Dear ChrisI am sorry to have to criticize your article but I feel there are some sober reminders to be made here."The shuttle has its detractors, even within NASA, citing safety and cost. However, the five flights of 2009 have showed the world just how capable the vehicle is, when cared for by good management and experienced engineering."Yes the vehicle is capable of hauling a large amount of cargo and crew into LEO but it isn't capable of going beyond that or doing meaningful space exploration.Further this vehicle has killed 14 Astronauts. That is more that any other space vehicle launched and if there was another accident that would add another 7 coffins.The vehicle still has no escape system shodul there be an accident on launch and no redundancy of its own shoud the TPS fail. It is a risky, experimental vehicle that should be grounded as soon as possible in order that a safer replacement can be built.Accordingto CAIB report (Chapter 1)"In the end, the greatest compromise NASA made was not so much with any particular element of the technical design, but rather with the premise of the vehicle itself. NASA promised it could develop a Shuttle that would be launched almost on demand and would fly many missions each year. Throughout the history of the program, a gap has persisted between the rhetoric NASA has used to market the Space Shuttle and operational reality, leading to an enduring image of the Shuttle as capable of safely and routinely carrying out missions with little risk."and"Despite efforts to improve its safety, the Shuttle remains acomplex and risky system that remains central to U.S. ambitionsin space. Columbia's failure to return home is a harshreminder that the Space Shuttle is a developmental vehiclethat operates not in routine flight but in the realm of dangerousexploration."It's time to kill the shuttle off and replace it with a safer space transportation system capable of exploration beyond LEO.Regards Peter
1) "Yes the vehicle is capable of hauling a large amount of cargo and crew into LEO but it isn't capable of going beyond that or doing meaningful space exploration".
2) "Further this vehicle has killed 14 Astronauts. That is more that any other space vehicle launched and if there was another accident that would add another 7 coffins."
It's time to kill the shuttle off and replace it with a safer space transportation system capable of exploration beyond LEO.
Further this vehicle has killed 14 Astronauts. That is more that any other space vehicle launched and if there was another accident that would add another 7 coffins.
The vehicle still has no escape system shodul there be an accident on launch and no redundancy of its own shoud the TPS fail. It is a risky, experimental vehicle that should be grounded as soon as possible in order that a safer replacement can be built.
Quote from: Jorge on 12/04/2009 07:57 pmQuote from: marshallsplace on 12/04/2009 07:53 pmQuote from: rdale on 12/04/2009 07:49 pmThe station can't run without MCC-Houston.Of course MCC-Houston would be required. I'm just talking about saving the superior SSP support provided to the ISS.Could you try restating your question, then? I think I would have answered the same as rdale. What kind of "support" would the partners provide for the SSP?OK, I was thinking international financial support. It would mean that NASA would have to accomodate the SSP but be able to follow Constellation.
Quote from: marshallsplace on 12/04/2009 07:53 pmQuote from: rdale on 12/04/2009 07:49 pmThe station can't run without MCC-Houston.Of course MCC-Houston would be required. I'm just talking about saving the superior SSP support provided to the ISS.Could you try restating your question, then? I think I would have answered the same as rdale. What kind of "support" would the partners provide for the SSP?
Quote from: rdale on 12/04/2009 07:49 pmThe station can't run without MCC-Houston.Of course MCC-Houston would be required. I'm just talking about saving the superior SSP support provided to the ISS.
The station can't run without MCC-Houston.
You're welcome to Peter! However, I'm going to have to counter most of that and say it how I feel - no disrespect intended.Quote1) "Yes the vehicle is capable of hauling a large amount of cargo and crew into LEO but it isn't capable of going beyond that or doing meaningful space exploration".Pet hate right there, as I'd say we're always exploring. One could argue on the achievements on bringing back moon rocks, versus constructing a giant space station (both are impressive, sure). I would say we're certainly exploring and learning via ISS, which is a major legacy of shuttle. I'm sure NASA doesn't judge exploration by distances, but by achievements - at least I'd hope so.The vehicles do what they are designed to do, and Shuttle is capable of more than Orion ever will be. Just because Orion can leave LEO doesn't make it superior.....if anything it's a bit of a one trick pony compared to the orbiters. Quote2) "Further this vehicle has killed 14 Astronauts. That is more that any other space vehicle launched and if there was another accident that would add another 7 coffins."I'd say bad management was a major factor in the deaths of at least the Challenger astronauts more than the vehicle. If anything, the vehicle nearly kept them alive (should have blown up on the pad - and they may of made it to SRB sep if it hadn't of been for the freak wind shere - who knows). I question why you're looking at the two disasters as some sort of millstone around their necks when its flow so many times, successfully. Sure, by design they have threats of giving the astros no way out, say in a Challenger type disaster, but that's what management are there for (see Challenger's mistakes). I actually made a point in the article about good management and experienced engineering. Compare the likes of Mr Shannon, Moses, Cain etc with the "you don't stand in front of a fast moving train" MSFC manager from the Challenger era. Polar opposites I'd say.As far as Columbia, that's not a LOV/C situation anymore and you're basing the TPS threats on what is most certainly out of date status, given the massive strides they've made on the ET foam since (actually writing an article on this).Remember, IF a major TPS strike happened again, the vehicle would still make orbit (like Columbia) - but they'd indentify it via OBSS and FD3 RPM, with LON in place if all else fails - so the crew would survive.QuoteIt's time to kill the shuttle off and replace it with a safer space transportation system capable of exploration beyond LEO.Happy thoughts and wishes won't make it happen. Here's the reality, right now:1) Losing the only US manned launch vehicle and hand over cash to the Russians to ferry astros to the ISS.2) Waiting seven years (and maybe more) until the next vehicle is ready - and then another 10 years or so before they launch on what you describe as exploration (past LEO). I'd question if NASA could actually survive that timeline as it is. Hopefully the damage and wasted billions of Ares I won't cause the same level of schedule pain with the next vehicle, and/or ULA aren't talking out of their backsides on when they'll be ready to launch humans on an EELV (if, and it's still a big if, they are involved in the next vehicle). Hopefully if they do stay with Ares/Orion they pump in billions and insist on a 2013 IOC date.So don't be so hasty with the bloodlust for killing shuttle, because the alternative - right now - is nothing short of crap (NO FRAKKING US HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS - Woot, isn't that exciting! Let's do some exploration of exhibitions where the orbiters are rusting away their days by having ignorant tourists getting their greasy finger prints all over their TPS, shall we!).Start praying someone's got a pair in the White House, as once shuttle's retired the US will absolutely lose its leadership in space, no question about it - and the US will only have themselves to blame, along with the shuttle bashers - from Griffin downwards - about how it's not safe, whilst making up magical safety numbers for a vehicle that's never flown - as if a LAS suddendly means no one will ever die during space flight.
This is also an ignorant statement. There are inherent design vulnerabilities to all manned vehicles and you only mention those of the shuttle. All other manned vehicles rely on parachutes (which have failed, killing cosmonauts) and all other manned vehicles rely on module separation between the deorbit burn and entry interface (which have failed, by multiple mechanisms, killing 3 cosmonauts and resulting in close calls for many astronauts and cosmonauts). And those failure modes are just as likely to kill as the failure modes of the shuttle, based statistically on past experience.
CAIB is not gospel nor the bible.Other vehicles have other weaknesses the Shuttle has not. How do you judge one weakness against another? You can't. You have a fixation on components which failed on Shuttle and you discount critical components/events on other vehicles. It escapes me how you judge one against another.Analyst
With Apollo if a bird hit the craft on launch or reentry the TPS would withstand the impact. Not so Shuttle. Its TPS is fragile. Regards Peter
1) Thanks but I think you have missed my point. The issue isn't which vehicle is statistically safer or which vehicle has the most weaknesses. The issue is when (not if) something goes catastrophically wrong which vehicle has got some kind of redundancy to deal with that catastrophe?2) If there is a launch explosion with Soyuz there is a Launch Escape System as a backup. With Shuttle there isn't a backup. 3) With Apollo if a bird hit the craft on launch or reentry the TPS would withstand the impact. Not so Shuttle. Its TPS is fragile.
And the story is the same when we get to Colombia. I don't need to be an engineer to know that the TPS is very fragile. Maybe the ice could not have been anticipated but there are a number of similar collisions that could have been anticipated ie Meteorities, bird strikes etc. What doomed Colombia was not the failure of the TPS but rather the lack of any back up system when it failed.
Quote from: pberrett on 12/04/2009 11:20 pm 1) "Yes the vehicle is capable of hauling a large amount of cargo and crew into LEO but it isn't capable of going beyond that or doing meaningful space exploration". Pet hate right there, as I'd say we're always exploring. One could argue on the achievements on bringing back moon rocks, versus constructing a giant space station (both are impressive, sure). I would say we're certainly exploring and learning via ISS, which is a major legacy of shuttle. I'm sure NASA doesn't judge exploration by distances, but by achievements - at least I'd hope so.
My goodness. I never realised there were so many people passionate about shuttle let alone LEO!
Jorge I acknowledge that statistically the fatality rate of Shuttle is comparable to that of Soyuz. You say "The Soyuz accident rate has essentially been "masked" by its low flight rate".That argument seems to presuppose or infer that Soyuz is more unsafe than the statistics make out.
Soyuz has a better safety record in terms of fatalities that just about any aircraft manufactured.