backtop


Print 61 comment(s) - last by tng.. on Jul 12 at 8:58 AM

Space shuttle Atlantis blasted off at 11:29 a.m.

Space shuttle Atlantis launched today, marking the final mission and complete retirement of NASA's Space Shuttle fleet.

Atlantis is the last of three remaining operational orbiters in NASA's Space Shuttle fleet. In February 2011, Space Shuttle Discovery was the first of the three to launch on its final mission after nearly 30 years of space travel. Then, in April 2011, Space Shuttle Endeavour was set to launch, but was delayed due to a broken set of heaters. It took off on its final mission in mid May instead.

Now, NASA's Space Shuttle fleet will be three-for-three as Atlantis blasts into orbit for its last mission as well.

Space Shuttle Atlantis first flew into space on mission STS-51-J in October 1985. It has completed 32 missions, spent 293 days in space, carried 191 crews and has traveled 120,650,907 miles. Atlantis is the only orbiter that cannot draw power from the International Space Station while docked there. Instead, it must provide its own power for fuel cells.

Today marks Atlantis' 33rd and final mission, STS-135. It will be a 12-day mission to the International Space Station with the purpose of delivering supplies and spare parts, which will be contained in the Raffaello multipurpose logistics module.

Atlantis mission STS-135 carries a crew of four, including Commander Chris Ferguson, Pilot Doug Hurley, and Mission Specialists Sandy Magnus and Rex Walheim.

"That is the most beautiful vehicle we've had to fly in space, ever, and it's going to be a long time until you see a vehicle roll out to the pad that looks as beautiful as that," said Walheim. "How can you beat that? An airplane on the side of a rocket. It's absolutely stunning."

Space shuttle Atlantis took off at 11:29 a.m. ET from Launch Pad 39A at the Kennedy Space Center. While some reports noted that weather could be obstacle possibly causing a delay, the astronauts started boarding Atlantis around 8:00 a.m. and the hatch was closed around 9:21 a.m. for flight.

Reports have estimated that the crowd gathered in the area to see the launch ranged from 500,000 to 1 million people.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: I will truly miss the Shuttles
By geddarkstorm on 7/8/2011 12:59:07 PM , Rating: 1
Sadly, I'm sure they could have taken the shuttle's design and upgraded it with a new model that would have performed even better and been even safer, yet compatible with everything the shuttle is. And it wouldn't have cost remotely as much as building a rocket and orbiter fleet from scratch.

Really, I just can't understand NASA's thinking these days. The shuttle's design itself was never bad, just old.


RE: I will truly miss the Shuttles
By mmatis on 7/8/2011 1:17:51 PM , Rating: 2
You know not whereof you speak. The side-mounted configuration leaves major safety risk for the crew in event of a vehicle malfunction. And these vehicles do indeed malfunction. The BEST ones these days are around 90% reliable. How would you like to drive a car that, once in every 10 trips, would kill you?

That problem comes from the crew location relative to the vehicle. When things START to go wrong, there is no way for them to escape without experiencing G-forces well beyond the capability of the human body. THAT is one of the main reasons why Constellation went to can-on-a-stick.

And for those of you who deride the choice of an SRB for the first stage of the Constellation Crew Launch Vehicle, you ought to run the numbers. Prior to cancellation of the Orbiter Space Plane (OSP), the JSC Crew Office had put out a white paper asking for no worse than 1 in 1000 "loss of crew" for credible failures. After OSP was cancelled, before Constellation picked the vehicle design, NASA went through a DETAILED analysis of reliability for ALL existing and proposed launch vehicles that could lift the Crew Exploration Vehicle. The only one that came anywhere NEAR that level of reliability was SRB first stage with a liquid upper stage.


RE: I will truly miss the Shuttles
By geddarkstorm on 7/8/2011 2:22:43 PM , Rating: 3
Let's look at actual numbers (from 2006):

Soyuz (1967-Present)
------------------------------
Flights: 95
Failures: 4 (2 non-fatal)
Failure Rate: 4.21%

Cosmonauts Flown: 228
Fatalities: 4
Fatality Rate: 1.75%

Shuttle (1981-Present)
------------------------------
Flights: 116
Failures: 3 (1 non-fatal)
Failure Rate: 2.59%

Astronauts Flown: 692
Fatalities: 14
Fatality Rate: 2.02%

Soyuz Failures:
Soyuz 1 (1967), Soyuz 11 (1971), Soyuz 18A (1975, Non-Fatal), Soyuz T-10A (1983, Non-Fatal)

Shuttle Failures:
STS-51L (1986), STS-83 (1997, Non-Fatal), STS-107 (2003)

-----------------------------

So, the shuttle isn't so bad, now is it? Look at the Taurus launch rocket, that thing has an abysmal failure rate, losing several satellites lately, like the GLORY. Just because something is a "can on a stick" does not make it remotely safe. Nor is having the shuttle be an outringer make it immediately unsafe.

Also, the shuttle's record is a little better in reality than those numbers show, simply because Challenger was a DECISION mistake, operating at known unsafe conditions. Columbia was the only true accident, and that was from foam falling off. Could not modern technology build a better shuttle not susceptible to foam striking it? Absolutely. Especially since the foam hit a -seal- along the landing gear, and that was the vulnerability, not actually destroying the heat shield itself. (or so the last report I read stated was the cause)

So, I'm afraid you do not know what you speak of. The shuttle is far safer, far better design than people give it credit for. Only a bad decision and one freak accident has brought it down. What caused the soyuz accidents?


RE: I will truly miss the Shuttles
By maven81 on 7/8/2011 2:52:18 PM , Rating: 2
I'm afraid it's not that simple. If you go by pure statistics the Saturn 5 proves rockets are better since it had a 100% safety record, but we will never know that since it had very few flights. It's also telling that the soyz has not had any fatal accidents in 40 years. If you look at it that way, it doesn't look too good for the shuttle. Then take the issue of cost into account, shuttle flights come out to well over a billion dollars a flight. That could have paid for how many soyz launches?

"Only a bad decision and one freak accident has brought it down. What caused the soyuz accidents?"

Ultimately politics. The decision to fly an unproven spacecraft given very little time for proper testing in the case of Soyz 1 (the first prototype had been found to have over 1,000 issues that needed to be fixed). And the decision not to use space suits on the flights to cram 3 crew members into a ship really built for 2 with Soyuz 11. Those decisions didn't come from the engineers, they came from politicians.


RE: I will truly miss the Shuttles
By geddarkstorm on 7/8/2011 3:07:47 PM , Rating: 2
As was the Challenger a decision from politicians. We can definitely agree politicians have a way of screwing things up. But someone has to be the leader and make choices I suppose.

The shuttle has also flown a lot more flights than Soyuz, now hasn't it? Once more, the only true shuttle accident was Columbia, that shows it has a great record. And, considering how we are basing these failure rate statistics, Apollo 1 would count as a loss, so that wasn't 100% either.

No, it is that simple. Space is dangerous, space is harsh, space is hard. But the shuttle is as safe as it gets (with 70's and 80's tech) for the amount of crew and cargo it carries and the capabilities it has (check out that robotic manipulation arm).

In any event, the shuttle isn't remotely as dangerous as you were unfoundedly trying to claim.


RE: I will truly miss the Shuttles
By mmatis on 7/9/2011 8:35:43 AM , Rating: 1
Challenger was NOT a decision from the politicians. Challenger WAS a decision from a management team that forgot what they and their predecessors had previously agreed to. The requirements for the SRBs were for them to be able to work properly in the temperatures experienced that day. During qualification tests for those boosters, there were no readily available days in Utah when the temperature reached that level AND the booster test article was ready to go. Management agreed to accept the design without doing that testing in order to save money.

In the review for the Challenger flight, questions were raised as to the safety of launching in that temperature. NASA management pulled out the booster specs and asked the contractor if their product met its requirements. The contractor said yes, without consulting their engineering team or the NASA booster engineering team. As far as I can tell, NONE of the people in the room were aware of the lack of qualification testing at that temperature range. And the decision was made IN THAT ROOM. The people there were NOT politicians.


RE: I will truly miss the Shuttles
By tng on 7/12/2011 8:58:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
NASA management pulled out the booster specs and asked the contractor if their product met its requirements. The contractor said yes, without consulting their engineering team or the NASA booster engineering team. ....As far as I can tell, NONE of the people in the room were aware of the lack of qualification testing..... And the decision was made IN THAT ROOM. The people there were NOT politicians.
So.... a decision was made without consulting the engineering groups who knew the system. So yes it was a decision from politicians from within the NASA bureaucracy.

You bring up the word "management" several times, just who do you think goes into management?

You say that none of the people in the room were aware of the lack of testing, but did they ask the engineering groups? NO, NASA had engineers on staff that get paid to look at failure analysis yet when there was a question, no one consulted them.... sounds like a politician to me.


RE: I will truly miss the Shuttles
By geddarkstorm on 7/8/2011 3:14:50 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, haha, I forgot that Apollo 13 was a clear (non-fatal, miraculously) failure. So really, out of 17 Apollos, 2 were failures. Not such a good success rate now, eh? Shuttle is sure better than Apollo safety wise, but it also isn't going to the moon.


RE: I will truly miss the Shuttles
By maven81 on 7/8/2011 3:41:05 PM , Rating: 2
I'm just pointing out that looking at pure statistics doesn't tell the whole story about how safe something is. We might joke that something that has flown only once was 100% reliable since 1/1 = 100%. But this doesn't take into account several factors that work against the shuttle. It doesn't have a launch abort system, which means in a catastrophic failure your chance of dying is 100% while with a rocket stack chances are you'll survive. It's also essentially a refurbished vehicle. Capsules are built from scratch before every flight, while with a re-usable vehicle you have to spend enormous time money and resources making sure the wear and tear is within limits. NASA has been doing a good job with that, but the question is, is that worthwhile? And how does that bode for the future? For all we know it's acceptably safe for 30 flights, but becomes creaky and unreliable once you hit 50.

Ultimately it's not something we should obsess about, since without risk, we aren't going anywhere! But you kinda wonder if the effort spent on keeping these things flying wouldn't have been better used on doing something worthwhile like more moon missions.


RE: I will truly miss the Shuttles
By geddarkstorm on 7/8/2011 3:57:18 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, really? You really think there was no launch abort system? How about https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Spa... all these options, or the Inflight Crew Escape System http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shut... ? The shuttle has lots of launch abort systems, I have no idea where you are getting your ideas from. The thing itself is basically a plane, and the crew module is hardened. The Challenger crew module SURVIVED the explosion, it was just nothing was set in place to allow the module to survive impact with the ocean (and thus save the crew). That was why they died http://www.space-shuttle.com/challenger1.htm . But we could certainly make a shuttle refresh with that ability.

As for reuse: refurbishing the shuttle certainly cost a lot less than building a whole new shuttle every time, and it sure worked out well. Not only that, but it allowed little upgrades to be done if needed.

New technologies could easily make refurbishing not only more cost effective and safer, but faster and more complete. Certainly under the current outdated methods, the shuttle never becomes creaky and unreliable. It was a mechanical STRIKE that brought Columbia down, on a very specific spot on the ship, nothing to do with refurbishing and a brand new shuttle would have suffered the same fate (no one thought the seal would be mechanically breached by a foam strike; that was the only true design issue, and easily surmountable with a design refresh).

Considering how miniscule NASA's budget is, the shuttle itself isn't the issue. It's that we need to give more funds to NASA than say the $16 billion congress is proposing right now. Compare that to defense spending. If we tripled NASA's budget, I'm sure we could have had the space shuttle for LEO satellites and space stations, and then another Saturn like rocket for our moon missions (which, I completely agree we should have been doing more of, and need greatly to do).

Without the shuttle, there'd be no ISS, no Hubble, and so many other things only the shuttle could ever have done. It's a great design.


RE: I will truly miss the Shuttles
By niva on 7/8/2011 4:29:22 PM , Rating: 2
The launch abort systems on the shuttle are not safe or proven methods for saving the crew. Most folks familiar with a RTLS (immediate return to KSC due to an early failure during launch) abort will tell you that it's very highly that it will result in a loss of the vehicle and crew.

It takes an army to maintain the shuttle. Parts are non-existent and manufacturing is extremely expensive.

NASA's budget is not little, I wish it was bigger, 3x the budget would probably allow for things to happen... but the shuttle needs to be retired for now. It's very risky and with each flight the risk increases. The ISS could've been built w/o the shuttle, look at how the Russians built their side of the ISS, or Mir for that matter.

If you're also going to use statistics (to the above posters) you should include all the progress launches in the statistic shown there. The progress vehicle is pretty much identical to the soyuz, just doesn't carry crew and doesn't undergo the same super stringent inspection that the Soyuz undergoes.

The Shuttle is an amazing vehicle but under the current conditions it's inoperable. We must return to simpler and safer (currently) ways of spaceflight for humans using capsules. Sadly nothing is available for now to allow the US to launch humans into space. For the first time in decades we will not be a nation with human spaceflight capabilities... that's what hurts the most, it's more psychological than the reality of the situation. Thanks to the shuttle and the ISS we've built an oustanding relationship with the Russians and we can now count on them (with costs of course) to help us until we're ready again with a new vehicle.


By geddarkstorm on 7/8/2011 4:42:48 PM , Rating: 2
The abort systems exist though, so saying they don't is false. And some of them have been used, such as the abort to orbit. Truth is, we never want to have to test these systems. Still, you're right in that the shuttle wasn't built with aborting in mind, which is silly.

You're also right that parts are non-existent, and thus the government contractors can charge absurd prices for them, driving the shuttle way up in cost. No competition is unfortunately a bad thing in these matters. But building a whole new shuttle each time would cost far, far more. Resuability is cost effective in comparison, but a shuttle will not be as cost effective as a small little capsule.

The shuttle needs to be retired, but it would have been best once we had another launch system to replace it. A year or two more. The shuttles are not getting more dangerous with time (they were designed to launch at least double what they've done so far), yet, and the two losses we've had were from extraneous circumstances not wear and tear.

Parts of the ISS would not be buildable without the shuttle's cargo space and design. The Russian modules are also smaller than the rest. An ISS could certainly be built, but not the ISS we know. In the future, we'll have much better capabilities. Unless we give up on space completely and let others like China take over.

The shuttle is not inoperable, but it is old, and it needs to be replaced. Modern tech would do wonders with a design refresh. And that would cost less than completely starting from scratch with Constellation. And now Constellation is gone because it cost too much and we're left with nothing.

Thankfully, private space companies are giving us a future, where the government has kinda given up. I guess that's the price for spending too much money though, and the reckoning we get as a country for the priorities we've set.


By geddarkstorm on 7/8/2011 4:48:11 PM , Rating: 2
I should also point out, much of the shuttle's primary missions were scientific. Things no capsule could have room to ever do, and which required people and scientists actively there to preform. The list of published literature from the shuttle missions are extensive, in everything from biology to material science. The shuttle was a science vessel, and unfortunately science is never economic in the here and now.

Now that we have a space station though, the shuttle is horribly outclassed in that which was its main focus.


RE: I will truly miss the Shuttles
By maven81 on 7/8/2011 4:44:02 PM , Rating: 2
"Wow, really? You really think there was no launch abort system?"

I should have been more specific, though I did mention catastrophic failure. The abort options you mention are not going to work in the event of an explosion, like challenger. Sure, the cabin survived, but the crew couldn't. One of the Soyz failures that you mentioned, Soyuz T-10A was saved by the abort system. The rocket exploded, but the escape tower moved the spacecraft away, and it landed safely. This can be done with a vertical stack, but not with the shuttle. I know there was once a discussion at NASA about ejection seats and such, but it's not a practical solution.

"As for reuse: refurbishing the shuttle certainly cost a lot less than building a whole new shuttle every time"

But that would make no sense heh, the shuttle is as complex as it is exactly because it's reusable. A non re-usable vehicle would have been cheaper to build.

"New technologies could easily make refurbishing not only more cost effective and safer, but faster and more complete."

But spacecraft rarely use the latest and greatest technology. Take the computers for example, they are always generations behind because NASA chooses to use tried and tested (and older CPUs are easier to radiation harden). I think bleeding edge hasn't been tried since Apollo.

"Considering how miniscule NASA's budget is, the shuttle itself isn't the issue."

Absolutely agree with you here. It's a joke that the NASA budget is less then .5% of the Federal Budget, and even at it's peak in 1966 I think it only hit 4.5%

"Without the shuttle, there'd be no ISS, no Hubble, and so many other things only the shuttle could ever have done. It's a great design."

Well that's not entirely true. Space Stations had been built before the shuttle (Almaz, Skylab, Saluyt, Mir...) It may have taken longer, or been more difficult but clearly it was possible. Same with Hubble. Hubble is merely the Astronomical version of what otherwise is a spy satellite. There's a persistent rumor that it used the same shipping container as the KH-11 for example (indicating they are roughly the same size and shape). Now the repair missions would not have been possible, this is true. But on the other hand as someone pointed out they were so expensive that we could have in fact launched a new Hubble for the price of these repair missions.


By geddarkstorm on 7/8/2011 4:58:57 PM , Rating: 2
What you say is absolutely true. I did take what you mean as saying there were no abort options, and for many stages of a launch there are, but for some catastrophic points there's little to nothing that can save the vehicle and crew. It is a critical, and long standing flaw.

I'm not so sure the shuttle is as complex as it is because it's reusable. I think the design itself is just that complex, if you want to bring back the entire vehicle from space (and potentially cargo it picks up). If you wanted just a cargo body and then eject with the crew compartment and re-enter the atmosphere with that, letting the body burn up, then it would be significantly less complex and cheaper. But for bringing back the entire ship intact, that's a difficult and complex maneuver no matter how you slice it, and reusability cheapens that, at least I would argue.

True again, space craft are rarely the bleeding edge. But even what is outdated now, and was bleeding edge back then, would change the game. Especially a refresh after 30-40 years. So much has changed, and so much could be changed for better performance, cost, reliability, and especially safety.

Again we fully agree. Some unique aspects of the ISS could not be, but there would still be an ISS if we wanted it without the shuttles. Not as fast or as easily, but always doable. Question is, what will our abilities there look like in the future in how will we choose to replace the shuttle?


RE: I will truly miss the Shuttles
By Jaybus on 7/10/2011 11:33:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But that would make no sense heh, the shuttle is as complex as it is exactly because it's reusable. A non re-usable vehicle would have been cheaper to build.

Cheaper to build does not equal cheaper to operate, else airlines would use single flight disposable airplanes.


RE: I will truly miss the Shuttles
By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2011 1:06:09 AM , Rating: 1
Look I hate to tell you maven, but you're wrong. He proved you wrong, and you just need to give this up.

The shuttle was a fantastic design well ahead of it's time. It's proved itself. Some of us grew up watching it launch and dreamed of going to the stars ourselves, so stop trying to piss on the parade here and show some respect.


By lexluthermiester on 7/9/2011 2:11:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The shuttle was a fantastic design well ahead of it's time. It's proved itself.


This is true to a point. The Shuttles were built use then current technologies in new ways. A few were created for the shuttle, but the design was based on decades old methodologies and technologies. Innovative, yes, but not really that far ahead. Now the Concorde was ahead of it's time and in some ways still is. But don't get me wrong, the shuttles are remarkable machines!

quote:
Some of us grew up watching it launch and dreamed of going to the stars ourselves, so stop trying to piss on the parade here and show some respect.


Totally with you on that one and yes we did! Like our parents before us with the Apollo missions, my heart was filled with a sense of national pride and my mind filled with awe the first time I watched[on TV sadly] the Columbia climb into the sky. Good times....

Maven, bluntly, shut it! As the man said, quit pissing on our collective parade.


By Solandri on 7/8/2011 4:14:17 PM , Rating: 3
Most safety record comparisons I've seen between Soyuz and the Shuttle use the same timeframe (1981 to present) to normalize for improvements in technology. Otherwise you're comparing failures due to 1950s technology in Soyuz to failures due to 1970s technology in the shuttles.


RE: I will truly miss the Shuttles
By mmatis on 7/8/2011 8:22:55 PM , Rating: 2
You might want to READ the post. The Crew Office asked for no worse than 1 in 1000 loss of crew for the vehicle stack. That means you only die once in every 4 years of driving to work. Does that seem unreasonable to you? Note your ACTUAL numbers. What do they represent as far as loss of crew? Let me help you a bit: Soyuz is slightly worse than 1 in 50. Shuttle is slightly worse than 1 in 80. Calculated rates are BETTER than those, but not by an order of magnitude. The last I saw, the Shuttle calculated rate was about 1 in 400. The ONLY crew vehicle design that comes close to 1 in 1000 is can-on-a-stick with the SRB first stage. ALL OTHERS are significantly worse than that. EVEN AS MATURE VEHICLES.

But then I expect that there are lots of Roton supports still around here as well...


RE: I will truly miss the Shuttles
By geddarkstorm on 7/8/2011 2:29:56 PM , Rating: 2
I should also point out that the shuttle's design is not for deep space exploration (like going to the moon or Mars). That would, as things stand, require the tried and true "can on a stick". But nothing yet equals the shuttles LEO capabilities. It's a serious workhorse, a space truck if you will, that's its nitch; able to do what no other launch vehicle can. And now that it's retired, we are sorely lacking capabilities.

A true space fleets requires diversity to fill multiple different roles. No one design is the "best" for everything. But the shuttle, for the -specific- role it has, is not "bad" in any way, shape, or form.


RE: I will truly miss the Shuttles
By maven81 on 7/8/2011 3:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
I think that's where we disagree. Having seen the prototype Enterprise at the air and space museum I just had to shake my head at what an odd approach it is to space travel. The thing is huge, very heavy, yet has the lifting capacity of a much cheaper booster like the Delta-4 Heavy, Atlas-5 or the old workhorse Proton. So for lifting cargo it's wasting a huge amount of mass. For hauling crews it's severe overkill (the crew cabin is a small section of the shuttle). If you wanted humans launching cargo it's also overkill (you'd need a pilot and payload specialist, here the crew of 7 is unnecessary).
So if you look at either flying cargo or flying people it doesn't seem to be particularly well suited to either. It does have the capability of bring cargo back, but this has never been used on a regular basis.
And that's even before you look at the lofty goals that were set for it, such as flight rates and cost projections.


By geddarkstorm on 7/8/2011 4:08:08 PM , Rating: 2
You are absolutely right, they did over generalize it. Basically, they put a whole rocket fleet into one design, which as you point out means it doesn't do anything especially well. But it does make it remarkably flexible; something useful for scientific missions that were its main focus. It's just, was this flexibility what we really need, especially going forward?

It shouldn't be hard to take the shuttle, modernize it, lighten it, make it more cost effective, as well as make specific derivatives: some for cargo, some for crew. But maybe rocket designs will do it better. It doesn't mean the shuttle was a bad design though. It is peculiar, and it's also beautiful, and we have learned so much from it we never would have been able to otherwise; and accomplished great things (like with the shuttles manipulation arm).

The shuttle is not the end all be all, and it is very expensive for its size. But, that's no reason to retire it, not now when the ISS is sitting in lurch and there is no replacement on our launch pads!


By Jeffk464 on 7/8/2011 7:11:49 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, separate the crew from the cargo. Only one of your rockets has to be human safe and people just aren't that darn heavy. There is absolutely no need for human pilots or cargo specialists anymore, this can all be done automatically. I say just let the private companies run people up to LEO. NASA should concentrate on their beyond LEO scientific stuff, whether manned or unmanned.


RE: I will truly miss the Shuttles
By MrBlastman on 7/8/2011 2:48:09 PM , Rating: 2
Space is not for pussies.

There, I said it. You're leaving Earth and going into a harsh, unforgiving environment. From the terrarium to a boiling pot of water, essentially (or a tank of liquid nitrogen depending on how you look at it), full of x-rays, gamma rays, particles, radiation and other extremely harmful forces--and no atmospheric pressure to keep your innards inside you should you depressurize.

Space is full of risks. Man was not built for Space, man was built for Earth. Earth just so happens to be a rock orbiting a class G2V (main sequence) star, while having an atmosphere and a magnetic field to help protect us. It is a wonder we even survive where we do, but, as we ride our chariot through our bend in the Galaxy, we all sit here ignorantly going about our days oblivious to the harsh realities of our Universe.

Safe? You think we're safe even here?

Our Universe is in a state of organized chaos, governed by twenty or so physical constants that, if a single one change, could dramatically alter our reality. So, when you think of that, strapping yourself onto the back of a rocket really isn't a big deal. Worst case typically would involve the whole crew being killed. Worst case if a physical constant were to change would be the entire population of our planet ceasing to exist.

So really, is going into space really subject to major safety risks? Perhaps localized but that is all.

The men and women who volunteer to be astronauts know this. They realize the burden they place on their shoulders and it isn't their own personal safety. The burden they carry is the fate of humanity. They do it to further mankind.

As such, they welcome the risks. 90% Reliable? That is an asonishingly high number when you consider everything that can go wrong in our universe.

Stop being such a wimp. Mentalities like your own are RUINING space exploration for everyone. Man has to take risks. Man has to make bets.

Man has to take a chance. Man... needs space.


By geddarkstorm on 7/8/2011 3:10:22 PM , Rating: 2
It's nice to see someone with guts, and a pragmatic head on his shoulders.

There is a reason astronauts have been regarded as national heroes. But I guess our populous has forgotten how to dream about anything other than how shiny the newest iPhone might be.

We will never advance without risks. Every business knows this, every explorer lives this. But some people are just too comfortable being lazy in their chairs and whining to accept this.


By Jeffk464 on 7/8/2011 6:48:00 PM , Rating: 2
Its not that gutsy to sit back on the sofa and watch people strap themselves into an explosive and blast off into Space. :)

Personally the engineers seem to think the design of the space shuttle is inherently more dangerous and think they can make a much safer system to get people into space. Whats the harm, the shuttle system was getting a little old anyways. The main problem has been the lack of leadership and vision, but mostly money from washington in coming up with a replacement, or goal for that matter.


RE: I will truly miss the Shuttles
By AssBall on 7/8/2011 1:21:36 PM , Rating: 2
The original design was more efficient, capable, and also modular. Then the budget hacking monkeys took over and what we got was a fairly inefficient jack of all trades vehicle.


By Solandri on 7/8/2011 4:23:18 PM , Rating: 2
The economics of the original design were predicated on being able to turn over and re-launch the shuttles at a rate of about one launch a week. That way the cost of the buildings, employees, overhauls, and R&D could be amortized over a much larger number of flights.

That never happened. Expected gains in efficiency and reduced prep times with experience never materialized. The launch rate barely passed 4 per year, and so it became horrendously overpriced for the task it was doing.


RE: I will truly miss the Shuttles
By AMDftw on 7/9/2011 6:46:12 AM , Rating: 2
It would take hundreds of thousands if not millions of US dollars to update the shuttle's. I heard something about the Gov. wanting to move mission control to Washington, DC. I'm guessing, if we could spend that much on transferring MC to Washington we could update it.

Now we will be renting out seats just to see space. :( The american icon will never be forgotten.


By FITCamaro on 7/9/2011 11:38:04 AM , Rating: 1
We had a newer design. It was scrapped in 98 or 99 by Clinton when they decided the carbon fiber tanks were too hard to build. The rest of the new shuttle was designed and I believe they had a half size version of it built. Had they continued research into building the tanks, by now we might be using that design. That research helped get carbon fiber where it is today.


“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki