Good old NASA

[IcedFoxtrotter]

So ours does more flights and has the same # of fatal accidents and less incidents........ hmmmmm.........

[ATI_7500]

But more dead ppl.
Shuttle: 14.
Soyuz: 4.

And both of the Soyuz accidents happened in the 60s and 70s,when space technology wasn't on a high level. So this may be an excuse,whereas both the Challenger and the Columbia incidents were caused by preventeable events,since technology was much better in the 80s and one year ago.

-edit: Holy sh**! April 24th! My birthday! (Soyuz-1 incident)  :o

[IcedFoxtrotter]

What, and you thik that perfection is achivable?  If you do and know how, you have a job worth millions a year waiting over here in the U.S. for you with our airlines.

Might I add that ours carries way more people, so of course with the same number of accidents there will be be more deaths.

[ATI_7500]

What, and you thik that perfection is achivable?  If you do and know how, you have a job worth millions a year waiting over here in the U.S. for you with our airlines.

No,thanks.

There is no real perfection,but you can get very close to it. But this ain't possible in today's world,since it'd cost money. And money makes the world go 'round...(damned capitalism).

[IcedFoxtrotter]

What!?
???

You had better not be touting what I think you are... :-/

And I suppose you think government is the answer to everything?

[ATI_7500]

I was born in the former GDR , I think that Socialism is quite good, I like Marx's idea of communism and I like Ch

[ATI_7500]

So much for tolerance...

[IcedFoxtrotter]

You don't care for mine, I dont care for your's. Simple as that. Also remember that our parents (Americans) have been taught that there are fewer greater evils than socialism and communism, and they have ingraned us, their childeren, of that too. We also went to several major wars in the name of deafeating these regimes, so from my country's standpoint, communism/socialism=very, very *bad*. I'm sure as the recipient of one of these wars you have the same views of Capatalism.

Our country is founded on values to the opposite of yours so of course we are at odds......

Either way this is going downhill fast, so:

[RichieB16]

OK, well I figure that this thread will probably be locked up very soon-but I think I should say what I think about communism.

I feel that communism is the perfect governing system-but it only works for the perfect society (which doesn't exist).  The basic idea behind socialism & communism being that resources are used only where needed, everyone gets what they need, and nobody has extra.  Basically a society where everything is shared and everyone has what they need.  It sounds like the perfect society.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work.  The problem seems to be the fact that our society as a whole it greedy.  We aren't satisfied with only having enough.  Therefore, a system like this doesn't work.  This is why I feel that these systems begin to become corrupt very fast because of the greed of the leaders.

As far as the Russian and American death tolls in space flight, could make make the arguement they are much higher-both sides lost several during training accidents.  But, no matter whatyou do there is risk in this buisness-and all the acidents that have happened could have been prevented.  Think about it: Apollo 1, Soyuz 1, Soyuz 11, Challenger, Columbia, the 1961 cosmonaut training fire, and all the astronauts/cosmonauts killed in plane crashes-those were all deaths thsat could have been prevented because they happened due to mechanical failures.  I don't think that it is fair to call the shuttle accidents preventalble without saying that same about all the other space accidents: American and Russian.  Like I said before it is a risky buisness and some people will lose their lives as a result.

So, as I see it there is only 2 ways to solve these problems.  One is to completely abonden space exploration because it is too dangerous.  Or the other is to try and learn from our mistakes and continue to explorer knowning the risk.  Personally I'd prefer to continue.  

[IcedFoxtrotter]

OK, well I figure that this thread will probably be locked up very soon

Yup, this realy isn't what I had intended for this topic to be about.
Sorry.

Your views on why it doesn't work are the same as mine, and the reason why I was so pissed at him.....

[quote]So, as I see it there is only 2 ways to solve these problems.

[Hagar]

Yup, this realy isn't what I had intended for this topic to be about.

I've been following this thread with interest although I have to admit biting my tongue a few times. I must say it's difficult to know what you expected it to be about.

Brilliant. Small wonder we don't have more dead astronauts.  

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/index.ssf? ... 200770.xml

25 freaking years.

Leaving politics & national pride out of this it seems to me that this is a perfectly ordinary case of poor maintenance. This is from the article in your link.

The agency has discovered that some gears in the shuttle's rudder speed brake, which slows and guides the orbiter, were installed backward when the shuttles were built.

If one of the improperly installed gears had been subjected to stress, it could have malfunctioned and caused a catastrophic crash.

The fact that such a mistake could go undetected for 25 years is shocking. Shuttle program manager Bill Parsons has started an investigation into why the speed brake gears were never inspected, and that is a crucial question.

A conventional airbrake is hardly rocket science no matter how complex the aircraft. I find it hard to believe that the same component would be installed on any aircraft with the same fault it had when it was built 25 years ago.

I found these articles which might explain why this sort of thing happens.
http://www.charleston.net/stories/022403/wor_24shuttle.shtml
http://www.cincypost.com/2003/02/02/warnings02-02-2003.html

In the end it all comes down to cutbacks & false economy. This is not uncommon with any government project.

[IcedFoxtrotter]

I tried to bite my tounge too, and wasn't too sucsessful at it.....

[RichieB16]

I was reading the artices that Hagar posted links too and I came accross a statement that I had never heard before and bothered me.  It said:

While nobody is sure what caused Columbia's destruction this month, between 1996 and 1999 the orbiter had at least five "escapes," a NASA term for a mission that flew with a problem that only "luck or providence" prevented from causing serious damage. On another launch, a worker made what NASA calls a "diving catch," meaning his diligence caught a flaw routine checks had missed.

I looked a little into this to find that Columbia only made 8 spaceflights in that period.  This article makes it seem that the shuttle wasn't held to the same standards as the rest of the fleet because it was the oldest and as a result "not as much should be expected."  What bothers me about this whole this is this atitude that NASA tends to have when safety has been good for a long period of time.  What should have happened since Columbia was having these problems is it should have been grounded and changes made.  Unfortunately, thats didn't happen.

could you give me the accident rate of the Soyuzs ? (From 1967 on...) I think it'll be a tad better than the one from the Shuttles...

There have been 87 manned Soyuz launches [including Soyuz (1967-1981), Soyuz T (1980-1986), Soyuz TM (1987-2002), and Soyuz TMA (2002-)] with 2 fatal accidents.

There have been 113 manned space shuttle launches with 2 fatal accidents.  So, the fatal accident ratio is:
Soyuz: 1:43.5
Shuttle: 1:56.5

That shows that the shuttle has had a safier accident record.  Of course those were fatal accidents and not just accidents.  Both the shuttles and the Soyuz's have had a few near misses.

[Hagar]

This is what I find most disturbing.

For more than a decade, as inspectors tried to keep Columbia on schedule, they granted waivers from required maintenance, 350 pages worth. Since Columbia was the oldest orbiter in the fleet, NASA also relaxed maintenance standards, an acknowledgment that an old machine cannot perform as well as a newer one.

In the civil world, maintenance waivers are generally temporary & granted to allow specified commitments to be met. They are expected to be complied with in a given period of time, certainly during the next regular maintenance check. Relaxing standards due to the age of an aircraft is the exact opposite of what I would expect.

[Craig.]

the sad fact, is NASA and the russians space officials, would rather risk the lifes of the astronauts than cost themselves millions in cancelling or delaying a mission, if its a small problem that is.