All This Science, I Don't Understand

Question for you car owners out there: how frequently would you drive if there was a 1% likelihood that you would be killed in a car accident? Personally, I'd limit it to absolute life-or-death emergencies. Still might be inclined to drive? Well, now assume the model of car that you drive has a 40% chance of blowing up while performing its most routine procedures. Actually scratch that 40% - it could be as high as a 50% chance, given that the silly car company who makes your fine automobile actually decided to increase production when 25% of its outstanding models had blown up in action. At which point, another 25% of its remaining vehicles on the road blew up. Still think it's worthwhile to drive?

Of course not. But then, you, Dear AofG Reader, are a rational entity and NASA, in all of its glorified porkiness and obedience to corporate America, ain't. Which is why, even with a very real and publically acknowledged possiblity of having yet another catastrophic disaster on its hands, NASA officials are moving ahead with the launch of the Discovery shuttle, consequences be damned!

The Space Shuttle program is all well and good for 10 year old science students to gawk at, but when it comes down to brass tacks, it's a colossal waste of money, given the very slight value the program has added in its 25+ years of use. I was and am as pro-science as they come, but my thoughts on the Shuttle were forever changed, first by this prescient article, written in 1980 by Gregg Easterbrook and by his follow-up to the Columbia disaster in 2003, reprinted here. We don't need to waste any more money or lives on this failure.

Now, for some positive thoughts on space travel, I give you William Shatner and Stewie Griffin.

Comments

[puddy]

Aliens, baby. Aliens.

[Nordy]

Why do hate Tang and room temperature ice cream?

[Babu]

You would be surprised how much technology has come out of the space program that applies not only to products and techniques in use in scientific research but also in every day life .

[M. Butler]

Because the mile high club has too many members.

[Shoes]

Last I knew, those who fly the shuttle are not forced into servie. These are individuals who love adventure, danger, etc. If the shuttle was as safe as driving to the store, who would want to go??? Life without adventure/risk is no life at all.

[Scottie]

Best blog entry I've see in ages.

Perfect title, too.

[membengal]

Whole day made (salvaged even) by the link to the Stewie "Rocket Man" dealie...funnier and funnier every time I see it.

And, shouldn't we be past a point where we are mopping our brows when a shuttle gets off safely?

[encyclopedia]

I think you have to at least consider the total number of flights against the total number of mishaps before you calculate the "chances" of another explosion. Plus, presumably NASA can learn from their mistakes to reduce the chances of disaster in the future. That being said, I think shuttle flights are a waste of time and money.

[Frank]

"I think you have to at least consider the total number of flights against the total number of mishaps before you calculate the "chances" of another explosion.

Fair point. 113 missions (including the current one), 2 explosions. Again, not a mode of transportation I would choose unless it was a life-or-death emergency.

Actually that link is highly enlightening, as far as what shuttle astronauts actually do up in space. Most of the older missions were to for satellite deployment, a procedure easily and frequently accomplished with one-time, unmanned rockets. Most of the recent missions have been to build and service the International Space Station. Launching and maintenance of the Hubble telescope are among the few missions undertaken that have some semblance of scientific value.