posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 09:53 PM
As for the shuttle escape pod thing: $$$$$$$$$$$$, I think thats a good enough explaination, but i'll elaborate. in other words...$$$
I worked in machine shops and tooling is costly!
Adding weight to the shuttle, hmmmm, alternative is do nothing? Nasa could then advertise Cheaper costs with Throw away astronaunts, who sign
contracts exempting Nasa from any law suites.
If we have to take less up would that mean we could bring down a crew that was alive! Safety is the reason Hubble is off limits now, so we now won't
do those things that need to be done. Where was safety when columbia needed another shuttle sent up? Lets spend money on ISS with a crew of 2 (
bottomless pit until more people live there )and let the shuttle fly without any option to eject from ignition to that height the shuttle can land on
an emergency runway.
In that case the shuttle should be retired NOW! Apollo program didn't lack putting a rocket on top of the capsule for protection. So why are we
willing to put another life in harms way because we want to take more weight into space? How can you justify scraping an escape option to one on
nothing? Don't take this personal as this question is one I've been asking Nasa for a very long time.
ATS is a good place to discuss topics so again you made a point I already know is true $$$$$$. But to do nothing is to allow another accident to
happen, and Nasa has a history of being caught knowing about a problem ( Challenger and the blowby ) and doing nothing until an accident happens. I
would rather take less up if it meant we could bring back a crew.