Meanwhile On The International Space Station...

[Lancecastor]

Are NASA astronauts

Ken Bowersox

Donald R. Pettit

and Cosmonaut Nikolai M. Budarin

 

[Lancecastor]

Loss of Shuttle a Serious Blow to International Space Station



PARIS, Feb. 3 — The loss of the Columbia and its seven-man crew was not only a terrible tragedy for the United States but is also a potentially serious blow to the International Space Station, a collaborative effort by the United States, Russia, and Europe, that some experts said may have to be abandoned, at least for the time being.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/02/s...00&en=edd4f3f9750a4913&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

 

[Guest]

I'd be shit scared to come back down, if I were one of them.

 

[Lancecastor]

Questions:

How do you feel about the NASA astronauts having to return to earth via Russia in a Soyuz capsule?

Would they be safer in a Soyuz than in a shuttle?

Will the shuttle ever fly again?

Will the ISS be abandoned?

Will the safety concerns surrounding the shuttle program be poo-poohed and the shuttle fly again anyway?

Is 2 explosions in a fleet of 5 enough to kill the program, or is 40% failure acceptable when orbiting the earth?

 

[Tersio]

I'd be shit scared to come back down, if I were one of them.

Very true but you would still want to get back now wouldnt you. Besides its a risky occupation they knew what they could expect when they choose this job over some deskjob.

 

[Guest]

Questions:

How do you feel about the NASA astronauts having to return to earth via Russia in a Soyuz capsule?
The Russian tech is not as bad as pular oppinions seem to reflect. The problem for the Russians were the budget and brewcracy.

Would they be safer in a Soyuz than in a shuttle?
I wouldn't say safer. But an option.

Will the shuttle ever fly again?
Of course it will.

Will the ISS be abandoned?
Are we talking about Mia?

Will the safety concerns surrounding the shuttle program be poo-poohed and the shuttle fly again anyway?
They'll make sure to riple check the fuck up.

Is 2 explosions in a fleet of 5 enough to kill the program, or is 40% failure acceptable when orbiting the earth?
I'm pro-choise. The cosmonauts will make choices.

Yes, Tersio. The solar radiation exporsure and all.

 

[Calamity Jane]

Questions:

How do you feel about the NASA astronauts having to return to earth via Russia in a Soyuz capsule?

*shrug* Does it really matter?

Would they be safer in a Soyuz than in a shuttle?

Where do you suppose one would find applicable safety ratings, statistics, etc.?

Will the shuttle ever fly again?

Of course.

Will the ISS be abandoned?

I can't imagine why it would be.

Will the safety concerns surrounding the shuttle program be poo-poohed and the shuttle fly again anyway?

I'm sure it'll fly again, but not because the safety concerns were poo-poohed.

Is 2 explosions in a fleet of 5 enough to kill the program, or is 40% failure acceptable when orbiting the earth?

LOL nice application of useless statistics. There have been 113 shuttle launches. 2 catastrophes. I think that's an acceptable risk, and obviously, the astronauts are still willing to go up.

 

[Lancecastor]

Diplomatic Playstation

Imagine you are George W Bush today.

You have 6 NASA astronauts and 1 Israeli Astronaut dead.

A shuttle program with a 40% total failure rate.

2 NASA astronauts on the International Space Station.

Their only safe way back is in a Russian Soyuz craft docked there.

You want to invade Iraq.

The UN doesn't want you to without proof.

Israel, Middle East protectorate and home of the 7th dead astronaut, says they have an Iraqi defector with the Smoking Gun on Iraq.

Russia, with two of your astronauts and a huge supply of oil it needs to develop and sell for much-needed cash, has a Veto on the UN Security Council.

At home, your country is devastated by the Columbia, uncertain about war, has a lagging economy and fears of Terrorism as well as Korea to think about.

What do you do?

1. Authorize the March shuttle flight anyway to bring your boys home in your vehicle, knowing it's risky? This keeps your options open to defy the UN Security Council on domestic grounds.

2. Cozy up to Russia and offer to help develop their oil reserves? At what price? Domestic pride damage via Soyuz and backing off on Iraq along with ignoring Israel's concerns for defence against WMD?

I think GWB has his work cut out for him on many fronts as a result of the Columbia incident.

Lance

 

[Problem Child]

Will the safety concerns surrounding the shuttle program be poo-poohed and the shuttle fly again anyway?

Is 2 explosions in a fleet of 5 enough to kill the program, or is 40% failure acceptable when orbiting the earth?

Nice job trying to lasso the dopes on the board Lance.

Idiot people e-mailing friends: "This really smart guy at this site I go to says that the space shuttle has a 40% failure rate. How can the government let that happen?!?!?!"

 

[Lancecastor]

Nice job trying to lasso the dopes on the board Lance.

Idiot people e-mailing friends: "This really smart guy at this site I go to says that the space shuttle has a 40% failure rate. How can the government let that happen?!?!?!"

When the Concorde was grounded, it was done so on the basis of 2 incidents involving the same problem, not on the basis of two problems in xxx flights.

Same way with 747 and 727 metal fatigue, for example.

The unusual thing will be if the shuttle program isn't grounded for a significant period of time.

Given the age of the fleet and a delivery system design over a quarter century old, scrapping the fleet is not an unreasonable possibility.

Lance

 

[CoolidgEffect]

Questions:

How do you feel about the NASA astronauts having to return to earth via Russia in a Soyuz capsule?
I say why not.

Would they be safer in a Soyuz than in a shuttle?
Both the Russian and American space programs have had their accidents, and both have landed dozens of missions safely.

Will the shuttle ever fly again?
Yes

Will the ISS be abandoned?
No it is too politically impoortant.

Will the safety concerns surrounding the shuttle program be poo-poohed and the shuttle fly again anyway?
No. There will be an extensive inquiry and steps will be taken to solve the problem. The shuttle will fly again.

Is 2 explosions in a fleet of 5 enough to kill the program, or is 40% failure acceptable when orbiting the earth?

 

[Problem Child]

When the Concorde was grounded, it was done so on the basis of 2 incidents involving the same problem, not on the basis of two problems in xxx flights.

Same way with 747 and 727 metal fatigue, for example.

The unusual thing will be if the shuttle program isn't grounded for a significant period of time.

Given the age of the fleet and a delivery system design over a quarter century old, scrapping the fleet is not an unreasonable possibility.

Lance

Still an irresponsible use of statistics. Try again.

They have known that there is a probability of catastrophic accidents in the program. Somewhere between 1:75 and 1:500 flights will fail, are the two figures I've heard. These astronauts accept that there is risk. It's part of the danger of space exploration.

 

[Lancecastor]

2 of the 5 shuttles have blown up, PC.

Quibble with that.

Of the thre men on the ISS, only Bowersox appears to be even close to "right stuff" material in the event they have to try anything heroic in staying there too long or leaving via an unscheduled drop to earth in the unfamiliar Soyuz craft.

The Cosmonaut has a heart problem which scrubs him from space walks.

Pettit is a space rookie last minute addition to the mission when the scheduled astronaut was removed due to cumulative radiation exposure on 4 previous missions.

 

[Calamity Jane]

Originally posted by Lancecastor
When the Concorde was grounded, it was done so on the basis of 2 incidents involving the same problem, not on the basis of two problems in xxx flights.

Same way with 747 and 727 metal fatigue, for example.

The unusual thing will be if the shuttle program isn't grounded for a significant period of time.

You're comparing airline flights full of civilians to space shuttle missions?

Given the age of the fleet and a delivery system design over a quarter century old, scrapping the fleet is not an unreasonable possibility.

You're right. We should automatically throw out all tecnology once it reaches the 'quarter century' mark.

How, exactly, would you improve the American space program?

Lance

 

[Lost Cause]

Okay..

Questions:

1. How do you feel about the NASA astronauts having to return to earth via Russia in a Soyuz capsule?

A: Eeeewwww! Go up in a Cadillac, come back in a Yugo.

2. Would they be safer in a Soyuz than in a shuttle?

A: No, the next shuttle will be the safest after they go over it with a microscope. Around April or May.

3. Will the shuttle ever fly again?

A: April or May.


4. Will the ISS be abandoned?

A: Nope, they can stay up indefinitely with the resupply modules.

5. Will the safety concerns surrounding the shuttle program be poo-poohed and the shuttle fly again anyway?

A: No, they'll analyze the daylights out of the processes, and make corrections. Sometimes added safety features increases the risk of vehicle/crew loss.

6. Is 2 explosions in a fleet of 5 enough to kill the program, or is 40% failure acceptable when orbiting the earth?

A: Ask the Russians, their budget kept them from the moon when their best ship blew up on the pad trying to get there.

*I would like to see this help develop a new spaceplane for the 21st Century based on the flyout concept with scramjet engines. We already have the concept with the Pegasus missle system, launched from a L-1011 flying at 600mph at max cruise altitude, then using a SRB to achieve orbit. We could use a disposable booster to get to speed and altitude, then kick in a SRB to achieve orbit at a low angle, instead of punching a hole in the atmosphere. Reentry would use the scramjet for a manuverable, powered return flight at a much lower drag speed than today's requirement.

 

[Lancecastor]

You're comparing airline flights full of civilians to space shuttle missions?

No.

I'm talking about aeronautical engineering safety decisions.

When there is a catastophic failure, fleets are grounded until a resolution and fix are in place.

Standard procedure.

When you have 2 catastrophic failures on the same design...what then?

Do you ground, diagnose and fix....or throw the design away?

All American spacecraft designs have encountered fuel delivery system failures and fires.

At what point do you move on to a new design?

 

[Problem Child]

2 of the 5 shuttles have blown up, PC.

Quibble with that.

Why would I quibble with that? That's an acceptable statement.

The way you were stating it before is like saying if I walk to the store 99 times and get hit by a car on the 100th time, my failure rate for walking to the store is 100%.

Silly.

 

[Bidin~Time]

just one point since I scanned this quickly

2 failures in 113 missions, by my est. is a failure rate of 0.01769%

Although losing 2 of the five shuttles does drop the fleet by 40%, you should have taken the total missions into account.

And ....
How many years has this program been in existence???

 

[Calamity Jane]

No.

I'm talking about aeronautical engineering safety decisions.

When there is a catastophic failure, fleets are grounded until a resolution and fix are in place.

Standard procedure.

Yes, but you don't seem to be asking about 'grounding until a resolution or fix are in place'. You seem to be saying that unless the Shuttle is grounded indefinitely, that American's are poo-poohing the catastrophe and plowing ahead. That's not the case.

When you have 2 catastrophic failures on the same design...what then?

Then, you figure out what the 'catastrophic failures' were, and you try and make suer they don't happen again. Obviously, it wasn't the same issue with both shuttles. Obviously, since Challenger exploded, there have been quite a few launches without the shuttle exploding. Obviously, this is the first time a shuttle has exploded upon re-entry.

Do you ground, diagnose and fix....or throw the design away?

All American spacecraft designs have encountered fuel delivery system failures and fires.

And?

At what point do you move on to a new design?

When you have a design that is proven better than the one you're currently using.

 

[p_p_man]

Questions:

How do you feel about the NASA astronauts having to return to earth via Russia in a Soyuz capsule?

Would they be safer in a Soyuz than in a shuttle?

Soyez is a much safer and reliable vehicle.

The Russians chose the path of regular design improvement as a matter of policy, not wait until it was absolutely necessary.

The European Union's Mars Mission will be using a Soyez rocket.

ppman

 

[Bidin~Time]

No.

I'm talking about aeronautical engineering safety decisions.

When there is a catastophic failure, fleets are grounded until a resolution and fix are in place.

Standard procedure.

When you have 2 catastrophic failures on the same design...what then?

Do you ground, diagnose and fix....or throw the design away?

All American spacecraft designs have encountered fuel delivery system failures and fires.

At what point do you move on to a new design?

After the Challenger disaster, the entire fleet was grounded for over 18 months to diagnose and fix any design problems.

The same thing will happen this time, although, probably not for 18 months. They have already said the information being transmitted from the shuttle was "flagged" if it seemed to be 80% or less inaccurate based on past experience. This means only that data deemed by the system to be within the 80% parameters od accuracy was displayed to the technicians on the ground. This information, is however, saved in the system, and will be retrieved for study.

As far as the ISS goes, they have that situation under control too.

 

[Lancecastor]

Re: Diplomatic Playstation

What are your thoughts on the diplomatic chess game I outlined below, gang?

So far, most of you have commented only on the relative significance of 2 shuttles out of 5 exploding.



Lance

Imagine you are George W Bush today.

You have 6 NASA astronauts and 1 Israeli Astronaut dead.

A shuttle program with a 40% total failure rate.

2 NASA astronauts on the International Space Station.

Their only safe way back is in a Russian Soyuz craft docked there.

You want to invade Iraq.

The UN doesn't want you to without proof.

Israel, Middle East protectorate and home of the 7th dead astronaut, says they have an Iraqi defector with the Smoking Gun on Iraq.

Russia, with two of your astronauts and a huge supply of oil it needs to develop and sell for much-needed cash, has a Veto on the UN Security Council.

At home, your country is devastated by the Columbia, uncertain about war, has a lagging economy and fears of Terrorism as well as Korea to think about.

What do you do?

1. Authorize the March shuttle flight anyway to bring your boys home in your vehicle, knowing it's risky? This keeps your options open to defy the UN Security Council on domestic grounds.

2. Cozy up to Russia and offer to help develop their oil reserves? At what price? Domestic pride damage via Soyuz and backing off on Iraq along with ignoring Israel's concerns for defence against WMD?

I think GWB has his work cut out for him on many fronts as a result of the Columbia incident.

Lance

 

[modest mouse]

The failure rate is low considering the risk of the missions. About 1.5 percent for the Shuttle missions.

The Columbia was the one shuttle NOT capable of dockign with ISS so its absence isnt missed as much as any other shuttle.

Yes, safety reviews are ongoing, but the shuttles have been an amazing success over their time of service. In ten years they will be replaced but until then they will provide the most economical and safe means of space access.

Stupid post, Lance.

 

[Lancecastor]

Stupid post, Lance.

What's stupid about it ?

 

[Calamity Jane]

Re: Diplomatic Playstation

Imagine you are George W Bush today.


What do you do?

1. Authorize the March shuttle flight anyway to bring your boys home in your vehicle, knowing it's risky? This keeps your options open to defy the UN Security Council on domestic grounds.

If the March shutle flight is considered relatively safe, then yes, I'd authorize it, and it would have nothing to do with the UN Security Council. I'd think that ALL shuttle flights are inherently risky. They are gonig into space, afterall.

2. Cozy up to Russia and offer to help develop their oil reserves? At what price? Domestic pride damage via Soyuz and backing off on Iraq along with ignoring Israel's concerns for defence against WMD?

Huh?

I think GWB has his work cut out for him on many fronts as a result of the Columbia incident.

I think that you should seriously consider a career writing for the Weekly World News.
Lance