Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
Officers' Lounge
»
Space Shuttle Columbia Emergency
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shipbuilder: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by newark: [QB] I am opposed to the manned space program. Why? "First, money. NASA is given $15 billion every year since 1992. This budget doesn't take into account differences in the value of the dollar. So, NASA is receiving less this year than in 1992." Agreed. "Second, safety. The Columbia astronauts were dead the minute they left their orbit and headed home. NASA had no backup plan." A backup plan for what? You're assuming you already know the cause of the accident. Even if it turns out the TPS was the issue, NASA doesn't and probably never will be technologically able to ensure that TPS repair can be done on orbit. "The shuttle couldn't dock at the station," The shuttles were never designed nor equipped to do such cross range and orbital change maneuvers that would be required to do so. "the astronauts couldn't evacuate the shuttle for lack of space suits," Where were they going to evacuate too even if they had suits? "and they couldn't wait for aid for the next mission isn't planned until March." Agreed "Furthermore, NASA control managers were complacent. One sensor fails they figure no worries. Several go out they figure we worry. In 1962, when John Glenn did orbital flight above the Earth, a single sensor failed. NASA moved quickly to abort the flight and determine the best way to get Glenn home." It's amazing how easy it is to call people complacent from the comfort of a nice armchair. Sensor failure is a common occurence, its a pattern of failures that cause concern. The shuttle has thousands more onboard sensors than the Mercury capsule so that's not a valid comparison. Sensors on the capsules were limited in number and capability so when you had one fail, you pretty much knew something was wrong immediately. "Third, training and experience. Simply put, both are in short supply. They don't have the people to build a new shuttle. I figure if you don't have the means to build a new shuttle, you don't have the means to repair an older shuttle." True, the technology and "people" base used to build and develop the shuttles has been whittled away. Could a new shuttle be built, certainly so with enough funding, but at some cost amount, it becomes easier/cheaper/smarter to design build a new vehicle than to utilize a design from the 70's "Fourth, a pattern of escalating failures. There have been warnings of impending failure to the program over the past years. These have included wiring issues, a broken fuel line at the launch pad, delayed launches related to mechanical issues, and the like." I doubt any of these "patterns of escalating failures" were contributory to the tragedy and most of the issues you brought up were infrastructure issues, not relative to the orbiter itself. "Additionally, the facilities are not being maintained." Agreed, very little money is available for facilities upgrades. "I have also been reading of mechanical failues on aboard the ISS. This is a new facility and she is already showing signs of serious failures. In the last, the ISS's atmospherics failed and the station was heating up fast. The problem was fixed, but my question is, what will be the next issue and will the crew be able to fix it or will it cost them their lives?" And how many space stations have we successfully designed built and flown before? You have to crawl before you can walk. "Fifth, no plans for a second generation shuttle or no money for the X-38. The space plane, designed by the USAF and with NASA assistance, is awaiting budget approval." Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Budgetary restrictions forced a slow down in 2nd generation activities with more emphasis placed on what is called the Orbital Space Plane. The OSP was not designed by the USAF with NASA assistance. In fact AF is behind NASA in forming up requirements for the vehicle and no specific design has been set. X-38 is sadly another dead project (atleast in long term storage) I'll just kinda stop right there. I agree with you that NASA has been underbudgeted to perform the requirements heaped up on it. But I find it very unnerving to see folks laying blame on others without knowing the whole story. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3