|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
 Posted - 07/21/2011 : 12:47:06
|
Space shuttle.
How does everyone feel about no more space shuttle?
I wrote a whole blog about it, but for anyone who is too lazy to read it, I'll summarize.
30 year old technology which should have been decommissioned a long time ago, NASA throwing good money after bad for 25 years.
2/135 launches resulted in catastrophic failure and death. 14/18 of all deaths in space. Risks totally outweigh benefits. Preventable losses which were due to NASA's budgetary concerns.
If NASA can't afford to design a safe space vehicle then I will not lament the loss of an overpriced deathtrap.
|
 |
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2011 : 13:48:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Space shuttle.
How does everyone feel about no more space shuttle?
I wrote a whole blog about it, but for anyone who is too lazy to read it, I'll summarize.
30 year old technology which should have been decommissioned a long time ago, NASA throwing good money after bad for 25 years.
2/135 launches resulted in catastrophic failure and death. 14/18 of all deaths in space. Risks totally outweigh benefits. Preventable losses which were due to NASA's budgetary concerns.
If NASA can't afford to design a safe space vehicle then I will not lament the loss of an overpriced deathtrap.
|
So roughly 1.5% of the launches resulted in death. Shit, the odds for death are worse just driving to work in the morning. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
 |
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2011 : 13:55:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
So roughly 1.5% of the launches resulted in death. Shit, the odds for death are worse just driving to work in the morning.
|
Not really.... your per-journey risk in a car is much, much lower. |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2011 : 15:33:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Not really.... your per-journey risk in a car is much, much lower.
|
But not if you count milage.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 07/21/2011 15:34:19 |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2011 : 15:36:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Not really.... your per-journey risk in a car is much, much lower.
|
But not if you count milage.
|
 |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2011 : 15:59:12 [Permalink]
|
Even with that deceptive and unfair method of comparison, the shuttle doesn't perform well at all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_safety#Accidents_and_incidents
car deaths per billion miles = 1.92 (3.1 in kms)
combined space shuttle miles = 548 049 445
14 deaths per 548049445
= 25.5 deaths per 1 billion miles
Of course this isn't passenger miles so in a true comparison assuming 7 people on every flight, (which is an over-estimate)
25.5 deaths per 7 billion miles
3.64 deaths per billion miles. Conservative estimate.
Cars are safer. |
|
| Edited by - On fire for Christ on 07/21/2011 16:22:26 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2011 : 16:47:31 [Permalink]
|
| Are you defining "safe" for a space vehicle as "no more likely to cause death than riding in a terrestrial automobile?" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2011 : 23:45:03 [Permalink]
|
| Obviously I'm not making that definition since I am not the one who introduced cars into this discussion |
|
| Edited by - On fire for Christ on 07/22/2011 00:38:43 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2011 : 05:22:13 [Permalink]
|
| I assumed this was about the Osprey, now THATS a death trap. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2011 : 05:57:00 [Permalink]
|
| Hell, I'd take the increased risk of death to fly around in outer space! |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2011 : 06:36:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Obviously I'm not making that definition since I am not the one who introduced cars into this discussion |
Then what definition of "safe" are you using? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
alienist
Skeptic Friend
USA
210 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2011 : 13:12:24 [Permalink]
|
| To OFFC: you didn't name all the benefits of the space shuttle program. So, how do you know the risks outweighed the benefits? |
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2011 : 09:47:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Obviously I'm not making that definition since I am not the one who introduced cars into this discussion |
Then what definition of "safe" are you using?
|
I'm not attempting to define "safe". I'm just stating the facts. |
|
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2011 : 10:07:31 [Permalink]
|
The risk to human life is something you have to face when exploration is being done. Nobody was forced to go.
The more important argument is that taxpayers were forced to foot the bill for something that was basically a waste of money. Most of the cost goes toward ensuring that the human occupants are safe and healthy during the voyage, and the science that they accomplish is negligible. Unmanned vehicles only work on sunlight and/or a small nuclear reactor. They can wait patiently for years, or even decades, to get close to their target if necessary, no boredom, no insanity from looking at the same faces all the time.
Can you imagine being a human on the sort of mission it takes to rendezvous with a comet or asteroid, or one of the outer planets? Cruel and unusual punishment in my opinion. The only thing you will learn is how long it takes for insanity to take over.
I am not against manned spaceflight where warranted, but that warrant is getting smaller with every advance in robotics. And the cost savings are enormous. If anyone would care to calculate what it would have taken to obtain the science done by Spirit and Opportunity on the surface of Mars by replacing them with people, I'm willing to bet that most people would be knocked on their asses. |
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2011 : 10:22:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
I'm not attempting to define "safe". I'm just stating the facts. |
If you want a "safe space vehicle" and characterize the Shuttle as a "deathtrap" then you must have some idea of what "safe" means to you. Otherwise, you're just throwing around meaningless adjectives. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2011 : 10:28:48 [Permalink]
|
| Well I gave a pretty good run down of the Shuttle's safety record, so the deathtrap tag is pretty much defined. |
|
|
|
 |
|
Decommissioning of the flying death trap AKA...
