Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight
As for the time after an accident, it's a cumulative thing that probably can't be reversed. With each accident comes new safety measures and more complexity. And with more complexity comes more need for investigation and careful planning to implement even newer safety measures. At this point, the shuttles are right at the envelope. Every tiny bit of extra weight, extra expense, or change in shape needs to be scrutinized for its effect on the whole package. You can't just slap a quick fix on. Not so much because the quick fix won't solve the problem, but because the quick fix won't fit into the exacting specifications. Extra equipment means extra fuel. How much extra fuel, and can the tank hold it? And when does it become cost prohibitive? And does it require reconfiguring the launch tower? Etc., etc., etc. It's the unfortunate side effect of the complexity of the machine, not so much fear.
|
To an extent you're right. But the shuttle accident 2.5 years ago DID lead to fears about the safety of the entire shuttle and space program, leading to an entire overhaul of the safety and systems of checks within NASA. It didn't take 2.5 years to solve the problem of insulation falling off the booster and hitting the heat shield tiles
I think the entire shuttle program has been cost prohibitive for quite a while. It's time for something new. And I think the attitude of the country as a whole is such that new things can be too risky, and no one wants to take the heat for an accident. I just find that attitude to be sad and counterproductive. Discovery and exploration are risky and it is impossible to take the risks out. There comes a point at which the attempted elimination of risk becomes counter productive. If the attitude that exists today existed during the Apollo missions, we would not have landed on the moon.