um...

...are they retarded?

It's one of four...

The gauge in question is part of a four sensor redundant system. The engineers who's been working on solving the problem have narrowed down the possible causes and isolated the sensors into two pairs. If either one of the gauges in pair "A" (which includes the sensor that returned an error last time) spit out an error, the mission will probably launch and the engineers will know what's causing the problem. If either of the pair "B" gauges go wacky or if something else comes up, the launch will be scrubbed and it'll be a while before we go back into space.

Space flight is a dangerous thing. It will continue to be until we come up with a better way of doing it than sitting on top of a big bomb and hoping the casing that's directing the explosion out the end holds. Every astronaut in the program knows the risks--they even know the science behind the risks. If they're willing to take those risks, I have no problem at all with letting them do so.

Of course, going into space is still a dream of mine. So, while I may be risk averse in terrestrial life, I'd do just about anything--regardless of how dangerous--to get off this mudball and out into the black.

Re: It's one of four...

okay, it went up, didn't blow up, this is good. BUT, i would think that given NASA's previous problems with ignoring safety issues and the fact that since it's the first time up since the last disaster a lot of people have their eyes on this, they would want to be extra-cautious. many people don't see space exploration and the like as worthy goals given the magnitude of some of the problems we face back on the ground and they're just looking for an excuse to slash NASA's budget some more. while i don't think that they would ever deliberately put the lives of astronauts in danger, NASA really does need to be cautious.

Re: It's one of four...

Ah, but what's more likely to get your budget cut: Taking the slight risk that launching with one bad sensor in an array will cascade into something disaterous, or not launching at all? This was the end of the launch window... if it hadn't gone up today, it would have been months before they could try again.

The only reason people don't care much about the space program any more is because it hasn't been sold to them correctly since the Apollo program. The shuttles were neat, but they never delivered on half of what they had originally promised and we won't even talk about the "international" space station and what it hasn't done.

Those "ignored" safety concerns that caused the last few space disasters were bad... but they weren't being ignored on an educated basis like this one was. Previously it was more of a "Don't tell the boss, he might get mad" sort of ignoring/hiding. That's never good. Especially with really explosive things like rocket engines.

Re: It's one of four...

i really don't think that it would have been all that damaging to NASA to not go up now. nobody anywhere wants to see anything bad happen, but particularly with this mission because it's the first one after disaster. we've been out of space for 2-1/2 years, what's another couple months? i also think that most people even if they can't give a good reason why would like to see the shuttle program up and running again, perhaps so we don't abdicate manned space exploration to other nations.

agreed on the marketing of the space program although by the same token even today going to the moon sounds a lot cooler than orbiting the earth for a week or two running experiments on earthworms and such. the space station seems to be going nowhere fast. it's way behind schedule and over budget and no one really has any sense of imagination as to what it could become or the purposes it could serve.

the kinds of space programs that get the attention still seem to be the things that break new ground, such as the mars rovers or the probe that crashed into the comet a couple weeks ago. we just don't know much about those things and both also involve questions about the origins of life or the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. even the hubble telescope is nifty because it sends back such incredible images of objects amazingly far away. but they're letting that go to hell too by refusing to maintain it so its useful life will soon be over.

now if a human were to do something new and different in space, that would surely merit extra attention and the money that goes with it. but the things that would seem to be next on the agenda such as the space station or a manned mission to mars would cost a boatload of money and while bush gave mars some lipservice last year, i don't see much public or political support for that right now.

Re: It's one of four...

In the world of politics, funding and public opinion, a few more months could have meant everything as far as the manned space program goes. Even with the lip service the idea of a new trip to the moon has gotten from the Shrub, there's no real political "oomph" behind it. The goal date is a couple of administrations away... and it requires the design and building of a new reusable launch and return vehicle--something private industry is now infinitely further ahead on than NASA or any other (non-classified) government agency.

Somewhere along the way, NASA lost the "cowboy" or "pioneer" spirit that the Apollo program epitomized. That "We're goin' and that's that" attitude that whipped enough of the public up into a frenzy that even the tragedy of the first attempted Apollo launch only slowed the progress down for a year. We got right back up on that explosive horse and rode it all the way to the moon--more than a few times.

The shuttle program has been flawed from Day One. It was too expensive and never tried to reach any further than low earth orbit. Same deal with the "International" space station. There's really not a whole lot of "international" in its funding these days, it's behind schedule, and already falling apart due to some corner cutting that obviously went on. The ISS could have been a wonderful staging area for a two-step trip to the moon... but it was never designed that way (and even if it had been, there's no way those parts would have been built by the time we're "schedules" to be back on the moon... let alone anytime sooner).

The whole funding/doing question is a Catch 22. In order ot get the flashy funding, you need to do something flashy to garner public support. In order to do something flashy to garner public support, you need funding.

I'm afraid that the days of a fully public space program on well on their way to an end. From here on out, it's going to be more and more about what the private industries can do to get out there and make a buck. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I don't think it would inspire the same "Look what WE did" feeling that prior off-planet accomplishments have.

Re: It's one of four...

the "we're going and that's that" attitude in the current administration seems to be reserved for iraq.

i think you're right though about the space program; the next great leap is going to come from the private sector. BUT when that happens, someone on capitol hill is going to decide that the government needs to be involved and gum up the works again.