Topic: Constellation cancelled: NASA's new approach
Cliff Lentz Member
Posts: 663 From: Philadelphia, PA USA Registered: Mar 2002
posted 02-03-2010 03:33 PM
Very disappointing! We may soon be the only major nation without a manned space program. I've been hearing from entrepeneurs for years. We're going to do this and we're going to do that! Talk is cheap, just do it already! I believe that they can't without a NASA-type organization.
Can't help but think that Constellation was President Bush's baby and that's what killed it. The first Private funded disaster will bring this conversation back big time! There is no avoiding politics!
capoetc Member
Posts: 2337 From: McKinney TX (USA) Registered: Aug 2005
posted 02-03-2010 03:47 PM
quote:Originally posted by mjanovec: To me, canceling further study before it takes place is more indicative of conspiracy... a conspiracy to deny the scientific community of data.
The problem is, if the scientists are instructed as to what the outcome is supposed to be, and then they are to gather data to support that outcome -- is it really science?
I sure hope it does not come to that, but the Obama Administration's position is that man-caused climate change is a reality.
Billions of dollars will be spent to reverse or at least stop the growth of this man-caused climate change.
Is it a conspiracy? Nah, I don't think so. It's just bad science and misguided politics, with lots and lots of people standing in the wings poised to make money on the "solution" to the climate change "problem".
I agree with Tom Jones' position -- NASA should guarantee US access to space via the Orion spacecraft and some kind of launcher. Then, feel free to divert funding to support commercial launch applications.
capoetc Member
Posts: 2337 From: McKinney TX (USA) Registered: Aug 2005
posted 02-03-2010 03:54 PM
quote:Originally posted by cjh5801: It is difficult to avoid politics on this issue... a potential key to understanding the man is to recognize that he is a pragmatist.
You are correct, it is virtually impossible to avoid politics on this issue since politics and NASA funding are deeply intertwined and always have been.
I cannot let the "Obama pragmatist" statement stand. He is most definitely not a pragmatist. He is an idealogue. Big, big difference.
I am quite convinced that he cares not one bit about the space program, except in its ability to generate votes for him. That is ok, since many Presidents have had similar views on the space program.
xlsteve Member
Posts: 393 From: Holbrook MA, USA Registered: Jul 2008
posted 02-03-2010 03:54 PM
quote:Originally posted by cjh5801: ...the "flexible path" option as proposed by the Augustine Commission -- which is... not my choice, I do believe that it is a viable path forward, and does not represent an abandonment of human spaceflight.
It has the potential to bring great things, or it may utterly fail. It probably depends on the people who will strive to make it work -- or attempt to undermine it.
That sums up my feeling about the matter. I was always suspect of how successful Constellation was going to be allowed to be, and I was not surprised at its cancellation.
Last July, at the Glenn lecture at the National Air and Space Museum, Chris Kraft called for an investment in technology "What we need is new technology; we have not had that since Apollo." He made the point that during Apollo, most of the funds were spent on running the program rather than new technology, I believe he stated that about 10% was actually spent on future technology during the program. Which is of course one of the reasons why we have not gone beyond LEO since Apollo. It would seem to me that the intent of this new direction would be to delegate the running of programs to the commercial sector (with NASA oversight), so that NASA can focus on future technology. I wonder if this satisfies Dr Kraft's mandate.
Am I disappointed that that the Constellation program as we knew it is gone? Sure, but I don't think all the lessons learned are going to be for nothing. Are there concerns with allowing private companies to develop human space transportation? Yes, but I don't think that we can reach our full potential in space without both government and private sector maximizing their contributions, and I don't think that's been happening so far. I'm glad Robert reminded us that every spacecraft NASA has flown has been built by a contractor. If I'm not mistaken, the military does (and has done) the same thing with aircraft which are also built by some of the same contractors. The military still needs pilots, NASA will still need astronauts to fly spacecraft, so I don't see human spaceflight going away. I think that allowing commercial interests will remove some of the inconsistencies that have plagued NASA due to the changing administrations, as some have pointed out, and allow NASA to focus on long term planning and goal setting.
cjh5801 Member
Posts: 189 From: Lacey Registered: Jun 2009
posted 02-03-2010 04:06 PM
quote:Originally posted by capoetc: He is an idealogue.
Well, I know he's not an ideologue. He never comes to any of the meetings.
mikepf Member
Posts: 448 From: San Jose, California, USA Registered: Mar 2002
posted 02-03-2010 06:09 PM
quote:Originally posted by Robert Pearlman: You do realize that every manned spacecraft ever flown (if not also designed and prepared for launch) by the U.S. space program was built by private corporations, right?
There is a very big difference between building under contract for NASA, with NASA money, design, engineering and oversight and having an independent company do all those things by itself. There really is no comparison since no company has ever done so with its own orbital manned spacecraft. If at some point down the road the company runs into financial difficulty, will we be forced to provide a government bailout to prevent the whole project from coming to a halt? I just don't see that private industry is sufficiently advanced or financially capable of being handed the manned spacecraft ball with any reasonable assurance of timely and economic success. Incentives and encouragement to private industry is great and should be pursued, but in parallel with, not in place of, a NASA project.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 02-03-2010 06:56 PM
Spaceflight Now has released a special edition of their "This Week in Space with Miles O'Brien" devoted to the topic at hand -- with many of the key figures weighing in. A lot of the questions asked over the past 200 replies are addressed as well.
posted 02-03-2010 08:06 PM
I read somewhere last year that there were rumors NASA could be swallowed up by the DOD. At the time I thought the idea was not a very good one. But now in hindsight
I have to wonder if NASA would not be better served as a civilian wing of the Defense Department under the guidance and budget of the Pentagon.
As more and more nations develop the technology to launch spacecraft either manned or unmanned, it seems inevitable that the military will have to play a growing roll in the space program.
Looking at what the Air Force has done, quietly developing the X-37, I have to wonder if NASA would not be better served with its budget and operations directed but the DOD.
The same aerospace companies that will likely have to develop the next generation spacecraft now that Constellation is history, already have solid relationship with the DOD and may be of great advantage to NASA in the development of a future spacecraft and booster systems both manned and unmanned.
Just a thought.
Jay Chladek Member
Posts: 2272 From: Bellevue, NE, USA Registered: Aug 2007
posted 02-03-2010 08:29 PM
quote:Originally posted by Robert Pearlman: Spaceflight Now has released a special edition of their "This Week in Space with Miles O'Brien"
I find it interesting how brief Buzz's comments were. And yes, could Atlas 5 do it? I suppose, but it is not rated for a manned ascent profile. If just a capsule were strapped to it, there would be regions of its normal ascent profile where there would be no abort possible since the resulting gee forces of the plunge back into the atmosphere would be fatal to the crew. It will take more then just sticking a capsule on top and "Dr. Rendezvous" should know that.
Good covering of the topics actually and I am drawing certain elements of my fears from all sides. Doc expresses my safety interest, Senator Nelson expresses my concerns about putting too much into one basket with no backup plan and Ed Lu's comments forward my concern that the funding will still be too much of a shoestring, resulting in similar problems down the road, but worse.
Well, I am letting you guys know that I am at least going to try and do something about it. For the past two days I've been drafting up my "editorial" if you will on the budget proposal and I am going to be sending it to those who have influence over what course NASA should take. After I am done, I will probably make it public.
Is NASA's course as charted by the President the right one or is it wrong? I honestly do not know. But I feel I have to do something about it and not stay silent. As a taxpayer, a supporter and somebody with concerns, I feel that I "John Q. Public" at least needs to express his opinion on the matter.
bobzz Member
Posts: 100 From: Batavia, Illinois Registered: Aug 2007
quote:Originally posted by Jay Chladek: I find it interesting how brief Buzz's comments were.
I'm not sure exactly what to make of Buzz's brief comments. They didn't seem to fit in with the strong endorsement of Obama's plan that he posted on his web site.
And I couldn't hear most of the conversation with Dr. Horowitz. Could anyone else? He mentioned something about how the commercial entities have no experience building rockets that have flown, but then pointed out that NASA hasn't designed any new ones in several years either (other, presumably, than the mock-up Ares 1). So what was his point about the commercial entities having to develop more experience before they could be relied on?
It was an interesting video, but it didn't tell me much I didn't already know. Those vested in the Constellation program predict doom, and those vested in the commercial program predict a glowing future. Too bad they couldn't have interviewed someone who didn't have a stake in one side or the other.
Jay Chladek Member
Posts: 2272 From: Bellevue, NE, USA Registered: Aug 2007
posted 02-03-2010 11:24 PM
quote:Originally posted by bobzz: Just a little humor...
LOL. I'm surprised the cartoonist didn't stick Michael Jackson in there for good measure.
Serious issue yes, but a good laugh!
As for Doc's comments, I could hear them on my earphones, but it took some getting used to and Miles' mike wasn't working throughout most of it so I couldn't hear the questions Mike was replying to. I got the points though as Scott mentioned that one important element of any new manned spacecraft is a launch abort/escape system and to date none of the new commercial firms have shown any design for such a system on their spacecraft. He says they need to learn and the COTS D program gives them that opportunity in a safe manner and it is too soon to go right to a manned system.
While Ares/Orion is still under development, the procedures for designing such a system are taken from NASA's playbook of years past. The designs have undergone extensive review and refinement and they have experience of the previous manned spacecraft designs to draw upon on both the NASA side and the contractors. It may not be a fast track, but it is intended to be safer then what shuttle was.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 02-03-2010 11:39 PM
quote:Originally posted by cjh5801: I'm not sure exactly what to make of Buzz's brief comments.
quote:And I couldn't hear most of the conversation with Dr. Horowitz.
Per Miles, the audio is being corrected and should be resolved by Thursday morning.
chet Member
Posts: 1543 From: Beverly Hills, Calif. Registered: Nov 2000
posted 02-04-2010 01:06 AM
I don't see any "advantage" in NASA "flexibly" handing off a large chunk of its business to the commercial sector. (How is it that much different from NASA setting goals and then contracting out for the technology it wants/needs to go forward anyway?) I'm afraid a diffusion of responsibility will inevitably lead to a vacuum of responsibility.
Leaving in place a return to the moon as America's goal would be clear and unambiguous, so success could be gauged accurately; the goals "stated" for NASA now are so nebulous and undefined that the agency can just be bled out over a period of time; when they finally get around to (mercifully) pulling the plug altogether, will anyone even object to the deficit reduction NASA's final closure will bring?
moorouge Member
Posts: 2486 From: U.K. Registered: Jul 2009
posted 02-04-2010 06:35 AM
To aid the general discussion on private ventures and new directions for NASA may I suggest that this book is well worth a read.
"How to build your own Spaceship" by Piers Bizony; published by Portobello Books.
It has a good chapter on the state and aspirations of the private sector in putting men into space.
Congressional reaction to President Obama's budget for NASA was divided more along geographical than political lines Wednesday, as members of a House subcommittee debated the merits of scrapping the agency's plans to return to the moon by 2020 and shift, instead, to developing new launching technologies...
Mercury7 Member
Posts: 360 From: Greenville, SC, USA Registered: Aug 2006
posted 02-04-2010 10:07 AM
Hi Robert, I know you do not like to speculate, but I was wondering if you had any idea at all why President Obama has decided to let all this play out with out him. I mean if there is one thing he is excellent at, it is giving speeches that generally make you feel good about the direction he is taking. I don't understand his silence on this.
By the way, thanks for everyone putting up with my ranting over the last few days, I had to grieve the moon for a few days... I am all better now.
I am also now ready to evaluate an actual mission. To me that is the most glaring thing that is missing. We cant just research for a decade, we have to have an exciting goal to, well, get excited about. That's what I am missing. Throw me a bone here! LOL.
There's a surprise. Congress sees it as more of a jobs issue than a partisan issue.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 02-04-2010 10:52 AM
quote:Originally posted by Mercury7: ...all this play out with out him.
Without implying that I have any insight into the plans of the President, what I have tried to impress over the past few days is that all this is not all there is. This is just the beginning.
As Charlie Bolden said the other day, NASA will soon "be able to give you a very definitive time schedule" for destinations beyond low Earth orbit. He said that announcement won't be coming in the next few weeks, but it won't "be years."
I hope to interview Bolden before the STS-130 launch and if I do, I will be asking him some of the questions raised within these pages.
mjanovec Member
Posts: 3811 From: Midwest, USA Registered: Jul 2005
posted 02-04-2010 11:53 AM
quote:Originally posted by jimsz: I think Buzz is stretching it a bit.
I suspect a lot of people also thought JFK was stretching it a bit.
cjh5801 Member
Posts: 189 From: Lacey Registered: Jun 2009
posted 02-04-2010 01:03 PM
quote:Originally posted by Jay Chladek: Scott mentioned that one important element of any new manned spacecraft is a launch abort/escape system and to date none of the new commercial firms have shown any design for such a system on their spacecraft.
I did hear a part of that comment. But I thought it was a bit odd that he gave the impression that NASA already has a perfected system. They've never had to use one in a true crisis situation, so we really don't know if theirs would actually save lives either.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 02-04-2010 02:39 PM
quote:Originally posted by Matt T: That doesn't make Ride and Chiao automatic fans of this decision - possibly quite the opposite.
Many of my colleagues and peers have written articles and pieces, deriding the idea of commercial LEO access. Indeed, the track record of the self-described “New Space” companies has thus far, been marked generally with failure and arrogance. Not all, but many of these folks, before they run their companies into the ground, seem to spend the bulk of their time attending self-serving, self-aggrandizing conferences where openly slinging mud at NASA is sport. This is hardly constructive, and it brings discredit to others who have serious aspirations for the future of commercial spaceflight.
However, I respectfully disagree with my colleagues who believe that only governments can and should engage in human spaceflight...
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 02-04-2010 03:33 PM
James Cameron has weighed in on the President's plan for NASA. Cameron previously served on the NASA Advisory Council.
The exploration of space is the grandest adventure challenging the human race. As a filmmaker I have celebrated this greatest of dreams in my movies and documentaries, and I remain as passionate about the discoveries ahead as I was when I was a kid. So it was with some trepidation that I waited for the NASA budget to be unveiled this week. I was concerned that amid the nation's fiscal crises, space exploration would fall off the priority to-do list. But the new NASA budget reveals a pathway to a bright future of exploration in the coming years. It simply reflects the deep changes and hard decisions necessary to accomplish that goal.
Mercury7 Member
Posts: 360 From: Greenville, SC, USA Registered: Aug 2006
posted 02-04-2010 03:53 PM
This article is making me come around full circle... amazing what three days of ranting will do to you. I had convinced myself of the utter disaster this all was but the silver lining is starting to shine in my mind.
But there is a caveat... we are back to dreaming about what we might do in the future. It is a long way from what we had, a real plan with money being spent on hardware to make it happen. No matter how behind schedule we were it was real, it was not the dream again.
Mercury7 Member
Posts: 360 From: Greenville, SC, USA Registered: Aug 2006
posted 02-04-2010 04:18 PM
I am not an engineer so I do not quite understand why the launch abort system built for Orion can not be a generic abort system for all the commercial folks. It seems like things like variable thrust can be incorporated to make up for weight differences. The commercial seven could save a ton of money by using one design fits all.
Tell me why I am wrong... cause I really do not know.
GoesTo11 Member
Posts: 1366 From: Denver, CO Registered: Jun 2004
posted 02-04-2010 04:20 PM
Here's a related essay, published last year, that's worth reading. It's long, but has a lot of food for thought no matter where you stand on the proposed "new direction."
cjh5801 Member
Posts: 189 From: Lacey Registered: Jun 2009
posted 02-04-2010 05:32 PM
quote:Originally posted by GoesTo11: Here's a related essay, published last year, that's worth reading.
That has got to be the single best analysis of the problems with the way NASA has been mismanaged that I've ever read. Anyone mourning the loss of the moon due to the cancellation of the Constellation program should read it to fully understand why it never would have gotten us there in the first place.
capoetc Member
Posts: 2337 From: McKinney TX (USA) Registered: Aug 2005
posted 02-04-2010 05:48 PM
quote:Originally posted by cjh5801: ...to fully understand why it never would have gotten us there in the first place.
If left under-funded, Apollo would not have gotten to the moon either.
capoetc Member
Posts: 2337 From: McKinney TX (USA) Registered: Aug 2005
posted 02-04-2010 06:12 PM
Out of curiosity... I wonder what will be the impact of the language in the 2010 Omnibus spending bill that includes a provision that prevents the agency from scaling back or canceling its current human spaceflight activities in the absence of formal approval from Congress?
Presumably, if it chooses to do so, Congress could simply fund Constellation in the 2011 Omnibus and include a similar provision... particularly if Congress wants to whack the Executive branch upside the head (figuratively, of course) to remind them that Congress controls the purse strings.
It might be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Matt T Member
Posts: 1372 From: Chester, Cheshire, UK Registered: May 2001
posted 02-04-2010 06:15 PM
So - in this new bright horizons reality - this new commercial reality to be specific - what happens the first time a private company's vehicle kills a NASA crew, or a capsule of multi-millionaire tourists? What happens the second time and the third time?
Of the 500+ people who've lifted off on an orbital space mission 18 haven't come back alive. The figure increases when you include those who've died in training accidents caused directly by the failures of their specific spacecraft or launch system. Even leaving them aside the risk still runs around 1 in 28 if you board a spacecraft and launch.
That there are thousands of people queueing up for these seats is beyond doubt, just as people queue to bungee jump, skydive etc. How fast will they leave those queues when they see people ahead pay for the ride with their lives? (Anyone remember zeppelins?) There's no doubt that exploration programs will recover, witches will be hunted etc - but what happens to the demand for leisure LEO flights? Without the envisioned LEO tourist market it's essentially the same situation we have now, big civilian contractors making ships for large NASA programs - which NASA can't afford to run.
At the heart of all this is funding - lack thereof killed Ares and will cripple any manned deep space exploration goal. The best hope, the best hope that anyone is offering for the commercial model at present is something akin to the Russian program of the last decade - selling the odd seat to very wealthy guys and ferrying government astronauts in & out of LEO. It doesn't seem to have made the Russians rich, nor has it set them on course for the planets.
cjh5801 Member
Posts: 189 From: Lacey Registered: Jun 2009
posted 02-04-2010 06:33 PM
quote:Originally posted by capoetc: If left under-funded, Apollo would not have gotten to the moon either.
I'd suggest you read the article to understand the problem with this observation.
quote:Originally posted by Matt T: what happens the first time a private company's vehicle kills a NASA crew, or a capsule of multi-millionaire tourists? What happens the second time and the third time?
Oddly enough, that's covered in the article as well. I'm sincere in saying it's well worth a look.
chet Member
Posts: 1543 From: Beverly Hills, Calif. Registered: Nov 2000
posted 02-04-2010 08:06 PM
Everything Obama's new direction for Nasa envisions could be better realized by keeping a return to the moon as a goal...which is why, for me, the absence of a clear and identifiable target is so glaring. (Wouldn't there have been the same trying to involve the private/commercial sector in the return-to-the-moon venture, if those companies had something worthwhile to offer, as there is with the goal of nothing specific?)
Call me cynical, but I don't believe a clear and concise goal, and timetable to achieve that goal, have been left out haphazardly by this administration.
cjh5801 Member
Posts: 189 From: Lacey Registered: Jun 2009
posted 02-04-2010 08:20 PM
Here's an interesting Blog entry by Jonathan Goff of Selenian Boondocks from December 14th that explains the benefits of the "flexible path" over the Program of Record. For one thing, he claims it would get us to the Moon no more than 3 to 4 years after the current Constellation schedule.
capoetc Member
Posts: 2337 From: McKinney TX (USA) Registered: Aug 2005
posted 02-04-2010 09:04 PM
quote:Originally posted by cjh5801: I'd suggest you read the article to understand the problem with this observation.
I read the article. Perhaps you can enlighten me on how Apollo was underfunded for its purpose of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth by the end of the decade.
Incidentally, here's what Rand Simberg (here's his resume), the aerospace engineer-blogger-professional-lobbyist (I'm sure he's a good guy and a smart guy -- just pointing out that he just might have an agenda) who wrote the article you speak so highly of, says regarding commercial launch companies and safety:
Whether SpaceX and its Dragon capsule, or ULA and its launchers, private companies should make their spacecraft as safe as they can afford to without losing their customers.
I'd love to hear John Young's thoughts on THAT idea.
jimsz Member
Posts: 644 From: Registered: Aug 2006
posted 02-04-2010 09:11 PM
quote:Originally posted by Robert Pearlman: James Cameron has weighed in on the President's plan for NASA. Cameron previously served on the NASA Advisory Council.
The fact that all these "big" names are endorsing this bold new direction make me even more suspect.
Are they endorsing it because they have more information than the average person?
Or, are they endorsing it because of the politicians who are steering the direction and in their eyes he can do no wrong?
It seem strange that all these names are endorsing a plan that hew no identifiable goals or plans.
Matt T Member
Posts: 1372 From: Chester, Cheshire, UK Registered: May 2001
posted 02-05-2010 01:29 AM
While Rand Simbergh's article acknowledges that safety is an issue it doesn't provide any answer; rather the whole article follows the same format as a lot of the pro-commercial lobbying - exacting detailed analysis of past failings of the bureaucratic model of space exploration, coupled with curiously bland and hopeful pronouncements about the commercial alternative.
Specifically regarding safety he has this to say -
All we can do is to make things reasonably safe -- keeping in mind such factors as expense. If our attitude toward the space frontier is that safety is paramount, that we must never lose an astronaut, then that frontier will remain closed. If our ancestors who opened the West, or who came from Europe, had had such an attitude, we would still be over there.
Two points - our ancestors in both cases were driven by something a little more motivating than the opportunity for some spectacular tourism. Additionally, when confronted with the crude, dangerous and incredibly slow maritime technology of the time they didn't turn their backs on the opportunities open to them and await the invention of the budget airline.
It has never been “safe” to open a frontier, and space is the harshest frontier man has ever faced, but fortunately, we have sufficiently advanced technology to allow us to do it anyway, and probably with much less loss of life than any previous one.
Like I said, bland and hopeful - and thus far, contradicted by the facts.
If we could sign up for flights on this forum then a queue as long as this current topic would see ten of us killed in space. If proponents of the commercial model are unwilling to face this fact and the necessary limit it places upon the take-up of space tourism then they're setting themselves up for another under-funded space program.
cjh5801 Member
Posts: 189 From: Lacey Registered: Jun 2009
posted 02-05-2010 02:19 AM
quote:Originally posted by capoetc: Perhaps you can enlighten me on how Apollo was underfunded for its purpose of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth by the end of the decade.
The point is that Apollo was an aberration that can never be repeated. The difference between a NASA budget of 4% of the national budget then, and the current 0.52% of the national budget now, should make that reasonably clear.
quote:
Whether SpaceX and its Dragon capsule, or ULA and its launchers, private companies should make their spacecraft as safe as they can afford to without losing their customers.
I'd love to hear John Young's thoughts on THAT idea.
Interesting that you picked that quote. Here's the one that stood out for me:
No NASA vehicle -- including the space shuttle -- has met the agency’s own human-rating standards since the 1960s.
I'd assume that John Young would agree with that statement. Just how can commercial entities compete with NASA when they are held to a different standard?
quote:Originally posted by jimsz: Or, are they (Big Names) endorsing it (Obama's plan) because of the politicians who are steering the direction and in their eyes he can do no wrong?
Buzz Aldrin has never struck me as being a flaming liberal. Perhaps I'm wrong. Would it be fair to ask if the reverse is true? Is some of the opposition coming from those who think the man can do no right?
quote:Originally posted by Matt T: ...the whole article follows the same format as a lot of the pro-commercial lobbying - exacting detailed analysis of past failings of the bureaucratic model of space exploration, coupled with curiously bland and hopeful pronouncements about the commercial alternative.
I've agreed that I'd like to see an analysis by an unbiased observer. Even former astronaut Leroy Chiao is now working for a commercial space company. However, it's the "exacting analysis" of the failings of the bureaucratic model that I find compelling.
To echo Jim for once, why keep throwing the taxpayers' money at a system that hasn't been working?
moorouge Member
Posts: 2486 From: U.K. Registered: Jul 2009
posted 02-05-2010 02:48 AM
All we can do is to make things reasonably safe -- keeping in mind such factors as expense. If our attitude toward the space frontier is that safety is paramount, that we must never lose an astronaut, then that frontier will remain closed.
For what it's worth to my best knowledge when the Shuttle was first flown there was an expectation of a crew loss once every 25 flights. That NASA did better is hugely to their credit.
Perhaps we should remember Grissom's words. Space is a dangerous place. Accidents will happen but that shouldn't deter us. Let's go fly!
Matt T Member
Posts: 1372 From: Chester, Cheshire, UK Registered: May 2001
posted 02-05-2010 04:54 AM
quote:Originally posted by moorouge: For what it's worth to my best knowledge when the Shuttle was first flown there was an expectation of a crew loss once every 25 flights. That NASA did better is hugely to their credit.
Absolutely - my point is just that, space IS dangerous despite the best efforts. Far more dangerous than most fully informed people would accept for the purpose of leisure. "Disney Rocket - only one crew loss per 50 flights!" is never going to cut it in the tourism market.
Topic Closed
posted 02-03-2010 03:33 PM
advertisement