Space Shuttle safety concerns
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 286
Likes: 1
From: South Africa
Space Shuttle safety concerns
Shuttle a deathtrap, says astronaut
22 January 2006 07:56
One of the United States's most experienced astronauts has denounced the space shuttle as a deathtrap and accused US space officials of stifling all concerns raised about its safety.
The revelation comes as the US prepares to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Challenger disaster. Seven astronauts were killed on January 28 1986, when their shuttle exploded 73 seconds after take-off.
Veteran astronaut Mike Mullane's outburst therefore comes at a deeply embarrassing time for Nasa. Apart from dealing with the Challenger anniversary, it is now struggling to save its remaining space shuttles so they can complete the International Space Station.
However, all three -- Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour -- are still grounded because engineers have not yet fixed insulation problems that doomed Challenger's sister craft, Columbia, in 2003.
"It's the most dangerous manned spacecraft ever flown," said Mullane, who took part on three shuttle missions before retiring in 1990. "It has no powered flight escape system ... Basically the bail-out system we have on the shuttle is the same bail-out system a B-17 bomber pilot had in World War II."
It was this lack of ejector seats that ensured the deaths of Challenger's astronauts. Such a powered escape system could have blasted them from their stricken ship and saved them.
"That was the true tragedy of Challenger. Nothing was learnt. Only janitors and cafeteria workers at Nasa were blameless in the deaths of the Challenger seven," said Mullane. "Columbia was a repeat of Challenger, where people had a known design problem and launched anyway."
Mullane added that astronauts deserve some share of responsibility for not pursuing safety issues more doggedly.
It is estimated that it now costs Nasa $5-billion a year to pay for the 16 000 engineers who maintain the fleet -- even if none of them actually flies. As a result, the bill for designing, building and launching the shuttle has now topped $150-billion.
Engineers point out that the craft has been responsible for putting the Hubble space telescope and the International Space Station into orbit. However, each craft has thousands critical components. A failure of any of these will doom a craft. On Challenger, it was a seal on a solid rocket booster. On Columbia, it was piece of loose insulation foam.
"You walk in terrified of doing anything that might jeopardise your one chance to get to space," Mullane said in an interview to promote his new book, Riding Rockets. "It's not like other jobs, where if you get frustrated you can go in to your boss and say, 'Shove it!' You can't do that at Nasa because there's no other place to go fly shuttles."
The three remaining shuttles are supposed to retire in 2010 after completing construction work on the orbiting space station, which has been operating with a skeleton crew of two since the Columbia disaster. -- Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
22 January 2006 07:56
One of the United States's most experienced astronauts has denounced the space shuttle as a deathtrap and accused US space officials of stifling all concerns raised about its safety.
The revelation comes as the US prepares to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Challenger disaster. Seven astronauts were killed on January 28 1986, when their shuttle exploded 73 seconds after take-off.
Veteran astronaut Mike Mullane's outburst therefore comes at a deeply embarrassing time for Nasa. Apart from dealing with the Challenger anniversary, it is now struggling to save its remaining space shuttles so they can complete the International Space Station.
However, all three -- Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour -- are still grounded because engineers have not yet fixed insulation problems that doomed Challenger's sister craft, Columbia, in 2003.
"It's the most dangerous manned spacecraft ever flown," said Mullane, who took part on three shuttle missions before retiring in 1990. "It has no powered flight escape system ... Basically the bail-out system we have on the shuttle is the same bail-out system a B-17 bomber pilot had in World War II."
It was this lack of ejector seats that ensured the deaths of Challenger's astronauts. Such a powered escape system could have blasted them from their stricken ship and saved them.
"That was the true tragedy of Challenger. Nothing was learnt. Only janitors and cafeteria workers at Nasa were blameless in the deaths of the Challenger seven," said Mullane. "Columbia was a repeat of Challenger, where people had a known design problem and launched anyway."
Mullane added that astronauts deserve some share of responsibility for not pursuing safety issues more doggedly.
It is estimated that it now costs Nasa $5-billion a year to pay for the 16 000 engineers who maintain the fleet -- even if none of them actually flies. As a result, the bill for designing, building and launching the shuttle has now topped $150-billion.
Engineers point out that the craft has been responsible for putting the Hubble space telescope and the International Space Station into orbit. However, each craft has thousands critical components. A failure of any of these will doom a craft. On Challenger, it was a seal on a solid rocket booster. On Columbia, it was piece of loose insulation foam.
"You walk in terrified of doing anything that might jeopardise your one chance to get to space," Mullane said in an interview to promote his new book, Riding Rockets. "It's not like other jobs, where if you get frustrated you can go in to your boss and say, 'Shove it!' You can't do that at Nasa because there's no other place to go fly shuttles."
The three remaining shuttles are supposed to retire in 2010 after completing construction work on the orbiting space station, which has been operating with a skeleton crew of two since the Columbia disaster. -- Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,627
Likes: 2
From: UTC +8
First: Fly many times, ...THEN complain!
Curiously, Mullane, "who took part on three shuttle missions before retiring in 1990," did not speak up earlier. I don't think that NASA would have sent him aloft if he didn't want to. 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
From: On the outside looking in
"It's not like other jobs, where if you get frustrated you can go in to your boss and say, 'Shove it!' You can't do that at Nasa because there's no other place to go fly shuttles."
sw
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 954
Likes: 5
From: USA
How about 'Shove it! I'm not prepared to take that level of risk of dying' or is flying shuttles more important than life itself?
Westhawk
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
From: Arakis
shuttle safety
well for what its worth grounding the shuttle, NASA must have doubts themselves about how safe the shuttle is to fly.
the fact that it has not flown for a while now indicates problems ahead for its reliability not to mention turn around time. As a technology it is too complex for the turnaround times originally envisaged and now spends most of the time in the hangar! I wonder if it will ever finish the space station on its known?
like concorde, i doubt if it will ever take normal mortals who dont have thousands let alone millions $ to pay to go into space.
bye
gta
the fact that it has not flown for a while now indicates problems ahead for its reliability not to mention turn around time. As a technology it is too complex for the turnaround times originally envisaged and now spends most of the time in the hangar! I wonder if it will ever finish the space station on its known?
like concorde, i doubt if it will ever take normal mortals who dont have thousands let alone millions $ to pay to go into space.
bye
gta
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
From: surrey
Shuttles and space tourism
Going into space is a well risky business, has been and is likely to be for some time. Using kit whose design predates the computer age really doesn't help.
I would be very reluctant to invest in the new space tourism proposals which are well into development. If you notice how many conventional commercial rocket lift offs there are that fail using tried and trusted technology it should not come as any surprise when the first space tourist doesn't make it.
IMHO space travel should be undertaken with informed consent. Whether this was the case with the school teacher on challenger raises another issue.
Not too sure if I would fly in one given the chance... but I did once apply for a job as a cosmonaut.
I would be very reluctant to invest in the new space tourism proposals which are well into development. If you notice how many conventional commercial rocket lift offs there are that fail using tried and trusted technology it should not come as any surprise when the first space tourist doesn't make it.
IMHO space travel should be undertaken with informed consent. Whether this was the case with the school teacher on challenger raises another issue.
Not too sure if I would fly in one given the chance... but I did once apply for a job as a cosmonaut.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
From: United States
Originally Posted by GlueBall
Curiously, Mullane, "who took part on three shuttle missions before retiring in 1990," did not speak up earlier. I don't think that NASA would have sent him aloft if he didn't want to.
So they are going to keep pushing it up there. I'm sure they'll do their best to make it as safe as they can, given the constraints they operate under. But you can bet that there'll be lots of crossed fingers on every launch and re-entry.
Guest
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 180
I think the centre of the matter lies with the fact that no one wants to pull the shuttle and spend shuttle money on developing a new craft, because they're worried that if they pull the shuttle, the money for it will disappear, rather than being invested in new tech.
$5 billion a year supposedly, would pay in reasonably quick order for a modern re-usable launch vehicle, it just needs someone to grip it and their chain of command/budget managers not to take the money off them while they try...
$5 billion a year supposedly, would pay in reasonably quick order for a modern re-usable launch vehicle, it just needs someone to grip it and their chain of command/budget managers not to take the money off them while they try...
Stercus Accidit
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
From: Swimming with bowlegged women
NASA's Inspector General Probed
An FBI-led watchdog agency has opened an investigation into multiple complaints accusing NASA Inspector General Robert W. Cobb of failing to investigate safety violations and retaliating against whistle-blowers. Most of the complaints were filed by current and former employees of his own office.
Written complaints and supporting documents from at least 16 people have been given to investigators. They allege that Cobb, appointed by President Bush in 2002, suppressed investigations of wrongdoing within NASA, and abused and penalized his own investigators when they persisted in raising concerns.The complaints are being reviewed by the Integrity Committee of the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency. The complaints describe efforts by Cobb to shut down or ignore investigations on issues such as a malfunctioning self-destruct procedure during a space shuttle launch at the Kennedy Space Center, and the theft of an estimated $1.9 billion worth of data on rocket engines from NASA computers.
In documents obtained by The Washington Post and in interviews, NASA employees and former employees said Cobb's actions had contributed to a lack of attention to safety problems at NASA.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...202721_pf.html
Written complaints and supporting documents from at least 16 people have been given to investigators. They allege that Cobb, appointed by President Bush in 2002, suppressed investigations of wrongdoing within NASA, and abused and penalized his own investigators when they persisted in raising concerns.The complaints are being reviewed by the Integrity Committee of the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency. The complaints describe efforts by Cobb to shut down or ignore investigations on issues such as a malfunctioning self-destruct procedure during a space shuttle launch at the Kennedy Space Center, and the theft of an estimated $1.9 billion worth of data on rocket engines from NASA computers.
In documents obtained by The Washington Post and in interviews, NASA employees and former employees said Cobb's actions had contributed to a lack of attention to safety problems at NASA.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...202721_pf.html
