Currently (always has been I suppose) there’s a lot of complaints about costs, why we have to go to space yadayada, but everything still keeps on going.
In the worst case of an event, if lives were to be lost in space, how do you think exploration would go in this period? would it continue according to the next missions or get scrapped?
This is just a question out of curiosity and I have no wish of anyone getting injured, I am very excited for the journeys ahead, I just wonder what you think?
If they did the NASA would have given up after the challenger disaster
You mean Apollo 1?
They never would have given up after Apollo 1 because it was too important (at least symbolically and as a matter of global prestige) to get to the moon before the Soviets did.
[deleted]
Yeah, I know what it is. I was more interested in why you think Nasa would stop there and not after Apollo 1.
[deleted]
But Apollo 1 was the first fatal accident involving a spacecraft in the pursuit of space exploration, period.
First fatal American accident. Soviets had fatalities before that (and after)
OP said “in space”. You’re arguing a nuanced point no one else is.
Well I mean technically the challenger astronauts died when they hit the ground.
Pretty sure they died when they hit the water, technically speaking
Wouldn’t it be more like they died at the time the spacecraft immediately exploded?
Nope. The crew compartment was separated from the vehicle in the explosion. In the wreckage investigation, it was found that some of their emergency oxygen were used, and the amount of oxygen found missing in those tanks is consistent with the amount of time until the compartment landed.
You can draw your own conclusions from this carefully worded article but it seems pretty clear that at least some of the crew had a bad last couple of minutes.
[removed]
If you want to be that nuanced they died in the atmosphere and/or the ground.
Which is a bad sign because we had already figured out how to be on the ground.
How is on the damn launch pad any different?
The shuttle wasn’t the best launch system. Challenger both was a tragedy and evidence of the issue.
[removed]
[removed]
it would likely kill SLS, though.
If you can't make a human rated rocket for this much in R&D and this much per launch... honestly not sure how you lie to the public even more than they already have.
Why don't you look at the history and see if it answers your question?
Apollo 1: Three astronauts die in a horrific fire incident, during a launch pad test. Senate inquiries and review boards, including non-NASA personnel. Fucks-up are discovered and dealt with. Many systems are re-designed and many more potential safety hazards are uncovered and solved. The program wasn't "stopped", but manned flights were put on hold. In fact, the fire gave NASA time to sort out myriad issues with other flight hardware like boosters and so on. About 5 months after the fire, the next manned mission launched and the program carried on.
Challenger: pretty-much the same thing. A two year and 8 month hiatus from launch. Problems addressed (sorta), things redesigned, replacement orbiter built.
Columbia: pretty-much the same thing, and a flight hiatus of about the same time as Challenger.
So, 17 dead astronauts, programs all continued after inquiry boards, redesigns, and some re-structuring of chains-of-command and so on. Don't know hwy an Artemis tragedy would be any different, other than the program isn't as well established as the shuttle program was at the times of those accidents, and Apollo was its own lightning-in-a-bottle thing. IMO, we won't see anything with all the supporting factors of Apollo until we (a) discover a doomsday object heading for earth, and (b) develop a program to stop it.
meanwhile the soviets would crispy their cosmonauts and just keep launching
“Hmm, maybe if we try again, result will be different comrade”
The space vehicle is shoddily constructed, running dangerously low on fuel; its parachutes — though no one knows this — won't work and the cosmonaut, Vladimir Komarov, is about to, literally, crash full speed into Earth, his body turning molten on impact. As he heads to his doom, U.S. listening posts in Turkey hear him crying in rage, "cursing the people who had put him inside a botched spaceship."
This extraordinarily intimate account of the 1967 death of a Russian cosmonaut appears in a new book, "Starman", by Jamie Doran and Piers Bizony.
"Starman" tells the story of a friendship between two cosmonauts, Vladimir Kamarov and Soviet hero Yuri Gagarin, the first human to reach outer space. The two men were close; they socialized, hunted and drank together.
In 1967, both men were assigned to the same Earth-orbiting mission, and both knew the space capsule was not safe to fly. Komarov told friends he knew he would probably die. But he wouldn't back out because he didn't want Gagarin to die. Gagarin would have been his replacement.
I seem to recall reading that his craft impacted so hard it literally turned him into a puddle of paste. Absolutely horrifying.
[removed]
I agree with your general point, but would note that the pause after Apollo 1 was over eighteen months, not five. The fire took place in January of 1967; the next manned launch was in the autumn (October, I believe) of 1968.
Doh, good catch! I think I shaved a year off!
What would be paused would be SLS / Orion until the problem was identified and fixed. Then the program would continue.
'Exploration' wouldn't stop.
Nah, I mean look at the 2 major Shuttle disasters, they just kept on using the same models for years. And mankind's need for exploration has always cost many lives.
True! They did pause while they investigated the ‘anomalies’ however.
It would probably only serve to motivate everyone involved. The next mission would be dedicated to the dead and the journey continues.
Naw. Space exploration is a worldwide thing. There have been dozens of mission failures (and probably hundreds more that we haven't heard about), and space exploration is still going strong. The space sector has brought many technological advances that help humanity, so it's in a rich country's best interest to maintain their space industry.
The pauses in space exploration after Apollo 1, Challenger, Columbia and Soyuz 1, Soyuz 11 and the Cosmodrome were all relatively brief. We’ve experienced disaster in space travel and to some extent have accepted that it will occur. There are always the naysayers who declare any disaster the occasion to quit.
Likely people declared loudly in 1522 that the loss of Magellan and most of his crew should put a permanent end to sailing ships.
But Magellan didn’t die from a sailing issue. He died because he was an evil, stupid dipshit who thought a few dozen men could face two thousand and win. He fucked around and found out.
Lapulapu's forces being 1500+ is a extremely heavy overexaggeration, the censuses from that century show it would only be a small fraction of that number.
And he wasnt stupid for thinking he could win; a small armored force defeating a large force of indigenous tribes isn't that rare, if anything this should have been an easy victory. Lapulapu was just a better tactician, or more so Magellan was a poor tactician.
It never stopped exploration before. Just learn from what went wrong and move on.
NASA could advertise a Mars mission as very very possibly one way and they’d still have a line around the block to go.
The deaths aboard Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11 didn't end Soviet manned spaceflight.
The Apollo 1 fire didn't stop the Apollo program.
The loss of the Challenger delayed, but didn't stop future Shuttle launches.
The loss of Columbia ultimately led to the end of the Shuttle program, but not for another 8 years during which 22 more missions were flown.
Crewed spaceflight will continue.
The exact scenario happened with the US space shuttles. The program eventually continued ( twice) until the program was retired. Now we’re targeting the moon. The technology will continue to get better but we shouldn’t have illusions we will never have another challenger disaster.
No, we’re in the second space race that I don’t think will end until we’ve established a base on the moon and landed on mars
[removed]
Stopping what they died for would render their sacrifice pointless. It's the exact opposite. When people die for these reasons we put even more effort into it to get it right. That's what we owe them. To not let them die in vain! Not today, not ever!
That's why we went to the Moon in first place, at least so quickly. JFK died serving his country and we just owed him.
No.. the conquest of space is worth the risk of life - Gus Grissom
Have you forgotten Challenger, Columbia, Apollo 1?
nothing is guaranteed except stupidity, so its possible
Dealing with a quick event that kills astronauts is akin to an aircraft accident. We haven’t had to deal with stranded astronauts slowly dying with no way to reach them in time. That becomes more likely the further we venture. But exploration has high costs and always will.
Nope. Can’t stop. If anything, it would drive it further.
[deleted]
[removed]
[deleted]
No it will not stop, but it has always slowed down a lot any time fatalities happened.
[removed]
Look at a history book or wikipedia. Answer is no.
[removed]
Considering the entire crew of Apollo 1 died before they even left the ground...no, it would not stop things.
[removed]
You underestimate humanity if you think the deaths of explorers will stop the exploration. Then again your OP comments include the ever so common misunderstanding that “space is so expensive and has nothing of value to offer”. Ought to look into what our space program did to boost our economy in the 30-40 years after we reached the Moon. It was hugely expensive but it turns out applied research into many broad reaching fields pays off long term. That’s what space exploration is, applied research. Which, so far, pays off more than it costs.
[removed]
You're almost certainly too young, but right at the start of manned U.S. flights into space, NASA warned Americans that space flight was inherently very risk and said American deaths were inevitable. The Apollo 1 disaster caused a long delay but never an end, Same after the two Space Shuttle disasters. The program was paused both times as NASA investigated what went wrong and fixed it (though some engineers and scientists warned NASA beforehand of both reasons for disasters - launching too cold weather for Challenger, and for the second, some in NASA had seen foam breaking off from rocket and hitting underside of Shuttle. Top engineers said the falling pieces were too small to damage the Shuttle, but then huge pieces fell ohh and hit underside of Columbia, dooming the crew right there.
NASA had no way to rescue them anyway.
NASA also built the Shuttle without a way for crew members to bail out in a disaster at takeover. I believe current NASA crew quarters have a way for pilot to pull a level to explode away from rocket and a parachute for planning.
But there will be more deaths, NASA always says, reason I'd reject a free ticket on one of the tourist space casuals.
Neil Armstrong almost died practicing with the landing or the ability to control the moon buggy here.prototype? Have seen video clips. Dangerous then and now. IMO
Now, as in the previous space race, our ambitions are fueled by international political tension. No one wants to lose because that means being in some way under the thumb of the country that wins. So they're going to put lives on the line. Having people die would be a huge setback in the race, so they'll take huge efforts to prevent it, but it's not going to stop the race entirely.
[removed]
I don't think anything would stop the space program now and I hope nothing ever will.
I believe all of the missions are technically fatal and people know that there’s a high chance they’ll be in a bad situation with no way out if they choose that profession.
It might slow our progress by a few months to take time to mourn and rest, but I’m sure we wouldn’t be stopped by that. We haven’t before, we won’t again.
A rocket is simply a controlled, continuous explosion.
Deaths will lead to revisions and maybe redesigns, but it won't stop anything, it's just a risk that's inherent to the kind of propulsion we use, and the environment we are sending people to.
It's obviously fiction, but this is a recurring theme of For All Mankind. Accidents happen, people are injured or killed. This is the cost of exploring a new frontier.
Lots of comments mentioning Shuttle disasters, but American society is different now...I would hope NASA would continue, but definitely not as certain as even a few years ago. China would absolutely continue
An Apollo burned up 100's of errors were found and fixed - a socket just laying on a ledge on the inside of the rocket.
They examined the hell out of it, then continued in a safer manner.
Apollo 1. Challenger. Columbia. Soyuz 11. Soyuz 1. And the list goes on. The exploration continues.
There's memorial left on the Moon by Apollo 15 mission, to all astronauts and cosmonauts who died before 1971: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents#/media/File:Fallen_Astronaut.jpg
It blows my mind how this moon race has resurfaced and has the feel of "can we do it???". We did it with technology dumber than the phone in my pocket 50+ years ago but we're all excited about a race to do it again? Why? Talk to me when we're heading to Mars.
As much as I hope they wouldn't, depends on congress. There's a very real possibility congress could just cut funding for the project. The American government only really gives a damn about anything if it either puts money into politicians pockets, or has to do with war
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
>skippyspk · 5 min. ago
>
>The government would sufficiently pay off the families of slain astronauts with dark money made from the illicit sale of crack from the CIA.If the families wanted to keep their government-provided fortune and not risk getting suicided then they’ll continue to espouse the narrative that we need to beat China on the moon.It happened with Owen Hart’s family, but on a much smaller scale and the players are slightly different, but the playbook remains the same.
You forgot to mention the lizard people
Dude you want to incur the wrath of the V?!
ArboroUrsus t1_j69xpmx wrote
Absolutely not. They're might be a slowdown while they investigate causes and find ways to mitigate risk but deaths don't stop space programs.