Amid all the talk about whether or not it's safe or not safe to extend the service life of NASA's space shuttle fleet last week, the head of United Space Alliance has chipped in his two cents.In an op-ed piece written for FLORIDA TODAY this week, former astronaut and USA chief Dick Covey says that the idea that flying the shuttle longer is "rolling the dice" and "too risky" is wrongheaded. Here's his take on whether it's safe to fly the shuttle past the existing 2010 deadline. Read it and let us know what you think.
See what Covey wrote
You can chip in your two cents by clicking comment below and speaking your mind.
ABOUT THE IMAGE: Click to enlarge the Associated Press photo of shuttle Atlantis blasting off from Kennedy Space Center last February on a mission to deliver the European Columbus laboratory to the International Space Station.
20 comments:
How would the general public even have a clue? We're not Engineers? You'd have to ask the people who actually inspect, design and work on the shuttles. They are the only ones that can answer that question with any integrity.
It's definitely risky, but astronauts have a risky job. I would say that the early Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo astronauts faced a greater risk during their flights. It really depends on how much risk NASA wants to take. Is it "rolling the dice"? Absolutely.
Commercial airlines still crash from time to time but we still fly them. It will be a very long time if at all before NASA can develop a vehicle with 0 risk. Now if the question is about their saftey in respect to age, I agree with the first post.
Uh...What's in the design spec?
Driving your car in Brevard County and getting creamed by another driver is a bigger risk I think. But of course space flight is a risk! No matter what kind of space vehicle you go up in is always a risk. Life IS a risk but if you just kick back and just sit on the porch, what is the use in even being here? We need to boldly go where no man or woman has gone before.
The biggest danger I've seen lately has been due to falling foam chunks. Is it true that the foam didn't flake until the enviro-mentalists made them change it?
Change it back!
On falling foam:
Foam has been falling off the shuttle external tank since the very first flight back in 1981. NASA considered the problem a turn-around/maintenance issue rather than a flight safety issue up until the Columbia accident. NASA did make a change to the foam in the mid- to late-1990s as a result of environmental regulations, and that contributed to foam loss. But the problem has been a recurring one since the beginning of the program.
Yep - a definite lack of engineering muscles in these posts.
Hell no, we should always fly the shuttle!
If they don't want to do it strap me in i'll go
Life is about risks, true, but that does not mean one should risk life. There is a difference. Here's something to keep in mind - as a result of the Columbia tragedy, as well as a growing flight history and lessons learned after 123 missions, hardware in/on the orbiter and its components are being inspected to levels that were not done in the past. It's a learning curve. Both Challenger and Columbia tragedies were ultimately a result of bad decisions, not hardware failure. Why that? The decision makers knew about the hardware failures (tank foam loss and potential to strike the vehicle) and/or what could have caused them (freezing temps and its effects on the booster O-rings) before they decided to put human lives at risk. Plus, also as a result of the Challenger and Columbia tragedies, NASA, the governing organization that gives the final "yes" or "no" in the Shuttle program, has grown increasingly more and more conservative in its decisions. Things that were not even inspected in the past lead to problems never seen before, with in turn lead to decisions of great conservatism with respect to preservation of human lives. No other space program out there has to deal with this, for no other space program has the combination of humans being launched on reusable vehicles/components. Yes, you can take out one of those issues by getting rid of the Shuttle and going to an expendable vehicle. But then you add the unknowns of a new vehicle with little history to base decisions upon. I work out at KSC on the Shuttle program, and I am fully confident the orbiter vehicles can handle another 5 to 10 years or so of use. And I do not say this for job preservation means. I just worry about the decision makers.
If you have no other vehicle to reach the Space Station and a couple Shuttles are still prefecty operational just sitting there waiting to go to the Smithsonian,and you could use one still on the ground as a back-up shuttle if falling off foam ruins the tiles on the first one which would allow a rescue try , why not fly with minimum crew and take cargo up there with it and if a national emergency arises it could still be used to take a satellite up and push it out .
What is the risk of having NO manned vehicle and depending on the Russians for five years or more ,kind of high .
Ever wonder what the future planners were thinking on this 5 year gap ? Way to go NASA.
Life is about risks, true, but that does not mean one should risk life. There is a difference. Here's something to keep in mind - as a result of the Columbia tragedy, as well as a growing flight history and lessons learned after 123 missions, hardware in/on the orbiter and its components are being inspected to levels that were not done in the past. It's a learning curve. Both Challenger and Columbia tragedies were ultimately a result of bad decisions, not hardware failure. Why that? The decision makers knew about the hardware failures (tank foam loss and potential to strike the vehicle) and/or what could have caused them (freezing temps and its effects on the booster O-rings) before they decided to put human lives at risk. Plus, also as a result of the Challenger and Columbia tragedies, NASA, the governing organization that gives the final "yes" or "no" in the Shuttle program, has grown increasingly more and more conservative in its decisions. Things that were not even inspected in the past lead to problems never seen before, with in turn lead to decisions of great conservatism with respect to preservation of human lives. No other space program out there has to deal with this, for no other space program has the combination of humans being launched on reusable vehicles/components. Yes, you can take out one of those issues by getting rid of the Shuttle and going to an expendable vehicle. But then you add the unknowns of a new vehicle with little history to base decisions upon. I work out at KSC on the Shuttle program, and I am fully confident the orbiter vehicles can handle another 5 to 10 years or so of use. And I do not say this for job preservation means. I just worry about the decision makers.
Currently work on Shutlle and Constellation programs. The fact of the matter is shuttle was meant to carry cargo to construct the space station and this task is nearing its end. The shuttle program is very expensive and needs to be 'simplified' which leads us to clv or constellation program. Granted this new vehicle has many issues but americans don't want to pay for the shuttle program any longer. Nasa now has a goal, to the moon and mars. No reason to keep shuttle up just to get back/forth to station forever. We also can't afford to fund two programs at the same time which is why we have some down time to ramp up all the ground/flight hardware. Shuttle can't go on forever but I have to admit a new vehicle with all new systems and unkown problems scares me a little. I think we'll get redirected by Obama to something in the middle like Shuttle 2.0 We'll have to wait and see what happens.
Don't forget that sometimes NASA, even after Challenger tends to not worry and plan enough .Case in point ,Hoot Gibson flew Columbia way back when and came in with major heat damage,warps ,some near the leading edge requiring extensive repair ,so it manifested itself then .The Supersonic Euro Concorde blew a tire like the one that finished it off, at Dulles years ago but missed the fuel tank, they shrugged it off ,look what happened with another blown tire out of Europe ,finished off the program effectivly .I don't think NASA quite got it back on the re-entry danger ,Yes its better now but it took Columbia to admit reentry was just as big a problem .
Next time put the darn vehicle on top please!
The gap is not NASA's fault. This is more to do with the lack of funding NASA has gotten over the years. If you look over past statements by NASA officials, you'll see that they were warning about this years ago. But because it was so far away, everyone chose to ignore it.
Besides, the US relied on the Russians for year when the shuttle was grounded after the Columbia tragedy.
Endeavour is newer, and has been upgraded. It should keep flying past 2010 for a couple of years to keep things working during the transistion to what what is next (not sure Ares will survive the new administration). Pick either Atlantis or Discovery to keep flying and the other as parts.
Yes and the space program can not afford another diaster with the shuttle program. It would set the entire space industry back for years.
The shuttle is an inherently dangerous vehicle that demonstrates the post-Apollo hubris of an over-confident agency. Mounting the crew transport vehicle in a position where its heat shield is vulnerable to ascent debris was not a good idea. The decision to fly without a viable crew escape system was a worse idea. But the astronauts know the score, and we should keep flying the shuttle while we significantly speed up the development of successor vehicles.
The shuttle is one of the safest vehicles out there. What clunkhead in NASA planned to rely only on the Russians to transport our astronauts and cargo. With so much unrest in Russia, I feel this is the worst decision, especially for safety reasons. Russian craft has had many accidents that are covered up. Their safety record is marginal at best.
Are you really asking the average Joe out here? How the heck would we know. Ask the experts. Oh Im sure you will have tons of everyday people out here giving you their opinions, they have no idea if it is risky or not.
Post a Comment