Quote: Star Ranger4 wrote:Your definition of 'acceptable risk' is not what the powers-that-be use, and frankly, I'm in agreement with them.
And Logan... 2 seven man crews out of how many flights again? Seems to me we're still in the level of acceptable risk here. And most engine failures
occur with liquid fuels, not Solids.
How do you define acceptable risk? In general terms, it boils down to a risk-reward ratio. Simple in theory, moderately complex in practice especially when
you're talking about people's lives.
Simple math with will tell you that the shuttle is not cost-effective to operate (especially if you can't recoup the investment over multiple launches
since it's blown up), which is a negative in the 'reward' column.
Simple observation will tell you that most satellite launches (supposedly one of the shuttle's main purposes) are carried out by other means, which implies
that the shuttle is not necessary for, or cost-effective for, the majority of satellite launches. Another negative.
The shuttle is not capable of having its range extended. They call it the orbiter for a reason. Small negative, granted, but in theory you can stack
extenders on rockets until the cows come home, giving them the advantage here.
On the plus side, the shuttle can retrieve satellites and other spaceborne objects and bring them down safely. Which is good and all, but how often do we do
that? (Never mind how often we should, I'm asking how often we do.)
Repair trips to Hubble or other space facilities? There's no reason a capsule can't do that just as well. The only place the shuttle shines is as a
logistics route to a space station... and that could be done by cheaper reusable capsules as well.
So, where's the reward?
Then we have the risk side of things. Even if we don't count the human lives involved, or the social impact of seeing our fucking heroes splattered across
the sky (for my generation, at least, and judging by my son, his too), or the psychological impact of watching a beloved symbol vanish in a fireball,
you've still got a helluva lot of material risk going on here. The shuttle system is overly complex, and as anyone who's paid attention knows, more
complex means more chances to fail. Just because the shuttles have had a long and mostly successful service history does NOT mean they're reliable. Ask
the NASA folks sometime how many man-hours go into prepping a shuttle for launch, and then ask them how many go into prepping a rocket assembly.
The shuttle is a beautiful albatross, weighing us down even as we admire its sleek lines. It's not what we need, it never was, and while I love the bitch
to death, I don't want to see any more of my childhood dreams die due to simple fucking mistakes that would have been easier to avoid if the damn thing was
less complex and touchy. Which rockets are.
--sofaspud
--"Listening to your kid is the audio equivalent of a Salvador Dali painting, Spud." --OpMegs