Political Crossfire Forums

[learn to swim]

oneofthem wrote: Dookiestix wrote: oneofthem wrote: ok. i recognize the shuttle is built on very old technology, and this calls for an update. a new design? i don't see the need.

The Russian design has been proven time and again to be safer than the American program. What need could you possibly not see? where si the over and over stuff?

Every successful launch? :think:

[anselfir]

learn to swim wrote: oneofthem wrote: learn to swim wrote: oneofthem wrote: learn to swim wrote: oneofthem wrote: the shuttle is safe enough to pass any non-US standards. the hysteria is primarily generated by the challenger, and it is not necessary.

Sorry, you are wrong. The shuttle is not a safe means of transportation. IT COULD BE but it would cost even MORE money to make it so and it is already too expensive.

The shuttle is a pig. It is not safe in it's current condition and it already costs HALF A BILLION just to put it into space - how are you going to spend more money on improving it? well, at least it is safer than the russian one. and this shows much of what the scraping deciosn comprises of is political pressure.

When was the last time the Russians killed someone with a launch? The Soyuz is VERY reliable. the level of samples required to evaluate the probability is very large. i don't see the relatvely shortlived russian program achieving it.
the US sample is not enough, accumulate 10 failures or more and we can talk.

The shuttle is a failure everytime it launches - the question is will the failures be fatal? Don't believe me? Challenger had over 800 "Critically 1" problems. Those are problems that have the potential to be a catastrophic failure. Every launch has them. Why can't they fix them? Not enough money or time. So they ignore them and move ahead.

10 more disasters? You really want to end space exploration don't you? Because the public will never allow that amount of loss. And we shouldn't accept that amount of loss. \/ We can do better. theoreticaly speaking... we will never know with precision and accuracy the rate of failure.
the threat level qualifying for a critical 1 problem is obviously low, given te actual rates.
if there si a need to change stuff, current budgetary concerns only permit quick fixes, due to lack of competition and whatnot.

[learn to swim]

oneofthem wrote: how many launches did they make? Don't know the number (a lot) but who do you think has been doing all the launching since the Challenger was destroyed upon re-entry?

[anselfir]

learn to swim wrote: oneofthem wrote: Dookiestix wrote: oneofthem wrote: ok. i recognize the shuttle is built on very old technology, and this calls for an update. a new design? i don't see the need.

The Russian design has been proven time and again to be safer than the American program. What need could you possibly not see? where si the over and over stuff?

Every successful launch? :think: how many

[anselfir]

i think the expectations are too high.

[learn to swim]

oneofthem wrote: theoreticaly speaking... we will never know with precision and accuracy the rate of failure.
the threat level qualifying for a critical 1 problem is obviously low, given te actual rates.
if there si a need to change stuff, current budgetary concerns only permit quick fixes, due to lack of competition and whatnot.

Theoretically? You are just making this up - it is not theoretical.

Both disasters were caused by Critical 1 issues. Both times they were ignored and the worst happened.


This stuff is everywhere. read up and educate yourself. Otherwise you are just speaking on emotion - not fact.


We need a better, more reliable, safer and cheaper way to get into space. Right now the Rusians are better than we are.


We have the really cool luxury car that isn't reliable and costs alot - they have the regular looking car that never fails and doesn't cost much.

[d00d]

learn to swim wrote: ISS Oxygen Generator Fails for Good, Station Managers Say
By Todd Halvorson
FLORIDA TODAY
posted: 14 May 2005
10:05 a.m. ET

CAPE CANAVERAL - A balky Russian oxygen generator broke down on the International Space Station, but its two-man crew has a reserve air supply that would last about five months, NASA officials said Friday.

The station's primary generator, which has been operating in an on-again, off-again fashion for months, stopped working last week and the station's crew has not been able to fix it.

Mission managers say the unit has failed for good. Consequently, Russian cosmonaut Sergei Krikalev and U.S. astronaut John Phillips will be relying on reserves until replacement parts arrive at the station in late August.

Kylie Clem, a spokeswoman for NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, said the reserves would last well beyond the scheduled mid-June arrival at the station of a Russian space freighter with additional supplies.

As it stands, oxygen supplies in a Progress cargo carrier now at the outpost will last until May 22 or May 23.

The crew also is equipped with oxygen generators that work like drop-down emergency air supplies on commercial airliners. Supplies from those would last until early July. Beyond that, there is a 100-day oxygen supply in tanks attached to the station U.S. Quest airlock.

Total air supply now onboard: About 140 days.

Krikalev and Phillips comprise the fifth two-person crew to live and work on the station since the February 2003 Columbia accident grounded NASA's shuttle fleet, cutting off a key supply line to the outpost.

NASA and its 15 international partners since then have been relying solely on Russian spacecraft to haul crews and cargo to and from the station.

The shuttle fleet now is expected to be back in service in mid-July.

Krikalev and Phillips are in the midst of a six-month tour of duty on the half-built station, which is a joint project of the U.S., Russia, Europe, Japan, Canada and Brazil.

The two launched from Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan on April 14, arrived at the station two days later and are due back on Earth on Oct. 7.

Story Link

I'd be running for the escape pod .....5 months supply or not.

[learn to swim]

:lol:

[anselfir]

learn to swim wrote: oneofthem wrote: theoreticaly speaking... we will never know with precision and accuracy the rate of failure.
the threat level qualifying for a critical 1 problem is obviously low, given te actual rates.
if there si a need to change stuff, current budgetary concerns only permit quick fixes, due to lack of competition and whatnot.
Theoretically? You are just making this up - it is not theoretical.
Both disasters were caused by Critical 1 issues. Both times they were ignored and the worst happened.
This stuff is everywhere. read up and educate yourself. Otherwise you are just speaking on emotion - not fact.
We need a better, more reliable, safer and cheaper way to get into space. Right now the Rusians are better than we are.
We have the really cool luxury car that isn't reliable and costs alot - they have the regular looking car that never fails and doesn't cost much. you fail to see my point. my point was that given all these (hundreds) of potential risks, the shuttle only crashed twice, so the risk rates associated with these potential dangers mustn't be very high.
i know we need a more secure machine, but is the answer to security downsizing and simplication? perhaps, i don't know.

[learn to swim]

oneofthem wrote: learn to swim wrote: oneofthem wrote: theoreticaly speaking... we will never know with precision and accuracy the rate of failure.
the threat level qualifying for a critical 1 problem is obviously low, given te actual rates.
if there si a need to change stuff, current budgetary concerns only permit quick fixes, due to lack of competition and whatnot.
Theoretically? You are just making this up - it is not theoretical.
Both disasters were caused by Critical 1 issues. Both times they were ignored and the worst happened.
This stuff is everywhere. read up and educate yourself. Otherwise you are just speaking on emotion - not fact.
We need a better, more reliable, safer and cheaper way to get into space. Right now the Rusians are better than we are.
We have the really cool luxury car that isn't reliable and costs alot - they have the regular looking car that never fails and doesn't cost much. you fail to see my point. my point was that given all these (hundreds) of potential risks, the shuttle only crashed twice, so the risk rates associated with these potential dangers mustn't be very high.
i know we need a more secure machine, but is the answer to security downsizing and simplication? perhaps, i don't know.

Statistical fact. The shuttle produces one death per every eight flights. That is taking how many have died and spreading it over the number of flights the shuttle program has had.


If you knew that statistically you would die every eight times you got into your car would you drive it?

[anselfir]

that's bad stats...
failure rates are the real thing that matters. the shuttle is no safer when you only have 2 people per launch, nor is the risk higher when you fill it with people

[learn to swim]

oneofthem wrote: that's bad stats...
failure rates are the real thing that matters. the shuttle is no safer when you only have 2 people per launch, nor is the risk higher when you fill it with people

It costs way less to launch two people into space. You don't need a big shuttle to do that. :wink:

[anselfir]

learn to swim wrote: oneofthem wrote: that's bad stats...
failure rates are the real thing that matters. the shuttle is no safer when you only have 2 people per launch, nor is the risk higher when you fill it with people

It costs way less to launch two people into space. You don't need a big shuttle to do that. :wink: well, eh, you have to make more launches though

[learn to swim]

oneofthem wrote: learn to swim wrote: oneofthem wrote: that's bad stats...
failure rates are the real thing that matters. the shuttle is no safer when you only have 2 people per launch, nor is the risk higher when you fill it with people

It costs way less to launch two people into space. You don't need a big shuttle to do that. :wink: well, eh, you have to make more launches though


But if they are safer and cheaper why does it matter?

[anselfir]

learn to swim wrote: oneofthem wrote: learn to swim wrote: oneofthem wrote: that's bad stats...
failure rates are the real thing that matters. the shuttle is no safer when you only have 2 people per launch, nor is the risk higher when you fill it with people

It costs way less to launch two people into space. You don't need a big shuttle to do that. :wink: well, eh, you have to make more launches though


But if they are safer and cheaper why does it matter? The smaller shuttle of course presents some constraints as to its function. It can’t for example carry large satellites or vehicles, or stay in space for as long a period of time. These are factors calling for a bigger shuttle. With current technology we can make the shuttle safer without going too far.

[Scribbler1]

learn to swim wrote: oneofthem wrote: that's bad stats...
failure rates are the real thing that matters. the shuttle is no safer when you only have 2 people per launch, nor is the risk higher when you fill it with people

It costs way less to launch two people into space. You don't need a big shuttle to do that. :wink: Try strapping ma Hubble-sized payload onto a Russian rocket, though.

[learn to swim]

Scribbler1 wrote: learn to swim wrote: oneofthem wrote: that's bad stats...
failure rates are the real thing that matters. the shuttle is no safer when you only have 2 people per launch, nor is the risk higher when you fill it with people

It costs way less to launch two people into space. You don't need a big shuttle to do that. :wink: Try strapping ma Hubble-sized payload onto a Russian rocket, though.

I am not saying we have to match what the Russians have - I am just saying what we have DOESN'T WORK. And we need to look at the technology that doese work to replace the shuttle.


Last Soyuz death? 1971.


Rocket technology is there. If we cannot do it with rockets then fine design something new. But as long as you keep launching the shuttle where are you going to get the extra $$$$ for R&D?

[anselfir]

of course it works
you are defining "work" on level of ris, minimize the risks and it works.

[learn to swim]

oneofthem wrote: of course it works
you are defining "work" on level of ris, minimize the risks and it works.

So you just want to keep dumping money into the space shuttle although it has been proven unsafe to a level that it has been taken out of comission TWICE and ALREADY costs 50 times more to launch than originally stated? By "fixing her up" she will just end up being MORE expensive and put us further behind.


Your kind of mentality is the reason why our space program is so screwed right now. Let go it. I love the shuttle as well but it is a money / resource sucking PIG. As long as we keep dumping money into it we will have safety delays, limited budget and the real possibility of losing yet another group of highly trained and dedicated astronauts.

Design and implement a new space vehicle that can take its place and stop launching the shuttle. That will give a huge influx of money to R&D to make this process faster and will be able to help pay the Russians to pick up the slack of extra missions in the mean time.


This is truly sad and I am done discussing this topic. I really thought that I was in the majority of thhinking on this so I thought that we might have a chance to turn NASA around but if this board reflects the true thinking of America then NASA will flounder away and continue to fail because it has such blind support. I guess all I can hope is that the private sector can step up and do it right.

[anselfir]

I have limited time so this is all i will say.
thecurrent flaws with the shuttle is not a fundamental design flaw, as evidenced by the successful launches and operations.
the flaws are minute check up problems that any craft will have, i don't think the flaws deserve a radical repositioning amounting to atrophy.
in any case i am not a "die hard" supporter of Nasa as a government agency, i purposely restricted the topic to the design of the shuttle for this reason