Did the nation invest a hundred billion dollars in Colorado Springs? What will the effect be on foreign policy if it burns? Shouldn’t safety be the highest priority for our firefighters? Don’t their lives have infinite value? Why are we risking their lives in fighting this fire?
Finally, which would you rather do, and feel it more worth the fight in terms of your risk of life? Fight this fire, or ride a Dragon to the space station without a launch abort system?
Just asking.
If we added two stage Martin Baker ejections seats to fire trucks, with a range of perhaps 3 to 5 miles, I think we could have an emergency escape system to protect the lives of the firefighters. I think there wre some old applicable design studies done on ejection systems that incorporated an extended glide or cruise phase so that ejected pilots could maneuver out of hostile areas. I’m not sure how to address the risk of the descent parachute getting snagged in a tree, which is a signicant concern because almost all forest fires take place in a forest (by definition), and getting hung up in a tree in a forest fire is not an acceptable outcome.
Anyway, I’m waiting for Obama to blame the extensive losses on Bush’s housing bubble and lack of appropriate regulatory oversight of the mortage market, along with insufficient EPA and US Forest Service review of private construction permits, plus cuts to public sector firefighters.
George, that’s just a silly idea.
You know how many men are on the ground? What we clearly need is personal jetpacks for firefighters, so they can fly out of dangerous places, just like in The Rocketeer.
Now you’re being silly Titus. Clearly what each firefighter needs is enough explosives to create a huge crater. Then they cover themselves with dirt and let the fire burn over them.
Oh, snap! Why didn’t I think of that?
“Oh snap!’, ?
That’s not seriously coming back is it?
…like a G6.
Stuart Roosa gave up smoke jumping to become an Apollo astronaut,
That’s the closest data point I have.
There is an abundance of individuals who would both volunteer and qualify for both missions. Some of them might ask to see some sims for the 5 mile ejection system, but I’m guessing they’d be flexible.
Um, given that it’s the home of Air Force Space Command, I think the implications of Colorado Springs burning are pretty serious.
OK, so saving CSprings is more important than saving ISS, so we don’t assign an infinite value to a firefighter’s life to save it? Or what?
I wonder if Peterson AFB will be like San Diego in 2007. The fire raged forward down the canyon until it reach MCAS Miramar where the U.S. Marines, not being handicapped by the state of California fire fighting rules, stopped it cold.
1. The ISS isn’t important. Proof: Griffin said so.
2. Proliferation isn’t important. Proof: the constant stream of waivers given to NASA and others.
3. Astronauts are national treasure. Proof: their job is to inspire school children to take up studies that make them more valuable to national security, not actually fly in space.
Conclusion: NASA will never do anything of significance in space (and no, exploring other planets with robots is not significant and shouldn’t be done by a government agency anyway.. privatize it, like Mars Phoenix but better).
Recommendation: Start calling for reductions in NASA’s budget. I recommend “to promote the fullest commercial use of space” as their entire mandate. Remove all that other outdated crap from the space act, it’s not the 1960s anymore.
Recommendation: Start calling for reductions in NASA’s budget. I recommend “to promote the fullest commercial use of space” as their entire mandate. Remove all that other outdated crap from the space act, it’s not the 1960s anymore.
I’m inclined to agree.
Start calling for reductions in NASA’s budget.
Yes, agreed. At least until it gets radically reformed into something else, but then you might as well call it DARPA, NSF or NACA
Trent,
I agree. But I would go further and implement G. Harry Stine’s proposal from 1982 (“Kill NASA Now!”) and closed NASA down completely transferring the money allocated for NASA into a Tax Credit for private firms exploring and developing space. A $19 billion dollar tax credit would energize undo a lot of the damage NASA has done to space commercialization over the last four decades.
Unfortunately the space advocate groups didn’t support it then and probably won’t support it now as they are too focused on letting NASA pick the winners and losers of New Space. After all, if NASA was ever eliminated and replaced with an annual tax credit they would no longer have any reason to hold conferences, beg money or even exist 🙂
Oh come on… flying in a Dragon that lacks a launch abort system would be every bit as crazy as flying in a Shuttle that lacks a launch abort system.
Inconceivable!!! How could anyone ever suggest such a preposterous thing?
/snark.
Okay, seriously, why is this even an issue? I’m thinking that I’d rather be in a no-abort-sys dragon that couldn’t reach orbit than a shuttle in similar straits. For example suppose a Falcon 9 has multiple engine failures; even an abortless Dragon could probably seperate from a non-propulsive Falcon 9 in flight, and have a chance of surviving. A capsule, by its nature, is more robust than shuttle was.
However, you then have the issue of a sudden catastrophic failure, such as a stage exploding. I think in that case your chances of survival with or without the abort system are about the same.
And lastly, has NASA ever given a reason why they require a launch abort system for a capsule, but never had one on Shuttle?
Sure: because they want it!
No really, that’s the reason. “We want to do better than Shuttle for safety”.
The simple fact is that there’s a US vehicle, available right now, which can take astronauts to the ISS and NASA is choosing to buy Russian instead. There’s no doubt it can do the job, but the Russian ride is “safer”, so it is preferable.
I’ll be honest, I’d like to at least one more successful unmanned flight, but then if somebody offered me a ride, I’d jump at it. Hell, I’d go on the next one, I’d just prefer to see another flight first.
I’ve flown home-built/experimental aircraft before, and that’s not without risks, so yeah, if they want a guinea pig, I’d happily volunteer.
On the flip side, I can understand the desire for a launch abort system, but in a rational world they’d react to the Russian monopoly by offering SpaceX a performance-based contract to get the abort system ready faster.
The problem with the Russian monopoly IMHO isn’t just cost, it’s the political leverage it gives them.
I’m in the seat right next to you CJ. I’d go today.
(I’m actually holding out for Mars. I’m still hoping they’ll need over 55, technically savvy, fat guys for the trip)
A capsule, by it’s nature, is more robust than the shuttle was.
False. If you look at the accident rate for capsules, there’s no signicant difference.
(The number of fatalities is much smaller because the number of flights and crew members was smaller.)
Edward,
I remember you trying to use that argument 10 years ago, before the Columbia Accident. Have you updated you stats? If so care to share them? Especially as the last capsule death was decades ago when the Soyuz was first being tested.
Of course perhaps we can take away all that expensive safety equipment from the firefighters, using the logic herein, and use the savings to put more people on the line. A few deaths that would result would not be that important, again following the logic.
Gee, Mark, if you weren’t completely technologically illiterate and innumerate, we might take this comment seriously.
Or we could go the other way. Wouldn’t the firefighter be safer if they were all wearing ten million dollar space suits?
And that is the logic we follow! Having lots of people on the line with lightweight equipment is more effective than having only a handful of people burdened by cumbersome gear. Bring boots, canteens, Nomex shirt, pants, and jacket, a helmet, and a pulaski, shovel, or rake. Oh, and don’t forget a bandana.
The real safety gear is a plan, a brain, and a radio.
We take for granted that Firefighters will be willing to risk their lives for someone else. You can see the fire, you can feel its effects and the fallout from a disaster such as this (I grew up in Colorado Springs, my children still live there and the heartbreak is unbelievable). Risking you life for national prestige (about all that people think NASA does now) is stupid and pointless. Ask the average person on the street and you will probably get an answer similar to this. Assuming you can find one who really CARES about any sort of space program.
Note: I do not believe this way at all and think we should get back to sending people to space as soon as possible, accepting the risks that come with it. Innovation will come from this and that leads to bigger, better and safer things (profit included). If you need volunteers, sign me up.
The fact that NASA has no answer to “why the hell are you still flying astronauts? It’s not the 1960s anymore!” is not a good reason to pretend they do and spend billions to protect the astronaut core like they’re some kind of national treasure.
And for the record, I think people want to see astronauts flying, they just want to understand why.
The FAA puts a dollar value on human life, of about 6 million. That’s their guideline in determining if a safety measure is worth it. It’s a reasonable guideline that strikes a balance between cost and safety, because going too far in either direction is counterproductive. (taken to extremes, you’d have airfares so high no one could afford to fly if every possible safety step was taken, or insanely cheap flights with maybe a 70% survival rate if it went the other way and cost was the only criteria.)
So, why not apply the same standard to space flight as we do to commercial aviation? Spending a billion for a slight increase in safety that would, statistically, save one person per decade makes no sense, but spending $100 for the same result certainly does. So, how to put a price tag on safety? The cost-value approach the FAA uses looks to me to be well-tailored to space flight risk/value assessment.
why not apply the same standard to space flight as we do to commercial aviation?
Because we don’t have a database of millions of flights, as we do for commercial aviation. The total number of space flights doesn’t even approach the number of airplane flights prior to World War I.
The FAA is also a bloated corpse that serves no useful function (aka, a government agency). It’s just not as obvious as NASA because people can at least think of something useful that the FAA might actually do – but, most of the time, they don’t actually do whatever that is, of course.
All I know is the FAA and Boeing are pretty incestuous in Seattle.
Heck, Trent, the FAA is a model of efficiency and reasonableness compared to our CASA in Australia( Civil Aviation Safety Authority) – neither civil not interested in aviation except for preventing it. aka Cretins Against Sane Aviation.
If there were sanity, many would be following different paths. For example, Musk said he would not fly humans without a LAS even though he could. That should not prevent another company from licensing the Dragon without a LAS and flying it. Why we allow the government to come in and say “you can” but “you can’t” is the real insanity.
I’ve got a scar on my chin from when I was a kid rolling down the hill on my lawnmower wheeled cart I made and fell off of. Should the government have protected me? Shouldn’t we create another billion dollar budget government office to protect lawnmower wheeled cart accidents?
Why don’t we put all little boys in a padded room until they’re (what is the government approved age again, oh yeah, 26.)
Informed consent means we choose, not the government. Liability still exists with or without government regulations.