Quote:
Originally Posted by ToSeek
I'm just bemused at the fact that the shuttle has flown such missions about a hundred times now (i.e., every shuttle mission not to the space station), but suddenly they verge on being too dangerous even to consider.
|
They now consider the possiblity of damage to the orbiter that would prevent safe reentry quite a bit more likely now then they did then.
Just how likely one thinks a mission is likely to kill the crew is certainly a rational basis for considering how dangerous something is and whether or not it is worth the risk.
Now whether or not the probabilities back was accurate or the current one is accurate is something can be argued. I comes down to whether or not post-
Columbia improvements can be trusted and what degree of danger can be accepted for any particular mission.
Maybe we should state what percent chance of the crew dying are we willing to accept. That is a hard decision.
Or course we would not be in this position if NASA had not delayed so long. It is shameful that there is not already a second "Hubble" up there.