The launch this morning of STS 114 went off without a hitch. It was filmed by over 100 cameras.
Go NASA!
Go NASA!
Yeah, well...one of those 100 cameras recorded a bit of flying trash where they didn't expect to see trash (and the shuttle hit a bird on lift-off), so now everyone seems overly concerned that there is life-threatening damage to the shuttle.Jamesaritchie said:Yes, but now the question is whether or not we can get down again?
Pthom said:Yeah, well...one of those 100 cameras recorded a bit of flying trash where they didn't expect to see trash (and the shuttle hit a bird on lift-off), so now everyone seems overly concerned that there is life-threatening damage to the shuttle.
The reporters at the Q&A sessions aren't helping things by asking worrysome questions.
My supposition is that there is no damage to this space shuttle any greater than was experienced by the over 100 previous flights (the Challenger and Columbia are special cases). They're just noticing it during takeoff rather than after landing where such damages to tiles and seals is compromised by the heat of re-entry. Should that lessen concern? No. But let's realize that the odds are very good that there is no damage to Discovery that would cause a fatal re-entry.
Unless they think repairs are necessary and botch something in effecting them. But my trust is in the flight team. It's their lives at stake; you'd better believe they will do whatever they can to err on the side of their own safety.
So I believe they'll come home just fine. And the rest of the space shuttle program will run its course without any further hitches. And the next ground to orbit vehicle will be better. That's what I believe.
And you would rather ... what? I'm most confused, James. We're exploring. You would have advised Chris Columbus to stay home, because it isn't safe? Hell, it wasn't safe to go anywhere in a wooden caravelle. But they did it. With human lives, too. If we followed your logic, using the percentage of fatalities in the space program to sucesses, we wouldn't have continued after the Apollo 1 launch pad fire...maybe would have quit before then.Jamesaritchie said:The odds are decent that this shuttle will come down fine, but they're still lousy odds to bet people's lives on, and even worse odds to bet the next twenty years of access to space on, and that's just what we're doing.
boondoggle = work of little or no valueJenny said:boondoggle? Explain it to an Aussie, pls.
Pthom said:And you would rather ... what? I'm most confused, James. We're exploring. You would have advised Chris Columbus to stay home, because it isn't safe? Hell, it wasn't safe to go anywhere in a wooden caravelle. But they did it. With human lives, too. If we followed your logic, using the percentage of fatalities in the space program to sucesses, we wouldn't have continued after the Apollo 1 launch pad fire...maybe would have quit before then.
But it is human nature to go off into the unknown, mostly unprepared, and look at the risks we've taken in retrospect. Personally, I hope we continue to do so.
Julie Worth said:The whole shuttle thing is an incredible boondoggle.
I'm curious. With what authority do you call the scientists, engineers and technicians at NASA fools, besides your personal opinion?Jamesaritchie said:Taking risks is one thing, taking stupid risks is another. ... The space shuttle isn't dangerous because going into space is dangerous, it's dangerous because of foolish design, fools running the program, and a complete unwillingnes to get politics out and good science in at NASA.
No doubt. But you're comparing apples to oranges. In Columbus's time, travel on the open ocean in a wooden caravelle was possibly the single most dangerous way of transporting human beings from one place on the planet to another.Jamesaritchie said:And, yes, it was actually many [times] safer to travel in a wooden carvelle [sic] than it is to travel on the shuttle.
Right again. And apples and oranges again. By the time Columbus was born, wooden sailing ships had been in use for centuries. Yes, people knew how to use them, even if, as Columbus's boats did, they had holes in them. They could jumpe overboard and patch holes. They were using proven technology. So I apologize for using a poor example. I should have looked further back in history for the people who invented the very first boat...except I'm almost positive the records of such event are long lost.Jamesaritchie said:I would not have told Columbus to stay home. . .unless I saw his boat had holes in it. But even Columbus wouldn't have sailed with the kind of track record the shuttle has.
People may die needlessly, but to say that anyone dies foolishly implies that person has made a choice to die. By extrapolation, you are calling the astronaut corps foolish because they are willing to take a potentially life-threatening risk. Was Chuck Yeager foolish because he (and others like him) risked their lives to operate yet untested vehicles?Jamesaritchie said:... Yes, of course there will be deaths. Things happen. ...
It's awfully easy to talk abouit human lives lost when you aren't going to be one of them, and have no stake in any of them.
...
Of course there's risk. Of course people will die. But people dying foolishly and needlessly is a waste of life, and a crime.
It'll be a while before we go into that good night. I'd rather the money be spent on things like cancer research and that we learn how to take care of our own environment before we start polluting other planets. Once we've got a handle on problems like that, then maybe it won't be such a bad idea to spend massive amounts of money on programs like the shuttle.Birol said:As a species, I'd rather not go gentle into that good night.
Agreed. It should be in Office Party. They don't talk about real life murders in the Mystery forum, for example.what dos this have to do with writing sci fi fantasy?