On Sat, 01 Feb 2003 09:51:05 -0800, Adrian Tymes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Either way - and call me a demagogue for this if you want - I really >hope that part of our plan, where we make space flight cheap enough that >one can test launch vehicles to high reliability and properly fix things >if they break or get close to wearing out, can come into effect in time >to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. That will depend, as always, on the people with the money and/or the votes. If we extrapolate from the existing data (Apollo 1967, Challenger 1986, Columbia 2003), we can expect another American crew loss before 2020. That is more than enough time to replace the Shuttle fleet if there is a will to do it, but barely enough time if there is not. A couple more thoughts: the Russian orbital crew transport, Soyuz, has suffered two reentry accidents and two launch accidents since it was introduced in 1967. Both reentry accidents were fatal, but neither launch accident was. The last Russian space fatality was in 1971, when the Soyuz 11 crew asphyxiated while returning from their Salyut mission. This brings back a thought I have frequently: we should separate the crew transport mission from the cargo transport mission. The crew shouldn't fly a huge complex vehicle with all its failure modes, and a trash hauler shouldn't have to be man rated. -R -- Son: Dad, I have a question about women. Suppose I Dagwood: Apologize anyway. Son: Yeah, that's about what I figured Dagwood: It saves time _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
