De Ja Vu all over again.
Warning: this is JMHO
According to article in MSNBC, msnbc.com NASA held a review of the photos, and someone produced an analysis that quantified the damage as "maximum 7 by 30 inches" area, and that as such, it would not burn through.
Good God, if this is not a poster case of engineering by politics, there is no such thing.
Anyone with a modicum of engineering background knows you simply cannot make that kind of conclusion with any degree of certainty, given the unknowns. It sounds bounded and sure. It is anything but. The problem is management did not challenge it. They accepted it, because it was the answer they wanted.
This is yet another example of the political engineering analysis that went on prior to the launch of the Challenger, which resulted in "proof" the o-ring seal was fine. Nothing learned. Superficial changes.
Core problem: human politics can overcome any system designed to control it.
Reality check:
The most reliable rocket built is the Russian Proton. It has a failure rate of about 3-5%. That means about 1 in 20 fail. It is bare bones simple compared to the Shuttle. Its reliability and simplicity mean it can launch payloads at much lower costs than the Shuttle. True, it cannot launch 60 year old Senators, school teachers, or foreign scientists; at least not all at once, and certainly not in "glory".
Manned spaceflight is very dangerous, and should only be done when and where there is:
1)Understanding the risk of death is about 1 in 20 flights, give or take,
2)The need for the information gained from human spaceflight exceeds the risk.
At the beginning of manned spaceflight, the politics started. Had to make Astronauts something other than human Guinea Pigs sitting on the top of sticks of Dynamite. Chuck Yaeger knew it was all BS.
Changing the name from Test Pilot to Astronaut does not improve the risks, it makes them seem low.
I say that changing the name back might save a few lives in the future.
Again, JMHO
-Own |
