the ultimate arbiter of what is too high a risk?  Are you in risk assesment at NASA?<span id='postcolor'>

*Nope.  And thankfully, neither are you.  smile.gif

* not at NASA<span id='postcolor'>

Shuttle launches up to STS-51L (Challenger):  25

Failures:  1

Percentage Failure Rate:  4%

Launches since STS-51L: 87

Failures:  1

Percentage Failure Rate: 1.14%

That looks to me like a good increase in vehicle reliability to me  wink.gif<span id='postcolor'>

Now compare that to the number of failures and deaths in the early years of flight.

And before that, the thousands, even hundreds of thousands of deaths in the first years of taking to the seas.

Space flight is a lot safer. The accidents are just more noticable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×