It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA weighing risk of adding crew to megarocket's first flight-Trump wants crew around the moon 2018

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Will NASA do it? I think that there is a lot of pressure behind the scenes and NASA is feeling Trump's gaze as they decide on how to meet a moon landing in 2020. This is what Trump has asked for.

Nasa is weighing the risks of putting astronauts on the first flight of the mega rocket designed to take crews to mars.


NASA is weighing the risk of adding astronauts to the first flight of its new megarocket, designed to eventually send crews to Mars.

The space agency's human exploration chief said Friday that his boss and the Trump administration asked for the feasibility study. The objective is to see what it would take to speed up a manned mission; under the current plan, astronauts wouldn't climb aboard until 2021— at best.

phys.org...

An independent safety panel cautioned Nasa that it needs a compelling need to put men on the rocket. We will see in a month what Nasa is going to do.


On Thursday, an independent safety panel cautioned that NASA needs a compelling reason to put astronauts on the initial flight, given the risk. The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel was formed in the wake of the Apollo 1 fire that killed three astronauts in a countdown test 50 years ago last month.
NASA expects to issue its report in about a month.


Trump wants the Orion mission to take a crew around the moon, and this is next year!


NASA says Donald Trump's request to send astronauts around the moon on the first test of its Orion capsule is 'within the realms of possibility' but warns 'data will drive any decision'
The first Orion mission was originally planned to be uncrewed, and was expected to launch in 2018
Manned mission was set for launch from NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida as early as 2021
Will include up to four astronauts and be the first time humans have left low orbit since 1972

www.dailymail.co.uk...
edit on 24-2-2017 by seasonal because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Problem is NASA and the public is so risk averse that they quake at the thought of sending anyone up because something MIGHT happen. There are any number of people who are willing to accept that risk, but if Aunt Lulu in Hoboken is still scared of the thought NASA will have to weigh her opinion very carefully, call in the ethicists, and consult the DNC to see if it's okay with them.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   
I'm just wondering if Trump believes the moon landings were fake, and his pressure on NASA is about showing we can't make it to the moon. Or maybe he believes we are being sandbagged, and this pressure is his way of trying bring the truth to light. Either way, this is great to see from Trump, space travel was not something I expected him to be pushing, but I'm glad he is.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

Yes, this is incredibly dangerous. I would imagine they have a list of people willing a mile long.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

It's never a good idea to put a live crew on the first flight of an unproven launch vehicle. We got away with it in 1981, on the Space Shuttle, by pure luck. This sort of pressure to launch the SLS/Orion with an astronaut crew is not good. About every 15 to 20 years, NASA succumbs to "launch fever" instead of paying attention to safety. The result is the loss of a spacecraft and crew.

The Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia tragedies all had different proximal causes, but the root cause of each was essentially the same. After the Columbia accident in 2003, I predicted that the next fatal mishap for NASA would likely happen around 2017-2020. Sadly, it now looks like we are headed in that direction.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TruMcCarthy

Yes, and by pushing he is publicly calling this agency out. It does seem that NASA drags it's feet. And this is easy for me to say, I am no rocket scientist.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Shadowhawk

I hope you are wrong.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shadowhawk
a reply to: seasonal

This sort of pressure to launch the SLS/Orion with an astronaut crew is not good. About every 15 to 20 years, NASA succumbs to "launch fever" instead of paying attention to safety. The result is the loss of a spacecraft and crew.


EXACTLY what I'm talking about! If Queen Isabelle and Columbus had succumbed to this Nervous Nellie hand-wringing he would never have sailed. This attitude simply sucks road apples.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shadowhawk
a reply to: seasonal

It's never a good idea to put a live crew on the first flight of an unproven launch vehicle. We got away with it in 1981, on the Space Shuttle, by pure luck. This sort of pressure to launch the SLS/Orion with an astronaut crew is not good. About every 15 to 20 years, NASA succumbs to "launch fever" instead of paying attention to safety. The result is the loss of a spacecraft and crew.

The Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia tragedies all had different proximal causes, but the root cause of each was essentially the same. After the Columbia accident in 2003, I predicted that the next fatal mishap for NASA would likely happen around 2017-2020. Sadly, it now looks like we are headed in that direction.



the only part I disagree with is "The result is the loss of a spacecraft and crew.". The only result is the loss of crew, the loss of the shuttle was inevitable with or without them. Otherwise, I just don't agree that we shouldn't take the risk of human lives if those humans want to risk them.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Antipathy17

It can fail at any time. Of course there are going to be bug that need to be worked out. I am torn, I would like to see them get moving, we only hear things are coming in 5-7 years.

Trump seems to push and maybe it will be good? I hope.



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 01:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shadowhawk
a reply to: seasonal

It's never a good idea to put a live crew on the first flight of an unproven launch vehicle. We got away with it in 1981, on the Space Shuttle, by pure luck. This sort of pressure to launch the SLS/Orion with an astronaut crew is not good. About every 15 to 20 years, NASA succumbs to "launch fever" instead of paying attention to safety. The result is the loss of a spacecraft and crew.

The Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia tragedies all had different proximal causes, but the root cause of each was essentially the same. After the Columbia accident in 2003, I predicted that the next fatal mishap for NASA would likely happen around 2017-2020. Sadly, it now looks like we are headed in that direction.


Weren't there also about a dozen successful missions in that time frame?

Nasa has no bottom line. Spacex made a reusable self landing stage one rocket with a company to run.

Worried about loss of life? Send suicidlal teens. No shortage of those.
Of course, that would do well to highlight the value of life- not everyone is worth their weight when it comes to sending people into space. Most of the population isn't economically viable in this sense, and nasa doesn't want to point that out because SJWs would have a fit.



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 03:46 AM
link   
I agree with the sentement that they are to scared...
And i think that truthful and honest contracts could
do the thing..

Suicidal teens, sure why not...If you actually WANT to
blow the rocket up..

Or you could ask for ppl that WANT to take the risk,
and actually understand that they might die... OR,
become "heroes"...

1st Critera: You cant have ANYONE that you would be
leaving behind should you perish...



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Good!

NASA needs to stop being a bunch of cowardly health and safety obcessed beurocrats.
Let the real men make the plans!



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Antipathy17

My point is that NASA could fall into the same trap that resulted in the loss of multiple vehicles and crews. The Challenger (STS-51L) and Columbia (STS-107) mishaps were ultimately preventable. Engineers knew about the dangers of O-ring burn-through and foam strikes because this things had been happening for some time. They spoke up, but because there had not yet been a catastrophic result, managers allowed these situations to persist instead of fixing them. This is called "normalization of deviance."

Investigators compared the root causes of STS-51L and STS-107, and concluded that, "The obstacles these engineers faced were political and organizational...NASA had conflicting goals of cost, schedule, and safety...Safety lost out as the mandates of an 'operational system' increased the schedule pressure."

There is a reason that the first flight of the SLS was not originally scheduled to carry a crew. They should stick to the plan.



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 12:26 PM
link   
NASA was already planning to have Orion take a crew around the Moon before Trump took office.



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Junkheap

But it was in 2021, I think. Not 2018.

Trump is pushing the organization like it hasn't been in decades.



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   
# it. Go and do it. Take risks. Who cares if a few people die? There are tons of willing volunteers ready to risk their lives.

Playing it safe with robots we can't even send a man into orbit. Pathetic.

Let's take all the risk possible and get to the #ing stars already.



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
Problem is NASA and the public is so risk averse that they quake at the thought of sending anyone up because something MIGHT happen. There are any number of people who are willing to accept that risk, but if Aunt Lulu in Hoboken is still scared of the thought NASA will have to weigh her opinion very carefully, call in the ethicists, and consult the DNC to see if it's okay with them.


If NASA was putting people at risk and getting astronauts killed with the understanding that were doing it to get to the stars at breakneck speed, the public would be enamored with it. It'd give us something to respect and support.

It's the pussy nerds in charge of NASA who are cowards, responsible for the death of space travel, sending hordes of robots that no one cares about.



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Exactly. If we want to get anywhere fast, a lot of astronauts are going to have to die. Accept that and roll with it, and get off this planet.

If NASA were in charge of exploring the oceans, we'd be sending unmanned boats to see what's out there and not even be able to send men to sea, let alone actually getting anywhere.


EXACTLY what I'm talking about! If Queen Isabelle and Columbus had succumbed to this Nervous Nellie hand-wringing he would never have sailed. This attitude simply sucks road apples.

edit on 2/25/17 by RedDragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Junkheap
NASA was already planning to have Orion take a crew around the Moon before Trump took office.


Baloney. There'd be all kinds of delays,safety concerns, and other bull#.

They were more capable 50 years ago! What other technology sector has actually not even advanced but actually declined?? That's unbelievable.

NASA can't even send a man into space. You think the losers in charge were really gonna send men to orbit the moon or to Mars? Rofl
edit on 2/25/17 by RedDragon because: (no reason given)







 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join