Safety trade-offs put station at risk

[Doglips]

My local newspaper has probly been one of the bigest supporters of NASA...often sounding like Bagdad Bob when problems happen....however the last few months they have been callign a pig a pig.....like this artical.

My ??? for you all is how do you view NASA...the space program? Is it a waste of $$ or a good thing? Well managed or a joke? In this area its the big employeer so noting is said bad about it...but I figure you all live away from NASA so Im courious. Thanks All.

http://www.floridatoday.com/news/spa...2004/index.htm

Jun 4, 12:52 PM

Safety trade-offs put station at risk

A FLORIDA TODAY review of thousands of NASA safety documents reveals oversights that led to shuttle disasters now plague the outpost

BY JOHN KELLY AND TODD HALVORSON
FLORIDA TODAY

CAPE CANAVERAL -- NASA keeps flying crews on the International Space Station despite more than 800 known flaws and safety violations, some of which could destroy the outpost or kill its occupants.

In a relentless drive to finish building the $100 billion station on time, NASA managers often accepted extra risk to avoid cost increases, prevent assembly delays and keep the outpost staffed, records show. Interactive graphic
Life or death problems on the International Space Station



Those are the same kinds of safety trade-offs investigators blamed for the 1986 explosion of shuttle Challenger and the 2003 burn-up of shuttle Columbia -- disasters that killed 14 astronauts.

Among the problems found in a four-month FLORIDA TODAY investigation:


The station's living quarters and Russian-built Soyuz "lifeboat" craft fail to meet a NASA standard for surviving hits by space junk and micrometeorites. A dime-sized chunk of debris could rip through their hulls, sending astronauts scrambling to abandon ship.

NASA cannot be sure the U.S. segment of the station is bolted together properly because of glitches in a power tool used by astronauts to fasten pieces together. In a worst case, loose or weakened bolts could shatter or come off, slamming into the outpost.

The 57-foot robot crane that hoists huge station segments into place could fail to stop promptly on command. While remote, the possibility of collision raises questions about whether NASA can safely complete construction.

Software bugs infest the computer code that runs the station, threatening to transform usually routine commands from Mission Control into life-or-death crises 225 miles above Earth.
"The ISS is a disaster waiting to happen," a NASA flight controller wrote in an anonymous internal survey reviewed by program managers.


The mounting safety problems and failures on the station increase the chance a crew will evacuate or disaster will destroy the outpost before NASA returns its shuttles to space in March. Another deadly accident could doom NASA's hopes of sending astronauts to the moon and Mars.

But the agency's top managers say the situation is not as bad as it seems. NASA is trying to fix safety weaknesses by applying lessons learned from the Columbia disaster to its station project. Managers said there is only a remote chance of disaster, and they promised to order a crew to return to Earth if the station ever becomes too dangerous.
"You make those determinations on a regular basis, knowing with confidence that if there ever is a problem, you've got two guys who are going to strap into the Soyuz and be home within a matter of four hours," NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said.

The station now can house three people, maximum occupancy for a Soyuz craft.

But bailing out is a last resort for NASA and its 15 international partners. Studies show there is a 50 percent chance of losing the station if it is left unstaffed for a year. Having a crew aboard to handle problems cuts the risk to 6 percent.

Independent safety experts wonder whether pressure to keep the station staffed and to complete construction -- clearing the way for proposed missions to the moon and Mars -- might prompt managers to make poor judgment calls.

"There's got to be a lot of pressure to keep the space station active and manned, to keep the program alive," said Arthur Zygielbaum, a former member of NASA's independent Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel. "The agency really wants to do what it sets out to do, and there may be pressure on space station managers to accept a little more risk than is warranted."

I'm proud of NASA..It's proof of how great a nation the USA really is

[Big Dog]

I too am proud of what the US and NASA have accomplished, and feel we must press on - these are the baby steps we are taking that will eventually give us mastery of the solar system. We need those resources sitting unused out there.
Personally, I'd like to see us get away from the space industry being a government/military proposition. We need to get major corporate involvement. The historic voyages of the sailing ships - Columbus, Magellan and such - those were business ventures primarily. Or they led directly to private business enterprises - they have funding far surpassing the Govenment. We just need to convince them that there is profit to be made "out there".
The safety problems and short deadlines plague all aspects of industry and exploration. This is just a much more high-profile situation.
NASA has been operating on far less funding the last couple decades. That and the short schedules do increase the risk. The astronauts know this - and still they sign on.
I support NASA's mission - I just wish they had more funding and more time to do the job better/safer.

basically space travel is still in it's infancy..mankind surely lost a lot of ships when seafaring was in it's infancy..come to think on it mankind still loses a lot of ships :spaceship

I agree with Big Dog, there are some private space programs which have done very well.
I'm not surprised about the glitches at NASA. Too many ways to shift blame.
There was an amazing NOVA program on the MIR space station fire. Amazing what those guys had to live with. I suppose nothing has changed.

My favorite thing comparing Russian and American space programs is about writing tools. America spent a great deal of time and money trying to make a ballpoint pen that would write in zero gravity. They finally did it after much consternation.
The Russians used a pencil.

[Rufus Rhastus J]

I think nasa could do a lot better. But, they are not too bad! Pinching pennies can sometime return to bite your bottom as witnessed several times. Remeber the confusion with the metric/SAE measure? The Boss's head should have rolled...but, you know what happened.

[Doglips]

I think NASA has potental...but has lost its way so to speek....it seems lost....no real focas that people can get behind and feel good about. Like the moon landings...people could cheer...but its become boreing....not easy to see results....no WOW factor.
I also see a lot of waste....mainly due to polatics and this part built in this state..that part in another state....
I would like to see a focased effort to achive a set goal....something with some WOW too it.....but thats just me.

DL it sounds like too many bosses and not enough employees if you ask me