Urge NASA to establish independent panel

The co-sponsors are not exactly an unbiased group (Steny Hoyer, for one, is my Congressman, and the Goddard Space Flight Center is in his district), but whatever ensures that all possibilities are given proper consideration is fine with me.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Excellent!

However, I see O'Keefe is still exempifying the "new NASA culture of openess and cooperation:

"In late January, under pressure from Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), O’Keefe asked retired U.S. Navy Adm. Harold Gehman, the chairman of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, to review the Hubble servicing mission in light of the recommendations Gehman’s board made on resuming shuttle operations. O’Keefe has made clear, however, that he does not intend to change his position based on anything Gehman might say."

Which Congressman was it that said a general housecleaning of NASA from the top down should be the first order of business? Current events remind me of post-Challenger when Fletcher was brought back in, the guy responsible for the compromise to SRBs instead of safer liquid boosters in the first place.

:-?

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Unless NASA re-evaluates the unreasonable (IMO) safety requirements placed on shuttle launches, this is whole suggestion is moot. Since the current requirements (as I understand them) would require a backup "rescue" shuttle on the ground and ready to launch for each Hubble mission, or a complete replacement shuttle in operation (which will not be available by the estimated end date of 2010 for the Hubble).

Apparently in America, astronauts need to be protected from all possible dangers, since they are incapable of understanding the danger themselves.

Just ignore my ranting, I'm just annoyed with the society I now realize I'm forced to live in :-?

__________________
::Evil Bomber
"Progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things."
--Robert A. Heinlein

I for one am in favor of evaluating all possible alternatives for saving Hubble. I am, however, not in favor of sending the Shuttle to the HST. There have been a number of threads on this board and many of the posts are of the "spaceflight isn't safe so let's press on" variety. While I understand where this sentiment comes from, it just isn't a realistic way of looking at things. The Shuttle has shown itself to be less safe than originally thought, the fleet is aging and the post Columbia inspections are revealing even more potential safety issues (e.g. corrosion in single string rudder actuators that that could result in the loss of the Orbiter). My point is that you cannot simply brush off every risk with a wave of the hands and say "well, spaceflight is dangerous".

I can't believe that I have lived to see our society decay to the point where we can't let the astronauts go to Hubble because [gasp] they might die!!! Hey, I've got news. They will all be dead in a hundred years. We all die.These people signed up to be astronauts because they want to go into space. If they wanted to die in bed of old age, they wouldn't be astronauts. A suggestion. Poll the astronauts. See how many would sign up for a Hubble mission. My guess? 90=95%.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

I would hope that on a board that promotes critical thinking that we can raise our discourse above the level of presumptive statistics and sarcastic news updates about human longevity.

Since I have personally talked with two astronauts about their feelings of the Shuttle reliability I am fairly confident that your guess is incorrect. Astronauts are, as you may guess, eager to get a mission and to go into space. But astronaut willingness is not a mission driver. NASA has a responsibility to ensure that a reasonable chance of survival exists for all missions. I understand that human spaceflight is never going to be 100% safe. And no one is suggesting that it ever will be. I actually understand the risk quite well, as I work in flight test. I have worked in production flight test fot the US Navy and now in research flight test for NASA. The fact of the matter is that a great deal of risk is accepted in these jobs, but the fact that it is a risky business is never accepted as an excuse to simply ignore reasonable safety issues. Certainly in 1967 you would not have used your "they will all be dead in a hundred years" statement to argue that thee was no need to back off from a pure oxygen atmosphere inside the Apollo spacecraft, or to argue that there was no need to rethink the O-rings used after Challenger, would you?

What I am trying to get at here is that if society is decaying it is more likely that it is because people replace fact with opinion, not because NASA is reluctant to send seven human beings on a mission that has a higher than reasonable chance of killing them. Space flight and human exploration are dangerous, and I support more of both, but mission success and bringing the astronauts home will always be of high importance. There will always be people who feel that it is never "safe enough" and those who say "damn the torpedos, full speed ahead" those of us tasked with both success and safety have to seek a reasonable balance between these two extremes.

Just my 2 cents.

Well said, beck0311.

Methinks your two cents are 1955 Denver double-die mint pennies.

__________________
HB = CHIMP + TIME

In the hundred or so shuttle missions that brought back all hands unharmed, are you saying that they did not have a reasonable chance for survival? Did the astronauts dodge the bullet time and time again? In your opinion, what were the chances of astronaut survival in an average shuttle mission?
The fixes for these were redesigns, maybe major redesigns but hardware fixes none the less. And the O-ring problem could have been abated by sticking to the mission rule: Do not launch in cold weather. These did not compromise the mission goals: Apollo still went to the Moon, the Shuttles continued to fly various orbits.

The current "fixes" for the Shuttles basically gut the poor craft of any useability it had left. It's only one step from: Park shuttle in large garage, stay back at least 1000 feet. This should insure no more astronaut fatalities. Is the problem just economics and time? Sure they could redesign and retrofit a bunch of systems to increase reliability and safety. But the costs would be immense and the limited remaining useability of the fleet might make it not worth the cost.

Well said, no disagreements here. There's one more point I'd like to bring up but it will probably spark some political debate so after thought, I choose not to (my post is too windy as it is).

oh...great...just leave us all curious as to what you were gonna say... :roll:

__________________
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
--Bertrand Russell

Last year on that awful Saturday evening in February, I was sitting at a back window in the house watching it snow, quietly crying at the sudden loss of 7 people I had never met. These were the best of the best. The absolute pinacle of humanity in terms of science, engineering, dedication and hardwork. But I felt sad for another reason which shamed me. I was embarassed. The US had failed, we looked bad to the world.

I have this feeling that the decision to end, or at least drastically scale back shuttle missions has more to do with "not looking bad" again then returning astronauts safely.

That's about as non political as I can put it.

There are times when strengths become weaknesses.

One of the strengths of our Western society is our value of life. But this has become a weakness as well. There are times I believe we can become such wimps! If we keep taking away all things that are potentially lethal - oops! Stay off the highways.

There is a balance, I am sure. Unfortunately, I am sure there are more angles to everything than just the safety issue. Like financial. Like the shuttles were already supposed to be retired, weren't they? Like, the only way to move forward (ie. upgrading/improving space craft) is to pursue new goals.

It's tough to say if there is a one main reason or several.

Truthfully, I do hope that Hubble's life can be given the extension it was originally purposed to have. Yet what if it took sacrificing Hubble to build improved space craft? Tough call. How many other angles are there to this decision as well?

As long as it doesn't come down to an "excuse" answer, I guess I can live with the result (though with grumbles).

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

I would put a lot of value in the candid opinions of the astronauts and also the opinions of the shuttle design engineers. However, public candid opinions can be detremental to job security whenever any injury or death has occured. Shoot...I'll be if Kaptain K goes, that 3 of us will go up, if Thumper goes.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh.

"The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly.

Fix the [darn] EFT so that the [darn] foam doesn't fall off.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

Really, I agree! It shouldn't be that hard even if it is rocket science.

Are they suggesting it can't be done? #-o

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh.

"The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly.

Thumper is not the "best of the best" I'm afraid, and thus not deserving. (Although he wouldn't turn down the invitation) 8)

(Great I've just refered to myself in the first and third person in the same sentence.)

(Great I've just refered to myself in the first and third person in the same sentence.)[/quote]

I hope you can convince him (Thumper) to go as the Captain and I need both of you. What helmet size you need?

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh.

"The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly.

I sent this fax to my congressperson. Note that it's not HR 550, but H.Res 550; I was given incorrect info on the title. No biggie.

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com

There's a website attached to this board??? :wink:

__________________
GhiaPet Home Page

Very nice BA!

=D>

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece