|
|
In the 60's, for whatever reason, there was a willingness to accept risk in the space program, probably because of the competition with the USSR. In effect, the risk of letting the USSR "get ahead" - signifying loss of military and geopolitical influence - was judged to be a greater risk than the possibility that some people might get blown up. (And let's not forget that some did, and others almost did).
Today the culture has shifted so that risk is less tolerated, and the external motivator is gone. The risk aversion is not only a government phenomenon, but has infiltrated all levels of society - probably because of sensationalized media coverage, everybody is constantly worried about safety, even though almost everything is far, far safer than it has been at any time ever in history. But it's especially bad in government, which, generally speaking, would rather sacrifice actual safety in favor of covering their ass.
As an example, it's almost impossible to get a new aircraft certified, so most progress is made in homebuilt aircraft, even though certified aircraft are far safer generally speaking. The relatively few available certified aircraft are either 50 year old designs, cost 5-10 times as much (adjusted for inflation) as new aircraft did in the 50s and 60s, or both - and they all still perform worse than the homebuilts. But somebody has to stick their neck out to approve something, and that's hard to get - even though the overall safety of general aviation is reduced as a result.
The space program is just as bad. The Columbia accident, essentially, was caused by the government's tendency to assume that if something has been done before, it must be OK, and if something has changed, that's terrible - even if the change is for the better. Again it's all about covering their ass. If something has been done before, nobody can point the finger - even if everybody knows that something is unsafe. Everybody always knew that foam fell off the shuttle tank, but since it has been flown that way before, it must have been OK - even though everyone knew that falling foam was a hazard ever since the very first orbital shuttle flight was hit by foam in 1981.
In software, this sort of thing is called "cargo cult" thinking, and it's considered a great shame and embarrassment if you get caught doing it. In aerospace, it's not only business as usual, but to do otherwise is discouraged and comes at great personal career and even legal risk. Unsurprisingly, in the past 40 years, since all this took root, computing has made enormous progress and aerospace has made essentially none - except to the extent that computer technology has enabled things like GPS and glass cockpits. (The exception being the improvement in the efficiency of jet engines).
So if you want to look at the root of why there's no "safety culture" in NASA, it's because the safety everyone is worried about is that of their own career, via avoidance of blame. Attempts to improve this have mostly centered around creating more blame, or creating extra redundancy where failures are unlikely anyway. Nobody wants to try to improve a part that's actually dangerous, because they might get blamed if something goes wrong. Unsurprisingly, it doesn't help much.
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Bryan Winberry <bryanwinberry@bellsouth.net> wrote:
William,
Nice read, but one question:
Why can’t a government sponsored
program work?
As you yourself said, it seemed to with
Apollo.
Bryan
From: Rotary motors in
aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On
Behalf Of William Wilson
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 2:04
PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Off
Subject
For the last two decades
or so, the shuttle has existed mostly as a way to deliver things to the ISS,
and the ISS has existed mostly as a place for the shuttle to fly to.
While the Hubble repairs were a great accomplishment, it probably would have
been cheaper to just build an entirely new telescope and send it up on some
sort of unmanned rocket whenever the original one wore out.
This is not to say that I think manned spaceflight is a bad idea - but the
reality is that there is really nothing to do in Earth orbit, and that is the
only place the manned space program has been able to go for decades.
Manned spaceflight needs to be focused on setting up a permanent settlement on
Mars, the only worthwhile goal for manned spaceflight in the foreseeable
future. And for the cost and casualties of the shuttle program over its
lifetime, with the knowledge and technology base that existed right after
Apollo, that probably could have been accomplished. (Much of the Apollo
know-how has been lost due to simple retirement and/or death of so many people
that worked on it, and in the much more risk-averse environment of today
compared to the 60's, this knowledge probably cannot be recovered, at least not
by a government-sponsored program).
I think a lot of the disappointment over the retirement of the shuttle has to
do with a sense of the US
losing its place of leadership, or even going backwards in capability. To
some degree that is a concern, but to an even greater degree, the shuttle has
become a case of throwing good money after bad. We can't go forward and
bring the shuttle with us.
I grew up dreaming of space travel but I'm even more driven by reality.
If you understand the goal of the space shuttle, you are forced to
acknowledge that it was a monumental failure. It was touted to be a low
cost space transportation system but on a cost per pound delivered to orbit, it
was by far the most expensive system ever built. The throwaway Saturn 5
rocket was far cheaper and more reliable to boot. The Lowest cost for a
shuttle mission was about 500 million not including mission payload costs.
The Russians charge us 125 million per space station resupply missions
including all payload costs.
And don't get me started on the "international space station "
itself. It has no commercial sponsors as originally intended because it
has no commercial use and darn little scientific use. And the US pays very
near 100% of the costs.
The only worthwhile accomplishment of the shuttle was the launch and
repair of the Hubble telescope. It replacement (the much larger and
powerful James Webb telescope) will be launched by the French Ariane 5 rocket.
THAT sorry state of affairs is the fault of the shuttle program which
ate up all development funds that could have gone to something worthwhile.
Makes me feel a little sick.
Sent from my iPad
Russia Says End Of Shuttle Program Ushers In The 'Era Of Soyuz' Points To
'Reliability' Of Its Spacecraft In A Post-Shuttle
World
Russia says the end of the U.S. Space Shuttle program marks the
beginning of the "Era Of Soyuz" for transportation to the
International Space Station.
"From today, the era of the Soyuz has started in manned space
flight, the era of reliability," the Russian space agency Roscosmos
said in a statement.
The French news service AFP reports that the Soyuz design has
changed little since Yuri Gagarin first climbed aboard one to
become the first man in orbit. But the Russian space agency says
they have continuously improved the spacecraft, and the fact that
it is still flying as the shuttle program ends is a testament to
the "reliability and not to mention cost efficiency" of the older
design.
In a nod to the U.S. Space program, the statement said "Mankind
acknowledges the role of American space ships in exploring the
cosmos."
But Russia
is clearly basking in the fact that it now has the
only vehicle capable of transporting humans to the ISS and back
likely until 2016 at the earliest.
FMI: www.roscosmos.ru/main.php
Kelly
Troyer
"DYKE DELTA
JD2" (Eventually)
"13B
ROTARY"_ Engine
"RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2
"MISTRAL"_Backplate/Oil Manifold
"TURBONETICS"_TO4E50
Turbo
|
|