Does anybody else believe that NASA is taking a BIG risk to the space program by sending up the Space Shuttle?

Question

I mean by sending up the Shuttle with the foam problem and everything. It seems like there will be an insane amount of backlash on NASA if anything goes wrong.

One of the answers below is the part that concerns me.. I wonder if the Government will hold back on funds if something goes wrong. The loss of lives is horrible, but the astronauts understand the risk involved. I just think that they are jeopardizing the chances of improving the space effort by not taking every precaution into consideration..

Answer 1

The Space Shuttle Transportation System is pretty much overkill. It was built when the idea of transporting large amounts of equipment supervised by a human crew was the conventional wisdom. Part of the idea was that we would be constructing orbiting space stations on a regular basis, with shuttle flights happening on an almost weekly basis.

Alas, funding for the project got diverted to other government programmes, and what was left was milked by a few major contractors. As a result, the shuttle system never lived up to its promise. Instead, we keep launching an oversized rocket that is overly complex and thus more prone to danger.

Unfortunately, NASA hasn't been able to leave the paradigm that has been in place for thiry years. What is needed is to develop a new manned launch vehicle that is used almost exclusively for manned travel and leave the transportation of materials to unmanned rockets. A smaller manned vehicle can have a simpler system for re-entry than the current shuttle system. (Remember, Apollo 13, which was rock with an onboard explosion, still had a successful re-entry.)

I remember both shuttle disasters. Twenty years ago, the shuttle was still in the public's imagination as we gathered to watch STS-41A go into space, only to see it explode about a minute after launch. When STS-107 had its disaster, probably very few of us even knew it has been in orbit for two weeks. The old system has lost the attention of our nation as the space programme stagnated. A fresh system needs to be designed and built soon, or it may be delayed to the point that the manned programme will just cease to exist.

Answer 2

Of course they are, they know it, but no matter what the risks or how much it costs men of science will always venture into space to discover all that it holds..I think astronauts have taken into thought that they are risking their lives even before getting into the shuttle. I think the archievement of just an astronaut getting into space is a great and noble thing even without doing anything there. The foam issue , I agree, is becoming an increasing concern I think though they are working on ways to get round these problems and solving them.

Answer 3

Big risks are risks that are happening now and being dealt with by this mega NASA machine, big risks flow through that place daily.

When you say 'taking a BIG risk' you mean is the foam going to be a problem? more than we think now or what we will think in the future. I say only now matters and things are status Quo OK at the moment. Hooray! take a deep breath and move on...

I think by the 12th century I decided to share my vision of flying a machine of flame to the heavens and return safe. Alas they called me insane and put me away forever.(Bad timing on that one for me) So that I would call a backlash, can NASA get in trouble? Probably, but so could not we all?

Answer 4

Of course there is risk, in fact it is truly astounding that we ever get one of these things off the ground if you understand how many complex parts are being stressed at any second. The concept that you are trying to deliberately control the explosive combustion of tens of tons of solid fuel, liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen all at once is rather difficult to comprehend. Remember that the Hindenburg was filled with hydrogen. The bigger risk in my mind has been the lack of planning by NASA regarding manned space flight after the Shuttle program has finally run to the end of its already protracted lifespan. The organization has rather poorly captured the imagination of general public who pays the bills and has lacked a clear and visionary direction for the last 20 years. While it is somewhat cool to see rovers running about Mars, it is human feats of exploration that excites and captures our imaginations. That is not to detract from the many people that make NASA projects successful but it is hard to get fired up about a bunch of scientists watching computer consoles doing exploration.

Answer 5

The foam has always been a problem with the shuttles, and to date we have lost only one mission to the problem. Are they risking astronauts lives? Yes - bu tthat is a risk the *astronauts* are willing to take. Are they risking the space program? No. That will continue as long as humans are willing to take their own risks.

Answer 6

Yes, they are. The shuttles were only designed to last 5 years. So far they have been in operation almost 20 years. The problem NASA has is that they don't have the funding to build newer shuttles, although several have been proposed

Answer 7

Do you know that there are men living in space as we sit here? The Russian Orbital space station is a perfect arena in which to conduct tests of new ideas so whatever risks exist are ruled out by our desire to explore other planets. Must we all be the cowardly lion looking for a heart?

Answer 8

I dunno.. there are some things we accept fundamentally higher levels of risk over. I imagine it was riskier to travel the seas in wind-powered ships, all things considered.

And to have your hands tied for PR reasons must be sad. Every time I hear one of those marketing messages at launch time, I get sad "Look at the launch of mission X, another bold achievement for humankind!" It just sounds so... I dunno.. North Korean.

Honestly, as pro space program as I am, I do feel a little disappointed that we seem to just put people in space to measure the effects of space on people.

If it is 100x more expensive to have a human on board, might it be better to make 100 non-human missions and hope that 10% of them succeed?

Having said that, I am all for sending humans to mars just because of the cool factor and the secondary research benefits here on earth. But I doubt there is a strong practical reason to visit mars short of full on terraforming and colonization.

As far as wasting taxes goes, I would rather see it go into space telescopes than cruise missiles.

Answer 9

Anytime you put a piece of sensitive machinery onto a liquid oxygen direct-able flame thrower there is risk involved, also going places where you have to carry your own breathing apparatus. But there is no reward in life without some risk, and without the space program, we wouldn't have a lot of technical marvels we have today.

Answer 10

I can't believe this outdated government program is still in existence. With all the science and technology, we still have
to "lite that candle" rocket in order to break away from the earths'
gravity. There has got to be a better way.