NASA accepting suggestions for increased shuttle safety

[vic user]

NASA has been accepting suggestions from anyone (public included), about how to increase the safety of future shuttle flights, so that what happened to the Columbia, will not happen again.

Here is a link to a page talking about it in far more detail:

http://www.space.com/news/nasa_suggest_031124.html

Here is the e-mail where you can send suggestions:

rtfsuggestionsnasa.gov

Chris

 

[CP/M User]

Re: NASA accepting suggestions for increased shuttle safety

"vic user" wrote:

> NASA has been accepting suggestions
> from anyone (public included), about
> how to increase the safety of future
> shuttle flights, so that what happened
> to the Columbia, will not happen again.

No, don't worry, my suggestion was too
futuristic! ;-)

But seriously, what happened was a
disaster, what they do in the movies
goes way too far in terms of how such a
small thing could mean the difference
between life & death.

In the matter of the launch, they should
plan better days for launching, not when
it's too cold, too hot, thunderstorms,
whatever looks serious to postpone!

Don't think I'll ever forget what happened
to that School Teacher (I think it was)
who won a spot on one of the space
craft, only to be killed shortly after. Have
NASA learned from that?

Cheers,
CP/M User.

 

[vic user]

They probably would look at your ideas though, no matter how fare out you think they are. they have received some pretty interesting ideas!

Yep, it was a very dramatic way for people to see how dangerous space travel can be at present. McAuliffe was her name, and I remember seeing news footage of her class, with all their party hats on, in class, watching the launch on TV. just brutal.

NASA supposedly learned a lot from the Challenger accident, and besides making many changes to the actual components, they also tried to change the atmosphere in NASA as well.

You can see the change in how they responded to the Columbia accident, etc..

with the change in direction for American space exploration, the shuttle program has been affected something fierce. they are expected to stop the program in 2010, and will no longer service the hubble via shuttle, as well as seriously considering only using Russian vehicles to transport crew to the ISS, and use the shuttles' remaining missions, devoted solely to building the ISS.

NASA seems to be headed towards a new vehicle as well, which would re enter the Earth like the old Apollo capsules, etc..

and there is still that X prize out there, and many teams seem close to doing it!

Chris.

p.s. I will eventually respond to your/our Dr. Who discussion, once i get more time

 

[CP/M User]

"vic user" wrote:

> They probably would look at your ideas
> though, no matter how fare out you think
> they are. they have received some
> pretty interesting ideas!

Trouble is there's nobody up there to
energize!

> Yep, it was a very dramatic way for people
> to see how dangerous space travel can be
> at present. McAuliffe was her name, and I
> remember seeing news footage of her class,
> with all their party hats on, in class, watching
> the launch on TV. just brutal.

She must have known something about the
risks involved.

> NASA supposedly learned a lot from the
> Challenger accident, and besides making
> many changes to the actual components, they
> also tried to change the atmosphere in NASA
> as well.

How do you mean, by saying there are risks
when it comes to this, sure you could say that
about anything, even getting into your car on
the way to a rocket lanch & being hit by a bus
on the way down (I guess that's why they
have that nice sturdy bus! But something
could happen to the Bus, flat tires, ran out of
gas, the bus falls down an enbankment, another
driver hits the Bus (well that maybe unlikely! ;-)

> You can see the change in how they responded
> to the Columbia accident, etc..

There are risks in space travel?

> with the change in direction for American space
> exploration, the shuttle program has been
> affected something fierce. they are expected
> to stop the program in 2010, and will no longer
> service the hubble via shuttle, as well as
> seriously considering only using Russian
> vehicles to transport crew to the ISS, and use
> the shuttles' remaining missions, devoted solely
> to building the ISS.

So all this travel to the moon by 2010 & setup a
base there & then lanch a craft from there to Mars
is all hocus pocus!

> NASA seems to be headed towards a new
> vehicle as well, which would re enter the Earth
> like the old Apollo capsules, etc..

Heh, what did they say originally when they got
rid of it, if it works then don't fix it!

> and there is still that X prize out there, and
> many teams seem close to doing it!

Sorry, I don't follow! :-(

> p.s. I will eventually respond to your/our
> Dr. Who discussion, once i get more time

Heh!

Cheers,
CP/M User.

 

[Unknown_K]

The whole point of the shuttle was a cheap reusable method of sending satellites into orbit. Ever since the beginning it hasnt been cheap (costs alot more then a standard rocket) and the shuttle design makes it not very reusable without taking most of it apart and rebuilt after each launch.

The design also has the flaw having no way of getting the crew out safely once the launch has started. If anything happens to the heat shield nothing can be done. If a rocket malfunctions on launch they are in big trouble.

Going into space is still dangerous (or should I say low earth orbit since nobody has ventrued into deep space since the 70's), but we still had publicity stunts like the teacher in space and the John Glenn flight. Budget cuts and managers who take unecessary risks because of pressure from above along with the failure of what the shuttle was desined for in the first place tend to make the whole system not worth the money expended.

The only real gem of the whole platform was the fixing of the Hubble telescope, and that system is now being left to rot.

I say shut the shuttle program down and look into normal rockets for payload launches and a new type of smaller rocket (or jet/rocket) for putting man on the moon or delivering people to the space station.

 

[vic user]

Trouble is there's nobody up there to
energize!

well, hopefully we will have space elevators soon

How do you mean, by saying there are risks
when it comes to this, sure you could say that
about anything, even getting into your car on
the way to a rocket lanch & being hit by a bus
on the way down (I guess that's why they
have that nice sturdy bus! But something
could happen to the Bus, flat tires, ran out of
gas, the bus falls down an enbankment, another
driver hits the Bus (well that maybe unlikely! ;-)

well with the shuttle program at the time before the Challenger disaster, many people had suspected that the 'o' ring seals were faulty, and it was only a matter of time before something happened, yet with the small amount of money they received and how they used, plus with the way recommendations were done within etc., NASA took forever to do anything right it seems. also, if we look at space flight from the beginning to now, we are very similar to the beginnings of powered aircraft. lots of people died, lots of accidents, etc.. risky times to be a pilot! so we are still very new to all this.

the Russians have so much experience it's not funny. i wish all space programs around the world would unite and stop wasting money and resources through redundant programs.

So all this travel to the moon by 2010 & setup a
base there & then lanch a craft from there to Mars
is all hocus pocus!

well, i think all we will see by 2010, is a spacecraft that will do extensive scans of the moon, and maybe a robot probe to land on it, but no people i think by 2010. maybe by 2015 or 2020. supposedly all missions to the moon will not be scientific in nature, but geared towards using the moon as a test ground for eventual manned missions to mars. so don't get your hopes up at all to see someone planting a flag on the moon in 2010.

the x-prize, well i will just quote from their website:

The X PRIZE is a $10,000,000 prize to jumpstart the space tourism industry through competition between the most talented entrepreneurs and rocket experts in the world. The $10 Million cash prize will be awarded to the first team that:

Privately finances, builds & launches a spaceship, able to carry three people to 100 kilometers (62.5 miles)
Returns safely to Earth
Repeats the launch with the same ship within 2 weeks

many entrants right now, and some really interesting ideas. some are using planes to bring the spacecraft to a high altitude, and then the rocket takes off from there, etc..

anyway, one of the reasons why i try to stay healthy, is to increase my odds of living long enough to see some amazing things we will be doing in space!

chris

 

[vic user]

The whole point of the shuttle was a cheap reusable method of sending satellites into orbit. Ever since the beginning it hasnt been cheap (costs alot more then a standard rocket) and the shuttle design makes it not very reusable without taking most of it apart and rebuilt after each launch.

I agree with much of what you say. sadly NASA did not have enough money to have spacecraft for transport of people and the shuttle, so they used the shuttle for a workhorse.

yet again, if nations could get their act together and pool their space resources, things could have been very different.

The only real gem of the whole platform was the fixing of the Hubble telescope, and that system is now being left to rot.

Don't forget that the shuttle is critical for the construction and success of the ISS. we will see the shuttle now being used solely for ISS missions.

by the way, on many nights, people can get a good glimpse of the ISS, just with the naked eye. last year, over a couple of nights, i got to watch columbia slowly pull away from the ISS, as it prepared for re entry, and then they never made it as we all know.

Chris

 

[CP/M User]

"Unknown_K" wrote:

> The whole point of the shuttle was a cheap
> reusable method of sending satellites into
> orbit. Ever since the beginning it hasnt
> been cheap (costs alot more then a
> standard rocket) and the shuttle design
> makes it not very reusable without taking
> most of it apart and rebuilt after each
> launch.

That's the other problem I see, cost. Back
in the 1950s/1960s I would have imagined
the technology in putting man into space
(with large fuel rockets) would have
bumbed up in price & getting them there
(which is why I'm guess there were more
flights to the moon back in the late 60s &
70s because the cost wasn't as great).

> The design also has the flaw having no
> way of getting the crew out safely once
> the launch has started. If anything
> happens to the heat shield nothing can
> be done. If a rocket malfunctions on
> launch they are in big trouble.

If they did the launch from Oz, the OH&S
issues might suddendly kick in & no-one
will be allowed to go anywhere! ;-)

> Going into space is still dangerous (or
> should I say low earth orbit since nobody
> has ventrued into deep space since the
> 70's), but we still had publicity stunts like
> the teacher in space and the John Glenn
> flight. Budget cuts and managers who
> take unecessary risks because of
> pressure from above along with the failure
> of what the shuttle was desined for in the
> first place tend to make the whole system
> not worth the money expended.

> The only real gem of the whole platform
> was the fixing of the Hubble telescope, and
> that system is now being left to rot.

But they did fix it, & it has been used.
Perhaps they haven't had much luck with it
as what we thought it might of! :-(

> I say shut the shuttle program down and
> look into normal rockets for payload
> launches and a new type of smaller rocket
> (or jet/rocket) for putting man on the
> moon or delivering people to the space
> station.

40 years down the track, nothing much
has changed in sending stuff with large
rockets. They should at closing it down &
start looking at better ways of sending
people or things into space.

Cheers,
CP/M User.

 

[CP/M User]

"Vic user" wrote:

> well, i think all we will see by 2010, is
> a spacecraft that will do extensive
> scans of the moon, and maybe a robot
> probe to land on it, but no people i
> think by 2010. maybe by 2015 or
> 2020. supposedly all missions to the
> moon will not be scientific in nature,
> but geared towards using the moon as
> a test ground for eventual manned
> missions to mars. so don't get your
> hopes up at all to see someone planting
> a flag on the moon in 2010.

The only thing I wonderning about with that
Moonbase, is how are they going to protect
it?

To the naked eye, the Moon is a place
where it has taken a beating from lots of
meteors, sure they could build it in one of
those crators, but there's still a good
chance that another smaller Meteor
(travelling at the speed of sound) could
land in that! ;-)

But anyway, I just let the genious behind
all that to figure it out! ;-)

Cheers,
CP/M User.

 

[CP/M User]

"vic user" wrote:

> yet again, if nations could get their act together
> and pool their space resources, things could
> have been very different.

Well we tried that, the problem came when someone
forgot to convert Metric calculations into Imperial! ;-)

Unfortunately, I think that was the problem, because
Metric is very very hard to convert to Imperial, like
try converting 1 metre into 1 Foot, you could be
there all day trying to figure it out to the nearest
Infinaty!! ;-) Which could have been so vital in Space
& the Gravity of Mars! ;-)

Cheers,
CP/M User.

P.S. It's great to see I've striked a lite with this
thread, at one stage it looked like the total number
of responces would have been 0! ;-)