Printable View
We were bummed all day yesterday and decided to go visit friends...
All of the road construction signs that usually say "Left lane closed ahead", etc.. had been programmed to read: "Call Police to Report Shuttle Debris"
So much for turning off the TV. :(
this is from a request for an investigation into shuttle safety to the white house from a website run by an ex-shuttle engineer.
http://www.nasaproblems.com/#MoritoriumQuote:
I am a recently retired NASA aerospace engineer and it is my duty to inform you that our space shuttle astronauts are in eminent danger. Your intervention is required to prevent another catastrophic space shuttle accident. NASA management and the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel have failed to respond to the growing warning signs of another shuttle accident.
it was sent last summer and rejected less than two months ago. The issues of poor management that he is bringing up here might have nothing to do with the recent shuttle accident but there were certainly more than a few people, including NASA insiders, who were afraid for the safety of the project.
I wonder how credible his concerns are though...they seem to be very efficient from the outside.
And 3 major accidents in over 30 years is a pretty good track record. :)
I mean it's boggling that their first few trips didn't result in catastrophe...they seem to be very good at what they do.
It just seems like there are so many former NASA guys that have nothing but praise for NASA that it makes me wonder if maybe this guy's concern is misplaced.
Clif
did you read it? He's one of those with great praise for NASA and its acheivements, his concern is that there are ingrained management philosophies that he believes are undercutting the efforts of the engineers. He's not saying NASA is bad, that the shuttle pogram is a bad idea, he's saying that he recognises a problem with the system, why should that not be addressed?
This guy worked for NASA for 35 years and retired, he wasn't fired, he loves the organisation and the program! I think he is in a better position to judge than the rest of us whether there is one aspect of the organisation that he believes needs attention. He's not jumping up and down here, trying to draw attention to himself, he's going through all the right channels, and not tabloid channels.
As I said, these particular problems may have nothing to do with the cause of the accident, but I hope at the very least that educated and informed voices like his are heard in the following inquiry.
k..forget what I said then. :D
I just wonder why he thinks investigation is the way.
Seems like there are better ways.
the stated aim of his site is to provide a forum for current and retired NASA employees to bring up potential problems with the organisation.
his request that I linked to is for the president to impose a moratorium on full shuttle missions (not grounding the shuttle) until crew escape modules can be installed (they are already developed), which the current management had vetoed. He's not saying the shuttle is unsafe, but, as you said, that there is no way to create 100% safety, so why not include safety measures.
he ends the request with the following ominous passage:
whether he's right or wrong I don't know, but he's certainly fully qualified to make these statements and obviously isn't some nut.Quote:
When the next shuttle explodes...and Murphy’s Law says it will, we can exclaim with pride a loud "YES!" as the crew escape module carries our astronauts to safety... or if this moratorium is ignored...we can watch in horror and shame as the astronauts face certain death.
- august, 202
:(
edit - this is his reasoning in his FAQ.
Quote:
Q. Why do you disagree with NASA’s conclusion that crew escape modules cannot be incorporated on the Shuttle?
A. At the AIAA Space 2000 conference, I asked then NASA Administrator Dan Goldin; “If Space Shuttle safety is NASA’s number one priority, why isn’t a crew escape module(s) NASA’s number one Shuttle upgrade?” His reply was that it would cause an “unacceptable weight penalty of 7500 pounds.” Another part of the problem is that the weight increase for putting a crew escape module or individual modules in the Orbiter flight deck moves the vehicle center of gravity (c.g.) to an unstable aerodynamic position. Putting ballast in the aft to move the c.g. back only increases the weight problem. Therefore, the only solution is that weight must be removed from the flight deck area to install the crew modules. The only significant weight in this area that is not absolutely required for flight operations is the piloting function. If the piloting function is removed approximately 4000 pounds of weight margin is then available for the escape modules
Cool..so it is already possible?
Exactly what is the "crew escape module"?
Anyone have pictures? :D
Oh..wait...
Just read the edit.
Well it would appear that it is a large fish to fry.
Since the current system does work well when the craft doesn't malfunction or break.
I'm not sure we should stop shuttle flights..but we should work on additional escape options.
That is for sure.
Clif
it's been developed but not built
it's possible but as it states in the edit above it would require removing control of the shuttle from the crew, which is something the managment (made up of ex-pilots and astronauts) don't want to consider, even though automation of the shuttle's operation is a simple matter. It would mean that a smaller crew would be needed as well, something the management think would be 'negative'.
maybe, after the accident, we will see pilotless shuttle missions where the only crew are the engineers and scientists, who, during take off and landing, are safely housed in a secure module within the shuttle.
they almost certainly will, though you should note that this guy and his like aren't calling for it, even now, I just saw him on television and he said the shuttles should keep flying after a preliminary investigation, but that crew modules should be installed and the operation of the shuttle automated.Quote:
Originally posted by clifgriffin
I'm not sure we should stop shuttle flights..but we should work on additional escape options.
what I'm hoping for is that this tragedy will help speed the development of the next-gen shuttle/spaceplane. Something more efficient, safer, and modern.
The space shuttle is a white elephant with a red herring in it's ear. It's outdated, expensive, not all that reusable, and dangerous to people and the environment. And they'll probably stick with them till the last one burns up.
The real problem is not with the shuttle of course, as a mechanism. The problem is the basic thinking of people in charge. Since Kennedy wanted to send a man to the moon and bring him back safely, to this very moment, the underlying philosophy is bogus.
If your going to go to the moon, go to stay. If your going to go to orbit, go to stay. All this commuting nonsense is a waste of time and money.
More money to the space program. Clif, you can rest easy now. ;)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Feb2.html
you need to register to see that, why not give us the highlights :)Quote:
Originally posted by gdstudios
More money to the space program. Clif, you can rest easy now. ;)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Feb2.html
I don't know where more money will come from, bush is already heading for the largest budget deficit in history, over $300bn.
[b]More money to the space program. Clif, you can rest easy now. :)/b]
w00t! :D
The space shuttle is a white elephant with a red herring in it's ear...etc, etc, etc...
It is so much more that that. It is science being applied...and yes...man reaching the moon was a phenomonal acheivment..as will reaching mars.
NASA represents human technology at its finest. Think about it. Sending men to the moon is an incredible achievment. I would say there are few technological acheivments that can hold a candle to it.
Sure...we don't NEED to go the moon. We don't NEED to orbit the earth. We certainly don't NEED to go to mars.
But isn't it awesome that such goals are attainable..and such feats are possible?
*que flag backdrop and patriotic music* :p
I don't see the reason to be so cynical. These men know the risks. They know they are doing something that is perhaps the most dangerous task any man could endeavor, but they do it because that is what they want to do.
As you can see...I like NASA. Before yesterday I kind of took for granted the space program, the shuttle flights. I forgot how far away the moon is, and how large this universe is.
I forgot about the men who go up each year showing that we are not bound by this earth.
I was desensitized to what a feat space travel is..and how well NASA has accomplished it...with so much at stake.
I took it all for granted.
Now that I've put things in perspective...I think we should be honored to be on the same planet with these people. ;)
Their jobs aren't useless..quite the contrary.
what I'm hoping for is that this tragedy will help speed the development of the next-gen shuttle/spaceplane. Something more efficient, safer, and modern.
Amen.
I'm glad they are getting increased money. The basic design of these shuttles is 20 years old...and it seems to me we could do so much better now.
I also don't wonder if penny pinchers have hurt the space program.
I've heard speculation that many of the problems we had with the Hubble were related to insufficient funds.
Aversion,
I don't wonder if there is a good "other" side to this story.
Removing manual options for the pilot would seem to pose a lot of risks in and of itself.
In the case of computer failure...or ground to shuttle communication problems (more likely) it could cause more trouble than its worth. (I'm only guessing.)
Clif
I don't know either.Quote:
Originally posted by clifgriffin
Aversion,
I don't wonder if there is a good "other" side to this story.
Removing manual options for the pilot would seem to pose a lot of risks in and of itself.
In the case of computer failure...or ground to shuttle communication problems (more likely) it could cause more trouble than its worth. (I'm only guessing.)
Clif
According to the things I've been reading today the space shuttle can completely fly itself without 'interference' from a pilot or the ground, so communications wouldn't be a problem. Fact is, the only thing the pilots do right now is the final landing part, which is easily done by computer as well (instrument flight). According to the NASA engineers I was talking about above if a pilot tried to fly a re-entry manually they would make it 1 in a 100 times, the computer does it perfectly everytime, unless something falls off in which case there's nothing to make it work and a crew safety module is the only hope.
But I don't know whether the management at NASA are refusing to install crew safety modules (since accidents are inevitable) because of cost and romantic notion that there should be a pilot, or whether there's something more behind it.
There have been many many features cut out of the program because of cost. One example is heat tile patches. The first shuttle missions used to carry patches so that they could fix the heat tiles that might have fallen off during take off. They cut those out even though they were used serveral times.
Not a real registration, but it simply says that Bush will authorize a $470 million boost in money to NASA for the 2004 fiscal year. Clif, I agree completely with your views on the space program. In many ways, NASA serves as a conduit to childhood for all of us aging folks. I dream of advancing our space travel abilities and I would be devastated to see a continued lack of attention to it. We must explore as much as we can. I can't explain why, but it's imperative.Quote:
Originally posted by aversion
you need to register to see that, why not give us the highlights :)
I don't know where more money will come from, bush is already heading for the largest budget deficit in history, over $300bn.
two words.Quote:
Originally posted by gdstudios
We must explore as much as we can. I can't explain why...
human nature.
it is what is inside us all. I envy astronauts for their position to give themselves so fully toward this goal.
This is pretty silly on the part of CNN.
http://shogun.shafted.com.au/temp/cnnsucks.jpg
lol -- finally, something to laugh at!
reminds me of the stupidest ad I've ever seen. It was for the McDonald's McBlizzard or whatever their Frosty was called. The tagline was:
"It's even colder in Celsius"
:rolleyes: