PDA

View Full Version : YOU can SAVE up to ELEVEN astronauts' LIVES



Pages : [1] 2

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-08, 11:28 PM
.

YOU can SAVE up to ELEVEN astronauts' LIVES just talking about this Hubble SM4 article and don't CRY later if the tragedy happens!

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/044sm4risks.html


http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/IMAGES/044sm4risks.jpg


http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/IMAGES/039hubbledeathtrap.jpg


.

Tucson_Tim
2009-Apr-08, 11:37 PM
How is the next HST servicing mission different than the previous HST servicing missions? Or is your post a joke?

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-08, 11:48 PM
How is the next HST servicing mission different than the previous HST servicing missions? Or is your post a joke?

the post isn't a joke, and the (big) difference (in my opinion) is that (now) we know more about the risks of a Shuttle missions launched away from ISS and with a "rescue" Shuttle that may have months of delays due to ET foam, weather, ECO sensors, LOX/LH2 valves, etc. also the Shuttles are very much older than in the past HST missions

it's too risky!

.

novaderrik
2009-Apr-09, 01:37 AM
if anything, the missions are safer now since more of the risks are known.
so this servicing mission will be safer than all the other servicing missions, so it would be silly NOT to do it.
that's the way i see it, and i don't care how many bold red words someone can drop into a paragraph..

Josh
2009-Apr-09, 01:45 AM
If we didn't do things because of what might happen then we'd all still be sitting in caves grunting at each other.

There are risks, sure, but these are calculated and reduced to a minimum.

ToSeek
2009-Apr-09, 02:13 AM
Your site has one clear inaccuracy: Apollo 13 was not on a free-return trajectory when the accident happened but had to use the lunar module engine to change to that trajectory (the PC+2 burn).

I continue to be bemused by the fact that shuttle missions that used to be routine (at least as routine as crewed space missions ever get) have now become too risky to even consider.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 02:28 AM
the missions are safer now since more of the risks are known

the known risks are too much, also, old vehicles always reserve many bad "surprises"

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 02:31 AM
these are calculated and reduced to a minimum

that risks (many still unknown) has been "calculated" by the same peoples that in 2005 was "sure" to launch the Ares-1 and Orion in 2012...

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 02:35 AM
had to use the lunar module engine to change to that trajectory

true, in my article I say that Apollo13 was a "two vehicles system" and I refer to the post LM engine burn talking of "right trajectory"


shuttle missions that used to be routine

a "routine" that has a "reasonable" risk if launched to the ISS, but the risks increase very much when launched thousands miles away from the ISS/safe haven

.

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-09, 02:52 AM
...the risks increase very much when launched thousands miles away from the ISS/safe haven.

Haven't we had this discussion before? You tried to convince posters that the Hubble should be moved close to the ISS, and you were told why that wouldn't work.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 03:06 AM
you were told why that wouldn't work.

this thread is NOT about moving the Hubble near the ISS (that's clearly feasible using the right vehicle and enough propellent) but is about the (too high and useless) RISKS of the upcoming Hubble SM4 (that I suggest and hope will be deleted forever)

.

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-09, 03:26 AM
this thread is NOT about moving the Hubble near the ISS (that's clearly feasible using the right vehicle and enough propellent)...

In the other thread it was explained to you why it wasn't feasable, but you are correct that is not what this thread is about.


...but is about the (too high and useless) RISKS of the upcoming Hubble SM4 (that I suggest and hope will be deleted forever).

See that just isn't going to happen. Those who are actually involved in the flight have weighed the risks and have found them acceptable.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 04:12 AM
Those who are actually involved in the flight have weighed the risks and have found them acceptable.

I've written the article, made some drawings and opened this thread because my opinion is completely different since I believe that they have seriously underestimated the real risks of this mission!!!

.

Grashtel
2009-Apr-09, 04:15 AM
If you want to save a lot more than just eleven lives change your focus from NASA to banning recreational sky diving, dozens of people die doing that every year for no benefit to humanity.

The astronauts are in a much better position to know the risks than you and yet they are still ready to go on the mission, no one is holding a gun to their heads to force them to go.

Grashtel
2009-Apr-09, 04:19 AM
I've written the article, made some drawings and opened this thread because my opinion is completely different since I believe that they have seriously underestimated the real risks of this mission!!!

.
So what information are you basing this on that isn't available to the various people at NASA that are responsible for deciding on weather to do the mission or not (remember that this includes the astronauts, ie the people who will die if something major goes wrong)?

novaderrik
2009-Apr-09, 05:12 AM
i just realized that you forgot to mention the Apollo 1 fire that killed 3 astronauts during a launchpad test.
if you are going to throw Apollo 13 (they made it back alive) in with the two shuttle disasters, then you might as well include the only actual crew fatalities that happened before Challenger blew up. actually, almost 2 decades before Challenger blew up.

the Astronauts know the risks far better than anyone here could hope to- and yet they strap in and go.

LotusExcelle
2009-Apr-09, 05:20 AM
Strapping yourself to the top end of a large chemical rocket does, generally, involve risk.

ALso we never should have gotten on any boats ever as they can sink. Or into cars as they can crash. Also as soon as your life begins you will die. So don't be born either.

Jens
2009-Apr-09, 05:21 AM
If we didn't do things because of what might happen then we'd all still be sitting in caves grunting at each other.


I don't know, grunting seems to entail a certain risk -- the other person might take it badly.

Jens
2009-Apr-09, 05:23 AM
If you want to save a lot more than just eleven lives change your focus from NASA to banning recreational sky diving, dozens of people die doing that every year for no benefit to humanity.


That's absolutely right. And another comes to mind. How many people die every year on Mt. Everest (and other mountains), for not other purpose than self-satisfiction? And they leave garbage as well. So why not start a movement to outlaw mountain climbing?

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 06:15 AM
.

don't be fooled!

they are NOT "sure" that the Hubble SM4 is "safe"!

they only "evaluate" the risks at 1 in 80 for all the last flights (then it's only 1 in 8 per flight) but this (already LOW) value is TOO optimistic, since, the REAL Shuttle flights have SET the risk around 1 in 65 including the EARLY flights made with the Shuttles NEW and "fresh from factory" while, now, they are OLD and very dangerous machines!

so, today, the risk of a each flight could be around 1 in 4 or LESS!!!

the probabilities are AGAINST a safe SM4!

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 06:18 AM
Apollo 1

the Apollo 1 is not included in the evaluation because it was a TEST (and the Shuttles have already accomplished all tests 30 years ago!)

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 06:20 AM
sky diving

all peoples will die, someday, but we are talking ONLY of the spaceflights' risks here and NOT about ALL existing ways to die!

.

novaderrik
2009-Apr-09, 06:22 AM
of course they aren't "sure" it will be safe- that's the nature of the business.
they do their best with the information they have to minimize the risks.
when we wake up in the morning, there is a slight chance that we won't live to go to bed the next night. but yet, we get out of bed every day and live our lives despite the risk. well, most of us do, anyways.
do you have any hobbies? anything that might prove harmful or even fatal?
how about your job- is there a chance of injury or death involved?

LotusExcelle
2009-Apr-09, 06:27 AM
I also would argue that the age of the shuttles has nothing to do with it. B-52's are still flight ready and worthy and those are antiques.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 06:32 AM
do you have any hobbies?

there are no work or hobby we can compare with the astronauts job!

ONLY the astronauts fly ten minutes with 1500+ tons of solid and cryogenic propellents under their seats!!!

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 06:35 AM
B-52's are still flight

the B-52 never fly under the critical parameters of a Shuttle regarding its speed, accelerations, vibrations, altitude, pressure, vacuum, etc.

compare the B-52 with a Shuttle is like compare a bycicle with a Formula 1

.

Jens
2009-Apr-09, 06:37 AM
ONLY the astronauts fly ten minutes with 1500+ tons of solid and cryogenic propellents under their seats!!!

.

I sort of agree that astronauts are insane. But really, it's a choice they make based on an awareness of the risks. Why not put efforts into stopping people from climbing mountains or from driving F1 cars, which are both dangerous but totally unnecessary?

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 06:40 AM
Why not put efforts into stopping people from climbing mountains or from driving F1 cars, which are both dangerous but totally unnecessary?

there are many specialized forums where you can propose that

.

Jens
2009-Apr-09, 06:45 AM
there are many specialized forums where you can propose that

.

But I don't care. If people want to risk their lives, it's fine with me. I was suggesting that you turn your energy to stopping useless things, if you are really interested in saving people's lives.

Jeff Root
2009-Apr-09, 06:48 AM
A lot more people die in bicycle accidents every week than have died in all
space-related accidents over the decades. Riding a bicycle is more dangerous
than riding a Space Shuttle.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 06:53 AM
Riding a bicycle is more dangerous
than riding a Space Shuttle.

of five Shuttles built, two exploded... there are no bicycles with this kind of risks... :)

.

LotusExcelle
2009-Apr-09, 06:56 AM
There was an aluminum bike fork that has a 100% failure rating.

Van Rijn
2009-Apr-09, 07:11 AM
I sort of agree that astronauts are insane. But really, it's a choice they make based on an awareness of the risks. Why not put efforts into stopping people from climbing mountains or from driving F1 cars, which are both dangerous but totally unnecessary?

There was a NOVA episode that was discussing the dangers of mountain climbing. They followed climbers of one mountain in Alaska, and the percentage hurt or killed was disturbingly large. I couldn't imagine taking that kind of risk just to see the top of a mountain. At the same time, I'd jump at a chance to fly in the space shuttle. For me, in that case, it would easily be worth the risk. It's all about what you want to do.

slang
2009-Apr-09, 08:50 AM
Why not extend this argument to include ISS? It too could go POOF! at any time due to foreseen or unforeseen risks (see Mir and Progress, Mir and fire, Skylab on launch, etc). Better not go there anymore! But wait, how many people are at risk from any rocket launch? I remember at least two horrible accidents with many deaths from rockets being prepared for launch exploding, one in the Soviet Union, and a more recent one in Brasil. Better get rid of all space related technology! But wait! What about pilots?

Damburger
2009-Apr-09, 09:03 AM
I need to know the location of the original author of that piece, so I can inform the typeface police of his/her horrific crimes.

If someone wants to bring up a point that is, frankly, a fringe opinion - it serves them best to not appear like they are a hysterical nutter. This page looks like it was done by the timecube guy.

galacsi
2009-Apr-09, 10:06 AM
That's absolutely right. And another comes to mind. How many people die every year on Mt. Everest (and other mountains), for not other purpose than self-satisfiction? And they leave garbage as well. So why not start a movement to outlaw mountain climbing?

Why not !! One of my good fellow worker is currently trying to climb this montain ! Nobody very happy about that !

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-09, 11:57 AM
...I believe that they have seriously underestimated the real risks of this mission!!!

Do you have any actual, credible evidence that the risks have been "seriously underestimated", or is this just a "belief"?

byronm
2009-Apr-09, 01:05 PM
Crab fishing is risky business, yet thousands of people risk their lives and dozens die so i can eat crabs. Its a part (fact) of life.

I find it amusing (sad) that we don't accept our astronaughts knowing full well the risks they take in going to OUTER SPACE that we would rather cease our progress of science and exploration in the name of preventing something that you can essentially NEVER PREVENT.

The shuttles are refurbed, rebuilt, tested and re-tested between every launch. They're probably more safe today than they were 30 years ago.

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-09, 01:44 PM
Why eleven astronauts?

The Hubble reservicing mission will have seven, and if a rescue mission were to become necessary, it would only have to be manned by two...that is a total of nine.

Why do you think another two astronauts would be necessary??

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 02:00 PM
Do you have any actual, credible evidence that the risks have been "seriously underestimated", or is this just a "belief"?

the evaluation of 1 accident every 80 Shuttle flights was released by NASA a few months ago

well, since the remaining Shuttle flights will be 11 (one was added recently) the risk of accident of EACH flight is around 14% that already is VERY VERY HIGH

unfortunately, this figure is NOT TRUE since the REAL Shuttle flights say us that the risk of an accident is about 1 every 65 flights INCLUDING the EARLY flights when the Shuttle wasn't the OLD and dangerous machine it is today!

so, the REAL risk of a new Shuttle accident is very much higher than 14%

my evaluation is that each new ISS flight has 20-25% of risks to fail, while, the Hubble figure should be over 50% of risk to fail since the SM4 sums "three (big) risks in one"

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 02:04 PM
Why eleven astronauts?

the Endeavour crew for the rescue mission has been already set (months ago) to FOUR astronauts

.

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-09, 02:07 PM
the Endeavour crew for the rescue mission has been already set (months ago) to FOUR astronauts.

Really...I was not aware of that...

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 02:14 PM
Really...I was not aware of that...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-400

.

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-09, 02:15 PM
my evaluation is that each new ISS flight has 20-25% of risks to fail, while, the Hubble figure should be over 50% of risk to fail since the SM4 sums "three (big) risks in one".

"Should be"?? Why should anyone take your numbers seriously? You haven't demonstrated yourself to be the most unbiased of observers, so why should NASA (which is what we're talking about here) change their scheduling simply to eleviate your "fears"??

Swift
2009-Apr-09, 02:21 PM
unfortunately, this figure is NOT TRUE since the REAL Shuttle flights say us that the risk of an accident is about 1 every 65 flights INCLUDING the EARLY flights when the Shuttle wasn't the OLD and dangerous machine it is today!
But neither of the Shuttle accidents had anything to do with the age of the Shuttles. What evidence do you have that they have become more dangerous as they get older?


so, the REAL risk of a new Shuttle accident is very much higher than 14%

my evaluation is that each new ISS flight has 20-25% of risks to fail, while, the Hubble figure should be over 50% of risk to fail since the SM4 sums "three (big) risks in one"
Can you show how you calculated those percentages?

gaetanomarano, I have one other question for you. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the risks are as high as you say. And further, the astronauts for that mission, fully aware as to the risk they are taking, still want to do the mission. Would you prevent them from taking the risk, even if they wanted to?

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 02:21 PM
Why should anyone take your numbers seriously?

the NASA's figure of 14% of risk to fail per each ISS flight in the next 11 flights already is too high

just add the "extra-risks" YOU want for a mission that will flies thousands miles away from the ISS/safe haven, and you will realize by yourself that its risks are TOO high

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 02:24 PM
the age of the Shuttles.

the AGE of (all) vehicles always ADDS risks of damages, failures, malfunctions

just read the recent story of the damaged Shuttle's LH2 valve...

.

apolloman
2009-Apr-09, 02:27 PM
Gaetano, nobody is forcing the astronauts to fly, just like nobody is forcing Nasa to go fix Hubble.

Don't you think they would have added up all the risks before making a decision ?
I personally can't imagine NASA today carrying out a mission as risky as this one just for the hell of it or for somekind of "end of era" publicity stunt.

Besides (as everyone has already posted) space flight is inherently risky - no pain, no gain.
I'm grateful there are still people out there with this sense of adventure/destiny/discovery willing to put their lives on the line for our benefit.
Without wanting to sound too goofy but, as a race, we are where we are thanks to people like astronauts who throughout the ages have pushed forward, asking questions and at least trying to get the answers. With your kind of mentality, we'd still be living in caves.

I wish I was one of them (the astronauts going to fix HT, that is).

rommel543
2009-Apr-09, 02:28 PM
I would gladly put myself on that shuttle regardless of the danger. If the astronauts on the shuttle didn't want to be there, they wouldn't be.

Swift
2009-Apr-09, 02:30 PM
the AGE of (all) vehicles always ADDS risks of damages, failures, malfunctions

just read the recent story of the damaged Shuttle's LH2 valve...

.
So you contend. I am not convinced. I would contend that with most vehicles, particularly aircraft and spacecraft, that the are most dangerous in early development, when all the bugs haven't been worked out. How many test pilots have died in the last 50 years, versus how many astronauts?

I suspect that after that initial period, the vehicles actually become safer, and stay at that level of safety for a long period of time. Only way issues like metal fatigue start happening, do they become more dangerous. There are plenty of 50 year old ships and planes that are still operating.

What evidence do you have that the shuttles are now suffering from issues related to age? Did the problems with the LH2 values have anything to do with age?

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 02:30 PM
Can you show how you calculated those percentages?

the Hubble SM4 has "three (big) risks in one" so, if you multiply the NASA's 14% figure by three you already have a 42% of risks for the SM4

however, as explained in my article (http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/044sm4risks.html), the "Apollo13-like risk" is much higher and the AGE of the Shuttles adds further risks


Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the risks are as high as you say. And further, the astronauts for that mission, fully aware as to the risk they are taking, still want to do the mission. Would you prevent them from taking the risk, even if they wanted to?

no, if the want to accomplish the mission, they can do it

however, the NASA astronauts looks me more as "soldiers" that have confidence in their "generals" so, if the NASA "generals" are wrong (as happened several times...) their lives are unders serious risks...

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 02:34 PM
Gaetano, nobody is forcing the astronauts to fly, just like nobody is forcing Nasa to go fix Hubble. Don't you think they would have added up all the risks before making a decision?

the astronauts seems me not completely aware of the real risks of the mission, while, NASA is too optimistic that its riks figures still remain under a safe limit (but I believe it's very much over these limits)

.

geonuc
2009-Apr-09, 02:36 PM
.
the probabilities are AGAINST a safe SM4!

You're claiming that the probability of a safe completion of that shuttle mission is less than 50%?

ETA: I see you've already more clearly stated that that is, in fact, what you're claiming. It sounds absurd, to say the least.

ToSeek
2009-Apr-09, 02:37 PM
a "routine" that has a "reasonable" risk if launched to the ISS, but the risks increase very much when launched thousands miles away from the ISS/safe haven.

There were dozens of "routine" shuttle missions before there even was an ISS, and with far less significant goals than enhancing a world-class scientific instrument.

I'd also like to know where you get your 14% figure, because there's no way NASA would launch if they really thought that was the risk factor - that would essentially mean expecting two of the next eleven shuttle flights to fail.

Swift
2009-Apr-09, 02:38 PM
however, the NASA astronauts looks me more as "soldiers" that have confidence in their "generals" so, if the NASA "generals" are wrong (as happened several times...) their lives are unders serious risks...

.
I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. NASA is not ordering these people against their wills. In fact, according to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-125), four of the seven crew members are civilians: K. Megan McArthur, John M. Grunsfeld, Michael J. Massimino, and Andrew J. Feustel.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 02:39 PM
What evidence do you have that the shuttles are now suffering from issues related to age?

the Shuttles have PLENTY of problems due to their ages!

just one as example: many electronics parts are not manufactured by decades and the Shuttles repairmen often use USED parts from industrial instruments!

however, the risks of an ISS is hign but "reasonable" (mainly thanks to the ISS/safe haven and the Soyuz that may become a rescue vehicle) for an old vehicle, while, the SM4 risks are too high

.

Swift
2009-Apr-09, 02:41 PM
the Hubble SM4 has "three (big) risks in one" so, if you multiply the NASA's 14% figure by three you already have a 42% of risks for the SM4

however, as explained in my article (http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/044sm4risks.html), the "Apollo13-like risk" is much higher and the AGE of the Shuttles adds further risks

I don't believe your 14% value - please reference it or show your calculations. And I don't believe your "three big risks so 3x riskier" either - again, offer some proof.

And I checked out your webpage and saw no calculations or references there either.

Swift
2009-Apr-09, 02:41 PM
the Shuttles have PLENTY of problems due to their ages!

just one as example: many electronics parts are not manufactured by decades and the Shuttles repairmen often use USED parts from industrial instruments!

Evidence?

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-09, 02:46 PM
You haven't demonstrated yourself to be the most unbiased of observers...

This might be a "tad" (but only a tad) unfair so allow me to rephrase...

What specialized knowledge base and/or skills do you "bring to the table"? You have to give NASA some reason to take you seriously.


the astronauts seems me not completely aware of the real risks of the mission...

How did you arrive at this conclusion?...Cite, please.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 02:46 PM
I'd also like to know where you get your 14% figure

the 1 in 80 risks claimed by NASA means 12.5% of risk to fail for each of the last ten flights planned

now that the flights planned have been increased to 11, the risk per flight (based on the NASA figure) is 14%

if the Shuttle retirement will be shifted to (e.g.) 2012 with (e.g.) FIVE further flights added, the risk to fail of each mission will climb to 20%

and the SM4 has (at least) three times these risks (as explained in my article)

.

pumpkinpie
2009-Apr-09, 02:48 PM
1 in 80 is a 1.25% chance. (1/80)*100=1.25

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 02:50 PM
And I checked out your webpage and saw no calculations or references there either.

I've not added any calculations in my article since the risks of the SM4 already are SOOOOOOOOOOO clear that it seemed me unnecessary to add numbers... :(

however, I will add the calculated risks in the first update of the article

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 02:51 PM
1 in 80 is a 1.25% chance. (1/80)*100=1.25

yes, if you fly it ONCE, but the Shuttles will fly 11 times until 2010

.

Swift
2009-Apr-09, 02:52 PM
the 1 in 80 risks claimed by NASA means 12.5% of risk to fail for each of the last ten flights planned

now that the flights planned have been increased to 11, the risk per flight (based on the NASA figure) is 14%

and the SM4 has (at least) three times these risks (as explained in my article)

That makes no sense. Even given that the risk in a given flight is 1 in 80 of a failure (I'd like to see a reference for that too), that means that the risk for the Hubble repair flight is 1 in 80. It might be 12.5% for all the flights, not each one individually. And even given that the Hubble repair flight is 3x riskier, that makes it 3.75% for that flight, not 42%.

And I've read your article and nothing is explained, it is only stated.

apolloman
2009-Apr-09, 02:53 PM
"the astronauts seems me not completely aware of the real risks of the mission, while, NASA is too optimistic that its riks figures still remain under a safe limit (but I believe it's very much over these limits)"

THEY AREN'T AWARE ????? ARE YOU SERIOUS ??? So you are saying the astronauts, whose JOB it is to GO INTO SPACE, are either really dumb or really careless ??? Or brain washed by Nasa ???

You, however, have been able to make a calculation and reach this shocking truth with how much flight experience or training, engineering studies, applied physics ?

And NASA is too optimistic ? Er, ok. You almost make it sound that management wouldn't care if a third shuttle was lost which proves to me
that your understanding of Nasa is closely linked to what is seen in the movies or HB dvds.
I'm no scientist, I've never been to Nasa, I've never met anybody working in this field but Nasa does NOT work in this manner. Sure, they aren't perfect and gross mistakes have been made in the past but so what ? Who isn't ?

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 02:56 PM
that makes it 3.75% for that flight, not 42%.

EACH flight (including the "safer" ISS missions) has (at least) a 14% risk to fail, NOT only the SM4

just add the extra-risks YOU want to the SM4 and you will realize that it's too high

.

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-09, 02:58 PM
You, however, have been able to make a calculation and reach this shocking truth with how much flight experience or training, engineering studies, applied physics ?

Still waiting for an answer on that one...

I'll ask again as if may have been missed on this fast moving thread...

gaetanomarino....what specialized qualifications do you possess that make your opinion "better" than the opinions of NASA scientists??

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 03:00 PM
Or brain washed by Nasa ???

no, they haven't their brains "washed"... they are just confident in the NASA work

but, also the Challenger and Columbia crews was very confident on NASA...

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 03:01 PM
which makes your opinion "better" than the opinions of NASA scientists??

the evaluation of risks of a "standard" Shuttle flight to ISS comes from NASA (not from me)

.

Swift
2009-Apr-09, 03:02 PM
EACH flight (including the "safer" ISS missions) has (at least) a 14% risk to fail, NOT only the SM4

just add the extra-risks YOU want to the SM4 and you will realize that it's too high

.
No it doesn't, as both I and pumpkinpi have explained to you. There is not a single reference that says the odds in an individual flight of a failure are 14%.

Want a reference, try this one from Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog/science/3259521.html?nav=hpPrint).


So what, exactly are the odds of catastrophe? Columbia professor Sigman calculates that with a 1 in 100 PRAN for a complete loss of life and vehicle factored over the remaining 16 planned shuttle missions, there’s a 15 percent chance that a crew won’t return to Earth before the Space Shuttle program retires—safer, for example, than climbing Mt. Everest.

But, says astronaut Jones, odds are not much comfort to a Space Shuttle crew. "When I was flying," Jones tells PM, "they said the chance of catastrophe was one in two-hundred and fifty. Did that make me feel better? It certainly didn't make my wife feel any better. But we're in the realm of spaceflight, and that's a risk we're willing to take."
That is 15% for ALL missions combined, not each individual mission.

Tucson_Tim
2009-Apr-09, 03:02 PM
If we didn't do things because of what might happen then we'd all still be sitting in caves grunting at each other.

There are risks, sure, but these are calculated and reduced to a minimum.

Josh sums it up nicely. Spaceflight is risky and probably will be for hundreds of years to come. There is always a possibility of an accident. There will be accidents in the future.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 03:06 PM
There is not a single reference that says the odds in an individual flight of a failure are 14%.

the NASA's new 1 in 80 figure for for ten flights was reported on CosmicLog a few months ago (I'll search it) so, with one added flight, the risk per flight is 14%

the SM4 is too risky because the Hubble hasn't any ISS/safe haven near it if something goes wrong

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 03:09 PM
Spaceflight is risky and probably will be for hundreds of years to come.

that's true, but the risks of the SM4 looks me higher than a '60s Apollo mission!

.

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-09, 03:09 PM
the evaluation of risks of a "standard" Shuttle flight to ISS comes from NASA (not from me).

No sir...these are your "interpretations".
Can you answer the question I posed or not?

Swift
2009-Apr-09, 03:11 PM
the NASA's new 1 in 80 figure for for ten flights was reported on CosmicLog a few months ago (I'll search it) so, with one added flight, the risk per flight is 14%

I don't know what CosmicLog is. How about a link?

But anyway, as has been said repeatedly, the 14% is for ALL the FLIGHTS Combined, not an individual flight. Each individual flight has a 1 in 80 risk.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 03:13 PM
Can you answer the question I posed or not?

sorry, but, saying that I'm not a NASA engineer did NOT reduce the risks of the SM4 :)

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 03:14 PM
Each individual flight has a 1 in 80 risk.

yes, if it flies ONCE

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/

.

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-09, 03:16 PM
sorry, but, saying that I'm not a NASA engineer did NOT reduce the risks of the SM4 :)

.

Please don't mischaracterize what I post...I said nothing of the sort.

I asked what qualifications do you possess that would make your opinion more informed than the opinion of NASA scientists?

Swift
2009-Apr-09, 03:18 PM
yes, if it flies ONCE

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/

.
No, every single time it flies. The risk of a failure on STS-130 is 1/80, the risk on STS-131 is 1/80, the risk on STS-132 is 1/80. The total risk, that if those three flights are flown, that one of them has a failure is 3/80.

Your third coin flip has no clue what happened on your first and second coin flip, so the odds in each individual coin flip is still only 1/2.

And thanks for link to cosmiclog, now, how about a link to the particular entry about the shuttle.

Swift
2009-Apr-09, 03:21 PM
yes, if it flies ONCE

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/

.
I searched cosmiclog on MSNBC and found this (http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/12/1833933.aspx):

The space agency also noted recently that the space-junk factor has raised the estimated risk for an upcoming shuttle mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope - from a 1-in-300 chance of catastrophe to a 1-in-185 chance.

One in 185, not 1 in 80 or 14%.

geonuc
2009-Apr-09, 03:33 PM
No, every single time it flies. The risk of a failure on STS-130 is 1/80, the risk on STS-131 is 1/80, the risk on STS-132 is 1/80. The total risk, that if those three flights are flown, that one of them has a failure is 3/80.
Actually, that's not quite right. With that rationale you would have to conclude a 100% certainty of a failure given 80 flights.

The cumulative probablity of 3 safe flights is more like (given the 1 to 80 basic risk):

(79/80)^3 = 96.3%

Therefore the risk is 3.7%, or slightly less than 3/80 = 3.75%.

Unless I screwed something up. :(

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 03:34 PM
...your opinion more informed...

I'm not "more informed" but I just evaluate the existing figures in the same too optimistic way of NASA (that seems too confident in the Shuttle safety)

personally, I think that ALL Shuttles are too dangerous to fly, that's why (in september 2005) I've already suggested to fly them CREWLESS:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/spaceShuttle/spaceshuttle.html

.

Swift
2009-Apr-09, 03:37 PM
@ geonuc
No, you are absolutely correct. I was just being very rough, so as to show how completely wrong gaetanomarano's calculations are.

There are even further complications, some of which are explained in the Popular Mechanics article I linked to. Statistics really only work for large data sets, and 3 or even 10 flights is not a large data set. And each flight is not a random event; what NASA learns on one flight, it applies to the next.

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-09, 03:37 PM
I'm not "more informed"...

Then why should NASA listen to you and cancel the mission to Hubble??

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 03:37 PM
Your third coin flip has no clue what happened on your first and second coin flip...

of course, we can't know which flight will fail, it can be the SM4 or another flight, but all other flights have the ISS/safe haven if something goes wrong

.

geonuc
2009-Apr-09, 03:41 PM
There are even further complications, some of which are explained in the Popular Mechanics article I linked to. Statistics really only work for large data sets, and 3 or even 10 flights is not a large data set. And each flight is not a random event; what NASA learns on one flight, it applies to the next.
Yep.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 03:42 PM
One in 185, not 1 in 80 or 14%.

please read the full article!

this figure refers ONLY to the extra-risk that a Shuttle has to be hit by a piece of space junk!

the risks of flight was reported in another CosmicLog article published in 2008 (I'll search it)

anyway, remember that the REAL Shuttle flights have SET the risk to fail at 1 in 65, so, the risk to fail of each of the last 11 flights is 16.6% (without consider the AGE of the Shuttles and the extra-risks of a flight so away from ISS)

of course, we can't know IF a flight will fail and which flights will be

if they are lucky, all flights (including the SM4) will be ok :)

.

geonuc
2009-Apr-09, 03:44 PM
please read the full article!

this figure refers ONLY to the extra-risk that a Shuttle has to be hit by a piece of space junk!

the risks of flight was reported in another CosmicLog article published in 2008 (I'll search it)

.
Even so, how do you respond to those of us that contend your method of adding probabilities is flawed? Did you read the Popular Mechanics article?

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 03:47 PM
Then why should NASA listen to you and cancel the mission to Hubble?

while giving my OPINION about the SM4 risks, I'm aware that they did NOT read nor ear me, of course :(

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 03:50 PM
Did you read the Popular Mechanics article?

the 1 in 100 "calculated" risk is clearly wrong since (simply) contradicted by REAL Shuttle flights/accidents

.

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-09, 03:51 PM
while giving my OPINION about the SM4 risks, I'm aware that they did NOT read nor ear me, of course :(

.

You say that you want to stop the Hubble mission, but you know that NASA will not read what you have wrote...so what's the point in all this?

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 03:56 PM
so what's the point in all this?

the purpose of a forum is to DISCUSS not to decide to fly (or not)

.

ToSeek
2009-Apr-09, 04:01 PM
the 1 in 100 "calculated" risk is clearly wrong since (simply) contradicted by REAL Shuttle flights/accidents

.

Two failures in 125 attempts doesn't contradict the estimate any more than rolling two heads in a row contradicts the prediction that you'll get heads 50% of the time. It's within reasonable statistical variance.

It's also worth noting that far more precautions are being taken now than were being taken during the two failures.

Nicolas
2009-Apr-09, 04:03 PM
the Apollo 1 is not included in the evaluation because it was a TEST (and the Shuttles have already accomplished all tests 30 years ago!)

.

Not true. The shuttles are still X-vehicles. This was stated very clearly after the Columbia disaster. In fact, treating them as routine, wall-mart equipment was stated as one of the causes for the disaster.

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-09, 04:04 PM
the purpose of a forum is to DISCUSS not to decide to fly (or not).

From your OP...


YOU can SAVE up to ELEVEN astronauts' LIVES just talking about this Hubble SM4 article...

How is "just talking about" it going to change anything?


...and don't CRY later if the tragedy happens!

If something disasterous did happen, are you really prepared to come back here and say "I told you so"?

geonuc
2009-Apr-09, 04:04 PM
the 1 in 100 "calculated" risk is clearly wrong since (simply) contradicted by REAL Shuttle flights/accidents

.
Clearly wrong? Not to me. We've lost two shuttles and gained a ton of experience. How do you conclude that the performance record invalidates the calculated probability of a failure?

ETA: What ToSeek said.

NEOWatcher
2009-Apr-09, 04:25 PM
the purpose of a forum is to DISCUSS not to decide to fly (or not)
.
Yes; but there is no discussion if it is based on faulty math, faulty facts and what appear to be lies because there is no background information.

I understand that you may not be an english speaker, so let me just warn you that the word "each" is not interchangeable with "any".

I beg that you learn how to compute probabilities.

Using your math, I can say the probability of success is 962% (87.5% chance of success times 11).

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 04:47 PM
Two failures in 125 attempts doesn't contradict the estimate any more than rolling two heads in a row contradicts the prediction that you'll get heads 50% of the time.

the 1 in 63 risk to fail of the REAL Shuttle flights is a FACT

then, starting from this FACT, we can say (and it's only a matter of opinion) that the last 11 flights will be LESS safe (due to the AGE of the Shuttles) or MORE safe (due to the experience gained) but we can't forget the 1 in 65 figure, because it's a FACT

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 04:49 PM
The shuttles are still X-vehicles.

too late to call it an "X-vehicle"... :)

.

Grashtel
2009-Apr-09, 04:49 PM
the 1 in 63 risk to fail of the REAL Shuttle flights is a FACT

then, starting from this FACT, we can say (and it's only a matter of opinion) that the last 11 flights will be LESS safe (due to the AGE of the Shuttles) or MORE safe (due to the experience gained) but we can't forget the 1 in 65 figure, because it's a FACT

.
So if I rolled a fair dice six times and got two sixes and no twos then I could say that it was a FACT that next timed a I rolled it the probability of getting a six was 1/3 and there was no chance of getting a two?

You really need to learn how to do statistics properly.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 04:51 PM
How is "just talking about" it going to change anything?

because (maybe) someone that decides about the SM4 could read my opinion an re-think the mission

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 04:53 PM
Clearly wrong? Not to me. We've lost two shuttles and gained a ton of experience. How do you conclude that the performance record invalidates the calculated probability of a failure?

the 1 in 63 risk to fail of the REAL Shuttle flights is a FACT

then, starting from this FACT, we can say (and it's only a matter of opinion) that the last 11 flights will be LESS safe (due to the AGE of the Shuttles) or MORE safe (due to the experience gained) but we can't forget the 1 in 65 figure, because it's a FACT

.

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-09, 04:55 PM
the 1 in 63 risk to fail of the REAL Shuttle flights is a FACT

then, starting from this FACT, we can say (and it's only a matter of opinion) that the last 11 flights will be LESS safe (due to the AGE of the Shuttles) or MORE safe (due to the experience gained) but we can't forget the 1 in 65 figure, because it's a FACT

.

All flights are risky...that is a fact. Weither any particular flight is "too" risky is determined by those who have experience evaluating these things, and by those who (whom?) actually do the flying.

Grashtel
2009-Apr-09, 04:57 PM
because (maybe) someone that decide about the SM4 could read my opinion an re-think the mission.
Currently one of the biggest things preventing that is you and the way you try and communicate. Simply stating your conclusions as facts without explaining them isn't going to convince anyone, and using lots of formatted text (eg colours, bold, and highlighting) and ALLCAPS just makes you seem like a crazy person. The saying "less is more" definitely applies to formatted text, the less you use it the more impact it has when you do, having an average of one or more coloured word per line just makes it hard to read without adding any useful emphasis.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 04:58 PM
I understand that you may not be an english speaker, so let me just warn you that the word "each" is not interchangeable with "any".

I'm aware that the calculated risk is global on all 11 last flights, but, so far, I've not added calculations in my article because I think that the SM4 has many, clear, additional risks vs. a standard ISS mission

.

Swift
2009-Apr-09, 04:59 PM
the 1 in 63 risk to fail of the REAL Shuttle flights is a FACT


the evaluation of 1 accident every 80 Shuttle flights was released by NASA a few months ago

Ok, so which is the FACT, 1 in 63 or 1 in 80.

And you still don't know how to do statistics in either case.

ToSeek
2009-Apr-09, 05:02 PM
the 1 in 63 risk to fail of the REAL Shuttle flights is a FACT


That two out of 125 missions have failed is a fact. The actual risk has to be extrapolated from that - I haven't done the math, but the facts are probably consistent to a 95% confidence level with a risk to fail anywhere between 1 in 30 (we've been very lucky) to 1 in 300 (we've been unlucky).

In any case, I don't see the ISS safe haven as all that big of a deal, as for the majority of the shuttle failure modes (which have to do with launch), it's not going to help, anyway. If the shuttle's too dangerous to fly to Hubble, it's too dangerous to fly, period.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 05:11 PM
Ok, so which is the FACT, 1 in 63 or 1 in 80.

1 in 63 is a FACT while the 1 in 80 figure is the (2008) NASA (optimistic) evaluation of risks for the last ten flights

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 05:14 PM
actual risk has to be extrapolated from that

starting from this fact, my opinion/evaluation is that now the risk is higher (but, of course, other may believe/say that now the risk is lower)

.

NEOWatcher
2009-Apr-09, 05:17 PM
1 in 63 is a FACT while the 1 in 80 figure is the (2008) NASA (optimistic) evaluation of risks for the last ten flights

.
But you also said 1 in 65 is a fact...and you said yourself, that we can't forget that.

the 1 in 63 risk to fail of the REAL Shuttle flights is a FACT

then, starting from this FACT, we can say (and it's only a matter of opinion) that the last 11 flights will be LESS safe (due to the AGE of the Shuttles) or MORE safe (due to the experience gained) but we can't forget the 1 in 65 figure, because it's a FACT

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 05:18 PM
All flights are risky...that is a fact. Weither any particular flight is "too" risky is determined by those who have experience evaluating these things, and by those who (whom?) actually do the flying.

fly with an old Caravelle or Comet CLEARLY IS more risky than fly with a new Boeing or Airbus (but, of course, also the new airplane can crash)

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 05:21 PM
Currently one of the biggest things preventing that is you and the way you try and communicate.

my best goal is to suggest them to re-evaluate the risks of the mission

about the "colors, bold, etc.) it's only the "pop-art" style of my websites

.

NEOWatcher
2009-Apr-09, 05:26 PM
fly with an old Caravelle or Comet CLEARLY IS more risky than fly with a new Boeing or Airbus (but, of course, also the new airplane can crash)
No; that has nothing to do with it.

We are comparing an airframe over time, not one airframe against the other.

That's where the B52 analogy comes in. It was built safe, it remained safe over time, and still is projected to be safe for some time to come. Yet the airframes are extremely old and stressed.

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-09, 05:28 PM
fly with an old Caravelle or Comet CLEARLY IS more risky than fly with a new Boeing or Airbus (but, of course, also the new airplane can crash)

.

How is any of this relevant?

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 05:29 PM
That's where the B52 analogy comes in.

I've already explained in another post why the B-52 isn't a good analogy while talking about a spacecraft

.

Swift
2009-Apr-09, 05:33 PM
I've already explained in another post why the B-52 isn't a good analogy while talking about a spacecraft

.
Then why is a Caravelle or Comet a good analogy?

samkent
2009-Apr-09, 05:34 PM
I visited the site mentioned here. While I agreed with some of the opinions in the articles, I came away with that woo woo feeling. Have my arms stopped waving yet?

Gaetan .. You feel that the age of the shuttles means that the risk of a failure is higher.

Wasn’t it a NEW O ring that doomed Challenger?
Wasn’t it NEW foam on a NEW ET that doomed Columbia?

In many ways older is more reliable.
Would you take a showroom new car across country? Or does a checked over, 5 year old one stand a better chance of making it without breakdown?

Would you hire an 18 year old to open your business in the morning everyday? Or is a 45 year old more likely to be there?

NEOWatcher
2009-Apr-09, 05:34 PM
I've already explained in another post why the B-52 isn't a good analogy while talking of a spacecraft.
No; you said why we cant compare a B52 against a shuttle, not a B52 against another B52.

the B-52 never fly under the critical parameters of a Shuttle regarding its speed, accelerations, vibrations, altitude, pressure, vacuum, etc.

compare the B-52 with a Shuttle is like compare a bycicle with a Formula 1

Besides, your own reasoning invalidates your caravelle analogy.

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-09, 05:36 PM
my best goal is to suggest them to re-evaluate the risks of the mission.

You've given NASA no reason to do that.


...about the "colors, bold, etc.) it's only the "pop-art" style of my websites.

If you truly want to be taken seriously, then you might have more success if you adopted a "just the facts" style instead of the "pop-art".

Tucson_Tim
2009-Apr-09, 05:54 PM
@ anyone

Is it true that it is impossible for the Shuttle to reach the ISS when it is on an HST servicing mission?

If it is impossible, then I guess the only rescue is another shuttle. How about the Russian Soyuz? Could it be launched in a rescue orbit? With supplies for a disabled shuttle? Or used to rescue a couple of astronauts?

slang
2009-Apr-09, 06:01 PM
That two out of 125 missions have failed is a fact. The actual risk has to be extrapolated from that [..]

I would doubt the latter, at least as a direct extrapolation. After each of both accidents many, many safety improvements have been made to both spacecraft and procedures. Not to mention that many failure modes that would have been fatal before Columbia are no longer necessarily fatal because of the added TPS inspection and repair capabilities.

Tucson_Tim, yes, that's true. (oh, new page.. "that it is impossible for the Shuttle to reach the ISS when it is on an HST servicing mission")

Tucson_Tim
2009-Apr-09, 06:02 PM
Tucson_Tim, yes, that's true. (oh, new page.. "that it is impossible for the Shuttle to reach the ISS when it is on an HST servicing mission")

Thanks. Sorry, I added a couple more questions to my post since you read it:

Then I guess the only rescue is another shuttle. How about the Russian Soyuz? Could it be launched in a rescue orbit? With supplies for a disabled shuttle? Or used to rescue a couple of astronauts?

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 06:04 PM
Then why is a Caravelle or Comet a good analogy?

[<< Rewind ]

the best way is to avoid all kind of strange "analogy" to talk only about the SPECIFIC vehicle that's the Shuttle

.

Swift
2009-Apr-09, 06:05 PM
@ anyone

Is it true that it is impossible for the Shuttle to reach the ISS when it is on an HST servicing mission?

If it is impossible, then I guess the only rescue is another shuttle. How about the Russian Soyuz? Could it be launched in a rescue orbit? With supplies for a disabled shuttle? Or used to rescue a couple of astronauts?
My understanding is that the ISS and the HST are in very different orbits, both inclination and height (the ISS is in the orbit it is so that the US and Russia can both get to it relatively easily) and that the shuttle does not carry enough fuel to get to the HST and then get to the ISS. I can't link to data on that though.

I don't know about the Soyuz. For one thing, even if you could send an unmanned Soyuz to the shuttle, you'd have to send several, since the Soyuz only can carry three people. If you read the details of the rescue mission plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-400), it sounds like the transfer is complex enough that you would need a shuttle, but I can't say for sure.

Here is the orbit data:
ISS mission - Inclination 51.6 degrees, altitude 361 km
HST mission - Inclination 28.5 degrees, altitude 570 km

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 06:06 PM
You feel that the age of the shuttles means that the risk of a failure is higher.

yes


In many ways older is more reliable.

often true, but the stress of the flight of a spacecraft is higher than all other old/new vehicles, so, its "age" counts

.

Swift
2009-Apr-09, 06:06 PM
[<< Rewind ]

the best way is to avoid all kind of strange "analogy" to talk only about the SPECIFIC vehicle that's the Shuttle

.
Fine. Prove to me that the risk with the shuttle are higher because the shuttles are older. I expect to see data.

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-09, 06:10 PM
[<< Rewind ]

the best way is to avoid all kind of strange "analogy" to talk only about the SPECIFIC vehicle that's the Shuttle

.

It is understandable why you would want to "avoid" your irrelevant analogy.

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-09, 06:12 PM
...but the stress of the flight of a spacecraft is higher than all other old/new vehicles, so, its "age" counts.

...and by what "means" did you arrive at that conclusion?

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 06:13 PM
Is it true that it is impossible for the Shuttle to reach the ISS when it is on an HST servicing mission?

absolutely true!

it may need more propellents than a full ET tank to move the Shuttle from the HST orbit to the ISS orbit


I guess the only rescue is another shuttle.

true, and it "should" be the Endeavour


Could it be launched in a rescue orbit?

not from Baikonur, but (probably) from Guiana, when it will be possible (around 2011)


With supplies for a disabled shuttle?

the Shuttle isn't built to be refueled/resupplied

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 06:16 PM
added TPS inspection and repair capabilities

true, but the crew of an inspected but too damaged Shuttle can't survive without the ISS life support

.

Tucson_Tim
2009-Apr-09, 06:17 PM
the Shuttle isn't built to be refueled/resupplied

.


I was thinking more along the lines of enough food, air (tanks), and water to give the astronauts some time till another vehicle could come to the rescue.

ToSeek
2009-Apr-09, 06:17 PM
@ anyone

Is it true that it is impossible for the Shuttle to reach the ISS when it is on an HST servicing mission?

Yes, that's true. The shuttle doesn't carry enough fuel to change orbit to that extent.



If it is impossible, then I guess the only rescue is another shuttle. How about the Russian Soyuz? Could it be launched in a rescue orbit? With supplies for a disabled shuttle? Or used to rescue a couple of astronauts?

Due to the latitude of the Russian equivalent of the Kennedy Space Center, Soyuzes can't be launched into an inclination less than that of the ISS, so a Soyuz rescue is not a possibility.

Note that there will be a shuttle on the other launch pad ready to go with a few days' notice should a rescue mission be required. Do a search on "STS-400" for more information.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 06:21 PM
I expect to see data.

the data we REALLY need to know are those that can ASSURE us (and the astronauts) that an old Shuttle launched to the HST is SAFER than past Shuttle flights and ISS missions!

.

Tucson_Tim
2009-Apr-09, 06:21 PM
Do a search on "STS-400" for more information.

Like your signature says. Thanks.

(It's all too easy to pick the brains of others here, rather than having the initiative to do my own searching. :o)

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 06:22 PM
It is understandable why you would want to "avoid" your irrelevant analogy.

about B-52 compared with Shuttles, etc. you have a good say "it's like compare Apples with Oranges" :)

.

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-09, 06:24 PM
the data we REALLY need to know are those that can ASSURE us (and the astronauts) that an old Shuttle launched to the HST is SAFER than past Shuttle flights and ISS missions!

No...what you are doing is "trying" to avoid the question both Swift and I have asked you...can you answer that question?

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 06:26 PM
I was thinking more along the lines of enough food, air (tanks), and water to give the astronauts some time till another vehicle could come to the rescue.

as said in my article, it's possible to study and develop a safer SM4 only if the Shuttle retirement will be shifted to 2012 or later, while, if the retirement date remains 2010, there is NOT enough time to study a better and safer mission, so, I suggest to DELETE it forever

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 06:28 PM
ready to go with a few days' notice

"few days" + "delays" (very common with near all Shuttle flights)

.

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-09, 06:30 PM
...if the retirement date remains 2010...

It does...


...there is NOT enough time to study a better and safer mission, so, I suggest to DELETE it forever.

Your "suggestion" is not an option.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 06:30 PM
and by what "means" did you arrive at that conclusion?

the delays of nearly all Shuttle flights (for repairs, problems, tests, etc.) already is a bad signal that their age counts

.

Tucson_Tim
2009-Apr-09, 06:30 PM
"few days" + "delays" (very common with near all Shuttle flights)

.

OK. @ anyone. Another related question: For a rescue mission, would NASA be a lot more tolerant of things that might, for a normal launch, cause a delay?

NEOWatcher
2009-Apr-09, 06:32 PM
the delays of nearly all Shuttle flights (for repairs, problems, tests, etc.) already is a bad signal that their age counts
Those delays were there when the shuttle was new too. So how does show thier age?

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-09, 06:33 PM
the delays of nearly all Shuttle flights (for repairs, problems, tests, etc.) already is a bad signal that their age counts.

Now show us the evidence that "age" is the cause of these delays.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 06:34 PM
can you answer that question?

I give an opinion based on LOGIC, known FACTS and NASA claims... and my opinion (you may agree or not) is that the SM4 is too risky

.

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-09, 06:37 PM
...my opinion (you may agree or not) is that the SM4 is too risky.

I do not agree, and neither do those who are making the decision to fly or not.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 06:38 PM
would NASA be a lot more tolerant of things that might, for a normal launch, cause a delay?

I believe the answer is "NO" because the Shuttle can't fly safely if one or ore parts don't work properly, so, if the NASA engineers discover a problem, they MUST repair it before launch the Shuttle (no matter if the repair needs days or months)

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 06:39 PM
So how does show thier age?

but, now, nearly ALL flights have one or more problems or delays

.

NEOWatcher
2009-Apr-09, 06:41 PM
but, now, nearly ALL flights have one or more problems or delays.
Wasn't that true from the beginning?

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 06:41 PM
Now show us the evidence that "age" is the cause of these delays.

"age" absolutely is the most probable origin of all these problems (until we know/discover other cause for them)

.

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-09, 06:42 PM
but, now, nearly ALL flights have one or more problems or delays.

You have not "connected" those "problems" with the age of the shuttle fleet. If you have evidence for such, please present it now.

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-09, 06:43 PM
"age" absolutely is the most probable origin of all these problems (until we know/discover other cause for them)

.

...and again....show us the evidence that age is the "most probable origin" for these problems.

Tucson_Tim
2009-Apr-09, 06:43 PM
I believe the answer is "NO" because the Shuttle can't fly safely if one or ore parts don't work properly, so, if the NASA engineers discover a problem, they MUST repair it before launch the Shuttle (no matter if the repair needs days or months)

.

I believe you are correct for broken parts that have to be replaced but on normal launches aren't there delays for (possibly) malfunctioning components that are redundant? Would NASA, with lives of marooned astronauts at stake, take a chance?

Tucson_Tim
2009-Apr-09, 06:46 PM
I know that sometimes older aircraft get stress cracks. But I have to believe that the entire shuttle fuselage, tail, and wings are gone over between missions with x-ray or other detection methods.

NEOWatcher
2009-Apr-09, 06:47 PM
Besides; as mission allowances are narrowed the delays go up, yet the conditions are exactly the same. That does not mean it's less safe, it only means they are more cautious.

So; can you provide me a list of flight delays and reasons so we can see the ones that were caused by equipment malfunctions only?

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 06:48 PM
If you have evidence for such, please present it now.

when there are HUMAN LIVES involved, also a "small suspect" of a problem is enough to re-think and re-evaluate everything, that's the only thing I want

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 06:50 PM
So if I rolled a fair dice six times

the dices haven't astronauts aboard... :)

.

NEOWatcher
2009-Apr-09, 06:51 PM
when there are HUMAN LIVES involved, also a "small suspect" of a problem is enough to re-think and re-evaluate everything, that's the only thing I want
They did that after each accident, and they do that after each launch with all the data they gather from each launch.

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-09, 06:54 PM
Ok...I'll ask again slightly differently...do you have any evidence that age is the "most probable origin" for any delays/problems with the shuttle launches?

geonuc
2009-Apr-09, 07:00 PM
the dices haven't astronauts aboard... :)

.
What does that have to do with how probabilities work?

Paul Beardsley
2009-Apr-09, 07:06 PM
the dices haven't astronauts aboard... :)

.

And with that comment, your credibility plummets.

Swift
2009-Apr-09, 07:24 PM
Ok...I'll ask again slightly differently...do you have any evidence that age is the "most probable origin" for any delays/problems with the shuttle launches?
I know R.A.F. that you were asking gaetanomarano, and I too expect him to answer.

But I found this very interesting 2007 article (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/07/tech/main3141075.shtml) from CBS news about shuttle delays.

Next time you grumble about your late airline flight, consider the space shuttle: It launches on time 40 percent of the time.

Not so great when stacked against the airline industry, which had a 73 percent on-time arrival record for the first six months of this year.

But then the shuttle is the world's most complicated aeronautical machine, so 40 percent may not be so bad.


A database analysis by The Associated Press showed that 47 of the 118 previous space shuttle missions have taken off on their originally scheduled day. Technical glitches account for more than half the delays. Endeavour, for example, was held back because of a leaky valve in the crew cabin.

Bad weather at Kennedy Space Center is to blame for about a third.


Since NASA's post-Columbia return to flight in 2005, NASA has had 10 launch delays and only five liftoffs, a 33 percent success rate. In its most successful years, 1997 and 1998, NASA launched 13 times with only three delays, an 81 percent on-time rate.

The good news for NASA is that, over time, technical delays are becoming far less frequent as engineers better understand the complicated vehicle, said Paul Fischbeck of Carnegie Mellon University. The engineering professor analyzed the database of delays.

From 1981-85, 73 percent of all delays were technical glitches, but that was down to just 38 percent from 2000-06, he found.
The bad news: Weather delays are soaring. The reason is probably because the shuttle's only mission these days is to go to the international space station. Because of the orbital mechanics required to hook up with the orbiting outpost, that means NASA has only five minutes at set times of day to launch.

Please particularly note the section of the last quote I bolded. It would seem to indicate that the shuttles are getting better with age, which several posters, including myself, suggested.

ToSeek
2009-Apr-09, 07:31 PM
OK. @ anyone. Another related question: For a rescue mission, would NASA be a lot more tolerant of things that might, for a normal launch, cause a delay?

They could - I don't know if they would. So many technical delays are caused by items for which they have backups but mission rules require that full redundancy be in place before they can launch. I would think that they'd be willing to cut some corners on stuff like that if the risk of launching is less than the risk of losing the astronauts to be rescued.

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-09, 07:32 PM
I know R.A.F. that you were asking gaetanomarano, and I too expect him to answer.

Oh, I'm in no "rush"...what time is it in Italy right now?... 9, 10 o'clock at night. It's reasonable to assume that he's simply gone to bed.


Please particularly note the section of the last quote I bolded. It would seem to indicate that the shuttles are getting better with age, which several posters, including myself, suggested.

...and as I suspected. :)

nauthiz
2009-Apr-09, 07:36 PM
I remember hearing somewhere that back at the beginning of the Shuttle program, its disaster rate was predicted to be about 1 in 75 missions. The actual disaster rate we've seen so far isn't too far off from that estimate.

With that in mind, the level of safety we expect from the Shuttle as of preparations for STS-126 isn't really any different from what we expected during preparations for STS-1. And the rescue prospects for STS-126 aren't particularly different from what they were for most of the missions from STS-1 through STS-113. In reality, they'll be better since we'll have a rescue vehicle on the pad and better facilities for in-orbit repair aboard the mission vehicle.

With that in mind, I do have to wonder why all the worry now. We've exposed Shuttle astronauts to this kind of risk at least 114 times so far, it seems a little bit late to be deciding that that kind of risk is unacceptable. Besides, I suspect that the one scheduled Hubble servicing mission stands to provide better scientific benefit at lower total risk than the 8 scheduled missions to the ISS.

Tucson_Tim
2009-Apr-09, 07:39 PM
They could - I don't know if they would. So many technical delays are caused by items for which they have backups but mission rules require that full redundancy be in place before they can launch. I would think that they'd be willing to cut some corners on stuff like that if the risk of launching is less than the risk of losing the astronauts to be rescued.
(my bold)

I would think so too. People in the rescue business (firemen come to mind first) are almost always risking their lives to save others.

Thanks for directing me to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-400

Swift
2009-Apr-09, 07:49 PM
<snip>
With that in mind, the level of safety we expect from the Shuttle as of preparations for STS-126 isn't really any different from what we expected during preparations for STS-1. And the rescue prospects for STS-126 aren't particularly different from what they were for most of the missions from STS-1 through STS-113. In reality, they'll be better since we'll have a rescue vehicle on the pad and better facilities for in-orbit repair aboard the mission vehicle.

An excellent point. Pre-ISS, there was no site in-orbit for them to go to for any mission.

ToSeek
2009-Apr-09, 07:57 PM
I would think so too. People in the rescue business (firemen come to mind first) are almost always risking their lives to save others.



Yes, my only issue would be that NASA can't do anything - and certainly not launch a shuttle - without it being written down and signed off. If they're going to ease the launch constraints, that has to be documented and then filter down to the decision tree. They can't just decide when they get a red light, "Sod it -we're going anyway," and press the button, particularly when it's a very picky computer that actually "presses the button."

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 07:58 PM
Please particularly note the section of the last quote I bolded. It would seem to indicate that the shuttles are getting better with age, which several posters, including myself, suggested.

probably, this is the reason why NASA evaluate an 1 in 80 risk for a Shuttle flight while the real Shuttle flights risk was 1 in 63 but this does not change the problem so much

an 1 in 63 risk means a global 16.6% risk to fail while the 1 in 80 risk give a global risk per flight (on 11 flights) of "only" 14%

however, these calculations don't change the fact that an Hubble missions hasn't any ISS/safe haven if something goes wrong, and (I hope you can admit) the risk that "something may go wrong" exists in all Shuttle flights!

so, I try to explain my concerns about the SM4 with a simpler example:

we have two old ships that are going in the ocean for fishing

the first ship (an ISS travel) has an inflatable rescue boat, life jackets, batteries, drinking water and food for months, etc. (the ISS/safe haven)

the second ship (the SM4 travel) hasn't any of them, food, water, a few days of water, energy, oxygen and food, and the only rescue boat (the Endeavour) is another old ship that's hundreds miles away

well, if everything goes well, both old ships may come back safely

but, if "something goes wrong" which crew of the two old ships will survive?

I believe the first crew CAN survive while the second MAY NOT survive (or just have LESS chances to survive)

.

samkent
2009-Apr-09, 08:00 PM
Ok I know that the shuttle can’t dock with the ISS during the HST mission but…

The two orbits have to intersect at some point (excluding altitude). Did the MMU they played with years ago have enough propellant to finish the job (for one astronaut) if the shuttle used it’s propellant to change inclination and then drop down to intersect with the ISS orbit? It would be a quick pass by but …

Just a wild thought.

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-09, 08:04 PM
"age" absolutely is the most probable origin of all these problems.

Can you provide evidence to substantuate this claim?

Swift
2009-Apr-09, 08:06 PM
so, I try to explain my concerns about the SM4 with a simpler example:

we have two old ships that are going in the ocean for fishing

Nope, sorry, I dismiss that analogy. I don't think it has anything to do with the shuttle. Please show actual data to support your conclusions.

Yes, I admit every shuttle mission has a risk. Every meal I eat has a risk too, as well as walking down the street or driving my car. There is nothing humans do that has zero risk.

You are now throwing in the word "global" risk, when you talk about your 14% risk. But you still talk like the 14% risk of failure applies to a single mission to the HST and that is absolutely incorrect.

You still have not shown how your calculations are correct, you have not shown any evidence as to how the aging of the shuttle fleet has changed this, you have not shown any evidence that the mission to the HST has a higher risk than a mission to the ISS, and you have still not shown any evidence that the astronauts are not completely aware of the risks involved and are not completely willing to take them.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 08:10 PM
.

apart of all evaluations and calculations... did the HST (with its 2-5 years of life max) WORTH the (always HIGH) risks of a Shuttle mission?

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 08:11 PM
Can you provide evidence to substantuate this claim?

there is no known or logical alternative

.

Tucson_Tim
2009-Apr-09, 08:12 PM
Yes, my only issue would be that NASA can't do anything - and certainly not launch a shuttle - without it being written down and signed off. If they're going to ease the launch constraints, that has to be documented and then filter down to the decision tree. They can't just decide when they get a red light, "Sod it -we're going anyway," and press the button, particularly when it's a very picky computer that actually "presses the button."

Should a rescue mission be necessary I would hope that everyone in the chain of command, all the way up the NASA ladder, would be on site and thus available for making these kinds of decisions. But I hadn't thought about overriding the computer programming -- maybe not so easy or quick, huh?

nauthiz
2009-Apr-09, 08:13 PM
I believe the first crew CAN survive while the second MAY NOT survive (or just have LESS chances to survive)

I believe that the first crew MAY NOT survive, either. Keep in mind that in any case something like the ISS would have absolutely no prospects for mitigating the event that killed half the Shuttle astronauts we've lost.

I also believe that the most likely prospect for losing another crew is that it will yet again be something that NASA was not watching for. In that case, the ISS still wouldn't save them.

ToSeek
2009-Apr-09, 08:13 PM
Ok I know that the shuttle can’t dock with the ISS during the HST mission but…

The two orbits have to intersect at some point (excluding altitude). Did the MMU they played with years ago have enough propellant to finish the job (for one astronaut) if the shuttle used it’s propellant to change inclination and then drop down to intersect with the ISS orbit? It would be a quick pass by but …

Just a wild thought.

Not even close. You're talking about an effective delta-V of over 3 kilometers per second to change orbits, and the MMU delivers meters per second. Even the shuttle orbital engines can't muster a change more than 300 m/sec (and that's the absolute maximum). Interesting thought, though.

Tucson_Tim
2009-Apr-09, 08:16 PM
Keep in mind that in any case something like the ISS would have absolutely no prospects for mitigating the event that killed half the Shuttle astronauts we've lost.


Excellent point. Just like normal air travel, take-off and landing are always the most dangerous parts of the flight.

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-09, 08:17 PM
.

apart of all evaluations and calculations... did the HST (with its 2-5 years of life max) WORTH the (always HIGH) risks of a Shuttle mission?

.

A resounding YES...it is very well "worth it".

Oh, and I've given up asking you the SAME QUESTION over and over and over again...It is obvious that you simply won't be answering, however your lack of response speaks volumes.

ToSeek
2009-Apr-09, 08:17 PM
Should a rescue mission be necessary I would hope that everyone in the chain of command, all the way up the NASA ladder, would be on site and thus available for making these kinds of decisions. But I hadn't thought about overriding the computer programming -- maybe not so easy or quick, huh?

Yes, the last 31 seconds are purely under computer control, and the computer is frantically checking every parameter available to make sure it's within specs. And I'm sure they didn't make it easy to override the computer.

Swift
2009-Apr-09, 08:17 PM
there is no known or logical alternative

.
Nonsense. Neither of the shuttle accidents had anything to do with the age of the vehicle.

I have also presented evidence that the number of technical problems during launches have decreased over time. You have presented no evidence to counter that.

gaetanomarano
2009-Apr-09, 08:20 PM
AI've given up asking you the SAME QUESTION

about the Shuttles' age?

.

nauthiz
2009-Apr-09, 08:21 PM
there is no known or logical alternative

.

I think the most logical alternative is that it's something like the usual bathtub curve, where more faults are expected early on while engineers still haven't quite gotten all the kinks worked out. This is consistent with what Swift (I believe) posted about the number of technical glitches that cause delays decreasing over time.

The alternative you present, on the other hand, seems less logical. It would predict that the rate of technical glitches causing delays would increase over time, something that is apparently contradicted by what we've seen so far.

Tucson_Tim
2009-Apr-09, 08:23 PM
I think the very first crew to fly the Shuttle into space (back in '83?) were on the most risky mission of all.

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-09, 08:26 PM
81' Tim...:)

ToSeek
2009-Apr-09, 08:41 PM
.

apart of all evaluations and calculations... did the HST (with its 2-5 years of life max) WORTH the (always HIGH) risks of a Shuttle mission?

.

Servicing Mission 4 is expected to allow HST to operate until at least 2014 - and that date is from when SM4 was scheduled for last fall, so we're talking another six years as a minimum. The maximum is comfortably into double figures. We're also talking about having five fully functional science instruments for the first time in Hubble's history.

I just did some back-of-the-envelope calculations and figure that going into STS-125's launch we've gotten about 700 instrument-months out of Hubble (an instrument-month being one functional science instrument for one month, with only half-credit being given to operations with the flawed mirror prior to the first servicing mission). This servicing mission will provide another six years (at least) with five functioning science instruments, thus delivering another 360 instrument-months (and probably a lot more), i.e., at least a half-again share of the amazing science that Hubble has been doing. So, yes, I think it's worth it.

Tucson_Tim
2009-Apr-09, 08:52 PM
81' Tim...:)

What? I missed two years somewhere. Must be that wine I had . . . . :)

stutefish
2009-Apr-09, 08:55 PM
when there are HUMAN LIVES involved, also a "small suspect" of a problem is enough to re-think and re-evaluate everything, that's the only thing I want.
Why is what you want important?

KaiYeves
2009-Apr-10, 01:51 AM
I. Hate. That. Challenger. Picture.

Nightmares... and I wasn't even born yet!

Grashtel
2009-Apr-10, 03:35 AM
I. Hate. That. Challenger. Picture.

Nightmares... and I wasn't even born yet!
Which is pretty much the reaction gaetanomarano seems to be going for he(?) doesn't have any actual data to back up his claims[1] so is instead going for an emotional response.

[1] gaetanomarano feel free to prove me wrong by providing actual evidence for your claims about how super risky the Hubble repair mission will be.

CJSF
2009-Apr-10, 03:38 AM
Kai,

I sympathize with you regarding that picture. I was home from school pretending to be sick that day so I could watch the launch. I said -out loud- to myself, "I wonder what would happen if one of those blew-up."

Within 10 seconds, I was finding out. I was sick for weeks. I was angry at NASA, at the government. At engineers. At executives.

It took me years to get over it. I still cringe whenever I see that image.

CJSF

ToSeek
2009-Apr-10, 04:32 AM
I. Hate. That. Challenger. Picture.

Nightmares... and I wasn't even born yet!

Yeah, I was listening to the live air-to-ground when it happened. Two of my coworkers were at Kennedy watching the launch.

The criminal ineptitude that led to the disaster didn't fully hit me until I read the Rogers Commission report, whereupon I was almost literally ill.

ravens_cry
2009-Apr-10, 06:01 AM
I watched the CNN live video on youtube about a year ago.
Guh, I felt sick. My stomach was all cramped up. I knew what was coming, but there was absolutely nothing I could do to stop it. As I have said before, I knew how a time traveler feels. I also saw a home video of the backup 'teacher in space' watching the launch. In some ways it was worse, watching the range of emotion. Until then, I had only seen the classic spiral cloud picture, but never the actual accident, having only been born that year, I wasn't even a sperm at that time.

novaderrik
2009-Apr-10, 06:12 AM
i was in 5th grade when Challenger blew up. i was between classes, and walking past the science classroom. the teacher saw me and told to to come look at what had just happened. i had told him before about how i thought the shuttle was the coolest thing ever and that i had watched the first launch back in '81. i was somewhat shocked, but i had experienced enough death in my own life up to that point to know that people sometimes die and that some things are inherently dangerous.
on a non-personal note- it kind of hit our school district somewhat hard, because one of the backup teachers for the flight was a teacher at our high school, and he was watching the liftoff from the VIP area a couple of miles from the pad. he was like 5th or 6th in line, but he knew all the people onboard and went thru a bunch of training. when i had him as a teacher a few years later, he talked about his experiences at NASA and how everyone knew it was dangerous. he also said that lessons were learned and that they would do their best to not let that happen again.

Jeff Root
2009-Apr-10, 07:41 AM
Each individual flight has a 1 in 80 risk.
yes, if it flies ONCE
What is the risk on each individual flight if it flies twice?
What is the total risk for two flights?

What is the risk on each individual flight if it flies 10 times?
What is the total risk for 10 flights?

What is the risk on each individual flight if it flies 100 times?
What is the total risk for 100 flights?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Tucson_Tim
2009-Apr-10, 02:30 PM
gaetanomarano,

I don't think there is a person on this site that doesn't appreciate your concern for the safety of the astronauts. If there was an accident and they died, the effect on their families and the rest of the world would be enormous. So, please don't think we don't care. We do. And we all understand the risks. While this mission is labeled as a "servicing mission" we know that every shuttle mission has risks and this mission may have more risk than others but look, this is still space exploration, and it comes with risks. Most of the concerns here have to do with the facts on which you are basing your concern. There are also some folks (even on this site) that feel the HST is past the point of maintaining and that the service mission funds should be applied to other scope projects but I think most people feel the HST is still a unique and valuable tool that can continue to be of use for many years to come. For this reason alone, it is worth the risk.

KaiYeves
2009-Apr-10, 03:27 PM
There are two reasons why the whole event (And hence, the picture) scares me so much:

1) With Bad Things that happened in my life, I always remember where I was, with all the details. I know what happened to me and what I felt.

With Bad Things that happened before I was born, I don't have that grounding of what I actually felt, so I imagine feeling what the victims felt. Being an empathic person with an overactive imagination is NOT fun.

2) I know I've told this story once or twice elsewhere on this board, but back in elementary school, my science teacher was a blond woman named Ms. Lane who has since retired. She was a wonderful person with a great sense of humor. (She had a watering can labeled "H2O" in her room.)

Anyway, one day we were doing a lesson that had to do with space, and Ms. Lane was talking about how the shuttle is prepared in the VAB in great detail. We all were amazed by her knowledge, and one kid blurted out "Gosh, Ms. Lane, you sure know a lot about the space shuttle!"

"Well, many years ago, before any of you were born, the government sent us letters about two contests. One was to visit Cape Canaveral and see the space shuttle as it was prepared for flight. The other was actually to go into space. I entered both contests. I won the first and I lost the second."

She paused. Some of us (Myself included) knew vaguely about what had happened.

"And I have never been so happy to loose anything in all my life. Because the lady who won..."

I do not know how far Ms. Lane's contest entry made it. I don't know if she was disqualified right away or if she made it farther.

All I know is that it might have been her.

slang
2009-Apr-11, 12:25 AM
All I know is that it might have been her.

Are you still in contact with Ms. Lane? If not, wouldn't it be nice to drop her a line, and share your current enthousiasm with her?

Paul Beardsley
2009-Apr-11, 02:45 AM
There are two reasons why the whole event (And hence, the picture) scares me so much:

1) With Bad Things that happened in my life, I always remember where I was, with all the details. I know what happened to me and what I felt.

With Bad Things that happened before I was born, I don't have that grounding of what I actually felt, so I imagine feeling what the victims felt. Being an empathic person with an overactive imagination is NOT fun.

2) I know I've told this story once or twice elsewhere on this board, but back in elementary school, my science teacher was a blond woman named Ms. Lane who has since retired. She was a wonderful person with a great sense of humor. (She had a watering can labeled "H2O" in her room.)

Anyway, one day we were doing a lesson that had to do with space, and Ms. Lane was talking about how the shuttle is prepared in the VAB in great detail. We all were amazed by her knowledge, and one kid blurted out "Gosh, Ms. Lane, you sure know a lot about the space shuttle!"

"Well, many years ago, before any of you were born, the government sent us letters about two contests. One was to visit Cape Canaveral and see the space shuttle as it was prepared for flight. The other was actually to go into space. I entered both contests. I won the first and I lost the second."

She paused. Some of us (Myself included) knew vaguely about what had happened.

"And I have never been so happy to loose anything in all my life. Because the lady who won..."

I do not know how far Ms. Lane's contest entry made it. I don't know if she was disqualified right away or if she made it farther.

All I know is that it might have been her.

This is one of those posts that makes BAUT such a great place. Granted, your teacher might have been in second place, or three thousandth place, but whatever, it does put it in perspective.

weirdwarp.com
2009-Apr-11, 07:08 AM
We are not going to get anywhere in the universe with this sort of attitude.

I would fly it if they'd have me.

KaiYeves
2009-Apr-11, 12:51 PM
Granted, your teacher might have been in second place, or three thousandth place, but whatever, it does put it in perspective.
Well, Barbara Morgan was in second place, I know that. The list of finalists must be somewhere online, I'm sure.

EDIT: Pay dirt! (http://www.worldspaceflight.com/bios/teacher.htm) She wasn't one of New York's candidates- hurrah!


Are you still in contact with Ms. Lane? If not, wouldn't it be nice to drop her a line, and share your current enthusiasm with her?
I don't get over to the Elementary school much, but I'm sure they still have her contact information and could help me get in touch with her. I'm not sure when I'll be over there next, though.

gaetanomarano
2009-May-08, 05:10 PM
.

my proposal for the Hubble SM4 to have a SAFER mission:

1. slip the Ares 1-X test (and all launch pads' changes) to the end of the year (or delete the test forever, since completely useless!)

2. launch the Endeavour in june for its planned ISS mission

3. slip the STS-125 Hubble SM4 to july or august

4. add the extra life support to (both) STS-125 and STS-400 as suggested in my article: http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/044sm4risks.html

5. keep the Discovery assembled in the VAB ready to launch for an STS-500 rescue mission of the Atlantis AND Endeavor crews

please note that my proposal for a safer SM4 did NOT need any "new vehicle" or "Star Trek technology" but (simply) a Shuttles launches re-scheduling plus, simple, cheap and ready available technologies!

.

R.A.F.
2009-May-08, 05:26 PM
my proposal for the Hubble SM4 to have a SAFER mission...

I PMed the mods requesting that this be split...but then I realized that there is already an open thread covering this.

Why don't we continue this discussion there and leave this thread for the discussion of the SM4 mission itself.

R.A.F.
2009-May-08, 05:44 PM
gaetanomarano posted the following...

my proposal for the Hubble SM4 to have a SAFER mission:

1. slip the Ares 1-X test (and all launch pads' changes) to the end of the year (or delete the test forever, since completely useless!)

2. launch the Endeavour in june for its planned ISS mission

3. slip the STS-125 Hubble SM4 to july or august

4. add the extra life support to (both) STS-125 and STS-400 as suggested in my article: http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/044sm4risks.html

5. keep the Discovery assembled in the VAB ready to launch for an STS-500 rescue mission of the Atlantis AND Endeavor crews

please note that my proposal for a safer SM4 did NOT need any "new vehicle" or "Star Trek technology" but (simply) a Shuttles launches re-scheduling plus, simple, cheap and ready available technologies!



...posted in this manner so it would be easier to quote from...

R.A.F.
2009-May-08, 05:58 PM
...slip the Ares 1-X test (and all launch pads' changes) to the end of the year (or delete the test forever, since completely useless!)

Why do you consider the Ares test to be "completely useless"?


launch the Endeavour in june for its planned ISS mission.

How would this make the Hubble mission "safer"?


slip the STS-125 Hubble SM4 to july or august.

...and again, just how would this make the Hubble mission "safer"?

Anyway...the scheduling has "slipped" enough without more delays...


add the extra life support to...STS-125...

Actually, I have no problem with this idea as I have stated it.


keep the Discovery assembled in the VAB ready to launch for an STS-500 rescue mission of the Atlantis AND Endeavor crews.

Now hold on a minute. The Shuttle is so risky to fly, yet you see no difficulty in flying all our remaining Shuttles at the same time?

gaetanomarano
2009-May-08, 06:50 PM
Why do you consider the Ares test to be "completely useless"?

personally, I believe the (final) Ares-1 can't fly: http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/012arescantfly.html

however, the Ares 1-X ISN'T the final Ares-1 but a standard SRB with an upperstage mass "calculated" to fly... :)

How would this make the Hubble mission "safer"?

I've read that it's already planned for a ISS mission if not used to rescue the Atlantis' crew

...and again, just how would this make the Hubble mission "safer"?

not the slippage to august, but the time to add extra-life support, as explained in my article: http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/044sm4risks.html


The Shuttle is so risky to fly, yet you see no difficulty in flying all our remaining Shuttles at the same time?

true, all Shuttle flight are risky, but, in the ISS missions, there is not the further risks of a lack of life support or to burn at re-entry

.

Swift
2009-May-08, 07:19 PM
gaetanomarano posted the following...

<snip>


...posted in this manner so it would be easier to quote from...
Just to clarify, gaetanomarano posted a post on this topic in the STS125 thread, that R.A.F. was responding to here. I moved gaetanomarano's post from that thread (and R.A.F.'s response from there) over to this thread, to keep everything together.

Swift
2009-May-08, 07:46 PM
gaetanomarano,
Besides the fact that your past proposals were based on little or no evidence and faulty statistics, what exactly is your point? The mission launches in 3 days. Do you think NASA is going to scrap the whole at this point?

R.A.F.
2009-May-08, 08:15 PM
personally, I believe the (final) Ares-1 can't fly: http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/012arescantfly.html

Since my browser has difficulities with your site, and since this is a discussion board, could you please explain why you think that it can't fly, here.


b]How would this make the Hubble mission "safer"?[/B]

I've read that it's already planned for a ISS mission if not used to rescue the Atlantis' crew.

Yes, but how does a planned ISS mission make the Hubble mission "safer"?

eta...oh, I think get it...if they don't fly the Hubble mission, then it would most certainly make the Hubble mission "safer".... is that it?

Tuckerfan
2009-May-09, 12:17 AM
NASA's problem is that they're not killing enough astronauts.

You push the envelope, and there's a good chance people will die. Frankly, if I had my druthers, I'd choose sacrificing my life to expand human knowledge over any other kind of death by a few zillion lightyears.

Yes, there will be risks on this mission, a lot of them. Yes, its possible that the amount of risk we're being told about does not reflect the actual numbers (some estimates have failure rates approaching 100% very quickly if NASA continues to fly shuttles after 2010). So what? The mission to the HST is exactly the kind of thing NASA should be doing.

Even if there was a 100% certainty that the crew going up to service the HST would die, NASA could no doubt find a double dozen (or more) of people willing to go up (and some of them might actually be qualified).

The issue is not, "Will the shuttle astronauts die?" but "If they do get killed, will we as a nation continue to have the cojones to push ahead with space exploration regardless of the risks?" For me, the answer is an explicative filled "Yes!" for the OP, and perhaps much of the country, the answer is a meek "No."

Frankly, I prefer to live in a world where the answer is "Yes." Its a much more interesting one.

AstroRockHunter
2009-May-09, 02:49 AM
gaetanomarano:

A couple of things.

Using the Challenger accident really isn't supportive of your argument. If an accident of this kind happens, it wouldn't matter where the shuttle was headed.

The Apollo 13 accident doesn't support your argument either. First, is was a totally different design from the shuttle and second, it was a brand new, never been flown craft. If we are to believe your assertion that the older the craft the greater the risk, then this accident should never have happened. Third, NASA engineers were successful in returning the crew safetly to earth.

The Columbia accident is a concern that NASA has spent millions of dollars and hundreds of hours of research to prevent. If this mission did not have a shuttle rescue mission back-up included, then you might have a point. However, since NASA has included it, I don't see what your concern is.

As far as Hubble is concerned, we have gotten far more useful scientific data from the Hubble than we probably will ever get from the ISS. For myself, I'd rather spend the money and accept the risk of servicing Hubble than to continue assembling that white elephant someone decided to call the International Space Station.

And if there is an accident and those brave people do die, I WILL CRY for them and their families, as I did for Challenger and Columbia. However, I will not succomb to your fear mongering.

Amber Robot
2009-May-09, 04:10 AM
As far as Hubble is concerned, we have gotten far more useful scientific data from the Hubble than we probably will ever get from the ISS.

Are you competing for the Understatement of the Year award? :p

joema
2009-May-09, 04:24 AM
...all Shuttle flight are risky, but, in the ISS missions, there is not the further risks of a lack of life support or to burn at re-entry...
The main risk of any shuttle mission is a systems failure during powered flight -- APU, turbopump, electrical, etc. Various highly-stressed systems must work. Whether the destination is ISS or Hubble makes no difference.

A host of failure modes will result in an abort -TAL, RTLS or ATO. In any of those cases they couldn't reach ISS anyway. Once again, the destination (whether ISS or Hubble) makes no difference in safety.

Whether headed for ISS or Hubble, after reaching orbit they'll inspect the thermal protection. Whether at ISS or Hubble, if the TPS is damaged they'll try to repair it.

It would be an incredibly rare situation to reach Hubble's orbit, and have the TPS damaged so that it couldn't be repaired. In that rare case they have a rescue shuttle ready.

JonClarke
2009-May-09, 07:43 AM
Are you competing for the Understatement of the Year award? :p

Useful for what? How much biomedical research, materials science, engineering R&D, been on on Hubble? None what so ever.

What is useful about pretty pictures astronomical data?

Hubble and the ISS are very different projects with different aims and delivering different results in different fields. We can judge their comparitive success, but not against what the other has achieved, but against what each was designed to achieve.

Jon

JonClarke
2009-May-09, 07:49 AM
As far as Hubble is concerned, we have gotten far more useful scientific data from the Hubble than we probably will ever get from the ISS. For myself, I'd rather spend the money and accept the risk of servicing Hubble than to continue assembling that white elephant someone decided to call the International Space Station.

The ISS is only a white elephant if you dismiss what it is designed to achieve. Are pretty pictures from Hubble more valuable than materials science and biomedical research that has direct benifit to future missions and for life here on earth? Is developing expertise in long term space missions, large space facilities for decades, and high efficiency life support systems not valuable?

Jon

PS This will be my last post for three weeks because of work committments.

djellison
2009-May-09, 09:01 AM
in the ISS missions, there is not the further risks of a lack of life support or to burn at re-entry

.

You are wrong. ANY shuttle mission has risks regarding re-entry.

This continued foaming at the mouth despite a complete lack of facts is getting tiresome.

gaetanomarano
2009-May-09, 12:03 PM
Challenger Apollo 13 Columbia

as explained in my article, they are used only as an example of the three main risks of all orbital spaceflights: lift-off to LEO, LEO operations, re-entry

the biggest risk of an ISS mission is the first, since, after docking to the ISS/safe haven, the latter two risks are reduced to a minimum, while, the Hubble SM4, since away from ISS, will face ALL three risks

.

gaetanomarano
2009-May-09, 12:05 PM
ANY shuttle mission has risks regarding re-entry.

true, but I refer to a DAMAGED Shuttle that can't re-entry without BURN in the atmosphere (that's why the SM4 needs the STS-400 ready to fly)

.

gaetanomarano
2009-May-09, 12:08 PM
could you please explain why you think that it can't fly, here.

the argument is too long (and, I believe, off topic) to discuss here


but how does a planned ISS mission make the Hubble mission "safer"?

IIRC, the Endeavour, if not used for the STS-400, is already planned to fly in june for an ISS mission

.

gaetanomarano
2009-May-09, 12:13 PM
The issue is not, "Will the shuttle astronauts die?"

no, the main question (if they will die) is: "WHY did they are dead for a very stupid reason: the lack of enough life support time!"

that means "the lack of a few dollars of extra energy, oxygen, water and food to survive to an rescue mission's long delay"!!!!

.

gaetanomarano
2009-May-09, 12:16 PM
It would be an incredibly rare situation to reach Hubble's orbit, and have the TPS damaged so that it couldn't be repaired. In that rare case they have a rescue shuttle ready.

unless the STS-400 launch will have more than a week of delay... :(

.

Amber Robot
2009-May-09, 03:20 PM
Are pretty pictures from Hubble more valuable than materials science and biomedical research that has direct benifit to future missions and for life here on earth?

If you could please quantify the amount of science achieved in those fields by research done on the ISS I can answer your question.


Is developing expertise in long term space missions, large space facilities for decades, and high efficiency life support systems not valuable?

The question was about science, not engineering. Certainly the engineering information gained is valuable, but that's different than saying the ISS is advancing science.

And I believe that "pretty pictures from Hubble" do have direct benefit for life here on Earth. I don't believe you can easily pick and choose which parts of science you want to advance. By advancing "useless" sciences like Astronomy, I believe you further advance an environment in which people get interested in all sciences. By not considering these "pretty pictures", which inspire many a child to go into science in the first place, as valuable, you do a great disservice to all future scientific and engineering advancement. How many engineers who end up working on these fields you have listed as valuable got where they are because they were initially struck with wonder by the "pretty pictures" that astronomical observatories of all kind have produced?

R.A.F.
2009-May-09, 03:58 PM
Characterizing the science done by Hubble as "pretty pictures" demonstrates a profound ignorance of the groundbreaking science that Hubble has done and will do in the future.

R.A.F.
2009-May-09, 04:02 PM
the argument is too long (and, I believe, off topic) to discuss here.

If you did not intend to discuss it here, then you shouldn't have brought it up to begin with...

Amber Robot
2009-May-09, 05:05 PM
Characterizing the science done by Hubble as "pretty pictures" demonstrates a profound ignorance of the groundbreaking science that Hubble has done and will do in the future.

And though I may show my bias, one can argue that most of the science done by Hubble is done with spectra, which most of the public never see.

Nicolas
2009-May-09, 05:19 PM
no, the main question (if they will die) is: "WHY did they are dead for a very stupid reason: the lack of enough life support time!"

that means "the lack of a few dollars of extra energy, oxygen, water and food to survive to an rescue mission's long delay"!!!!

.

As if modifying the shuttle to stay longer in orbit is a matter of filling it up a bit more for a few dollars...Time for a reality check.

Nicolas
2009-May-09, 05:21 PM
The question was about science, not engineering. Certainly the engineering information gained is valuable, but that's different than saying the ISS is advancing science.

Apart from the engineering experience gained by building and running ISS, scientific experiments are done in there continuously. They just don't get that much media attention.

It is not uncommon for a single astronaut on a ten day mission to the ISS to perform 14 complete scientific experiments there.

Jeff Root
2009-May-09, 05:24 PM
Characterizing the science done by Hubble as "pretty pictures"
demonstrates a profound ignorance of the groundbreaking science
that Hubble has done and will do in the future.
No it doesn't. It demonstrates a reaction to denigration of the
science done on the ISS.

Jon Clarke's reply was very reasonable and the exact opposite of
ignorant.

* * * *
The Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) was installed
in HST on 1997-Feb-14, replacing the GHRS spectrograph. On
2004-Aug-03, STIS stopped science operations and is currently in
"safe" mode. It is scheduled to be repaired on the upcoming Shuttle
flight.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

R.A.F.
2009-May-09, 05:42 PM
Whatever you say, Jeff... :lol:

joema
2009-May-09, 06:16 PM
unless the STS-400 launch will have more than a week of delay... :(
.
Why would it have more than one week of delay? The very purpose of processing STS-400 is to have it ready within a useful timeframe in the rare case a rescue might be needed.

What would be the purpose of having STS-400 on the pad in a state where it can't be used for its planned role?

In the rare case rescue was needed, then if STS-400 was unexpectedly delayed (say something broke) there's no guarantee having additional on-orbit consumables would help. STS-400 could be delayed beyond that period as well.

The likelihood of even needing a rescue is very remote. Most of the TPS problems are resolved. Even a rare Columbia-type TPS problem can be repaired with the on-board capability now available.

The probability of encountering significant TPS damage is rare. The probability of being unable to repair that is further unlikely. If all that were to transpire, the chance of STS-400 being unable to launch is even more remote.

General George Patton said every army prepares to fight the previous war. Likewise there's a tendency to focus on the previous problem, regardless of whether that is relevant or probable.

The last fatal shuttle problem involved TPS, but that isn't the biggest risk factor. Over-emphasizing the previous problem to the point of obsession is a red herring.

Amber Robot
2009-May-09, 06:31 PM
Apart from the engineering experience gained by building and running ISS, scientific experiments are done in there continuously. They just don't get that much media attention.

Ok. Can you point me to some research papers based on those experiments and perhaps a summary of the major contributions to the fields of biomedical research and materials science that have resulted? I wasn't aware that any significant research was done on the ISS, having read a long time ago that many companies found it more cost effective to do microgravity experiments on Earth. Certainly my information could be out of date.

Tuckerfan
2009-May-09, 08:13 PM
no, the main question (if they will die) is: "WHY did they are dead for a very stupid reason: the lack of enough life support time!"

that means "the lack of a few dollars of extra energy, oxygen, water and food to survive to an rescue mission's long delay"!!!!

.

Pfft. If, for example, they get up there and discover that there's a hole in the wing, its no biggie. NASA will no doubt scrub the mission to the HST (if they let them go at all) until the rescue shuttle can be launched. (You do know that the first thing they do when they get to orbit is check the tiles, don't you?) Given that NASA loads the shuttle up with consumables, because they know that wearther conditions can prevent the shuttle from landing at the scheduled time, there's certain to be more than 14 days worth of food and air onboard.

So, the crew will have enough supplies to last at least two weeks. If something were to come up, and prevent the rescue mission from being launched, the crew can put themselves on "short rations" (it won't hurt them to eat less than 2k calories a day for a few days). As for air, well, since they're not going to be riding the shuttle down, they can always rip into one of the LOX tanks used for propellant and breathe that if they have to.

Amber Robot
2009-May-09, 08:32 PM
As for air, well, since they're not going to be riding the shuttle down, they can always rip into one of the LOX tanks used for propellant and breathe that if they have to.

I don't think the orbiter uses LOX for propellant.

Tuckerfan
2009-May-09, 08:50 PM
I don't think the orbiter uses LOX for propellant.The main engines do, but the thrusters use hydrazine and nitrogen tetraoxide, neither of which is probably healthy to inhale. Depending upon what they have onboard, there might be away to filter the tetraoxide to make it into something more suitable to humans, and there might be some residual LOX in the lines to the main engines. In any case, the guys at NASA aren't going to be twiddling their thumbs if it looked like the crew was going to run out of oxygen before help arrived.

joema
2009-May-09, 08:50 PM
If, for example, they get up there and discover that there's a hole in the wing, its no biggie. NASA will no doubt scrub the mission to the HST (if they let them go at all) until the rescue shuttle can be launched...
In the unlikely event of severe TPS damage, launching the rescue shuttle would be a last resort.

The Hubble mission will carry extensive on-board repair capability for TPS damage. This has been under development for years, with this mission as the primary reason.

The shuttle TPS is over-designed and in some ways very resilient. The vehicle has successfully reentered with many tiles completely missing.

It would take a rare worst-case scenario (like Columbia) for a precise type of tile damage in a specific area to EVEN REQUIRE an EVA to repair it. Should that happen, they'd simply repair the damage on-orbit.

IF TPS damage happened, and IF it was severe enough to require repair, and IF the repairs could not be adquately performed, THEN a rescue mission would be launched.

If the rescue mission failed, they'd simply make a best-effort contingency TPS repair and try to reenter. It's possible this might have even worked for Columbia -- with no repair kit whatsoever, just using available on-board materials.

By contrast the Hubble mission will carry a specifically-designed repair kit capable of fixing various types of TPS problems.

gaetanomarano
2009-May-09, 08:58 PM
Characterizing the science done by Hubble as "pretty pictures" demonstrates a profound ignorance of the groundbreaking science that Hubble has done and will do in the future.

I agree 200% and I hope will be repaired and upgraded, but without risk 11+ human lives or, at least, giving them MORE chances to survive if something goes wrong!

especially if we consider that a SAFER mission needs ONLY a few dollars of extra-life support!

do you want up to 11 astronauts dead to SAVE just a few dollars???

.

Paul Beardsley
2009-May-09, 09:00 PM
8 pages on and it's just a repeat of the first page, with nothing new to support it.

gaetanomarano
2009-May-09, 09:01 PM
If you did not intend to discuss it here, then you shouldn't have brought it up to begin with...

I believe that my article about the Ares-1 is exhaustive of my opinion and concerns regarding this rocket

.

Tuckerfan
2009-May-09, 09:03 PM
If the rescue mission failed, they'd simply make a best-effort contingency TPS repair and try to reenter. It's possible this might have even worked for Columbia -- with no repair kit whatsoever, just using available on-board materials.

IIRC, they weren't carrying spacesuits on Columbia's final mission (this has since been changed so that every mission carries suits), so they wouldn't have been able to do an EVA.

Swift
2009-May-09, 09:05 PM
especially if we consider that a SAFER mission needs ONLY a few dollars of extra-life support!

do you want 11 astronauts dead to SAVE just a few dollars???

.
You keep saying that, but you have offered absolutely no proof of it. You make it sound like NASA could send a few dollars to add a lot to the life support system and is just being cheap. Considering how much is spent on a shuttle launch and particularly on this mission, I find that insulting. As it has been pointed out that your statements are just nonsense, I want to see some actual evidence of this.

And you have not addressed any of my questions from yesterday.

gaetanomarano
2009-May-09, 09:05 PM
As if modifying the shuttle to stay longer in orbit is a matter of filling it up a bit more for a few dollars...Time for a reality check.

that WAS true ONLY for the energy, but not after the external energy supply connector has been added to all Shuttles

.

Swift
2009-May-09, 09:08 PM
Ok. Can you point me to some research papers based on those experiments and perhaps a summary of the major contributions to the fields of biomedical research and materials science that have resulted? I wasn't aware that any significant research was done on the ISS, having read a long time ago that many companies found it more cost effective to do microgravity experiments on Earth. Certainly my information could be out of date.
OK, now I'm wearing my moderator hat.
This is not aimed just at Amber Robot, I just picked it as the latest post on this

Please knock of the debate on the value of the ISS versus the Hubble, it is seriously derailing this thread. If you want such a debate, start a new thread, or ask a moderator to move the posts to a new thread.

gaetanomarano
2009-May-09, 09:10 PM
Why would it have more than one week of delay?

because it actually CAN happen!

five times the Shuttles aborted a launch before the SRBs brun due to an SSME malfunction...

and, as you clearly suggest, also other unknown problems can happen

two-three months of extra-life support time aboard the Atlantis are enough to change an SSME on the Endevour or assemble and launch the Discovery (or both)

.

gaetanomarano
2009-May-09, 09:17 PM
the crew will have enough supplies to last at least two weeks

three months are better for the worst cases (that can happen)

.

Amber Robot
2009-May-09, 09:29 PM
The main engines do...


Well, certainly, but they don't take the LOX tank to orbit with them.

Tuckerfan
2009-May-09, 09:35 PM
three months are better for the worst cases (that can happen)

.

If a "worst case" scenerio entailed waiting in orbit for three freakin' months, it would be cheaper and easier to modify the shuttle so that it could go to the HST and the ISS on the same mission.

Tuckerfan
2009-May-09, 09:36 PM
Well, certainly, but they don't take the LOX tank to orbit with them.
But they do take fuel cells with them, and those most certainly do require LOX. They could take one of them out of service (and power down much of the shuttle) and use the LOX intended for that unit.

Nicolas
2009-May-09, 09:37 PM
OK, now I'm wearing my moderator hat.
This is not aimed just at Amber Robot, I just picked it as the latest post on this

Please knock of the debate on the value of the ISS versus the Hubble, it is seriously derailing this thread. If you want such a debate, start a new thread, or ask a moderator to move the posts to a new thread.

I fully read, understood and respect this post, but still I reply to Amber Robot here because this reply may make a new thread unnecessary anyway (because I don't have the info asked).

Amber Robot: I don't have links to papers regarding research done on the ISS, but I have followed (as an enthusiast) some astronaut missions, and for example the first mission of Frank De Winne included 14 experiments in a ten day period. There are many scientific experiments going on at any given time in the ISS. But I don't know about their results.

Nicolas
2009-May-09, 09:39 PM
@Gaetanomarano: as far as I understood, there are multiple reasons why the in-orbit life of the shuttle is limited to what it is. And those limits are more than likely not stretched with "a few dollars".

Amber Robot
2009-May-09, 10:05 PM
I fully read, understood and respect this post, but still I reply to Amber Robot here because this reply may make a new thread unnecessary anyway (because I don't have the info asked).

I agree this is not the place for this debate. As you said it is most likely the lack of media attention that has given me the impression I have. I will look into the issue myself before making any further judgment on the matter.

joema
2009-May-09, 10:06 PM
IIRC, they weren't carrying spacesuits on Columbia's final mission (this has since been changed so that every mission carries suits), so they wouldn't have been able to do an EVA.
Every shuttle mission carries at least two EVA suits, and every crew includes has at least two with EVA training. This was also the case on STS-107 (Columbia).

The reason being every mission must be prepared for certain contingency EVAs. E.g, if the payload bay doors won't close, or if the umbilical propellant doors beneath the orbiter won't close, a contingency EVA is required.

The same suits and crewmen could have been used to attempt emergency repairs on STS-107.

The upcoming Hubble mission is far better prepared, with crewmen specifically trained and equipped for TPS repair procedures.