Rem@IMSSS (01/28/86)
In addition to obvious badness: (1) TDRS lost, so we won't be having the around-the-clock tracking of space missions like we were hoping to have; (2) Our STS capacity is now down to 60%. Originally we needed 5 orbiters, but the budget was cut and we had only 4, now we have only 3. One minor good point: At least it didn't happen on the pad where the pad would have been destroyed preventing further launches. However this may be moot if they spend two years analyzing everything before doing anything. -------
al@vger.UUCP ( Informatix) (01/31/86)
In article <8601282025.AA07409@s1-b.arpa>, Rem@IMSSS writes: > In addition to obvious badness: > (1) TDRS lost, so we won't be having the around-the-clock tracking of > space missions like we were hoping to have; > (2) Our STS capacity is now down to 60%. Originally we needed 5 orbiters, > However this may be moot if they spend two > years analyzing everything before doing anything. This echos the sentiment frequently expressed on the net that NASA is too careful. As the Challenger disaster shows, NASA is not quite careful enough. If it takes two years to do the analysis, then they should take it. Five if necessary. I doubt that it will take more than a few months to determine the cause of the problem, fixing it may be another story. In any case, I hope that those of you who think NASA should take chances are happy - they took enough chances to have a major accident and the space program has suffered a serious setback as a result.
mcgeer%ji@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer) (01/31/86)
>Date: 31 Jan 86 08:38:14 GMT >From: vger!al@ucbvax.berkeley.edu ( Informatix) >Organization: UC Santa Cruz, CIS Dept. >Subject: Re: STS EXPLOSION TODAY >Message-Id: <321@vger.UUCP> >References: <8601282025.AA07409@s1-b.arpa> >Sender: usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu >Errors-To: <space-incoming-request@s1-b.arpa> >To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa > >In article <8601282025.AA07409@s1-b.arpa>, Rem@IMSSS writes: >> In addition to obvious badness: >> (1) TDRS lost, so we won't be having the around-the-clock tracking of >> space missions like we were hoping to have; >> (2) Our STS capacity is now down to 60%. Originally we needed 5 orbiters, >> However this may be moot if they spend two >> years analyzing everything before doing anything. >This echos the sentiment frequently expressed on the net that NASA is too >careful. As the Challenger disaster shows, NASA is not quite careful >enough. If it takes two years to do the analysis, then they should take >it. Five if necessary. I doubt that it will take more than a few months >to determine the cause of the problem, fixing it may be another story. In >any case, I hope that those of you who think NASA should take chances are >happy - they took enough chances to have a major accident and the space >program has suffered a serious setback as a result. > If, in the history of technology, there has *ever* been a new vehicle launched succesfully 24 times before its first fatal accident, I have been unable to find it. Compare The Shuttle's safety record to the X series rockets, the first jets, the first airplanes, the first automobiles. The fact that there were 24 succesful missions before the Challenger disaster is a tribute to NASA's technical skill, quality control, and prudence; some would say timidity. The only chance that NASA took was running the program at all. - Rick.