will space shuttle blow up again ? would be much better idea to send shuttle into the space on 4th of july, we have never enough of fireworks and stuff exploding.
that is uncalled for.stoned said:would be much better idea to send shuttle into the space on 4th of july, but we have never enough of fireworks.
I don't think so. The reusable part is what makes the shuttle so expensive and problematic.stoned said:for the price of one shuttle launch they could easilly design and build good reusable automatic launch system.
For one, like someone just said, no they cant. 2, its nasa, itd be 3x the target price and take 2 years longer then it should :Dstoned said:for the price of one shuttle launch they could easilly design and build good reusable automatic launch system.
You know, it's just not as much fun when you're just outright asking for a whoopin'! :grumpy:Clausius2 said:It is impossible a success, cause the spacecraft is commanded by a woman.... :rofl: If they didn't know how to drive a car, how the hell are they going to know how to command a spacecraft??? :tongue2:
Come'on girls!! All over me right now!!!
See, I'd take the opposite approach. I'd want to travel together; if something happened, I don't think I could handle the guilt of being on the "right" flight while knowing traveling apart sent my spouse to his death. I'd be thinking, "What if we'd travelled together on the 'right' flight?"russ_watters said:The general public is far too squeamish about risks in general. They just plain don't understand the concept (an aunt an uncle of mine used to take separate planes when they had to fly together ).
Certainly, nobody forces them into it, they have to want to go. Nobody knows the risks more than they do, and if they are prepared to take the risk, then it's their decision.I rember reading once that the risk of catastrophic failure had been calculated at around 1:100 early on in the shuttle's development. The actual failure rate has been ballpark close to that. Astronauts who sign up know the risk and accept it. I'm certain the astronauts going up tomorrow are perfectly comfortable with the level of risk they are taking.
I wouldn't, but then, I won't even agree to join Zz on The Tower of Terror.If I had the chance, I'd be on that shuttle.
I remember that as well, but 2/113 is not 1/100.russ_watters said:I rember reading once that the risk of catastrophic failure had been calculated at around 1:100 early on in the shuttle's development. The actual failure rate has been ballpark close to that.
As a space truck, 1/100 would be darn good. Most boosters have a reliability somewhere in the mid 90's. The shuttle's reliability is comparable to other boosters (even a little better). A little higher success rate is desired for manned missions, but obviously not that easy to obtain. Like Russ said, there's a risk involved, but it's one hard to pass up given the unique opportunity to travel in space.Ivan Seeking said:I remember that as well, but 2/113 is not 1/100.
Really, it is amazing to me that the odds of 1:100 were considered to be acceptable given that the shuttle was intended to be a space truck.
Of course it is! Catastrophic failures can only occur in integer values, so those two rates are in the same range of significant digits. Ie, you cannot extrapolate that 2/113 to be 4/226, 8/452, etc. "Real" odds can only be calculated on sample sizes large enough to eliminate the small, random fluctuations. The Challenger blew up on the 25th launch, the Columbia on the 113th.Ivan Seeking said:I remember that as well, but 2/113 is not 1/100.