| ▲ | johng 15 hours ago |
| Great read and interesting article. Hard to believe that NASA would risk astronauts lives simply to save face, but that appears to be what's going to happen. |
|
| ▲ | cr125rider 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| But that’s exactly what happened with Challenger |
| |
| ▲ | jaggederest 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | And Columbia, too, when they made the decision to reenter without inspection, and reenter instead of waiting for rescue. | | |
| ▲ | fishgoesblub 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | A rescue was impractical and potentially riskier no? | | |
| ▲ | paleotrope 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Riskier? Didn't they all die. Maybe if you ended up with 2 stranded shuttle crews, but correct me if I'm wrong, and I probably am, but couldn't the shuttle fly without any crew? | | |
| ▲ | idlewords 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It couldn't, for a funny reason. Everything on a Shuttle flight could be automated except lowering the landing gear just before touchdown, which had to be done by hand from inside the cockpit. There are rumors (that I've never been able to run down) that the astronaut corps insisted on this so the Shuttle could not be flown unmanned. | | |
| ▲ | gambiting 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | And Buran(soviet copy of the shuttle) could and in fact did fly completely unmanned. In a way it's a shame the collapse of the soviet union killed that program, because a crew less shuttle would have been a huge asset to have. |
| |
| ▲ | renewiltord 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You can do a less risky thing and die or do a more risky thing and live. What happened doesn’t determine which thing is riskier just like I can call a 1 and roll dice and land it and you can call tails and flip a coin and not get it. The outcome doesn’t determine the risk. I agree that this kind of office politics / face savings definitely is the cause of these two things. |
| |
| ▲ | gambiting 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm sure I watched a documentary that said it basically wasn't feasible to launch the other shuttle. All checks and preparations would have to be done in absolute record time, with no mistakes and under timelines never attempted before. But even if they tried, you have the obvious question of - we know the core issue isn't solved and we're about to launch the second shuttle with the exact same design into orbit, if it suffers the same problem then what? But afaik the second one while important wasn't as much of a blocker as the first one. It just wasn't possible in time - it's not like the first shuttle could stay in orbit indefinitely too. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | steve-atx-7600 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Astronauts are smart folks. They can vote with their feet. |
| |
| ▲ | ibejoeb 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's certainly about their lives, but it's also about not tanking the program due to catastrophic failure. The astronauts are going to do it regardless of the risk. | |
| ▲ | bch 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What a horrible (preventable) position to be in, though. | |
| ▲ | 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | jojobas 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Was there ever a risk-free spaceflight? Pretty sure even with this finding this flight would be safer than any Apollo. |
| |
| ▲ | saghm 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You seem to be ignoring the "just to save face" part. I'd argue it would be a worse thing for our bar for how safe it should be to be raised significantly from when we had been in space as a species less than a decade to now that it's been 65 years. | |
| ▲ | tonymet 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Never risk free , but Soyuz hardly lost any crew over its 50+ years | | |
| ▲ | IndrekR 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 2/156 lost for Soyuz in 59 years, 2/135 for Space Shuttle in 30 years. Same rate. People often underestimate how intense STS actually was. | | |
| ▲ | tonymet 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | The 2 were early, and fewer lives were lost. The shuttle was unnecessarily risky , and NASA was aware from its inception |
| |
| ▲ | wiseowise 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah, and where is it now? | | |
| |
| ▲ | everyone 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Saturn 5 had a flawless record. The leftover space shuttle parts which SLS is cobbled together from, not so much. SRBs are inherently dangerous, theyre designed to quickly launch nukes from silos, not people. And Orion is just a typical modern Boeing project. So far its fallen at every hurdle right? | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Saturn 5 came close to catastrophic failure at least once. It had partial failures. Its sort of perfect record is mostly down to luck and not launching very many times. Of course, six decades later, we should be able to do a lot better. | |
| ▲ | evan_a_a 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Orion is a Lockheed (CM) and Airbus (ESM) project. | | |
| ▲ | everyone 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, I thought it was Starliner on top. I dont know anything about Orion then.
SLS is very crappy and disappointing, its using shitty old space shuttle tech, + its ridiculously expensive in terms of payload to orbit, but it will probably work. I didnt know, cus I just dont give a shit about this stupid project. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | tonymet 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| They’ve killed dozens during the shuttle program , or did you forget ? Also a number during Gemini, Mercury and Appollo. Terrible safety record , and 5x worse than Soyuz . Shuttle fatality rate was 1/10. Approaching Russian roulette odds |
| |
| ▲ | staplung 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | In total, a little over one dozen astronauts died on shuttle flights (14). No astronauts died during Gemini or Mercury. Three died in a test on Apollo 1. The shuttle failure rate was nowhere close to 1/10. In fact, it was 1/67 (2 failures out of 134 flights). | |
| ▲ | 1shooner 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >They’ve killed dozens during the shuttle program Columbia and Challenger crew totaled 14, who else are you referring to? | | | |
| ▲ | mikelitoris 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It’s the American roulette | |
| ▲ | shrubble 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | *Freedom Roulette | |
| ▲ | wat10000 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 135 missions, 2 fatal accidents, that’s not 1/10. | | |
| ▲ | tonymet 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | It is if you’re dead | | |
| ▲ | kelnos 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That... doesn't make any sense. | | |
| ▲ | tonymet 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | If the odds were only 1% , how did 14 people die ? You’re not including the lives in your risk assessment . There were 135 events and 14 people died . If you were asked to join mission 136 would you say yes or no? Which risk profile fits: 1% fatality or 10%? | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 an hour ago | parent [-] | | By that logic, the fatality rate in NYC skyscrapers on 9/11 was something like 1500%, since there were <200 skyscrapers and ~2,700 people died. It doesn't make any sense. Your numerator and denominator need to use the same units. The rate of fatal accidents was 2/135. The rate of crew fatalities was 14/355. The rate for crew-flight fatalities (separately counting multiple flights by the same person) was 14/852. If you were evaluating your risk for another flight, the number of crew aboard doesn't affect the risk and it's pretty reasonable to assume that an accident results in either a 0% or 100% fatality rate, so the relevant figure would be the fatal accident rate of 2/135. If your flight follows that profile then that's your probability of dying in an accident. | | |
| ▲ | tonymet an hour ago | parent [-] | | You still haven't explained how so many died and why the program ended. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | wat10000 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Wat |
|
|
|
