How safe is the shuttle?

Matthew F. Reyes — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:32:54 GMT

I have trouble believing these odds as they are based on what I believe to be incorrect assumptions.

While I cannot calculate the odds, the reality is that for each flight, there is a gain of knowledge and an improvement in safety. Therefore, while the shuttle does carry a significant risk based on it's history, the reality is that current risk assessments must be made upon the factors that impact safety now.

For instance, what are the odds that another piece of foam are going to strike the wings? What are the odds that another O-ring will have a burn through? Certainly not the same as they were before....so therefore the risk per flight cannot be the same.

I'd like to see a real risk assessment instead of one influence by emotion.

How safe is the shuttle?

steve smyth — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 12:26:36 GMT

If the pic doesn't get the point across that it's over for the Shuttle, I don't know what does.
Looks like the boneyard to me.
I can hear the claw machine starting up from here.
Change, kids!

How safe is the shuttle?

Wojciech Setlak, Warsaw, Poland — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 12:54:20 GMT

I gather that the risk assessment is based on the shuttle complexity and the probability of catastrophic failure of any of myriad critical components. So discovering a fix for a few weaknesses won't change the odds much.
That being said, I suppose Griffin would prefer the funding to be directed at new projects than poured into obsolete technology that might take more lives. Can't say I dosagree wuthj that.

How safe is the shuttle?

steve smyth — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:55:47 GMT

hey again...the image above really set me off...here's what's wrong...
Not in our lifetimes...
a thought process/belief/attitude expressed by guys who had grown up during the Great Depression, fought in WWII, came home, made babies, and went to work creating a better world for those babies.
Period!
The feeling was of developing a brighter future.
If it took the rest of their lives to get the ball rolling, OK.
The grandbabies will reap the rewards.
We’ll teach everything we know to our offspring, provide as much as possible, encourage them in the right direction, and they will carry on our beliefitude.
This plan went seriously awry in the decade from 1957-1967.
There was just too muckin’ futch happening to ignore the alternatives in favor of following the beaten path.
Large numbers of the ‘not in our lifetimes’ people found themselves on the outside looking in on what appeared to be the early stages of Sodom and Gommorah.
Looking forward for the benefit of others wasn’t even on the radar of those immersed in the Bacchanal.
they had become one with it all.
Everything’s gonna be alright.
Not my problem, man.
OOPS!
...make of it what you will...

How safe is the shuttle?

Moonage — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:12:45 GMT

I agree with Matthew, but working against the odds is the fact the structures of the Shuttles themselves are deteriorating as well. These shuttles have flown millions of miles and been subjected to extreme conditions not ever faced on Earth. So, although experience does dictate safer practices and newer technologies, that same experience wears out important structural components. Some I imagine get replaced frequently, others I imagine would require building one from scratch ( such as the body frame ).

How safe is the shuttle?

Don Nelson, Retired NASA Engineer — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:55:03 GMT

There are ways to keep the shuttle flying safely...the first step is a new NASA Administrator.

How safe is the shuttle?

Allen Thomson — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:14:55 GMT

The 1 in 80 figure is consistent with the performance of the Shuttle to date and with other space launch vehicles -- Shuttle has been among the most reliable, but it's still at something between 98% and 99% probability of success per launch.

Ed Kyle has been keeping track of launch reliabilities for a long time. See his statistics at http://www.geocities.com/launchreport/reliability2008.txt

How safe is the shuttle?

Ellegood — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:26:04 GMT

Ask yourself this: Would you rather fly on the 100th Shuttle mission, or on the first, second, or even third manned flight of Ares-1? It takes a while to work out the kinks in any new launch vehicle, and failures are more prevalent in these early missions. I agree with Mr. Reyes that the Shuttle--though far from perfect--has probably become progressively safer.

How safe is the shuttle?

Joe — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:32:37 GMT

Matthew,

Your comment assumes that NASA learns and applies the correct lessons from each flight. For instance, NASA had learned that foam impacts were "normal" and to be expected before Columbia.

My question, what is the possibility of a Russian craft crashing or exploding?

How safe is the shuttle?

Bryan Tucker, Arlington Texas — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:41:16 GMT

The former Soviet Union and now Russia have used, essentially, the same crew delivery system since they started space exploration, with an admirable safety record. Quite simply: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

The Shuttle, while a marvel of technology and aerodynamics, is too complex for it's own good. It should have the plug pulled now, so that all R&D can move on to the replacement deliver system. The Space station will still be there and there is another viable (and safe) delivery system from Russia. I see no need in needlessly risking the lives of Shuttle crew members.

In the day and age of our computer-aided design and manufacturing processes, we should invest in the next step, technology-wise, and go with the Orion deliver system.

How safe is the shuttle?

Loren, SF Bay Area, CA — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:48:43 GMT

"Dice have no memory." As Alan points out, the "one in 80" chance for each flight is just that, and regardless of the outcome of that flight, the odds are identical for the next launch.

One wonders how much of this risk assessment is skewed based on what Griffin *wants* to happen. It's like the politician who says, "If you don't pass this item/budget, we'll have to lay off all our cops."

NASA needs the money to do its job safely and well. And private industry needs the money to beat NASA's pants off and/or complement their abilities.

How safe is the shuttle?

emusil@hotmail.com — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:50:03 GMT

Let's become world partners. Liz Musil, Arlington, VA

How safe is the shuttle?

Logan Myers, Alliance, Ohio — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:55:54 GMT

I think the major worry here, at least from my point of view, is that we will be relying on other nations to move our astronauts to and from the earth. While I do not think that additional missions should be carried out unnecessarily, the shuttle fleet, and the budget to use it, should be kept ready in case tensions with Russia should escalate. As a country, we do not want to be relying on other countries for anything that does not have a backup plan. Especially if that country we are relying on is one that may use our astronauts as a bargaining chip to gain power.

On a seperate note, as an engineer, this is a particularly exciting time for private companies to make headway in the area of space travel, and the government should enthusiasticly support that as well.

How safe is the shuttle?

Ken Cakebread, Boulder Creek, Ca — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:03:55 GMT

Griffin obviously has a hidden agenda. That is to get the Ares rockets working. Unfortunately, the Ares I rocket is a total diaster. The private industry (Spacex and Orbital Sciences) will have their rockets and capsules flying way before Nasa will. If Nasa had a real desire to fly the shuttle, I bet the odds of shuttle failure that Nasa presents would be much lower.

The government (Nasa) needs to provide more money to support the COTS program. In addition, Nasa needs to get behind the space tourist industry. Turn the private space industry loose (Spacex and Orbital Science).

How safe is the shuttle?

Jeff Sager, Laurens, SC — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:15:29 GMT

I too would like to see a truly independant risk assessment. I think that with sufficent funding, the shuttle program could be extended for a few years.

How safe is the shuttle?

JAMIE LOGAN, MAINE — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:18:01 GMT

WHY MAKE A STEP BACKWARDS??? THE SHUTTLES ARE MORE ADVANCED THEN ORION AND CARRY MORE. EVEN SO AN UPDATE SHUTTLE COULD BE MADE ALSO. BIGGER BETTER AND SAFE. THEY HAVE THE DESIGNS FOR THIS. WHY STEP BACKWARDS MAKE STEPS FORWARD AND BUILD THE BETTER SHUTTLE.

How safe is the shuttle?

mike bevill ashland wisconsin — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:18:14 GMT

I say keep the shuttle flying there are alwys risk in space flight do not give up I think nasa has over the years made the shuttle as safe as possible keep up the GOOD WORK nasa GOD BLESS NASA AND OUR FLIGHT CREWS GO NASA''''''''

How safe is the shuttle?

Kevin Renfro — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:27:29 GMT

My arguement is why are people so concerned about losing seven or eight people in what they know is a very dangerous environment? The astronauts are people just like the rest of us, I admire their courage just as I do our soldiers. Why the public outcry for their loss when compared to the losses suffered by other proffessionals? We don't stop everything when a train derails killing dozens, nor airplanes or boats. There is an investigation just like there is with any losses NASA incurrs whether it be equipment or human lives. We learn from our mistakes, make improvements and move forward. To depend on an undependable partner to send our people and equipment to the space station is ludicrous.

How safe is the shuttle?

James from Chattanooga, Tennessee — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:37:25 GMT

With regards to getting the hardware up to the space station, in this case, would be rocket sience! But the answer to the question of safety isn't really rocket sience.

You take your current vehicle inventory, pull out the launch vehicle that has the capability of launching a payload in to space and you will have an alternative. These rockets are remote managed anyway so getting it to the space station is a simple matter of flight operations programming.

Now, as for manned space flight, hitch a ride with the Russians. That's safe enough and we won't be doing anything but saving money until our next generation vehicle rolls out. They get a little money for their troubles and all is good.

If I'm the next president, I opt to retire the fleet after the Hubble mission or the next space station mission (which ever comes first). This saves lives but moreover, it save a truck load of money. While I never want to see an astronaut harmed or killed, there is also the cost to train and develop that recouse - the money saved there, allows us to place that recourse in a new vehicle without having to train someone new.

It's simple: To extend the fleet now would be the possible death of NASA for several years if one or two missions end in disaster - recruiting new tallent and training them.

Anybody's thoughts?

How safe is the shuttle?

Don, Nashville, TN — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:42:09 GMT

What do we do if Putin gets ornery and decides to charge $200 million to transport astronauts? Remember, without the space shuttle we could only sustain a crew of two on the space station.
With a crew of six on the space station, Russia will have to more than double the number of manned and unmaned missions. Russia doesn't have the capability to build rocket's that quickly.

How safe is the shuttle?

Doug Fullingim — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:47:05 GMT

Based on 100,000 monte carlo simulations at the stated 1 in 80 odds, I got an 11-12% chance of a failure in 10 missions. Assuming that NASA's risk forecast at 1 in 80 is grossly overstated, I also looked at 1 in 120 odds and at 1 in 160 odds. The results don't get much better. At a 1 in 120 chance of a failure, there is a 7-8% risk of a failure in 10 launches, and at 1 in 160 the forecast is right around 6%. If NASA's calculations of the risk are right, then your incremental improvements in safety would have to halve the risk to get to this level of safety.

I won't claim that's not possible to achieve that kind of safety increase and maintain schedule and funding profiles, but I'll suggest it's unlikely.

How safe is the shuttle?

Eric Haynes — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:47:37 GMT

I think the odds are 50-50 every time the Shuttle flies. Look, they lost one going up and they lost one going down. The Shuttle was never what it was supposed to be; which was cheap, reliable, access to space. True, NASA will lose capability when they retire the Shuttle but it's time to get out of Low Earth Orbit and on to the Moon. Other nations, other companies can work on getting into LEO. NASA's mission is much more important than hanging around just 180 miles above the earth.

How safe is the shuttle?

Jeff, Manasota, FL — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:58:31 GMT

This usage of odds is what makes Vegas so dangerous. a 2.7% chance of rolling a snake-eyes every roll, but if you are miraculously on roll 10 and haven't hit it yet, you have a 25% chance? Not quite how it works, but this is how the Casinos hook you and the politicians scare you. Space travel is inherently unsafe, anytime you are combining Hydrogen, Oxygen, and a flame there is a chance for disaster, never mind leaving the Earth. The fact remains that the Shuttle still has been the safest, mode of Space transport to date.

How safe is the shuttle?

Anon — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:12:36 GMT

Having worked on the space shuttle orbiter program following the loss of Challenger, and leaving the program ten years later, I can validate the risk calculations. While the risk presented by aging hardware and marginal designs is significant, the concept of management at NASA is an even greater risk. Columbia was lost for the same reason as was Challenger: scientists and engineers putting on their management hats and ignoring protocols that could have saved both crews.

Should NASA fly the orbiter past their retirement date? In my estimate, no, not even with increased budget. To safely fly humans into space, we need a delivery and return system that can successfully compensate for a lack of sound program management that has cost the lives of two crews. If that system is still on the drawing board, NASA has no right to subject crews to a risk that the orgnization has proven it does not have the capability to manage. Better to have a technologically advanced delivery system than to continue risking human life based on demonstrated poor judgement.

Hardware is expendable; human life is not. To lose even a single crew member is an unacceptable loss.

How safe is the shuttle?

Mark Patsche, Farmington, MN — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:12:46 GMT

I think we should find international support for space shuttle missions.

The space shuttles purpose should be narrowed to delivery, repair, and return of large payloads. Without the shuttle, there is no vehicle in the world that can return an object from orbit.

NASA knowledge in flying a reusable vehicle should not be lost like the Apollo missions.

How safe is the shuttle?

Anthony Infante — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:12:48 GMT

I know that the idea of being totally dependent on the Russian Soyuz Spacecraft to ferry crew to the ISS after the Shuttles are retired is something that make alot of people uneasy. However, there is an American Alternative. Space X is currently developing their Dragon Space Vehicle. The Dragon is a pressurized spacecraft that can ferry both personnel and supplies to the ISS, according to Space X. I have been keeping up with Space X and their Dragon appears to be something that both NASA and Congress should back in order to get it up and flying as soon as possible. Dragon should be the vehicle to bridge the gap between the Shuttles and Orion and even beyond that.

How safe is the shuttle?

John Miles, Long Beach CA — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:21:50 GMT

I think its been obvious for sometime (maybe since its inception) the STS is not a completely reliable system. Anytime you have to pilfer parts from another vehicle to keep the one you have running (Enterprise) is a bad sign.

This said the shuttle program has been serviceable and has exceeded expectations due to the hard work of NASA and its partners.

Astronauts know full well the risk they take, probably more then anyone. I know they embrace it and consider themselves lucky to be in the position of exploration they are in. So to discount the shuttle due to inconclusive odds as if it were a commercial jetliner, well its just not the same. Obviously all the astronauts want to live another day, but they are more then willing to risk their lives for what they do and put their faith in the engineers to keep them as safe as possible.

In conclusion it really comes down to the future of space flight. Its obvious the usefulness on the shuttle will be cut down incredibly once the space station is complete. The future of manned space flight is the Moon, Mars and beyond, something the shuttle is not capable of.

The status of the shuttle will never be replaced. To go from cramped space capsules to something that is so recognizable and iconic as this vehicle, only to go back to the capsule design albeit modernized is something our egos do not want to see happen. In reality though its what's needed if we want to push the boundaries of putting humans in space.

Americans, especially ones who came of age in the 80's such as myself will always carry a torch for the STS, but as our parents who watched the first man walk on the moon live, we need to embrace the future and all the possibilities that can come from it.

How safe is the shuttle?

Jeff Coe, Houston, Texas — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:23:02 GMT

Would the Falcon 9 rocket from SpaceX serve as an alternative to the Space Shuttle?
- Their timeline is 2010 for the DragonLab crew module
- They are on track for approval by NASA for docking with the International Space Staion.
- The Falcon 9 Heavy can lift 12,000 kg (26,000 lbs) to GTO.

How safe is the shuttle?

cmac — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:27:30 GMT

The problem isn't really one of risk so much as it is one of budget. What keeps the shuttles safe is money. Congress generally freezes NASA's budget UNTIL there is an accident, then they raise it for a few years, and then begin cutting it again, trying to get top-line spaceflight on the cheap. It's a repeating pattern that has been in place since Apollo 1 burned. It's why human spaceflight has been stuck in LEO for the last 24 years. The shuttles are an experimental vehicle that is constantly in development. They are expensive, but they also have capabilities no other spacecraft has ever come close to. I fully support Ares/Orion, a 2-3 billion increase in NASA's budget till 2015 would allow the shuttles to continue operation safely. There is no reason to retire these birds until Ares/Orion is operational. There have been about 120 Shuttle launches with only 2 losses. So the idea of a 10% chance of loss doesn't jibe with the results, especially when considering all the safety changes made over the life of the launch system. The Shuttles we are launching now are the safest Shuttles. Spend the money to keep them that way until their replacement is in place.

How safe is the shuttle?

Mike M. Melbourne, Fl — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:29:41 GMT

This math seems flawed, a 1 in 80 chance does not become a 1 in 8 chance even with creative statistics... After the first goes without error, you have a 1 in 80 chance out of 7/8 and then a 1/80 out of 6/8... The shutdown of the space program in 2010 was an arbitrary call for a given year (for Bush to Appear Kennedy-Like) with his we will put a man on the moon and safely return him by the end of the decade... The shuttle program should run in parallel with the development of it's replacement, and the cost at $10 Billion for 5 years is equal to one less month in the Iraq War, yet the payoff is immeasurable by having a choice to get to the spacestation without having to submit to pressures from Russia when we are sole source on them given the alternative.

How safe is the shuttle?

OneVoice, Frederick MD — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:31:02 GMT

I agree with Matthew. Each time we lost a shuttle, it was because of a flaw that we weren't looking for. Now we are looking for them so the risk is less. If another chunk of foam hits a wing, we might loose that shuttle but not the crew.

I do think the logistics issue at the facilities is a big one. Over crowding over worked crews and too many simlutaneous tasks are the kinds of things that cause people to make mistakes.

To answer the real question though, I agree with Griffin. I'd keep the shutttles rolling only so long as to complete our current obligations + 1 Hubble trip, but I'd up NASA's budget by a Billion or two to try to get the Aries\Orion systems online as quickly as possible. Leverage the EU, Russia, JAXA, The Chinese and anyone else to move cargo and people to the station until our new systems are built and proven.

PS. Everyone talks about buying seats on the Soyuz. That was great when our economy was good and their's was in the crapper. Now, we should be able to negotiate better on this. Promise them seats on future Aries shots in exchange for Soyuz shots while we're in-between. We could even take a Russian to the Moon. If the Russians are too cash strapped to do it, Maybe the Chinese would like to partake? They could even brag that they're helping "the West" out in addition to their own high-profile program.

How safe is the shuttle?

Jay — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:31:40 GMT

I would try to improve the odds, why not make modifications to the existing shuttle fleet to make them safer until the new rockets and shuttle start going into production.

How safe is the shuttle?

cmac — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:32:18 GMT

How safe is the shuttle?

Gphillip, Houston, TX — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:44:14 GMT

I believe the shuttle has made about 74 flights, someone correct me if I'm wrong. We have lost two crews. I would say the 1 in 80 chance of losing a crew is a reasonable estimate. It may be more dangerous than we realize, perhaps a 1 in 40 loss given past experience, or perhaps a little less dangerous, if some worst case assumptions are included which wouldn't manifest due to good maintenance or ability to repair in orbit or wait for a safe ride at the space station.

But no doubt, space travel is extremly risky. The most risky part isn't what we can know and calculate, but it's what we can't know or calculate, until it happens. As far as the one loss in 2100 flights expected for the new system, all I can say is, Horse Hockey! That would be more than an order of magnitude safer than the best safety record on the books. We don't know how to build a manned spacecraft that safe. No one does.

The astronauts all know this. They didn't take the job to play it safe. Some may be thrill seekers, but most are just plain brave beyond our imagination. So the Feds messed up and left us with no access to space for 4 or 5 years. That doesn't mean these brave young men and women should have to pay with their lives. Personally, my pride can take the hit if it saves an astronauts life. I would hope that everyone feels that way.

[ALAN ADDS: The estimate of 74 flights is way off. This month's launch would mark the 124th shuttle flight.]

How safe is the shuttle?

DalGal — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 19:00:50 GMT

NASA, like any other program or agency, should justify it's budget each and every year. They should get no special bonus because what they do is "sexy". If you have faith in the leadership of NASA, then you accept their program. If you don't have faith, then replace the leadership - but you should still give them the authority to run their agency.

I don't know if the quoted statistics are correct or not. However, I've not seen anyone knowledgable from NASA offer another set of data.

Speculation from the forum is interestng, but not not particularly useful.

DalGal

How safe is the shuttle?

Rachel, Tustin, CA — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 19:18:54 GMT

I am anxious to see the Ares/Orion in action and believe they should stick to the original plan of retiring the shuttles. The shuttle are old, the technology is old and the schematics are just out dated. They need to get the Ares/Orion up and running with all the new technology available to us now.

How safe is the shuttle?

Miki I, Chicago, IL — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 19:30:34 GMT

My big question in all of this is why does the government continue to spend money on space exploration vehicles? The private sector has indicated that they are ready to take on the capital risk of designing and building new transportation systems for LEO and beyond. In this day and age when government has better, more important tasks on which to focus, why don't we let private industry provide us with the mechanism to get in and out of space. At that point, the government isn't paying directly for the research and development but rather only what ACTUALLY WORKS, in the form of contracts to deliver: people, parts, etc. to and from the ISS or the Moon. Without the carrot of open-ended government contracts for the design of technology that might not ever be viable, private industry will be more likely to develop the most efficient, cost-effective, and safest way to get into space.

We in America take pride in being capitalists... Let's put our money where our mouths are and turn space exploration over to the private sector!

How safe is the shuttle?

Derek — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 19:41:12 GMT

Why not just update and repair the current fleet until the Orion is ready? Why not just cover the main fuel tank with a hard light weight plastic shell to keep the foam on? Yes it will add some weight, but would it be worth the slight drop in cargo capacity to keep then flying?

We should push for the development of a fully reusable space transport system. The goal should be for a craft that can take off from a conventional runway, attain orbit, deliver a payload, and return to earth to be reused again in one week.

The craft could be a single or tandem design, similar to the Spaceship One design by Scaled Composites. The payload should be close to the capacity of the current space shuttle. It should be able to attain an altitude of 300 miles, and stay in orbit for at least one week with a crew of five. The cost per flight should be equivalent to a Trans-Pacific flight by a large airliner.

Once this craft is developed and successfully placed into operation, it will lead to an explosion in space industry and colonization.

How safe is the shuttle?

Carlon Addison DuPont Washington — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 19:53:11 GMT

While I'm glad that we are building a new spacecraft,I'd ride in the Space Shuttle today, if they would let me. I also do not think we should allow America to become dependent on the Russians for our access to space.

How safe is the shuttle?

Alan Boyle — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 20:01:09 GMT

In this item I didn't touch upon the troubles facing the Orion-Ares launch system, but these troubles will have to be factored into the equation for figuring out what to do about spaceflight. For example, the Orlando Sentinel has this report about a CBO report claiming the Orion-Ares development effort will require $7 billion more ... or else would have to be delayed years longer:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/
2008/11/congressional-w.html

And there are continuing design problems with Orion-Ares, as Clark Lindsey notes in his must-read blog, RLV / Space Transport News:

http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=9292

Meanwhile, SpaceX announces plans to move ahead with its DragonLab orbital science platform:

http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20081103

Are we witnessing the birth of a new commercial space power? Hard to say, considering that SpaceX has just one successful orbital launch under its belt. But it's definitely something for the next president to ponder.

How safe is the shuttle?

Gary Myers, Oneida, New York — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 20:30:03 GMT

Ok, Why is Griffin allowing more money to be spent to upgrade the shuttle and it systems if it is a poor design. We can not afford to not fly for five years (which will turn into eight years) or only fly via the Russians.

How safe is the shuttle?

Larry, Austin — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 20:53:08 GMT

Within the next 50 yrs, and I'll be gone, you young people will see space travel turn into no big deal, much like catching a Southwest flight out of Austin is now. Seems unlikely? Well, 50 yrs. ago we were still getting hauled around in DC-3's and the like, the first jet airliners were just starting to be introduced, and Sputnik was flying around the earth, doing nothing more than beeping. I still remember the first satellite TV broadcast from Telstar...it was some stupid show from France, and only lasted about 5 minutes while the satellite could pick up the signal. That was in 1961, I think. Look at us now, and you'll all be amazed when you're my age. Wish I could stick around to watch.

How safe is the shuttle?

Tom Hammond, Seattle, Washington — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:02:09 GMT

I know the international partners are putting pressure on NASA to keep the shuttles flying, and for good reason. The shuttle is the most capable low-earth orbit vehicle ever, and is really at it's finest when working with/at ISS. Not only is crew transport important (and not relying on the vagaries of international politics for access to the ISS and the HUGE investment and potential it represents), but experiment return is also a big factor. MPLM rack-return is a feature that cannot be underestimated.

Glad to see most posters support the space program. Keep in mind all of NASA comprises .6% of budget.
That is, for every ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS of federal income tax you pay, SIXTY CENTS goes to NASA (all of NASA, not just the shuttle--mars rovers, Cassini, etc etc etc). That's the kind of government efficiency and dedication that makes the USA great!

How safe is the shuttle?

Gphillip, Houston, TX — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:05:00 GMT

Alan, looking at the Spacex press page you referenced, it does look like NASA has seen the light, that a private company with a fraction of the cost can outcompete any government agency. The Spacex model should serve NASA well for Mars and Beyond programs, if NASA can just get over the NIH (Not Invented Here) roadblock. By the way, will you be invited to cover the "By Invitation Only" Spacex Users Workshop on Nov 6? Oh, to be a fly on that wall.

How safe is the shuttle?

Ed, Chattanooga, TN — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:05:50 GMT

What about after the current 10 missions, sending the thing on an automated flight to the station with the AMS on board. If you can manage to safely land the shuttle automatically, you get it back and maybe continue to be able to launch (without the cost of the people) large payloads again. I know that it wasn't built to land automatically, but that modification seems like a trivial engineering exercise for a fly-by-wire craft in the this day and age. If we could continue using the shuttle to lift bit cargo without having to keep the life support functional, it seems like the cost-benefit ratio improves significantly.

How safe is the shuttle?

Steve — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:06:50 GMT

10 flights at 1/80 odds do not result in an overall probability of 1/8. Every flight will always have a 1/80 probability of failure. For 10 flights or 1000 flights, each flight will always have a 1/80 probability of failure.

Put it this way: If you have a 1/80 probability of failure and you fly successfully 79 times, does that mean you have a 100% chance of failure on the 80th flight? No, you still have 1/80 probability of failure.

A good start to making an educated decision on these issues is to not start with a bad set of facts.

[ALAN ADDS: I tried to make this clear in the item. If we assume a 1-in-80 chance of catastrophe is correct, then that is the probability for each event, whether it's the first, or the 80th, or the 8,000th. But if you take a set of 10 events, what's the probability that one of those events will be catastrophic? What you're actually doing is asking what are the chances that you can go through 10 events with no catastrophe, and then taking the remainder of the probability. The formula for this would be 1 - ((79/80)^10). That's where you get the 11.8 percent chance. The dice-rolling experiment is actually instructive on this, if you roll 10 sets of dice at a time. You should have snake-eyes among the 10 dice rolls roughly a quarter of the time. So if you actually do 80 flights, are you certain of having a catastrophe at least once? Obviously not. This'll really fry your mind: The formula indicates that you have a 63.4 chance of having at least one catastrophe. Of course, that includes the chance that you have more than one catastrophe in a set of 80.]

How safe is the shuttle?

Tom, Mineapolis, MN — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:29:26 GMT

I agree with the concept of retiring the Shuttles in favor of the new systems in development; however, those systems will leave the US without what admittedly is one of NASA’s shining stars that being a capability to return manned servicing missions to spacecraft already in orbit. Taking the “Man Rated” requirement out of heavy lift systems makes the best sense.

While there is certainly a diminished need to use a vehicle like the shuttle in the future, there some things that it is still the best option for like returning large payloads to earth. I as a US taxpayer and therefore shareholder of NASA, will expect these capabilities to be recreated in an updated form for future orbital operations.

With our experience and expertise, a repair module that remains at the station or in orbit, capable of rendezvous’ with a CEV, is certainly within our means. Propulsion modules can be lofted with unmanned systems and then docked with whatever orbital system needs them.

As for when the shuttles should be retired; as soon as the existing hardware that has been built and designed for shuttle launch is on orbit, the shuttles need to be retired. That should include any remaining MPLM’s that could be docked with additional equipment/facilities for future use even if it’s only spares. The modules can provide additional storage/berthing for future transiting crews or safe haven in the event of an emergency. The shuttle’s robot arms could be left in orbit as well on each vehicle’s final voyage.

How safe is the shuttle?

Joe Como, New York, N.Y. — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:36:10 GMT

I believe we should not scrap the shuttle and instead send politicians in the place of astronauts until the new and improved space ship is ready. That is my scientific opinion.

How safe is the shuttle?

Tim, Rugby, UK — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:46:17 GMT

You misunderstood the memo.

Griffin said 10 ADDITIONAL flight (i.e after 2010), so the odds at the moment are still 1 in 80, like he previously said.

How safe is the shuttle?

Frank, Dallas, TX — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:51:19 GMT

The easy way to calculate the odds is to take the inverse of the odds that it does NOT fail:

(79/80)^10 = 88.18% chance all 10 missions succeed.

How safe is the shuttle?

Ron, Montgomery, Al — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:53:52 GMT

Mr. Griffin’s failure to understand simple failure stats is surely a problem. For one, the failure rate of the shuttle is a known factor, for another, he assumes that the failure rate of the replacement will be lower.

I for one will be glad to take my chances on a flight. A one in 80 chance of a major failure is a small risk to take for a flight in space.

How safe is the shuttle?

Chris Sabbagh, Boston, MA — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:07:03 GMT

I think it is worth the risk. Our astronauts know the risks of flying into space for the greater good and I believe that it is such a special and monumental experience that they wouldn't want to give it up for anything. I certainly wouldn't pass on the chance to ride in the shuttle no matter what the odds are.

How safe is the shuttle?

Ross, Sunbury, Pa — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:07:40 GMT

Both Shuttle disasters would have been avoided by simply placing the orbiter at the top of the stack, rather than strapped to the side, as one of the early designs had it. After Columbia, I wrote to NASA reminding them of this, and that the orbiter momentum would have carried the shuttle high above the explosion. Their reply: "Placing the orbiter at the top of the stack has been considered, but would result in a recertification of flight, which would take years." Then Challenger occurred, which resulted in that same "years delay" anyhow. Debris could NOT have struck the shuttle if the shuttle was ABOVE the debris-source. Now we are looking at a several-year gap of NO US-ISS capability. Penny-wise, Pound foolish.

How safe is the shuttle?

Beth,Philadelphia,Pa — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:17:11 GMT

After the Challenger disaster in '86,we should have ended the shuttle program in favor of developing the next generation of space craft.We are still usung flawed technology from the '60s,that has cost 14 lives so far.Isn't this enough. while I do believe that we must continue to explore our solar system and beyond,we must be more concerned with the safety of our Astronauts who risk their lives every time they fly the shuttle.Safety first before cost must be the new mantra for NASA..or they are doomed to extinction.

How safe is the shuttle?

David Marshall — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:35:34 GMT

The shuttle is already operating past the original life expectancy and while that is a remarkable acheivement, in spite of corrections to o-rings and more risk assesment in terms of foam hitting the wings, the fleet is aging.

While there are more safety checks and balances in place now for future shuttle flights, the components that cannot be easily replaed are past their life expectancy and its only a matter of time before something else fails. Better to retire the fleet early and wait for the next generation of space craft.

How safe is the shuttle?

JP Boulder CO — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:43:41 GMT

Ask the surviving family members of the 14 dead astronauts. I'm pretty sure they'll have an opinion!

How safe is the shuttle?

JP Boulder CO — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:54:43 GMT

Actually, NASA should get out of the manned spaceflight business altogether. Robotic missions are far more cost effective and NASA's much better at designing those anyway. Also, the Russians have a far better safety record than NASA will ever have with their time-proven heavy lift rockets. Plus, other countries should soon be able to take over shuttling back and forth to the gigantic technological boondoggle and money-pit that is the International Space Station. This idea of trying to send humans to Mars is just plain ridiculous too. We haven't even finished destroying the ecosystem on Planet Earth yet. We should at least finish that before we start on a new one!

How safe is the shuttle?

John Jarratt, Fredericton , Canada — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 23:10:45 GMT

I think the basic premise here is not whether the shuttle is breaking down from overuse but that it has a basic design flaw that cannot be changed- the craft is directly in the path of broken foam pieces which have been falling off since the first mission. Theplain is that the ISS is not worth the lives of another crew.

How safe is the shuttle?

Mike The Engineer, Central FL — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 23:14:29 GMT

As an employee working in the Aerospace industry for a major supplier of electronic subsystems that already fly on the Shuttle and will in the future be flying on Ares and Orion... I have at least *some* insight here, as some of my design work is already flying on the Shuttle.

In summary, I agree with Mr Reyes statement above. Statistics can be adjusted quite easily to provide "scientific" backing for a current agenda. The reality is that 1 in 80 statistics seem more like a return to the stone age of the Shuttle mission era... Perhaps at first that risk could have been. Perhaps not. After all, nothing went wrong until Challenger, right... And now, how many missions have they flown?? The number is greater than 100. (I'd have to go look it up to say exactly anymore... It's been a while since I last saw an exact number of missions.)

In all that, there were two accidents. -Both PREVENTABLE. Both will NOT LIKELY EVER be allowed to happen again. --So just how likely is it that the next 10 or 20 missions will be catastrophic? I think not so much.

The reality, however, is that the Shuttle operations will interfere with the progress in making modifications to heritage Shuttle launch preparatory and launch pad facilities for the Ares I use. It would be a very tricky maneuver, prone to many delays, to inter-mingle the two programs for an extended period of time.

With that said, I do want to point out that the Ares I-X DEMONSTRATION FLIGHT TEST (DFT) mission is proceeding right now in its development path WHILE shuttle operations are in process. There are some schedule snafus that can happen. -Such as the Shuttle's recent delays impacting the launch date for the Ares I-X demonstration flight test.- But in the end, the DFT teams probably can use that extra time to better prepare for their test flight mission... Thus, the main impact is COST.

What amazes me is that NASA is paying to integrate a commercial off the shelf demonstration flight avionics system for Ares I-X, which they intend to essentially throw away when the DFT is done. Sadly, the majority of avionics involved are arguably robust enough to perform flawlessly for any manned space flight mission. -If only NASA had not mandated that all Ares I avionics must be original/new designs and can NOT contain any commercial off the shelf technology.

Oh well. I suppose they have their reasons, to which I would have zero insight at my lowly level as a sub-prime engineer.

How safe is the shuttle?

robin, greenville, sc — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 23:21:01 GMT

We are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on greedy wall streeters who give nothing back. The space program has driven technology development and given us real tangible results, items we use every day.
I say take some of the money we'd waste on wall street and give it to NASA to fly the shuttles or ramp up the speed of Orion.
It's ridiculous that we waste money on greedy people and cut funding for the space program.

If I were one of the candidates I'd increase NASA's budget by at least 10BN/yr and tell them to do everything possible to keep us flying. If they needed more money or other assistance I'd give it to them.

How safe is the shuttle?

Andrew Allen — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 23:21:27 GMT

I have read these articles before and watched specials on missions. One that struck me was the Saturn V could leave a hole in part of FL. Ironicly, we never waivered from the odds on the Apollo Mission and changed history. Do any of you remember when the the last Skylab missions and apollo souyz missions happened there was a long dwell in our manned space program sue to the fact that the shuttle was so high tech they had to fix many many issues. I think that the sales pitch is to scare the american people. To prove my point look at the first mission to the challanger then look at that point (1986 or 87?) till the Columbia in 2003. Now we are in 2008 so, since 1981 and over 100 missions we have had to catastrophic failures making the MTBF (mean time between failure) very long on cycle and very short off cycle. To conclude they are dropping the shuttle just as we dropped the Saturn V. When we dropped the Saturn V we lost a tremenoudus lift capablity (over 1,000,000 lbs in low earth orbit. The shuttle is between 10% and 20% of that type of lift mass. I am not talking about how much Saturn V weighs loaded and fueled I am talking about what it can lift into orbit. It put a man on the moon and could have put 70,000 lbs to Venus or Mars. IF we had kept this platform we could have built massive unmanned platforms for space probes and would have been greatly ahead. The same goes with the ISS. 10 Saturn payloads and we have more than we have now!! For NASA to have so many smart folks making awsome rescources they sure as hell love to abandon it on the skip of a heartbeat when they have a new toy comming their way!!
SAD!!

How safe is the shuttle?

dale christensen north hollywood ca — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 23:44:37 GMT

the shuttle has been a marvelous vehicle overall, despite the 2 tragedys, its accomplishments have far
outweighed the risks over the past 27 years of flight.
the real question here is , should nasa invest more money to keep em flying, in lieu of state of the art
technology? the b-52 was never conceived to fly for 100 yrs, but it just might!!!!

How safe is the shuttle?

kyle, reno, nv — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 23:45:35 GMT

So sell the shuttle to a private company/lease flights from it. Maybe a private company can figure a way to fly the shuttle safely and make improvements upon it and allow NASA to continue flights at a "reduced" rate until the new Ares/Orion system is ready for flying. Selling the shuttle would provide NASA with funds...flying at reduced rates saves funds...more for the new Ares/Orion...

How safe is the shuttle?

Space Junky — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 23:58:26 GMT

Since when was space flight considerd a safe job? If you had givin Buzz Aldrin or Armstrong a 75% Chance of crashing into the moons surface I doubt any one of the moon walkers would have steped back. The truth of the matter is.... What are the ods I am going to die in care crash driving to and from work? The space shuttle my have not been the best invention overall but. It works, I'ts old, and i'ts time to move on. However it may be highly prudent to keep the fleet in stand by operation from 2010 till Aries is ready to fly. If there is a major problem with the ISS. Lets face it... We are relying on Russia? C'mon no politics mentioned... They are not a stable country, if the soyuz program looses funding (because the country goes broke) Who rescues the 100 Billion (Or what ever it cost) Multi nation space station? The shuttle needs to be retired... But even my grandpa sometimes has to go help people get a job dun. Keep them operational and hope we dont have to use them... Other option..... Comercialize the Shuttle... Hand them over to Westinghouse or something... Selling the technology alone could pay to keep them running for another 5 years.

How safe is the shuttle?

SpaceJunky — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 00:02:53 GMT

Another Thought: Fly the thing unmaned for the next 5 years.... If Russia flew their shuttle and landed it un maned so can NASA... Thet way if they needed to rescue the ISS crew they could fly it up un maned and they could bring it down. Or leave it up there for a life boat. build a gient space blinket and wrap it up and save it for a rainy day when the ISS breaks in half and they need to abandon ship!

How safe is the shuttle?

SpaceJunky — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 00:14:27 GMT

"Why not just update and repair the current fleet until the Orion is ready? Why not just cover the main fuel tank with a hard light weight plastic shell to keep the foam on? Yes it will add some weight, but would it be worth the slight drop in cargo capacity to keep then flying?

We should push for the development of a fully reusable space transport system. The goal should be for a craft that can take off from a conventional runway, attain orbit, deliver a payload, and return to earth to be reused again in one week.

The craft could be a single or tandem design, similar to the Spaceship One design by Scaled Composites. The payload should be close to the capacity of the current space shuttle. It should be able to attain an altitude of 300 miles, and stay in orbit for at least one week with a crew of five. The cost per flight should be equivalent to a Trans-Pacific flight by a large airliner.

Once this craft is developed and successfully placed into operation, it will lead to an explosion in space industry and colonization.
"

Ummmmmmm... If you could whip one of those out NASA has a job waiting for you... Fuel Dude! An airplane style craft has two problems... A Jet Engine cant run in space and a rocket engine burns way too much fuel to fly the 6000 or so mile it would take to achieve 300 Mile orbit launching horizontal. And a 747 cant lift a loaded Space Shuttle... How could you posably acheive such a feat using the same amount of Jet fuel a 3000 Mile 40,000' Altitude airliner uses? You should get some phyics clases before telling the Folks at NASA what to invent!

How safe is the shuttle?

Chris, Chicago IL — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 00:23:57 GMT

Why is nobody stating the fact that the shuttles were each designed for 100 missions? The most on any one shuttle was Columbia, which is no longer with us.

There have been about 125 missions across the entire fleet. Provided proper care and maintenance, they should be able to fly until the new system is ready.

Not one of these amazing machines should be set aside to we can pay the Russians to keep us in space. Doesn't anyone remember the race to space AGAINST the Russians?

Ask any astronaut who has been in a shuttle, and I doubt one would refuse a mission and say its not safe. Since when is strapping 7 people to tons of jet fuel and shooting them into space at thousands of miles per hour safe? NASA should be commended for their excellent safety record, having only lost 3 vehicles (17 people) over the course of 50 years!

How safe is the shuttle?

Drew Wohlenhaus, Olympia — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 00:26:43 GMT

As a former NASA Intern, I can tell you that many of the engineers within the Administration consider the shuttle program a joke. The only reason it is continued is due to the wishes of a few of the older "rocket" guys who happen to be in control of much of the administration.

What really blows my mind is that this government is still trying to lie to its citizens about anti-gravity and energy technologies that have been developed over the past 60 years through DARPA the Air Force and various other research and development programs.

Technologies that would completely eliminate the need to Oil companies or Weapons manufacturers as it is them that currently control the means of getting into orbit via extremely expensive rocket propulsion systems.

If you want to understand how free energy works, just look into zero point energy and realize that we are moving through the Universe at extremely high speeds, this gives us potential energy relative to the start of the big bang.

If you want anti-gravity, take a ferromagnetic super fluid cooled at -80F and spin it within a copper wound toroid. When you put electricity through the copper, the ferromagnetic super fluid will speed up to 60,000rpm due to the super fluid properties. Try to figure out when a ring of magnetic fluid spinning at 60k rpm might do. ;)

When it comes right down to it though, we really should just be focusing on Spaceship Earth.

How safe is the shuttle?

Steve Adams, Monmouth Beach, NJ — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 00:39:27 GMT

The idea of relying on the Russian vehicle for transporting American Astronauts because the Shuttle wuld be unsafe is curious. The preducted orbital success rate for the Shuttle (STS) appears to be the highest amoung all the vehicles listed at:
http://www.geocities.com/launchreport/reliability2008.txt
It would be unfortuate to trade a 12% Shuttle risk for a higher risk on a Russian vehicle.

How safe is the shuttle?

eric, — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 01:03:32 GMT

throw me the key I`ll drive it. Hitching a ride bye Russia, not such a good plan. esp opsec.
Astraunats drive them selfs to work every day.
when on the rds of america they have a greater
chance of not making it. so keap pushing
the limits.

How safe is the shuttle?

Alan Robb, Bradenton, Fla — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 01:43:04 GMT

Go Shuttle! For the life of me I can not understand why we didn't replace every lost shuttle with a newer improved one! Then the "risk" factor would decrease, we need both systems one short range and one long range. Instead of funding wars lets fund the future, and yes I'll be watching Endeavour Nov 14th from my frontyard saying "go baby go" God Bless.

How safe is the shuttle?

greg linker,portland,oregon — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 01:56:48 GMT

I fail to see why we are even supporting the ISS. What hard science has come out of it? A waste of time and money. The shuttle? An even bigger waste.

How safe is the shuttle?

Peter Davio, Sydney Australia — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 02:36:34 GMT

US Adminstration (Obama by the looks of it) should order NASA to fly the Shuttle to the end of the Space Station program until 2020. Each Shuttle was designed to fly 100 missions. The Shuttles were designed to fly to and service a Space Station. ESA, Jaxa, Canadians and Private Industry should be invited to fund the required $2 to $3 Billion per year to do so. Solves Gap problem. Solves funding Problem. Fly 2 or 3 missions per year with crew max of 5. Orion- Ares should focus on Moon with contigency only to ISS. Statistically you have more chance of dying climbing Mt Everest than flying on a Shuttle-quote from Administrator Griffin. Probably more chance of being killed-injured fighting in Iraq. Orion-Ares-Altair will no doubt loose a crew or 2 in 130 missions or so. Use Pad 39B for Duel Shuttle Orion use - NASA already saying they are thinking about that. Build 10 extra external tanks and store over next few years prior to Ares 5 start. If the Shuttle is that unsafe it should have been grounded in 2003.

How safe is the shuttle?

Athena Neuman, Simi Valley, CA — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 03:02:16 GMT

Has anyone calculated the odds of a Russian Soyuz launch failure over the period of time between Shuttle retirement and the Ares I first launch? In addition, has anyone compared the risk versus benefit of each spacecraft?

How safe is the shuttle?

T.L. Davis — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 03:05:49 GMT

We have a commercial alternative for suborbital flight now with Virgin Galactic and the Rutan space vehicle. Until a modern substitute for the old Saturn-5/Apollo launch vehicle is available in Orion/Galileo, I suggest investing in an atmospheric launch alternative for manned flights. Virgin Galactic on steroids, something like the old X-15 (nowhere near as large as the shuttle, but able to deliver personnel and small cargo shipments to the ISS. Even a Gemini capsule equivalent. Just something to fill the gap. It's possible that the USAF already has this capability. It's not in U.S. strategic interests to not have independent launch capability.

How safe is the shuttle?

Mike Hornberger, Vancouver, WA — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 03:21:14 GMT

Why not listen to the "experts"??? If NASA management had listened to the Engineers back in 2003, We would still have a 2003 crew of astronauts! The problem is that there is too much politics and too few brains running things! Listen to the EXPERTS, THE ENGINEERS!

How safe is the shuttle?

Tim M, Annapolis, MD — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 03:24:47 GMT

Think about the alternative... what are the chances that in the 5 year gap, that an fatal accident will occur on a Russian space capsule? I would venture to guess that the answer is 100%... multiple times.

Look at the last two re-entries of their capsules... off course by hundreds of miles (the Russians "lost" them for 30 minutes after landing), one of them re-entered inverted by accident, resulting in a harry ride and a stronger then normal (by several orders of magnitude) impact with the ground. Without the heat shields to protect them during re-entry, the capsule almost burned up.

And we are going to put all of our eggs in that basket? The decrepit space shuttles look far safer to me.

How safe is the shuttle?

Mark McIlree, Calgary Alberta — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 03:46:16 GMT

Maybe the Administrator of NASA should have to fly on every mission.

How safe is the shuttle?

Bill, Gibsonton FL — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 04:02:40 GMT

The last accident ended flights altogether for 2 years. So logic would dictate to end the shuttles early and the loss of life associated with it, and get on with building a new safer system.

How safe is the shuttle?

danny, tpa, fl — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 04:15:53 GMT

Don Nelson – Good One!! After all these years of building the space station I cannot believe NASA has put it in jeopardy by not having a US vehicle ready to carry passengers and components to the station. The worse thing they ever did is hook up with the Russians, we who have lived a long time realize the Russians will always revert to their KGB Communist ways. They use the station we built as a tourist trap and charge millions to visit the station. What the hell? How stupid can NASA Administration be to allow that to happen? Look at the period from 1963 to 1969 – no that was when NASA had some real engineers who could get things done, today they have so many overpaid PHD’s spread all over the country burning up budgets and they don’t have a craft to fly!! Get those old guys back and you will have a craft in a few years. Once NASA was state of the art – now it is one big bureaucratic paperwork nightmare that has a hard time doing much right. They are choking in their own paperwork

How safe is the shuttle?

a p garcia — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 04:32:12 GMT

The original shuttle idea( 1970 1st plan)was good idea and sound. It looked liked it relyed on liquid engines and manned boosters. Budjet cuts & buracratic squables meant that solids(SRB's) and no manned boosters won the day and doomed the shuttle. Retire the shuttle, buy the Soviet "Klipper" design and put American Ingunity to work, like was done to the AV8A design. Remember the Saturn 5 has a 100% "safety record.

How safe is the shuttle?

John Pattok, Kalamazoo, MI — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:33:13 GMT

I find it disturbing that Griffin would even cite odds at all, given the nature of space exploration. How are "they" determining the variables? There are far too many factors for a statistically accurate projection to be made.

That said, I have to state that no matter what the odds, space is still a frontier region, and the fact is that people die when we first open up a new frontier. If the loss of Roanoke had prevented pioneers, the United States would not exist. How many died on the Oregon Trail? Yes, the losses of the Challenger and the Columbia were tragic, but that should not deter our efforts to press onward. NASA has paid for the investment many times over when you consider the value of the NASA spinoffs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Spinoff

Given the volatile nature of Russia, how can we seriously consider outsourcing our space transportation? I believe we must extend the use of the shuttle. We must control our own destiny,lest we become a nation of timid bottom feeders who watch as those bolder than we claim the prime offerings of the heavens.

How safe is the shuttle?

Lane Friesen, Victoria, Canada — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:33:24 GMT

Read it for yourself in the MIT OpenCourseWare free video lectures by those who built the shuttle, in a forum organized by a former astronaut. This machine pushes the edge at all points, and is inherently dangerous, by design. You can listen to a lecture by the lady who made the decision to ground the shuttle in 2010; this appears to have been a somewhat arbitrary date:

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Aeronautics-and-Astronautics/16-885JFall-2005/LectureNotes/index.htm

How safe is the shuttle?

Steve Phillips — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 07:31:06 GMT

Well, it's like this, Dale Earnhart put it best when he was asked about the speeds they were attaing in NASCAR. He said to the reporters, "hey, let the guys run as fast as they can! They know the risk involved in the SPORT, if they want to compete they will"!
POINT IS, This will be a major risk for years to come! Anytime you strap a few people on top of a pipe full of the most explosive fuel ever created in the most complicated machines ever created, for a thrill ride, you're bound to make mistakes. We are human, we make mistakes. Lives will be lost. That is a fact we will live with forever in our explorations of space!! Astronauts know this.
As far as the funds go, OUR FAITHFUL GOVERNMENT just stole 1.5 trillion dollars to give to their pals to go out and party with, I'm sure they could steal a few billion more somewhere, or for that matter, just print it up!!!!!!!

How safe is the shuttle?

Wayne in Kansas City, MO — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:37:06 GMT

What ever happened to the pioneering spirit of America and the human race? The first time that we launched a human into space, nobody knew if they would survive the launch, much less the harsh environment of space. People settling the frontier of this country risked and died for the opportunity to explore and expand the bounds of humanity. Today we're scared of these kinds of odds, because we've decided that space travel should be as safe as any other form of transportation, but it's NOT! And yet I haven't heard a single astronaut of the hundreds we have today say that they refuse to go on a shuttle mission. If these people, the very lives you are so scared of losing, are willing to take the chance, then who are we as a nation to do anything but cheer them on as the brave and modern pioneers that they are!?

How safe is the shuttle?

Grafix Dude, Ft Lauderdale, Fl. — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:01:47 GMT

The math is indeed flawed from what I understand here. But there are more than just mathematical reasons as to why statistics alone, should not be relied upon to determine the fate of a program.

Statistics are very useful indicators of success or failure probabilities. But, they are not absolutes. If the 1 in 8 flight accident rate in the shuttles
case were an absolute, there should have been an accident on the 8th shuttle flight...not the 25th flight.

The 1 in 80 odds of course, would have dictated a probable shuttle disaster on the 80th flight. But prior to Challenger, the stats were skewed towards a
much higher success probability. Something like 1 in 500 IIRC.

After Challenger, it was 87 flights before the Columbia accident occurred. A far higher demonstrated actual statistical outcome than the actual outcome
of 1 in 25 resulting from the Challenger accident. In effect, a learning curve that resulted in increasing the statistical probability of success.

Based on the 1 in 80 statistical probability. It could be argued that the remaining scheduled flights should be completed without major mishap. However, one cannot rely on stats alone to make a case either way.

The Saturn V had a 100% success rate to be sure, but The Saturn V flew 13 times.

Even the shuttle managed 25 flights before its first accident. And the Saturns success rate does not reflect absolutely perfect launches each time. There were stage II engine anomalies on Apollo 6 and 13 IIRC. And unlike the shuttle, the Saturn V benefitted from development in a budget rich environment.

It should be noted that statistics were cited by Author Bill Kaysing in his claim of the moon landings being hoaxed. A use of stats that are indicative of someones absolute belief in statistical odds...or deliberate misuse of statistical information. In either case, not a strong enough reason to make a controversial claim, or base shuttle flight safety issues on.

In the Kaysing case, the stats were that the odds of a successful round trip lunar landing mission were something like 1 in .0017. In other words, a successful man on the moon mission was simply impossible by statistical reasoning, therefore NASA faked them.

The .0017 statistic reportedly came from a study by Kaysings former employer, Rocketdyne in the late 1950s, and was partly based on the data for reliability of rockets at that time.

Actual operations rather than statistics resulted in rockets eventually becoming far more reliable than they were in the 1950s. Reliable enough to greatly increase the chances of a successful lunar mission.

Something that Bill Kaysing apparently ignored.

The reason we have not developed a follow on shuttle per letter writer Jamie Logans request is that, we already tried. Programs such as the X-33 (Venture Star) were designed for that purpose.

There were several unsuccessful attempts (NASP, Delta Clipper) all eventually canceled due largely to developmental costs. While those programs did not require Apollo sized budgets, they required budgets larger than what the public and lawmakers were willing to spend...even during the Clinton budget surplus years!

These efforts culminated in the cancellation of NASAs last effort at developing a shuttle successor, the Venture Star. The Venture Star was cancelled in 2001 as a result of technical issues which made the cost
of continuation unacceptable.

The bottom line is money. You can still find people complaining about having a human spaceflight program because its too costly in their view, long after NASAs budget was cut by roughly 50% in the post apollo years.

Even President Elect, Barack Obama was calling for NASA cuts early in his campaign. Cuts he thought should go to education. Why not cut the far larger annual budget spent on Iraq if we need education money
that badly?

Unforetunately, the reality is that a sizeable percentage of folks could care less about human spaceflight, as evidenced by the current plans to return to the moon using Apollo based technology but without the Apollo sized budget.

One can only hope the private sector will do what NASA will probably never be properly budgeted for again. And thats get humans into space on a regular basis which should eventually set the stage for
exploration beyond LEO.

How safe is the shuttle?

Robert A.M. Stephens, Las Cruces New Mexico, 88011 — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:13:24 GMT

I have been a Documentation Artist and interface with NASA since 1981, STS-1, and at that time was a Failure Engineer for MDAC-NASA-KSC for STS.

I do know failure and CRIT-1 failure issues, especially with STS.

Since that time in '81 to current and studying all phases of STS it appears that not only should STS continue to fly but one more vehicle should be assembled to replace Columbia and augment Atlantis, Endeavor and Discovery. However, the fault tree scenario shows that we will now lose one more vehicle, regradless.

This is not entirely doom. Please read on.

The Fault Tree shows that in a 25 year operational life of the STS we would lose three ships. 1.-one on launch, 2.-one on reentry, 3.-one on orbit. So far, the fault tree is 100% accurate. We WILL lose a third ship on orbit. It is a given.

However, this is not some new hardware like a toaster or some new product like some form of jello. No, these are Space Ships. And in space exploration there is extreme risk.

Everyone involved knows this categorically. It is not subject to debate nor is it subject to lack of resolve.

Thus, build another bird since Discovery is the oldest and most likely to exceed operational life and fail catastrophically - (CRIT 1 Failure=loss of vehicle, mission, and crew, due to one of any of the 700 CRIT-1 items that would terminate the flight if any one or more of each fails or occurs.).

With this stated as fact, build one more orbiter to augment the nearly new Atlantis, still young Endeavor, and ramp for replacement of a failed Discovery.

Now, ramp ahead with these stats in mind and operate till STS is able to be translated over, and phased out completely, to operational next-gen transportation system*.

And do not operate with reliance on any foreign space partner.

This is risky business. Ok, it is what we do and so live with it. Then, basically, stop hand wringing and "Go For Throttle Up!"

*I do not agree at all with a next gen space delivery system based on retro-Apollo.

Build another bird, 5-7 missions per year. Add one more orbiter. Fly to failure. Extend STS to translation to next-gen to and from delivery system. Simple.

Admin: Consider.

I am,

Robert A.M. Stephens, LLC ®
NASA Fine Art Documentation Program
Aztec-Maya Gold Expedition
http://www.behold-the-rage.com
_______________________________________________
Have Jeep, Have Horse, Have Heart, Will Travel

How safe is the shuttle?

Guy S. Newell — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:23:37 GMT

The point is by this administrator is that the Space Shuttle is a very poor design and should never have been launched in the first place. There's no logical reason to combine heavy lift capability with human transport and no cost savings in reuse of such a complex and high performance vehicle that has to be completely refurbished after each use. Putting humans between two solid rocket boosters was just plain stupid from day one. 14 people are dead and the responsible people just lost their jobs instead of their freedom. NASA should have been dismantled after the second disaster.

How safe is the shuttle?

Phil — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:44:44 GMT

The space shuttle is old technology. Why are solid rocket boosters still being used to begin with? It took a private company 6 years to design and develop a craft that uses non-volatile rocket fuel to get into space. Can we please get away from the light the fuse, back up, and hope for the best approach of getting into space?

How safe is the shuttle?

Joey Louisville Ky — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:17:59 GMT

I am sorry, but I have a hard time with the business of space. I have always supported it whole heartily and with anticipation. This is the most dangerous profession there is, and the astronauts know this and are still willing to take the risk. If I could have I would have become one. (Wrong generation) I believe we should spend more money and make space a bigger priority. We live in a country that has made great technology changes in medicine, but NASA has to beg for every dime. Yeah, I know this is not science fiction, but you know, what used to be sci fi is now reality in some fields, medicine, computers, etc. The country is looking for a business to help the economy , Space exploration could be that business. Let’s put a new urgency to space travel and the leadership to guide it into the next generation. NASA has done very well up till now, but NASA doesn’t play well with others, and I think they should be mandated to work with the private sector more and get the new shuttle up and going ahead of schedule ( using the newest shuttles till then)and then become the nation that the world looks to for leadership in space exploration.

How safe is the shuttle?

Mike Chapman Fairmont, WV — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:36:01 GMT

We have stats on the topic. For every 50 flights or so we lose 1 crew.

How safe is the shuttle?

Mike Martinez, Inver Grove Heights, Mn. — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:51:23 GMT

What I don't understand is why we designed and built a space shuttle that is unsafe to fly to begin with. In this hurry-up job of a project. was it the fault of Congress or the Government to financially limit NASAm but yet get a shuttle up and flying? Or has it been the bureaucratic and incompetent nature of big organizations such as NASA that doomed the project from the beginning. AS in the Saturn Moon rocket design of success---why wasn't some of that success transferred over to the shuttle program? Some in one of the letters, blamed the administrator of NASA for most of NASA's problems---maybe a little, for not being a stronger leader that could handle people as well as hardware. Another question is why hasn't the last few shuttles been worked on extensively to adapt more safety features---or is it that the engineers and designers worked themselves into engineering corners that they could not salve. WE need better thinking people at MASA I believe for the future, because problems can only get worse and more diverse.

How safe is the shuttle?

Jed, NYC, NY — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:41:55 GMT

I have to agree with the NASA plan. Retire the shuttle by 2010; if one more flight is necessary to deliver a component to the ISS, then go for it - but consider the ISS is due for retirement by 2020. I believe that the future of space flight is in the private sector, with companies like virgin galactic and SpaceX - which just completed a test launch of its Falcon 1 vehicle to an altitude of 330 km.

How safe is the shuttle?

brandan, fort worth Texas — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:18:48 GMT

their are glitches in any simple and complicated system and any person with knoledge of what their doing is going to make an error in what they do everyday so the odds of loosing another crew are most likly correct i work on heavy equipment and have seen more accidents from a simple lookover during a safty inspection than a osha combover nasa has had the shuttles to long and i believe they need to be retired. they mayby the most safisticated machine ever built but like any aircraft with every flight its stucture weakens and is bound to fail.

How safe is the shuttle?

Carlos the plumber — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:39:41 GMT

How safe is the Shuttle? No safer than the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria. Odds aside, if humans never took risks they would not be the (arguably) dominant life form on this planet today.

How safe is the shuttle?

Del, Bothell, WA — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:56:07 GMT

The TV show "Life on Mars" is about a man who gets stuck back in 1973 and shows what a different mind set existed then. I imagine it's a lot like walking around parts of NASA. What do we gain or learn investing so much in the Shuttle, Hubble, or ISS? In the 70s the Shuttle and Sky Lab replaced Apollo moon missions. Today we should be investing in Ares, James Webb Telescope, and Orion.

How safe is the shuttle?

Ernst (Houston, TX) — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:04:57 GMT

Its impossible to know for sure the unique considerations that one must take into account for each specific vehicle launch as each vehicle assembly is different. However, the two major causes (SRB joint failure & Orbiter tile delaminations) are currently mitigated effectively, thus the failure rate will be driven by something else ("the unknown"). The STS Shuttle is the thing we know and knowledge grows with each launch - we don't get the benefit of implementing effective recurrence control as soon as we need to (budget pressure, material lead time, etc.). Also, we get much more bang for the $$ when we go to Low Earth Orbit.

How safe is the shuttle?

Robert, Charleston, SC — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:10:29 GMT

So large chunks of falling foam are a big risk to the ceramic--address the root problem!

Why not simply add a METAL jacket to the underside of the shuttle on the way up? Jettison it like the SRBs, after the tank and that darn foam is clear...

Why not simply spin some mono-filament fishing line around the tank before final painting? It'd weigh next to nothing, be locked into a web like the reinforcing threads in our money, and any falling chunks of foam would have to be smaller than the web openings...

So again, wouldn't it be cheaper to address the root problem than to rent Soviet equipment? And it'd certainly be cheaper than the costs (AND RISKS) to "fast-rack" Aries/Constellation design any further!

How safe is the shuttle?

CherryBomb — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:10:49 GMT

I have never been a fan of the Space Shuttle, but all of this sudden concern over the risks seems overblown to me. Before the first one even launched, I had guesstimated a catastophic failure about once every 50 flights (pretty good guess, huh!), and NASA went ahead with it knowing more than I did. Why is this only now an unacceptble risk? I can believe their new crew delivery system will be safer, but not by an order of magnitude.

How safe is the shuttle?

Mongo — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 23:45:39 GMT

We have to remember that each flight carries new technology on board. Technologies that often impact human kind in positive ways. The space program is not a civilian operation or just another government operation. It is a military environment in it's risks and acceptance of those risks by the astronauts who choose to fly on the shuttle. If we are reach toward the stars, there are going to be losses, including human losses. We loose tens of thousands of people to all types of accidents each year but we do not clamor for the cessation of producing those technologies or environments that lead to THOSE deaths.

Finally, both shuttles were lost because of human error in judgment. We knew about O-ring problems before it brought it down Challenger. We knew about foam shedding being a possible risk. It's the human element that failed and took human life.

How safe is the shuttle?

jack lee, colorado springs, co — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 06:07:13 GMT

The Ares/Orion will be 1,000 times safer then the Shuttle,
because it will never fly. The people doing this work
are wildly underqualified and attempting to maintain a
fleet of contractors who are wildly underqualified.

While NASA now has processes for looking for foam strike
or SRB burn through, they aren't looking for
Main engine trouble or critical secondary system trouble.

When something big goes wrong in one of the pumps or
the APU catches fire, they will lose the bird

How safe is the shuttle?

Del Dodge, Bothell, WA — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 08:15:58 GMT

The cost of each Space Shuttle mission is more than the original cost of the Hubble project and the Mars rover project combined. Stop the financial hemorrhage as soon as possible and lets spend time/money/resources on projects that advance NASA's mission directorate.

How safe is the shuttle?

Tyriael Soban, Alberta CA — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 09:19:58 GMT

you do have to remember that they are asking the astronauts to risk their lives on these missions, and that the longer you hang on to the shuttles the more chance there is something catastrophic will happen.

[Quoted Anon; Hardware is expendable; human life is not. To lose even a single crew member is an unacceptable loss. End of Quote]

personally, i think theyve done a grand 'oul job, and now its time to let them rust in piece (or rest, whichever youd prefer).
you wouldnt eat food beyond its use-by date, would you?
so why keep the shuttles in service longer than they were intended to be?
as for private sector methods?
maybe its time NASA started looking towards them, and considered working togeather with the private sector?

How safe is the shuttle?

Greg Payne, Littleton Colorado — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 13:27:40 GMT

What an amazing piece of engineering prowess.
There would be no space station without the shuttle
system. NASA did an incredible job with the whole shuttle program. I would like to see the mission
finished. Especially the Hubble Repair. Then retire
the program as planed. I will volunteer to go if
you all are having trouble finding people to go in the face of 1 in 80 odds.

How safe is the shuttle?

mic, oklahoma — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 17:19:04 GMT

I fully support giving NASA more funding to get our space shuttles working. We don't need to fall behind any other nation in anything. We pulled funding from our atom smasher in Texas, now there's one in Europe. We need to be leaders in the space race.

How safe is the shuttle?

a p garcia — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:40:53 GMT

Retire the shuttle. It would have been safer if NASA stuck to the 1970's shuttle idea of a manned booster. Budjet cuts and buracratic squabbles led to the SRB's. NASA should have stuck with the SATURN 5 AND IT 100% SAFETY RECORD. I would favor NASA buying Russia's "Klipper" and then refine it with American ingenuity.

How safe is the shuttle?

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:01:06 GMT

"The shuttle is between 10% and 20% of that type of lift mass. I am not talking about how much Saturn V weighs loaded and fueled I am talking about what it can lift into orbit. It put a man on the moon and could have put 70,000 lbs to Venus or Mars. IF we had kept this platform we could have built massive unmanned platforms for space probes and would have been greatly ahead. The same goes with the ISS. 10 Saturn payloads and we have more than we have now!!"

All the above is well and good...only IF you fully expect to also have programs that require launching Saturn-worthy payloads.

Remember, wide-bodied commercial jets exist only because the demand on a number of long routes make them more efficent than an equivalent number of smaller aircraft. If you could send a 747 back to 1930 or so, you couldn't make money with it. You couldn't fill the seats to financial break-even unles you flew very infrequently, and that's no good if that small market still needs the ability to fly 'route X' more than once a week. (and planes only make money while flying, not on the ground) That's why the DC-3 was so successful, it was the right size, right speed, right range at the right time in commercial aviation.

Now, NASA does not have to show a profit for what it does, but it *does* still have to be reasonably efficent. If we had built the 50-man space stations of the late 70's, the Lunar bases soon after, the nuclear powered space tugs to support those bases, and to help launch Mars missions, then Saturn-class rockets are worthwhile, and you keep the production lines open,and even get soem economies of scale, by their steady production (as some Russian launchers do). I've heard that one driver of the maximum shuttle payload and the volume of its payload bay, was the intent of lifting NERVA-type nuclear rocket engines to orbit.

But none of that happened.

You don't build heavy-lift launchers (a term once meant Saturn/Nova/N-1 class rockets, but has been dumbed down over the decades itself) unless you expect lots of heavy payloads (and expect to PAY for those ambitious programs). Otherwise, you launch smaller payloads on smaller rockets and assemble in orbit (as noted, beyond a certain point, launching big is better), or you don't do it at all.

We don't still have Saturns (or anything like them), becacuse we were no longer willing to spend the money to do the things that *required* Saturns. Simple as that.

And even Satruns were still *expendable* launchers. Beyond a certain demand point, even a heavy-lift launcher should be an RLV (and plenty of designs existed for such a thing, largely from Boeing and Douglas aircraft)

How safe is the shuttle?

Mark, Terre Haute, IN — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 02:05:05 GMT

Predicting "odds" should be left to bookies in Vegas. From an Engineering Stand point something as simple as predicting the exact moment a bolt will break under load is STILL impossible. If one pick out 100 blots made on the same machine, on the same day, out of the same material, made consecutively, ONE can still not tell when it will break, NOR will any of them brak in exactly the same way. The shuttle, like any other machine made using engineering principals, are subject to RISK,... not ODDS. Each device / mechanism and part is designed to meet specific criteria. One cannot predict RANDOM failure, that’s why it's called RANDOM. Worn / bald tires blow out,... but so do new ones. Old TV sets stop working,... but some new ones do not work right out of the box. If one wants to analyze the long term usefulness of an aeronautical wonder,... than one need to look at the 60 year old B-52's....

How safe is the shuttle?

Daniel B. Stewart, Butler, PA. — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 04:43:57 GMT

The President of Russia today stated that they will place missiles on the Polish border If we don't stop the missile defense project in Poland. And you think that using them to launch our astronauts into space is a good idea? Give me a break! Spend the money to keep the shuttle running until the replacement is ready.
Anything less and we are asking for major problems and headaches

How safe is the shuttle?

Craig, Mojave, CA — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 05:12:56 GMT

I love that the Ares 1 is so over budget, and probably not a whole lot safer than Shuttle. On my good days, when I believe in human nature, I think this was intentional. Knowing that outright cancellation of the program was politically untenable, Griffin went the other way - employed the same people in a technically untenable pursuit, a hedge on the REAL investment - COTS. How long do you think Ares will last when SpaceX is doing it for 1/10th the development and launch cost? It might be Griffin with egg on his face at that point, but he already invested in a frying pan to turn it into a yummy omelette. Really, he may have done it TOO well - the Ares/Orion system slid easily through congress like the greasy pork that it is, and it is looking completely hopeless financially and technologically. The question then becomes - do Lockheed and Boeing get out of launch altogether, or do they wake up and become competitive with Atlas and Delta?

How safe is the shuttle?

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:41:07 GMT

"What really blows my mind is that this government is still trying to lie to its citizens about anti-gravity and energy technologies that have been developed over the past 60 years through DARPA the Air Force and various other research and development programs."

Proof, please?

And why is no other country in the world also smart enough to figure it out, independently? Physics, whatever ir is in the end, is the same for everybody.

'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.'
- Carl Sagan

How safe is the shuttle?

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:01:34 GMT

"Since when was space flight considerd a safe job? If you had givin Buzz Aldrin or Armstrong a 75% Chance of crashing into the moons surface I doubt any one of the moon walkers would have stepped back."

100 years ago, the same could be said of aviation. Today, we get on commercial airliners with the near certainty that we'll get where we're going.

The first goal should be vehicles (and with the plural, I mean more than one design) that can get us at least to low Earth orbit with comparable safety (including intact flight abort) and reliability. It will take good engineering work, but there's nothing inherently impossible or unacheiveable about it.

And everyone stop waving the amount of fuel the Shuttle (or any other orbit capable rocket of similar payload) must carry. The maximum fuel capacity of a Boeing 747 is 57285 U.S. gal (216840 L) of aviation-grade kerosene (The Saturn 5 first stage, Falcon-1 and several other launchers burn much the same stuff).

If that gets out of control, it will kill you just as dead, but few of us worry about getting on one of those planes (I'm sure even the 9/11 hijackers commandeered planes fueled for transcontinental flights, for maximum effect against their targets). The amount of propellant alone is not the danger issue, design is. (Remeber how Ford Pintos were highly intolerant of rear-end collisions?)

The point is to *make* space flight safe and still have a useful, practical vehicle. Going back to 'Apollo on steroids' ain't it.

How safe is the shuttle?

Turkey — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 19:05:52 GMT

This is really fantastic essay..
It's very useful for people..
Thank you so much.
Therefore I'll write something.
Best regards.

How safe is the shuttle?

John Johnson — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 01:46:43 GMT

The shuttles were designed for 100 missions each. They should only be 1/4 or 1/3 through their design lifetimes. The o-ring problem was fixed (not so sure about the problem that precipitated the decision to launch in temperatures so far below the specified limits of the system). The shuttle is great at taking large loads into space and can bring things back down (don't know what its descent capacity is or if there is even a need for it). If they could just stop that darn foam from shedding. In the abandoned russian mini shuttle, Kliper, and the mothballed NASA HL-20 mini shuttle, the orbiter is above the cryogenic tanks, so no foam problems. The space shuttle is now inspected each flight from orbit. I hope they have a feasible rescue system in place in the event the shuttle once again is critically damaged. I wonder if the odds for mishap are better than Griffin is suggesting, considering all that has been learned. In spite of the complexity of the design, I've heard it is a good system with large safety margins built into it.

Johnny J

How safe is the shuttle?

JC, Fairbanks, AK — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 05:11:35 GMT

The complexity is itself one of the shuttles worst features. A few fixes do not significantly change the odds. So no, the shuttle has NOT become significantly safer.The dangers cannot be known beforehand, and we will run out of shuttles a long time before hazards. However, the Russo-soviet safety record is not so hot either. They have lost several cosmonauts to failures, they collided a cargo ship with the ISS not that long ago, and US astronauts are on record as describing the old Mir station as "a death-trap". Russian craft are also very uncomfortable, the rides suck (esp. re-entry), they sometimes wind up landing hundreds of Km from where they are meant to. Not awe inspiring. In any case, space travel is never going to be "safe" as long as we are strapping people into rocket propelled bombs.

I too have heard the rumblings coming out of NASA that the Ares/Orion project is in trouble. The highest profile of these is that the rocket as currently designed would vibrate so violently it could shake astronauts to death, or even come apart completely. I find it astounding that we can't seem to do anymore what the scientists and engineers of the '60s and 80's DID. This speaks of an erosion of competence in the human spaceflight program in general. As I have mentioned here before, I think it is time to tear down the manned program altogether and start fresh. That means dumping the ISS (a shuttle burning up is explanation enough to our "partners"!), the shuttle AND the Ares. And evaluating whether or not we should abandon rockets altogether. I also point out that *another* shuttle disaster might be a stake through the heart of the human spaceflight program.

As far as COTS and any support for space tourism, these should NOT be funded by NASA or any other agency; That is taxpayer money. If private industry wants to go to space, then private industry can foot the bill, not me. I have no desire to help fund rich peoples' junkets to space. If industry won't fund, then the time isn't right for it to get involved. I have no problem with NASA procuring services and hardware, but I do with any giveaway of tax money for little to no material return to taxpayers. Private enterprise is also no solution to safety issues: whenever there is a competition between safety and the profits, business will err on the side of profit. I have an 800-mile-long example of this running right near my house (the AK oil pipeline).

As far as keeping them flying, our congress and executive branch have a long history of making grand plans ("visions") for NASA, making demands, then cutting its funding. As long as that pattern persists NASA will not be able to fulfill its mission (and corners will be cut). The outcome of extending the shuttles but not paying for them will be predictable: many much more productive programs will be slashed or cut altogether. This doesn't seem like the way to go, to me.

To Derek: what you describe is alot of what the original concept behind the shuttle was. But you can't have everything. Even the shuttle we DO have was very expensive to build and operate. And we got an albatross instead of an eagle.

Ed: in point of fact, there is almost nothing about flight (space or otherwise) that cannot be automated or done remotely now. The concept of "pilot" can (and will) be made obsolete very soon. Know where the "pilots" of the Predator planes that keep blasting away at terrorists are? At least some of them are in Washington DC! In addition, the weakest link in the plane-human system is . . . yup, the human. They are capable of far more performance than any human can take, and they don't need air to breathe. A piloted fighter plane would be no match for a remotely flown one.

How safe is the shuttle?

Jim House, Walnut Creek, CA — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 20:33:57 GMT

I can't help but wonder if air launch wouldn't have been chosen for most space missions in the first place if it wasn't for the PR aspects of the fiery ground launch. Not much to see when the space vehicle separates from its host at FL 40 or so. No roaring flames = no TV coverage = less public support. Why not have a big fireworks show on the ground to commemorate the separation event. Sure would be a lot less expensive.

How safe is the shuttle?

Jim Clinton, Phoenix, AZ. — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:15:59 GMT

Pull the plug on the Shuttle NOW! It is not worth the risk. I am a big space enthusiast. We, as a nation, have come a long way from the Apollo days, when after the Apollo I, fire safety came first. That is greatly regretable. If another shuttle crew is killed there will be no excuses. Sincerely, Jim C.

How safe is the shuttle?

Ted Menneke, McKenna, WA — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 03:20:08 GMT

Where did NASA's patriotism go? I am so ashamed of our space program! The administrator plays more politics and is obviously skewing numbers to scare the American people un-necessarily. All my research has shown that just like a new aircraft design it has growing pains just like the shuttle that was designed for 200 missions! Incidents happen, Challenger was directly CAUSED BY NASA or have we forgot? Columbia was a freak accident but I still read about the 98 to 99% reliability of EACH flight!

Nobody has a crystal ball but I know NASA is embarissing itself in front of those heroes of the 1960s and 1970s. So now they will stoop to suck up to the militarily and political hotbed of Russia, of all people, to bend over and help the poor American Space Program who has been tecnologically supierior for over 40 years.

Shame on you NASA, get off your butts and do what we are capable of and fly the shuttle until Orion is ready. WE don't need to hitch hike on Soyuz which in the past year has injured 3 Astronauts due to reentry failures.

As the NASA engineer suggested, we need to put a real American in the job as Administrator!!!

How safe is the shuttle?

John Pitchlynn, Norman, OK — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:06:43 GMT

I cannot believe these odds for one reason...Both Shuttle accidents were clearly preventable. Bad Leadership, Poor Risk Management,doing things on the cheap and making promises that couldn't be kept could have prevented both.

Like any aircraft system the Shuttle has gone through growing pains. Cost overruns, safety tradeoffs etc. But generally speaking both shuttle failures were clearly preventable. I won't talk about Challenger because everything that could be said about it has been said.

The last accident was also preventable. The inclusion of the robot arm with camera...a space walk...a fly by...pictures from hi resolution cameras...a repair kit already in place...an ejection capsule...all have been planned at one time or the other...all have either been rejected as being too expensive...or it was just too much trouble. The technology is available but NASA management failed in its duty to protect the crew to the fullest extent possible and to fund and use every technology available to protect the crew.

To me the solution is very simple...Hold NASA management accountable...fire them and get Pilots in charge who understand flight test, operations and managing risk...funding rescue options that are viable. For instance...enough fuel for a damaged shuttle to make it to the ISS if it's on a different mission. More O2 storage and food can be carried aboard. Rocket packs for EVAs that allow complete inspection of the spacecraft...or transit to the ISS...an escape capsule that can carry the crew...etc.

The taxpayer bought this spacecraft for a lot of money...as long as the pilots will fly it and they are in charge...then a few more missions won't matter one way or the other. I believe that Griffin just wants to shut down managments embarassment at their inept handling and fund the Orion. Fine...then he should just say so on his way out the door.

We want to go to Mars and back to the moon...low earth orbit is the perfect place to learn how to work..live and survive...so we better start now.

This is not to say there won't be any accidents...(hundreds of lives were lost in aviations early day accidents).. but it will give the crew a fighting chance at life is something does go wrong.

How safe is the shuttle?

Blair, Allegan, Michigan — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 03:10:42 GMT

When you fly experimental, high performance aerospace craft, you loose crew. Deal with it.

They are ALL volunteers. They know the risks and accept them. 1 in 80 chance? I'd fly it!

How safe is the shuttle?

George Cernigliaro — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:34:05 GMT

Given that the shuttle has been flying about 28 years, and that NASA has learned so much about it, and itself, in that time, it seems prudent not to throw away that huge investment. We've lost 2 shuttles in, what, 150 or so missions? In 20:20 hindsight, both losses were preventable, but not entirely so. As one of the responders above mentioned, as long as vigilance around those obvious potential safety issues, and others, as identified by NASA, is maintained, then the odds of losing a crew and shuttle are acceptable. Unless, of course, NASA knows something not yet revealed.
As to ARES I, aren't there available US built ELV's, such as Delta IV or Atlas V, with requisite thrust to take the place of ARES-I? The vibration problem may not be as much of an issue with these launchers since their thrust profiles and early sequence launch velocities are nowhere near as intense as the SRB-based ARES-I. Either these commercial launch vehicles should be exploited for ARES-I immediately while NASA works on the heavy-lift ARES-V, or NASA should go with their Plan B ARES-V, which can launch both LM and Command Module, like Saturn V.

How safe is the shuttle?

chaas — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 02:42:47 GMT

One wonders with the advent of spaceship-1, its competitors, and their next-gen vehicles, why on Earth are we still using the Shuttle to get to orbit? I'd like to see NASA hand the past off to private companies and move on to the next big event. Get to the Moon and beyond.

Well, that's what I'd like to see anyway. In reality, the ISS requires that we continue flying the shuttle to get her finished. Announcing the Orion project so far in advance was a mistake that will only create controversy, especially if we lose another shuttle between now and then.

How safe is the shuttle?

Susan, Broken Arrow — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:03:02 GMT

I just do not see how we can continue to risk the lives of Americans, given these odds - yes, they are odds, but we are playing with people's lives every day. When I read the bios of everyone of these people, eveyone of them have already given of him or herself to our country in military service to our country. I immediately thought of my brother who served for years and years giving weekend upon weekend and two years every year keeping trained and never knowing if he would be called to active duty. My father served in active duty and then in reserves, as well. He was a lt. col. in the Army and proudly served in World War II. These astronauts love what they are doing for us - they are great patriots. We cannot allow them to continue to risk life at such a high risk for America when there are safer "space travels" for them. Even if we have contractual agreements with other countries, let's buy out our contracts. Let's negotiate the contract to carry out the terms of the contracts when we have safer travel methods for our astronauts. I'm tired of our paying most of the rest of the world's way for things - let them pay their way, on our terms - not their terms - for a change.

How safe is the shuttle?

Jim B. — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 16:34:26 GMT

This may be a bit off-topic, but while we discuss the extension of the shuttle program, I can't help but mull over my two words for NASA: INSPIRE ME! After flying what have been, arguably, the most amazing and complex space machines ever built (let's face it...no one has done it like we have!), we're moving backwards with Orion/Ares I. Why do we move back to what can easily be compared to ELVs and capsule designs of the past? What ever happened to the next-generation space plane or other comparable project that would show we have the moxy to be on the cutting edge? Has NASA lost vision (or adopted the "vision" of George Bush? We now have private industry competing with NASA on capsule-based designs, let them do the capsules and that sort of thing. I'd expect more of NASA...I'd expect NASA to "rise above", to get back on the cutting edge of technology, and to blaze forth with projects that show the technological prowess of our engineering community. Am I alone in feeling that Orion/Ares I is a wishy-washy step in the wrong direction? Hey, I'm no rocket scientist, but if Orion is the best we can do after the remarkable technology and achievements of the shuttle, why even bother having a government-sponsored manned space program?

How safe is the shuttle?

Joe G, Galloway, NJ — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:59:52 GMT

First off, why is there this 5-year windows between the Shuttle's retirement and our next delivery system? Usually, before retiring something, you have a replacement system in place. I can maybe understand a year or two (although, quite frankly, I think that's way too much time) but 5 YEARS!?! We've had the Shuttle 30 years now; that plenty of time to plan its replacement. Of course there's always the money argument, which is really irrelevant today. Money doesn't even mean anything anymore. If we can find $750 billion to bail out idiot bankers and stock brokers, we sure as heck should be able to find some money for our space program.

Isn't the Ares-Orion system based on the system we used 40 years ago? Isn't that the main reason we're going in that direction: it's proven technology? So why is it going to take so long to get this system up and running? Forty years ago, we were able to build technology, from scratch, within 10-15 years, and put men on the moon; but, now, forty years later, we can't develop a rocket to get to the space station!?! Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

As far as the 1-in-8 chance of a Shuttle disaster, that's just a number so someone can say 'I told you so'. Space travel is inherently dangerous, with millions of possible failure. My question is: What was the chance during the very first Shuttle flight and how does that compare to now?

How safe is the shuttle?

Ben R. Iowa — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 23:20:52 GMT

I understand something new. But why take such a beautiful machine like the Shuttle and go back to a 1960's type vehicle with parachutes to land. Lets take the secret parts out of the shuttle and sell them to the highest bidder and take the money and build a new Shuttle. I hate to see a beautiful machine like this stop flying.

How safe is the shuttle?

Dan, Tampa, FL — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 23:23:13 GMT

$500 millions for one shuttle flight for 7 astronauts.
$20millions for one soyuz flight with 3 astronauts. Save the money to put in the new NASA transport. Paranoid SOB's about all foreigners. It is an international effort after all. The estimate of the risk is probably based on fracture mechanics and the analysis of thousands of parts, not pulled out of the administrator's ass. [...]

How safe is the shuttle?

Mike Grace, Granite City, IL — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:05:45 GMT

I did do the math and 1 in 80 odds calculates out to 0.0125 or a 1.25% chance for disastor. Alan Boyle - How did your math take such a massive leap to 12.5% chance for disastor? It doesn't matter whether there are 80 trips - 10 trips - or a million trips ... current statistics still hold to a 1.25% chance for failure.

How safe is the shuttle?

Franklin Sherman Lincoln, RI — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 03:21:15 GMT

History tells us that all exporation is risky and the price in human life has always had to be paid. The question is: Is the exploration worth the cost? I believe it is and am sure that all astronauts recognize and accept the danger. Make it as safe as possible but continue the exploration of space.

How safe is the shuttle?

kenneth gifford, apache junction, az. kenglynda@q.com — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 02:41:09 GMT

I'd fire those at the top of nasa. where is the forward thinkers?and why can't they add some billions to nasa's budget. shysters on wall street(or cosa nostras)get billions for screwing up,nasa should get something for their bad handling of usamerica's space program.that is with people who can't allow no to be in their dictionary. get with it usamerica, don't allow no to preface the space program. we should already have a transition program in place. not on the drawing board!

How safe is the shuttle?

Billy — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:39:04 GMT

The real problem with extending the sts is the replacable parts required for each flight. There are just so many made and then there are no more and no way to produce more. The life of the shuttle was always limited to a certain number of flights and spare parts were produced for that number. I dont see the shuttles life being extended.

How safe is the shuttle?

jim, charlotte nc — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:40:39 GMT

Ask the Challenger and Columbia families.

How safe is the shuttle?

mark — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 02:24:45 GMT

falcon 9 has arrived at pad 40 as I'm typing. First launch 2009. It's time for Nasa to stop making launch systemes and work on payloads.

How safe is the shuttle?

kevin dooley — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:27:39 GMT

make a better space shuttle ship

How safe is the shuttle?

Buddy, Titusville, Fla — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 02:34:17 GMT

Remember that the Shuttle was not the cause of both disasters. It was the solid rocket boosters (already slated for the Ares program) and the Tank (foam issue) also slated for the next program. The shuttle has performed flawlessly and it is well maintained and inspected each flight. It is truly a marvelous flying machine and could take us to the next program if NASA could get more funds. For those of you who advocate flying on Russian spacecraft, you need to research what it could cost each American. Not only money but we have more experience Aerospace engineers than any country in the world. Why give up our space superiority?

How safe is the shuttle?

Hank Mills, Charleston, South Carolina — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 03:47:40 GMT

Nasa has put all of it's eggs in one basket. The Shuttle is the most complicated flying machine ever
created by man. It is also one of the most dangerous.
We have put all of this money into a reusable spacecraft that is just as expensive to fly as a conventional rocket and can only fly in earth orbit.

How safe is the shuttle?

Michael Feagins, Denver, CO — Sun, 24 May 2009 14:21:36 GMT

So lets depend on the Russians for 5 years after they Just invade chechena? Nasa has alwas known of any risks since the day were launching rockets to the moon. The astronauts know of the risks. We have come a long way from the last few shuttle losses. America needs to stop being a resource waster. We need to refit the fleet and push on until the new design is ready to take over. Don't we all gamble every time we step out the door just to get to work?