Topic: End of Space Shuttle program

[Shibboleth]

The only unacceptable situation for me is if they weren't doing everything they could to make it as safe as possible and they weren't candid with the astronauts about the possible dangers.

If someone told a test pilot there is a 1 and 10 chance that you might die and the pilot agrees to it then I don't see an issue.

[Chew]

Whether or not it saves lives is debatable; it was never intended to make money. It was science for sciences' sake. Isn't that enough?

More like death for science's sake.  What would an unacceptable body count be in your world?

Unacceptable to me would be more than 1 out of 20 missions failing.

You?

That is an incredibly low threshold for success when we're dealing with human life vs scientific advance.  MY threshold would be orders of magnitude higher.  I bet you like NASCAR too, right?

C'mon, put your nickel down. Give me a number.

[On Fire For Christ]

The only unacceptable situation for me is if they weren't doing everything they could to make it as safe as possible and they weren't candid with the astronauts about the possible dangers.

If someone told a test pilot there is a 1 and 10 chance that you might die and the pilot agrees to it then I don't see an issue.

I can understand these kinds of risks during a war or any circumstance where there are huge stakes.  But why not wait 10 years and make it a 1/100 chance.  I definitely think it would be counterproductive to the space program if 1 in every 10 or 20 shuttles failed.  kind of surprised no one else does, but what the hey.

[Shibboleth]

I can understand these kinds of risks during a war or any circumstance where there are huge stakes.  But why not wait 10 years and make it a 1/100 chance.  I definitely think it would be counterproductive to the space program if 1 in every 10 or 20 shuttles failed.  kind of surprised no one else does, but what the hey.

I don't think 10 years is going to make that much of a difference. Until we come up with a way to go into space that doesn't involve riding a controlled explosion there is going to be a pretty high failure rate.

[drwfishesman]

Whether or not it saves lives is debatable; it was never intended to make money. It was science for sciences' sake. Isn't that enough?

More like death for science's sake.  What would an unacceptable body count be in your world?

Unacceptable to me would be more than 1 out of 20 missions failing.

You?

That is an incredibly low threshold for success when we're dealing with human life vs scientific advance.  MY threshold would be orders of magnitude higher.  I bet you like NASCAR too, right?

Well, it's a good thing that all humanity wasn't as risk averse as you are...otherwise...caves.

[On Fire For Christ]

Well, it's a good thing that all humanity wasn't as risk averse as you are...otherwise...caves.

Strawman.  You are seriously comparing being blasted into space with only a 1/67 chance of survival for minimal scientific gain to the development of agriculture or the wheel, or countless other advances that increased man's survival chances?  I thought people around here would have a little more intellectual integrity.

[drwfishesman]

Well, it's a good thing that all humanity wasn't as risk averse as you are...otherwise...caves.

Strawman.  You are seriously comparing being blasted into space with only a 1/67 chance of survival for minimal scientific gain to the development of agriculture or the wheel, or countless other advances that increased man's survival chances?  I thought people around here would have a little more intellectual integrity.

Caves.

[Chew]

The only unacceptable situation for me is if they weren't doing everything they could to make it as safe as possible and they weren't candid with the astronauts about the possible dangers.

If someone told a test pilot there is a 1 and 10 chance that you might die and the pilot agrees to it then I don't see an issue.

The Challenger disaster was the 25th flight of the shuttle program. The astronauts who flew on the mission after the Challenger went anyway.

[On Fire For Christ]

Caves.

Good retort.  Quite the thinker aren't you?

[Chew]

Well, it's a good thing that all humanity wasn't as risk averse as you are...otherwise...caves.

Strawman.  You are seriously comparing being blasted into space with only a 1/67 chance of survival for minimal scientific gain to the development of agriculture or the wheel, or countless other advances that increased man's survival chances? 

False dichotomy, actually.

I thought people around here would have a little more intellectual integrity.

That would be the appeal to ridicule.

[Chew]

Whether or not it saves lives is debatable; it was never intended to make money. It was science for sciences' sake. Isn't that enough?

More like death for science's sake.  What would an unacceptable body count be in your world?

Unacceptable to me would be more than 1 out of 20 missions failing.

You?

That is an incredibly low threshold for success when we're dealing with human life vs scientific advance.  MY threshold would be orders of magnitude higher.  I bet you like NASCAR too, right?

Still waiting for your number.

Go ahead and start your thread about Extreme Knitting then get back to me.

[Skulker]

Whether or not it saves lives is debatable; it was never intended to make money. It was science for sciences' sake. Isn't that enough?

More like death for science's sake.  What would an unacceptable body count be in your world?

Unacceptable to me would be more than 1 out of 20 missions failing.

You?

That is an incredibly low threshold for success when we're dealing with human life vs scientific advance.  MY threshold would be orders of magnitude higher.  I bet you like NASCAR too, right?

Still waiting for your number.

Go ahead and start your thread about Extreme Knitting then get back to me.

Chew, don't get your hopes up. This guy/girl has proved to be a flake only capable of drive-by trolling. Whenever they are pressed to engage in a real discussion or seriously challenged, he/she just ignores it or disappears. Kinda reminds me of Knight VII but not as bright or clever.

[T.A.P.O.R.]

Of the 945 astronauts who flew the shuttle, only 1.4% perished the same failure rate as the shuttle!
Not too bad really, considering it's nearly 40 year old reusable tech.
(of course the % gets worse if you only count missions flown for each lost space craft).


Challenger was caused by a design flaw, which was rectified.
Columbia was a tragedy which could have been avoided if anybody had bothered to check from the ground, or commission a space walk. The carbon carbon panels were supposed to be indestructible, but obviously weren't.

The shuttle could have been saved by flying in with one side taking the brunt of the friction.
But we know what happened. It's terrible, but they all knew the risks.

Of all manned space flight, there are only 18 people who have died during a mission and 11 who have died during training.
That's 29 people for 295 manned flights to date (people per flight varies from 1-7 depending on launch vehicle).
530 people have flown in space to date.

[MikeHz]

Don't worry--we're out of the space biz now, so no one will get hurt. 

Well that isn't true is it.  Nasa will be hitching a ride on safer foreign alternatives.
[/quote]

Just like Japan, Mexico, and other countries lacking any real space program. The Russians can now brag that, while they failed to reach the moon, they at least outlasted the US on sending people into space.

I think this will last until China lands someone on the moon. Then, it'll be, "Damn--guess we'll have to get on the ball again."

[drwfishesman]

Well, it's a good thing that all humanity wasn't as risk averse as you are...otherwise...caves.

Strawman.  You are seriously comparing being blasted into space with only a 1/67 chance of survival for minimal scientific gain to the development of agriculture or the wheel, or countless other advances that increased man's survival chances? 

False dichotomy, actually.

how's that a false dichotomy?