NASA Is a Human Mission to Mars Feasible in the Near Future?

[earamsey]

Hi,

I am wondering why is it so important to put people on Mars? It is very dangerous and Nasa does not have the technology to do this safely without endangering lives. Why can't they wait for proper technology to do it correctly? In my opinion you need similar to following;

1) ability to create gravity
2) generate water for daily hot showers and cold drink everyday.
3) Propulsion not based on chemical rockets; nuclear or fusion?
3A) Power generators based on fusion or nuclear and plenty of it
3B) Propulsion system should get one to Mars in 2 months 3 max
5) spacecraft will be mobile space station with crew of 200 people consisting of scientist, engineers, doctors, nurses and maybe tourists.
5A) will live on space station and Mars habitats will be for 3 to 5 day excursions to surface.
5C) space elevator for transport of people and equipment from mmobile space station to surface
5D) need medical facility with at least 5 doctors and 6 nurses
5F) must be large. 4 stories where each level is size of 2 football fields, have gym, gravity, large living quarters, kitchen, research labs, fun room for relaxation.
--- Cool stuff to have
1) redeployable GPS system. satellites can be deployed and latter retreived for missions to other places in solar system. Nice if you get lost after taking cover from a dust storm.
2) skin tight flexible space suites; I think MIT has prototypes.
3) Virtually control humanoid for exploring dangerous places equiped with jet pack, can walk, crawl, run, give tactile and aromatic
feedback to human controller. it will be nuclear powered of course.
4) oxygen supply extender that will directly convert atmosphere to oxygen (when visiting celestial objects this is possible)

Because of size of mobile space station, its components will have to be constructed on moon and assembled in orbit. Robots can be sent to moon to construct factories to mine
and create materials maybe even construct components from them.

It would cost a lot of money to develop technology, guessing, not a scientist, about a trillion dollars. If it is too expensive then perhaps people should not explore in deep space; it's hostile out there and should not be explorered on a budget when human life is at stake; this is a basic concept of ETHICS, MORALS and general respect for life.

Also, to develop such technologies would require dedicated research and development and stop doing so many nothing missions to Mars with robots and focus on developing technology for real human deep space exploration program. I estimate about 40-50 years if one starts tomorrow... Hey, there is no rush the Universe is already 13 billion years old and it is not going anywhere. Why NASA get out of bed oneday and decide to go Mars in next 10 years is beyond me.

If any of this seems unrealistic and too fantastical then perhaps space is not yet for people it's very unforgiving and cruel environment :(

 

[Blenton]

Gosh.. you started out absurdly and then went into pure insanity.

1. Gravity is not that essential. Depends on how long the trip is.
2. Gee that's a pretty big unnecessary addition. Piping hot showers every day!
3. Yeah different propulsion method probably needed.
5(?). lol.. why would you need a craft of 200 people? Are you disconnected from reality! space elevators... 20 doctors... football fields.

Yeah i don't know how to respond to this post anymore.

1. We want to go to mars, we need to explore. Simple as that.
2. You don't need world crafts containing thousands of people for a simple one off mission. A hand full of people would do fine.
3. Its not a walk in the park.

 

[humanino]

skin tight flexible space suites

You know how to increase media coverage.

 

[russ_watters]

I wouldn't sweat this issue. We're not sending people to Mars. Bush announced the plan, then didn't fund it as a real project and future Presidents aren't bound by that. The project certainly will not survive Obama's first term.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yah that's actually a ridiculous argument. We can't even provide those accommodations on the international space station. People don't need to be pampered to take on extraordinary missions, you obviously have no idea what conditions people faced during the Apollo missions. People have been in space for decades and they are absolutely fine not having a full staff and luxury accommodations.

 

[signerror]

Switch off your bloody telly, you've watched far too much sci-fi. It's rotting your brain.

5F) must be large. 4 stories where each level is size of 2 football fields, have gym, gravity, large living quarters, kitchen, research labs, fun room for relaxation.

I rest my case.

 

[Phrak]

Yah that's actually a ridiculous argument. We can't even provide those accommodations on the international space station. People don't need to be pampered to take on extraordinary missions, you obviously have no idea what conditions people faced during the Apollo missions. People have been in space for decades and they are absolutely fine not having a full staff and luxury accommodations.

Yes, but this would be a coed mission. It will need a boutique and a nail salon.

 

[Phrak]

The Space Race--the Race to the Moon--was a race for nuclear dominance from space between the USSR and the USA. What in the world was Bush up to with his Mission to Mars speech? This has left me baffled for a very long time. Was he attempting to soften-up the left? He also did the hydrogen energy speech. Another peculiar call to action that might indicate political manuvering to soften the left.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What in the world was Bush up to with his Mission to Mars speech?

Maybe God told him to go.

 

[elect_eng]

Yes, but this would be a coed mission.

I heard NASA is actually doing research on how people can have sex in space. Seems unnecessary since people can be quite ingenious in figuring things out when highly motivated.:!)

 

[mgb_phys]

I heard NASA is actually doing research on how people can have sex in space.

can you imagine Nasa porn?
t-5mins: Engage the primary Y chromosone delivery nozzle with the baby habitation module entrance.
...

This is the Nasa that renamed a vehicle originally called CRV-X because they thought 'cervix' was rude and might shock people.

 

[Janus]

Hi,

I am wondering why is it so important to put people on Mars? It is very dangerous and Nasa does not have the technology to do this safely without endangering lives. Why can't they wait for proper technology to do it correctly? In my opinion you need similar to following;

1) ability to create gravity
2) generate water for daily hot showers and cold drink everyday.
3) Propulsion not based on chemical rockets; nuclear or fusion?
3A) Power generators based on fusion or nuclear and plenty of it
3B) Propulsion system should get one to Mars in 2 months 3 max
5) spacecraft will be mobile space station with crew of 200 people consisting of scientist, engineers, doctors, nurses and maybe tourists.
5A) will live on space station and Mars habitats will be for 3 to 5 day excursions to surface.
5C) space elevator for transport of people and equipment from mmobile space station to surface
5D) need medical facility with at least 5 doctors and 6 nurses
5F) must be large. 4 stories where each level is size of 2 football fields, have gym, gravity, large living quarters, kitchen, research labs, fun room for relaxation.
--- Cool stuff to have
1) redeployable GPS system. satellites can be deployed and latter retreived for missions to other places in solar system. Nice if you get lost after taking cover from a dust storm.
2) skin tight flexible space suites; I think MIT has prototypes.
3) Virtually control humanoid for exploring dangerous places equiped with jet pack, can walk, crawl, run, give tactile and aromatic
feedback to human controller. it will be nuclear powered of course.
4) oxygen supply extender that will directly convert atmosphere to oxygen (when visiting celestial objects this is possible)

Because of size of mobile space station, its components will have to be constructed on moon and assembled in orbit. Robots can be sent to moon to construct factories to mine
and create materials maybe even construct components from them.

It would cost a lot of money to develop technology, guessing, not a scientist, about a trillion dollars. If it is too expensive then perhaps people should not explore in deep space; it's hostile out there and should not be explorered on a budget when human life is at stake; this is a basic concept of ETHICS, MORALS and general respect for life.

Also, to develop such technologies would require dedicated research and development and stop doing so many nothing missions to Mars with robots and focus on developing technology for real human deep space exploration program. I estimate about 40-50 years if one starts tomorrow... Hey, there is no rush the Universe is already 13 billion years old and it is not going anywhere. Why NASA get out of bed oneday and decide to go Mars in next 10 years is beyond me.

If any of this seems unrealistic and too fantastical then perhaps space is not yet for people it's very unforgiving and cruel environment :(

Wow, If it had been left up to you, Columbus wouldn't have set sail until he had the equivalent of the Queen Mary at his command.

 

[WhoWee]

I wouldn't sweat this issue. We're not sending people to Mars. Bush announced the plan, then didn't fund it as a real project and future Presidents aren't bound by that. The project certainly will not survive Obama's first term.

Are you sure it's not buried in all of that spending?

 

[LowlyPion]

I heard NASA is actually doing research on how people can have sex in space. Seems unnecessary since people can be quite ingenious in figuring things out when highly motivated.:!)

To what purpose? If it's procreation, I'd be concerned about developmental issues in zero to low gravity. If it's recreation for long journeys, ... that's going to make crew selection a bit more complicated than it is currently. It might help in recruitment for future astronauts though.

 

[elect_eng]

To what purpose? If it's procreation, I'd be concerned about developmental issues in zero to low gravity. If it's recreation for long journeys, ... that's going to make crew selection a bit more complicated than it is currently. It might help in recruitment for future astronauts though.

It's definitely related to the latter issue. Procreation in space is out of the question for a long long time.

 

[wolram]

It's definitely related to the latter issue. Procreation in space is out of the question for a long long time.

Catch the baby.

 

[Coin]

"Why do you want to climb Mt. Everest?"
"Because it's there."

 

[elect_eng]

"Why do you want to climb Mt. Everest?"
"Because it's there."

I'm no longer interested to see NASA spend my tax dollars to send people to the top of the mountain just for the sake of looking down. Let them send robots till their heart's content, but I don't trust them to send people any more.

I still haven't forgiven them for killing the teacher Christa McAuliffe in the Challenger disaster. It's one thing to send trained astronaughts who volunteered for the risk. But, they offerred her a trip to space as if it were an amusment park ride, and then hid the known risks from her and the public. The vision of her parents and students watching her burn up in the sky is etched in my mind forever.

This was not the same NASA that sent men to the moon; - not even close!

 

[mgb_phys]

I'm no longer interested to see NASA spend my tax dollars to send people to the top of the mountain just for the sake of looking down.

They are spending your tax dollars on keeping Boeing + Lockheed Martin solvent. The alternative is to build a few more airborne lasers - it's probably safer for everybody if they send people to Mars.

It's one thing to send trained astronaughts who volunteered for the risk. ...then hid the known risks from her and the public.

Nasa administrations 'think of a number' attitude to risk assessment aside - I don't think anyone has/had any impression that sitting on top of a couple of hundred tons of explosive is risk free.

 

[humanino]

astronaughts

I'm sorry, what is an atronaught ? No, really, that was good

 

[elect_eng]

They are spending your tax dollars on keeping Boeing + Lockheed Martin solvent. The alternative is to build a few more airborne lasers - it's probably safer for everybody if they send people to Mars.

I never said I agreed with that either.

Nasa administrations 'think of a number' attitude to risk assessment aside - I don't think anyone has/had any impression that sitting on top of a couple of hundred tons of explosive is risk free.

There was the obvious known risk, which was tempered with the known history of NASA to be overly cautious. However, in this case management knew about issues with the O-rings and ignored repeated warnings from engineers that a disaster was very likely. In my mind this is unforgivable - and I don't forgive in this case.

 

[signerror]

"Why do you want to climb Mt. Everest?"
"Because it's there."

"Why are you standing on the toilet?"
"Because it's there!"

 

[LowlyPion]

There was the obvious known risk, which was tempered with the known history of NASA to be overly cautious. However, in this case management knew about issues with the O-rings and ignored repeated warnings from engineers that a disaster was very likely. In my mind this is unforgivable - and I don't forgive in this case.

I think that's overly harsh. Certainly there was a failure in judgment to account for the factors aligning to spell disaster, but knowing about risks isn't exactly the same thing as knowingly sending people to their deaths. Needless to say they have modified their process (and the O-rings).

We know about the risks of geese bringing down aircraft, yet planes takeoff every day.

 

[elect_eng]

I think that's overly harsh.

Harsh or not, it's how I feel and I think it is justified to be harsh in this case. They sent a civilian into a dangerous situation and did not disclose the known risks. The key thing here is that engineers were ringing the alarm bells and explaining the exact technical issues that were ultimately a main cause of the failure. This is clear negligence. I've seen this happen in industry too, but usually the loss is only a few million dollars and not actual lives. This was a failure of management.

I have no doubt that Christa McAuliffe would take your side in this, and that is just another reason why she is a hero. But 23 years later I'm still not over it. It just crosses a line in my own ethical system. I forgive the failures that led to the fire on the pad with Apollo 1. I even forgive the failures in the second shuttle disaster. But I don't forgive the failures that led to Christa McAuliffe's death. And, I will never apologize for that.

 

[Jack21222]

I just want to point out that there is no shortage of volunteers for a suicide mission to Mars. If NASA were to say "Alright, we're sending a team of 10 people to Mars, but you'll have no way to return, and your life support will run out after a few weeks on Mars," you'd have a huge pile of applications to sort through.

 

[humanino]

I'd go

 

[mgb_phys]

However, in this case management knew about issues with the O-rings and ignored repeated warnings from engineers that a disaster was very likely. In my mind this is unforgivable - and I don't forgive in this case.

There are 100s (if not 1000s) of potential disaster issues with the shuttle. It is fundementally a dangerous way to put things in orbit.

I would say the unforgivable part of Nasa's management is the attitude of: This problem happened before, that flight didn't crash, therefore this is not a problem.
This is rather different from the FAA/NTSB attitude of: This is a problem, therefore we assume it will causes crashes until we can prove it doesn't.

I don't know how much this attitude has changed - my own professional contact with Nasa was years ago and not very reassuring. Personally I'm not rushing for my free ride in the shuttle and I'm glad that Nasa doesn't run civil aviation.

 

[russ_watters]

I think that's overly harsh. Certainly there was a failure in judgment to account for the factors aligning to spell disaster, but knowing about risks isn't exactly the same thing as knowingly sending people to their deaths.

You're wrong about the particulars of that incident and you may want to read up on them. In short, Thiokol engineers and administrators knew about the flaw in the O-rings before the launch and the administrators forced the engineers to recommend a go for launch despite this knowledge (that's a little bit of an oversimplification). Thus, though they didn't know for certain they were sending the crew to their deaths, they did know for certain that they sent the crew up in a highly elevated risk scenario.

The word "accident" doesn't really apply in this case - this was murder via purposeful criminal neglegence. elect_eng is absolutely right about this case and absolutely correct that it is wholly different from the failure of Apollo 1 (and also the Columbia failure). I suspect he is young enough that he studied this issue in some depth in an engineering ethics class, in college, as I did...

One might argue a second design flaw is the lack of an egress system capable of saving unconscious crewmembers (ie, a single-piece ejectable module with a parachute). It is nearly certain that some of the crew survived the breakup (since they activated their personal egress equipment) and were killed because they passed out before being able to get out of the crew compartment, dying when the compartment impacted the water. This flaw would be a more forgiveable one.

 

[russ_watters]

I would say the unforgivable part of Nasa's management is the attitude of: This problem happened before, that flight didn't crash, therefore this is not a problem.

AFAIK, the problem never happened before. It was simply a known flaw/limitation that was not properly addressed and later suppressed.

 

[mgb_phys]

AFAIK, the problem never happened before. It was simply a known flaw/limitation that was not properly addressed.

I thought it had happened before, at least in that exhaust had partially burnt through the joint (or just the O-ring/sealing putty). But the attitude was - that didn't cause the shuttle to crash so it's not a problem. Rather like the debris impact/lost tiles a few years later.
I think that's a more serious failing than launching outside the official temperature spec of a component.

1>My brakes failed on the drive home.
2>Did you have an accident
1>No I was going slow on a flat road
2>Ok, brake failure isn't a critical fault !

 

[mheslep]

Seven of the prior flights had shown erosion or blow-by of the o-rings. Those events were rationalized into a gauge of robustness of the o-rings, when they were not designed to suffer any erosion. Then the engineers did not get the point across that the events were highly correlated with temperature.
Pages 22,23
http://www.soc.washington.edu/users/bpettit/soc506/tufte.pdf

 

[turbo]

In mechanical seal applications in industry it is common to use convoluted machining (Labyrinth seals) to engineer passive pressure-drops so that the primary seals (O-rings in this case) are not subject to the entire pressure differential. The solid-booster joints appear to be very simple, which probably ensures the re-usability of the components, possibly at the risk of primary seal failure.

 

[Coin]

"Why are you standing on the toilet?"
"Because it's there!"

*suspicious* how did you know what i was doing this weekend??!

 

[turbo]

*suspicious* how did you know what i was doing this weekend??!

Not much of a weekend! Nothing else to do?

 

[Enjoicube]

I'm no longer interested to see NASA spend my tax dollars to send people to the top of the mountain just for the sake of looking down. Let them send robots till their heart's content, but I don't trust them to send people any more.

Really? Curiosity never motivated you? I suppose manned missions are not as important to me, but still, think about where some of your money is already going. Meanwhile, a significant amount of my money is going to college sports, which reflect nothing I am interested in.

 

[elect_eng]

Really? Curiosity never motivated you?

Curiosity motivates me every day. NASA missions even had a role in my love of science growing up, since I was born in 1964. I vividly remember Apollo 13 and followed and understood what was happening since my Father (who was an Air Force pilot and a Physics major) explained it to me. What a great lesson to see humans exploring and risking their lives to discover and learn and then to overcome challenges and survive against the odds. Can you imagine how crushing it was to see the Challenger disaster and later find that it was unnecessary and ultimately a result of politics and mismanagement. I've lost faith in the modern day NASA and don't think any plan they have to put people on Mars is likely to be that important, and could be tragic.

I do think that the NASA robot explorers are very useful, despite the high failure rate in those missions. Note that cutting corners and trading risk for dollars is acceptable with robots, but not with humans.

I suppose manned missions are not as important to me, but still, think about where some of your money is already going.

OK, now I'm really depressed.

Meanwhile, a significant amount of my money is going to college sports, which reflect nothing I am interested in.

I played many sports growing up and found athletic training and competition educational and healthy for mind, body and spirit.

It's interesting you brought up sports because, in college, I rowed (crew) and remember that some rowers from Univ. of New Hampshire died in a tragic accident on the water (mid 1980's). A boat swamped and the cold water caused several people to lose their rational and try to swim to shore. This resulted in implemented changes adopted by all University crews to train people better. We were told to literally hold hands and not allow anyone to leave the boat - just wait for help. I never once thought that sports should be abolished because of this type of accident. However, if I found out that a football team tried to save money and bought fragile helmets which resulted in a death, I would never trust that organization again.

 

[MissSilvy]

Hm, I hope the OP isn't a scientist. He'd only be doing the thoroughly documented, explored and completely safe research.

If someone wants to go to Mars and are willing to put their 'sacred human life' at risk, so be it. History and advances are not made by people who are only willing to experiment and explore when they have 'comfortable spacesuits' and a 'fun room' in the space station. You're welcome to feel however you like but the scientific community at large is also welcome to not take you seriously. At all.

 

[Enjoicube]

I played many sports growing up and found athletic training and competition educational and healthy for mind, body and spirit.

Certainly sports are good when being played by all, and in no way would I support taking phys-ed out. However, tonight I have to survive through 50,000 people asking me about "the game" which I know nothing about. I glanced at the student newspaper today; it will cost from $150,000 to $200,000 to clean up for the "riots" that are expected to happen if we win (if we lose I am even more afraid). In no way is it rational to support a sport where less than %.01 of the university plays in the game, but costs enough money to renovate the Math building. Sorry if I came off as a bit sour the first time, I am currently forced to hide in my room to avoid these idiotic riots.

 

[elect_eng]

Sorry if I came off as a bit sour the first time, I am currently forced to hide in my room to avoid these idiotic riots.

No, I didn't think that at all. It's interesting conversation, and there is no simple answer in these cases.

 

[Enjoicube]

Ahh, I think I better understand your first quote right now. I do agree that space travel is a very risky propostion right now; this reminds me about Feynmans comment about the failure rate of spacecraft , which he estimated 1 in 100 (sadly, this seems to be true). Perhaps I was quick to judge there; you were talking about the agency that should carry out these plans, I was talking about whether these plans should be carried out. I am also a little quick to this argument because of the number of people I know who are more curious about their dinner than astronomy (although you might be hard pressed to find such people on these fora).
What advantages would we get by sending a human to Mars? Even if it did work properly, perhaps we would get a much needed morale boost, but I think even a mission to the moon could do that.
Personally, I am looking forward to any future missions and developments. Perhaps even I do not agree with a manned mission to Mars, as with that amount of money we could study both Mars and Jupiter with well equipped probes.

 

[russ_watters]

I thought it had happened before, at least in that exhaust had partially burnt through the joint (or just the O-ring/sealing putty). But the attitude was - that didn't cause the shuttle to crash so it's not a problem.

I read through the wiki I posted: the previously noted problem was similar, but not exactly the same as what took down the Challenger. There was no leakage or destruction of the O-rings previously. The critical difference between the Challenger and what happened previously was the temperature at launch time changed the performance of the O-ring and that difference was clearly understood at the time.

Prior to that, the O-ring was performing in a sub-optimal way that was not as originally intended (and yes, should have been fixed), but the issue was well enough understood (at least by the engineers...) that the risk was manageable.

Rather like the debris impact/lost tiles a few years later.
I think that's a more serious failing than launching outside the official temperature spec of a component.

Well the Columbia problem was an exact repeat scenario that differed only in magnitude.

For the Columbia we have: 'If this problem gets a lot worse, it could destroy the shuttle' and predicting that was difficult
For Challenger, it was: 'If this problem happens, it could destroy the shuttle' and predicting that was essentially a experimentally proven.

1>My brakes failed on the drive home.
2>Did you have an accident
1>No I was going slow on a flat road
2>Ok, brake failure isn't a critical fault!

No, it's more like:
Columbia:
1>My brake pressure was low on the drive home.
2>Did you have an accident
1>No I was going slow on a flat road
2>Ok, brake failure isn't a critical fault! [This conclusion turned out to be wrong, of course, but it wasn't that unreasonable of a conclusion at the time, given the available evidence.]

Challenger:
1>My brakes failed completely - should I drive home? It might cause an accident. Last time I drove home and the brake pressure was low, but I didn't have an accident.
2>Um, are you suicidal?

 

[russ_watters]

Then the engineers did not get the point across that the events were highly correlated with temperature.

Being an engineer who deals with this problem on an almost daily basis, I would say that the fault is not with the engineers, the fault is an organizational structure that has mangers in place who do not understand engineering and will ignore the advice of the engineers based on that misunderstanding. Feynman in the wiki said this:

"It appears that there are enormous differences of opinion as to the probability of a failure with loss of vehicle and of human life. The estimates range from roughly 1 in 100 to 1 in 100,000. The higher figures come from the working engineers, and the very low figures from management. What are the causes and consequences of this lack of agreement? … we could properly ask "What is the cause of management's fantastic faith in the machinery?"

Simplly put, the managers ignored the simple bullet point conclusion because they didn't understand the analysis and were openly hostile to conclusions they didn't like. Fortunately, in my line of work the people who I write reports for only read the bullet point conclusions (I put them in front of the report) and never get to the analysis! They still ignore the conclusions, but at least there isn't anything to argue about!

 

[russ_watters]

Really? Curiosity never motivated you?

Manned missions are not and never have been motivated primarily by curiosity. The lunar missions were motivated, quite simply, by the desire to plant a flag. It is cool that we did it, but our curiosity could [probably then, absolutely certainly now] have been better satisfied with robots.

 

[D H]

I wouldn't sweat this issue. We're not sending people to Mars. Bush announced the plan, then didn't fund it as a real project and future Presidents aren't bound by that. The project certainly will not survive Obama's first term.

The announcement didn't even survive the announcement. There is no plan to send people to Mars and there never has been.

This is rather different from the FAA/NTSB attitude of: This is a problem, therefore we assume it will causes crashes until we can prove it doesn't.

That isn't a fair comparison. How many test pilots died in help get the aviation industry to the state it is currently in?

This was not the same NASA that sent men to the moon; - not even close!

The NASA that sent people to the Moon was even more callous that the NASA that launched the Challenger and Columbia. Read up on the Apollo 1 fire.

NASA was at fault or the Apollo 1 fire, and for the Challenger disaster, and maybe even for Columbia. NASA has a long history of ignoring the safety concerns of the engineers who built NASA's machines and the astronauts who rode on them.

The blame goes a lot higher than NASA, however. Johnson wanted a successful Apollo program to get the public's eye off the Vietnam War. Reagan wanted something to brag about in his state of the union address. http://books.google.com/books?id=dO...9HABg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2".

NASA learned some lessons after each disaster. One of the key recommendations of the Challenger commission was to terminate the Shuttle, post haste. NASA proceeded to do just that. They canceled the mission to restore the Shuttle and canceled the Shuttle program entirely after 2010. The mission to resuscitate Hubble was put back in the manifest due to political pressure, even though there is no safe haven in such a mission. The Florida congressional delegates are balking at the termination of the Shuttle program because canceling it years before CEV starts flying will mean that Florida will lose a lot of jobs. The Shuttle program has been extended for two more missions to the ISS (plus the restoration of the canceled Hubble mission).

With all that, putting people into space is inherently risky. The astronauts are after all sitting on top of a bomb, a very powerful bomb. The astronauts all know some risk is involved. NASA does pay incredible attention to risk, every day. NASA's goal is to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. They cannot minimize the risk; the only way to minimize the risk is to not fly at all. There will always be some risk if we are to continue flying people into space.

I'm no longer interested to see NASA spend my tax dollars to send people to the top of the mountain just for the sake of looking down. Let them send robots till their heart's content, but I don't trust them to send people any more.

Your heart is in the right place, but your mind isn't. Do you drive to work? Go out partying on weekends? Chase after wind women? All of these endeavors are incredibly risky. You accept these risks (probably without thinking much about them) because the alternative is to give up being human.

We send people into space because we are human. We want to explore the unknown, both because it is unknown and because doing so has enhanced us in many ways. We could stop spending all that money we do on space exploration because "we have so many problems down on the Earth." The paltry 0.6% of the federal budget spent on NASA will not end global warming, or end hunger, or end war.

We could, as some in the space science community fervently wish, stop spending money on sending humans into space and only send robots. That is not what would happen. Space science, without the added impetus that it is forging the way for human spaceflight, would wither and die. Without that impetus, space science cannot compete with other science and with the "myriad problems we have on the Earth." One former spacefaring country has performed this experiment with ending funding for human spaceflight. The space scientists in that country convinced their politicians to stop wasting money on sending humans into space. The politicians obliged, and went a step further: They stopped wasting money on sending anything into space. Great Britain's space budget, $350 million per year, makes NASA's budget look gargantuan.

 

[russ_watters]

The NASA that sent people to the Moon was even more callous that the NASA that launched the Challenger and Columbia. Read up on the Apollo 1 fire.

The conclusion may be true, but the example that you use to support it certainly is not. The Apollo 1 fire should have been predicted, but it wasn't, whereas the Challenger failure was predicted and was ignored and the Columbia failure had happened previously and was underestimated.

As some astronaut said in the aftermath: the Apollo 1 incident was caused by a failure of imagination, not a failure of will. There was no maliciousness or callousness. Heck, the driver was Kennedy's goal, so any callousness would have to be attributed to the political pressure to achieve the goal, not NASA's path laid out to meet it.

 

[Phrak]

Wasn't it Morton Thiokol who pronounced the Columbia shot within safety margins?

 

[mgb_phys]

Wasn't it Morton Thiokol who pronounced the Columbia shot within safety margins?

IIRC (and a quick flick through the Feynman book) - the launch was below the rated temperature for the motors so MT were in the clear. Their engineers (especially the ones working on the seals) said no but management didn't pass this on to Nasa. So although MT didn't exactly say yes, they didn't say no either - essentially allowing Nasa to launch.

I think the first Apollo fire was fundementally different. That was the early days of rockets, the risks were very high and everybody knew it. The Shuttle accidents were in an era when the risks were well known and there was a large organisation to control and manage them - it was this organisation that failed.

It's rather like the risks you might be prepared to take flying the first military jet, or the first carrier landing vs. the risk that are reasonable on a civil airliner.

 

[D H]

How is it different? NASA had been warned about using a 100% oxygen atmosphere. They ignored those warnings. The astronauts insisted that the vehicle doors have explosive bolts so they could escape in an emergency. NASA instead removed the explosive bolts. The astronauts burned to death because of decisions consciously made by NASA upper management.

In both cases, NASA upper management should have listened to the warnings from their engineers and astronauts, they should have had the cajones to stand up to extreme political pressure (the pressure to launch Challenger came direct from the White House; Reagan wanted to brag about the launch that evening in his state of the onion address), and they should have ignored the idiotic press. They didn't, and people died as a result.

 

[mgb_phys]

How is it different? NASA had been warned about using a 100% oxygen atmosphere. They ignored those warnings. The astronauts insisted that the vehicle doors have explosive bolts so they could escape in an emergency. NASA instead removed the explosive bolts. The astronauts burned to death because of decisions consciously made by NASA upper management.

I hadn't studied the details of the accident.
A pure oxygen atmosphere at a 21% partial pressure makes sense (and was used in Gemini/Mercury). Inward opening plug seal doors without explosive bolts are used on all commercial aircraft it balances the real risk of a leak with the few times during the flight when you can safely open the door.
It seems from the account that it was a very very badly thought out test rather than the design that was wrong. In particular pressurizing it to a flight pressure differential but still using pure oxygen was insane!

 

[mheslep]

Being an engineer who deals with this problem on an almost daily basis, I would say that the fault is not with the engineers, the fault is an organizational structure that has mangers in place who do not understand engineering and will ignore the advice of the engineers based on that misunderstanding. Feynman in the wiki said this: Simplly put, the managers ignored the simple bullet point conclusion because they didn't understand the analysis and were openly hostile to conclusions they didn't like. Fortunately, in my line of work the people who I write reports for only read the bullet point conclusions (I put them in front of the report) and never get to the analysis! They still ignore the conclusions, but at least there isn't anything to argue about!

I also deal with this issue continually as an engineer, and sometimes as a manager. Thiokol Management takes considerable blame on this one, but I also blame the engineers, especially on the subject of o-ring performance vs temperature. The engineering presentation on that topic was confusing and contradictory. An engineer can not simply say "don't launch below X degrees". He also must present a coherent argument as to how they reached that conclusion. In every engineering organization I've been associated with, there has always the bright, but flawed engineer: either over confident from inexperience, or some old timer that predicts doom from in and all changes over how they did 30 years ago, etc. The only way those responsible for the organization can not be held hostage by these biases is to insist on a review of the engineering basis. Although the engineering bottom line was correct in this case, their communication to management on the subject was poor: it included conflicting, distracting and irrelevant information. Good management, when receiving such information, should have been conservative (and pushed for better). Instead they took advantage of the confusion to indulge in recklessness.
Here's the presentation material again. Pages 16-22 point out the problems with the actual presentation; page 23 has an example graphic by Tufte showing how it could have been done: demonstrating dramatically how the o-rings were almost certain to fail in very cold temperatures.
http://www.soc.washington.edu/users/bpettit/soc506/tufte.pdf