Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Psephos

(8,032 posts)
49. NASA's prime mission is not safety.
Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:47 PM
Feb 2013

When you strap people on top of hundreds of tons of explosives, and shoot them into space at thousands of miles per hour, there's an understanding that those who volunteer for such missions are taking a big risk. Test pilots, race car drivers, special forces soldiers, firemen, etc., etc., all know that risk comes with the job.

NASA's responsibility is to conduct a space program. Of course it tries to minimize risk, but eliminating it is impossible and counter to the whole enterprise.

The rescue rocket idea is/was untenable. There was no way the space facility could prep two vehicles simultaneously. The logistics of fueling up a rescue craft with liquid oxygen and rocket fuels (which takes weeks of planning and methodical prep), along with ensuing saturation of already-stretched ground support capacity, would actually increase the chances of disaster, while the cost would shut the program down cold.

Meanwhile, because the shuttles were not designed to dock with each other, an additional huge risk would be taken getting the vehicles to rendezvous, and somehow transfer the astronauts safely from one craft to another.

The space shuttle is the single most complex system ever designed by humans. Vectors for error multiply exponentially when you double the load on all the support systems.

Rockets blow up. They always have. That's their nature. If one can't accept that, don't be an astronaut.



If I were a member of the crew, I'd want to know... Cooley Hurd Jan 2013 #1
I wouldn't want to know........ TheDebbieDee Jan 2013 #15
Oh my gawd. Control-Z Jan 2013 #2
As was I when I heard it on ABC Radio News at the top of the hour. eom Purveyor Jan 2013 #3
It's a right... Jerry442 Jan 2013 #4
I would want to know so we could start working on a solution, like maybe using the DhhD Jan 2013 #5
Documents detail shuttle what-ifs Wilms Jan 2013 #25
The destruction of Columbia was due to utter incompetence Kelvin Mace Jan 2013 #6
+1 ellisonz Jan 2013 #21
It... deathrind Jan 2013 #7
Well I never heard about this until today. eom Purveyor Jan 2013 #9
Wow! SouthernDonkey Jan 2013 #8
One of my friends and co-workers was on that flight. lapfog_1 Jan 2013 #10
Wow iandhr Jan 2013 #11
This has been known for several years Ian Iam Jan 2013 #12
It has? I remember a lot of speculation being bandied about...... TheDebbieDee Jan 2013 #16
The truly damning information begins at the 41.03 mark Ian Iam Jan 2013 #20
Difference between known and demonstrable. /nt TheMadMonk Jan 2013 #30
I don't believe there's anything new here..... groundloop Jan 2013 #13
Just like there was NOTHING that could be done with Apollo 13? benld74 Jan 2013 #14
What, exactly, do you propose they do? TrogL Jan 2013 #17
Uh.. you gotta be kidding me. Flying Squirrel Jan 2013 #19
Well the world will NEVER know now will they? benld74 Jan 2013 #22
Apollo 13, not Apollo 11. longship Jan 2013 #27
Send up another shuttle with just a pilot and rescue suits. TheMadMonk Feb 2013 #31
There wasn't time. jeff47 Feb 2013 #33
What's Justin Bieber got to do with this. daleo Feb 2013 #34
He's what passes for a modern day hero. TheMadMonk Feb 2013 #37
Music industry has been inventing heroes forever daleo Feb 2013 #48
No shuttle to send TrogL Feb 2013 #46
Anyone recall why temporary stays at ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #18
Different orbit. Xithras Jan 2013 #23
I think Columbia did not have docking capability too. nt XRubicon Jan 2013 #26
Had transfer been a real possibility, it wouldn't have mattered. Xithras Feb 2013 #36
Completely different orbits, wouldn't have had enough fuel to reach. nt DRoseDARs Jan 2013 #24
Hooray for me. rocktivity Jan 2013 #28
Duly noted. +1 eom Purveyor Jan 2013 #29
What a twat Scairp Feb 2013 #32
gee...zuss... cntrfthrs Feb 2013 #35
I think I'd rather personally not know -- but I sure wouldn't feel I could make that gateley Feb 2013 #38
Telling Them RobinA Feb 2013 #44
Agree. Maybe that should have been something discussed before the launch? gateley Feb 2013 #47
what lousy reporting. blackspade Feb 2013 #39
Columbia was too heavy to reach ISS LunaSea Feb 2013 #40
Thanks for the link... blackspade Feb 2013 #45
What's the news? I thought that was a LONG foregone conclusion... Blue_Tires Feb 2013 #41
Why isn't a rescue space shuttle ever an option? WestCoastLib Feb 2013 #42
Seems to me like that was an option in the earlier flights where they wouldn't launch unless Purveyor Feb 2013 #43
NASA's prime mission is not safety. Psephos Feb 2013 #49
"He's a pilot! You tell him the condition of his craft!" (Line 33944) 24601 Feb 2013 #50
Remind me again who was pResident when this was allowed to happen? Ian David Feb 2013 #51
Columbia Dies over Texas - story by radio host Thom Hartmann Ian David Feb 2013 #52
What happened to NASA's motto liberal N proud Feb 2013 #53
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Columbia Shuttle Crew Not...»Reply #49