Investigators Relive the Shuttle's Demise:
Posted by DeLong at July 22, 2003 09:24 PM | TrackBack"...At the time, many people at NASA believed that the lightweight foam did not pose a serious threat to the vehicle, since shuttles had been hit by some foam on almost every mission and returned safely. This piece of foam, however, was the largest that had ever been seen, and on July 7, when investigators fired a similar piece of foam at a mocked-up shuttle wing at the estimated force of the impact, the foam shattered the leading edge panel, leaving a gaping hole 16 inches across..."
"We have also found that certification criteria used in Flight Readiness Reviews often develop a gradually decreasing strictness. The argument that the same risk was flown before without failure is often accepted as an argument for the safety of accepting it again. Because of this, obvious weaknesses are accepted again and again, sometimes without a sufficiently serious attempt to remedy them, or to delay a flight because of their continued presence."
--R. P. Feynman, Personal observations on
the reliability of the Shuttle, Introduction.
For those interested in the investigation into the Challenger disaster I highly recommend Part 2 of "What Do You Care What Other People Think?" by the utterly irreplaceable Richard Feynman.
Amazon link:
Posted by: Pooh on July 23, 2003 07:28 AMYet another embarrasment for the "it would have been pointless to try to obtain optical imagery" NASA apologists.
Posted by: Fabio on July 23, 2003 09:14 AMA device, called AERCam Sprint, was developed about 5 years ago and flight tested on STS-87. It is described at http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/assembly/sprint/index.html. AERCam Sprint may be reactivated as a result of calls for on-orbit inspection capability. It's one significant deficiency is that it requires line-of-sight telerobotic control, so that must resolved. Nevertheless, that shouldn't be an insurmountable problem, especially if it's used in the proximity of the International Space Station.
Posted by: Kerry Stewart on July 23, 2003 02:31 PMThe shuttle exists only to service the space station. The shuttle will continue to exist, no matter how great the cost and difficulties of "fixing" it, because the space station needs it no matter what the cost and risk.
The space station exists only due to international politics. It is doing zero research science and has only a maintenance crew on board to hold it together -- although it is consuming the rest of the nation's research science budget.
If the Bush administration was really "unilateralist" and "small government" it would kill the whole thing, save the science budget for science, and maybe save a third shuttle from crashing with crew. Unilateralism can have its good side, if only...
Posted by: Jim Glass on July 23, 2003 03:04 PMIf only NASA didn't have major facilities in Texas...
Posted by: Fabio on July 23, 2003 05:02 PMFabio, would you mind finishing your post about NASA facilities in Texas? If NASA had no facilities in Texas, then what? Take us down that slippery slope, please.
Several members of my family work at NASA. These are honorable men and women who hold degrees in physics, computer science, and engineering, who have devoted THIRTY PLUS years of their life to OUR space program. Are you saying that this tragedy (or any other NASA mission failure) could have been prevented IF NASA wasn't based in Houston?
I can only hope that you armchair quarterbacks take a moment to reflect and ask exactly what you would have done differently if you were in charge? NASA is an organization of HUMANS. HUMANS make incorrect assumptions, HUMANS make mistakes. There is not one single person, from systems engineers to database managers to scientists to resource personnel, who forget that each shuttle mission involves bringing OUR brothers and sisters home safely. When a catastrophe of this magnitude occurs during a mission, the psychological impact is felt for YEARS and does not dissipate.
Is the shuttle obsolete? Yes, it is. Should we abandon the space program altogether? No, we shouldn't. Do you really think that the Bush administration would can the space program and then turn around and pump all of the money into science programs? I doubt it. I'm sure he'd try to turn it into another tax cuts in order to stimulate the economy....
Posted by: disappionted on July 23, 2003 06:38 PMDon't be silly, disappionted, Fabio was just pointing out the pork-barrel politics behind NASA's location. It was no reflection at all on the worthy employees of NASA. And anyway the worth of the employees should have no bearing on whether you should keep the space station.
Posted by: derrida derider on July 23, 2003 11:23 PM