I'm watching on the news that there's some sort of emergency with Columbia. There's talk of explosions...
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Debris!?
Texas!?
THE FUCK!?
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
It's been an hour since contact was lost... don't think Columbia survived re-entry Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
And already the terrorist theories are mentioned.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Looks like it just fell apart. A big blow to the space program and ISS.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Columbia was at an altitude of 200,700 feet over north-central Texas at a 9 a.m., traveling at 12,500 mph when mission control lost contact and tracking data"
If even a single tile of Columbia's heatshield fails at that velocity...
Crap... it's official.
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
I live in Denton, TX, just north of Dallas, and I think I could see the smoke trail.
Now they're talking fuel tank debris on launch damaging a tile... seems a likely explanation. Sad... I was six when Challenger went.
Posted by Jack_Crusher (Member # 696) on :
Us over at the TrekBBS have been keeping taps on this this morning. It looks like NASA will only need to bring out debris recovery crews. Very unfortunate. NASA loses contact with the Columbia Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Oh, damn... damn, damn damn... Not again... Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
It's a great shame. Seven people gone (even if they're only talking about the Israeli at the moment). . . And that's the two oldest shuttles gone as well, since Enterprise never flew in space (I think?). . .
Posted by Jack_Crusher (Member # 696) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poet: It's a great shame. Seven people gone (even if they're only talking about the Israeli at the moment). . . And that's the two oldest shuttles gone as well, since Enterprise never flew in space (I think?). . .
The Enterprise never flew in space, just in the atmosphere for flight trials.
Posted by Dr. Jonas Bashir (Member # 481) on :
First time I come here and get such breaking news.
And, yes. Again. Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
The officials at the Cape have declared Columbia "Lost". Seven people.
Mark
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
It is a dark day in the history of space travel.
Call me pessimistic, but I think that this may be the beginning of the end for the space shuttles career.
This horrible news is not the kind of thing I like to wake up to.
I'm not a religious person, but I still feel the need to pray for the families of the seven astronauts. and of course the astronauts themselves
I'm stunned... absolutely shocked...
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Terrible for the families, but I hope this will spur the intoduction of new shuttles rather than recoiling in fear and abandoning the space programme.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
/me fears this tragedy will lead to stronger calls for the abolishment of manned space travel... which is where humanity's future lies.
The seven astronauts who died today are the pioneers of the 21st century.
[ February 01, 2003, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: E. Cartman ]
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
Columbia (OV-102), the first of NASA's orbiter fleet, was delivered to Kennedy Space Center in March 1979. Columbia initiated the Space Shuttle flight program when it lifted off Pad A in the Launch Complex 39 area at KSC on April 12, 1981. It proved the operational concept of a winged, reusable spaceship by successfully completing the Orbital Flight Test Program - missions STS-1 through 4.
Other, more recent achievements for Columbia include the recovery of the Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF) satellite from orbit during mission STS-32 in January 1990 and the STS-40 Spacelab Life Sciences mission in June 1991 - the first manned Spacelab mission totally dedicated to human medical research.
Columbia is named after a small sailing vessel that operated out of Boston in 1792 and explored the mouth of the Columbia River. One of the first ships of the U.S. Navy to circumnavigate the globe was named Columbia. The command module for the Apollo 11 lunar mission was also named Columbia.
This leaves NASA with 3 shuttles, Discovery (OV-103), Atlantis (OV-104), and Endeavour (OV-105), with no replacements on the horizon for the next decade or so.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
The US has invested far too much into the space program and ISS to abandon it now. Things will be pushed back at least a year, I'd say, but the remaining three shuttles will likely continue flying. They will certainly not build a replacement for Columbia, as Endeavor was built to replace Challenger. Columbia couldn't be used in space station construction (too heavy), so ISS construction will mostly suffer time delays and political setbacks.
There are warnings all over the news for people in Texas who may encounter debris - it has rained down all over several counties. They were using some pretty heavy stuff for their 80+ experiments.
Mark
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Can the Enterprise be made flyable? Exactly what made it unusable in orbital operations, anyhow?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Enterprise has been languishing at Dulles Airport for 20 years awaiting the Smithsonian's new NASM wing there. It's to house her & Enola Gay.
No one's mentioned it yet...but the 17th anniversary of Challenger was a few days ago.
Ugh. How long until some enterprising young Texan decides to start selling Columbia debris on eBay? As my friend Kim said, "I really hope not...I think it would be illegal, don't you?" I sure as shit HOPE so.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
Enterprise was never built with engines, so it'd require quite the overhaul to make it even flyable, let alone space worthy (the space frame is now nearing 30 years old).
Also, I received a link earlier this morning of someone trying to sell a GARDEN HOSE as Columbia wreckage on eBay. The bid when I saw it was $15,099. The auction has since been removed.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
CNN now has lots of still shots of debris from several spots in Texas.. nothing bigger than a bread box, a scrap of metal on a sidewalk, a chunk of material in a field. They also issued a general chemical hazard warning about such artifacts of the breakup because of the fuel involved.. i think the collectors might be in for more than they bargained for..
one accident every 20 years or so is a fantastic safety record. 2 disasters out of 113 or so missions.. but as lot of people are calling this a wake up call for building new orbiters, and not using 22 year old equipment.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Well, the sad fact is, there have already been 2 eBay offers. Both have been removed though.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:"Born of the Sun they traveled a short while towards the sun, and left the vivid air singed with their honor." -- Stephen Spender
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Enterprise is in worse condition than Buran... it'd be less expensive to build a new orbiter than to refurbish big E.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: The US has invested far too much into the space program and ISS to abandon it now. Things will be pushed back at least a year, I'd say, but the remaining three shuttles will likely continue flying. They will certainly not build a replacement for Columbia, as Endeavor was built to replace Challenger. Columbia couldn't be used in space station construction (too heavy), so ISS construction will mostly suffer time delays and political setbacks.
We can see the dream. A lot of people don't.
They don't matter.
The invention of the internal combustion engine was a neccessity before the dream of heavier than air flight could be realized. Naturally, such didn't happen immediately - engines had to develope more, everything had to come together.
Carbon nanotubes, graphite composites... whatever. Things aren't ready, they haven't come together. But they will, and the universe will change.
In one moment, Earth. In the next, Heaven.
Blessed be. -n ("Fifty years after everybody stops laughing." -Arthur C. Clarke, asked when a space elevator will be built.)
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"a lot of people are calling this a wake up call for building new orbiters, and not using 22 year old equipment"
I'm hoping the X-33 Venture Star project will be reactived and full funding restored, but I don't expect that to happen, realistically. At least not for the coming decade (if ever).
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
It is in fact illegal to touch or confiscate material from a crash site such as this.
Mark
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
if the fuel residue is immediately a toxic or caustic irritant, im sure its probably carcinogenic. people should follow the instructions, call for authorities.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
This is terrible. I certainly hope that it doesn't signal the beginning of severe cutbacks in the manned space program. I'm inclined to think that it won't but I suppose I'm (and most of the other peole who can see the 'vision') inclined to be optomistic where that is concerned.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I was watching Peter Jennings on ABC during lunch early this afternoon. He interviewed a few people in Washington about the possible reactions... basically it boils down to (1) immediately start work on a Space Shuttle replacement, or (2) abandon the manned space program.
The shuttles haven't been the most efficient system, but as pointed out, a 2-in-113 failure rate for such a massive program in which so many things can go wrong is extraordinary. Despite the fact that two of the five space shuttles that have made it into space have been lost, I am more than certain that NASA has done everything humanly possible to ensure that the flights are as safe as they can make it.
But as we've seen, space travel at this stage can never be routine. Even in the world of "Star Trek," it's never completely routine.
I can only hope that this disaster gives everyone the motivation to learn from the mistakes and push forward rather than to pull back and abandon manned space travel completely. I barely remember the Challenger disaster in 1986 (I wasn't even 5 years old at the time), but I do remember the big deal when it took three whole years to resume shuttle flights, and the huge relief when the next shuttle launched successfully. I sincerely hope that nothing like that happens this time.
As I'm typing, CNN is airing the NASA press conference and Colonel Bill Reedy, a space shuttle veteran is emphasizing NASA's position about keeping the program going. I only hope that the various Congressmen don't react to this by cutting funding. I won't suggest increasing funding because I know what kind of problem that would involve, especially in the context of the other problems the country (and the world) are facing... but we have come to far to pull back now. The courage and heroism of people like John Glenn, Neil Armstrong, not to mention the three men killed in the fire aboard Apollo 1 and the seven men and women aboard Challenger would mean nothing if we simply abandon the goal that they gave their lives in attempting to reach.
"We will find the cause, we will fix it, and we will move on." -- NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe
"Risk is our business. That's what this starship is about. That's why we're aboard her." -- Captain James Kirk
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
This morning, my friend from across the hall came knocking at the door. My roommate had locked it the previous evening, something we never do, because two of our drunk suitemates were being loud and generally extraordinarily obnoxious. So he knocks on the door and says he needs to talk to Brian. My roommate (sleeping closer to the door than I) asks why he can't just tell him through the door, but he doesn't offer an explanation.
Slightly irritated I get up and open it.
"You should come look at this." He says.
We walk across the hall to his room and I see for the first time the multiple contrails across the Texas sky.
Later on, another of my suitemates comes in as I'm watching the news in my room. At the bottom of the screen they scroll different facts concerning the event, including that the shuttle apparently broke up over the miniscule town of Palestine, Texas. Palestine is where another suitemate of mine and my best friend is from.
We go in and wake him up, tell him the news. He comes out in a daze to the living room, and begins attempting to call home. All land line circuts are busy, so he tries his cell phone, and gets through. His parents heard a tremendous boom that shook their whole house and windows while they were sleeping, and woke them up.
About a week ago, I was in my Human Factors class. Columbia was due to lift off towards the end of class. Our professor had put on the webcast that NASA always has and announced that she would dismiss us early, after it started it's ascent to go outside and see it, but we would watch the first minute or two in the classroom.
We begged and pleaded to see the whole thing from outside, and to dismiss us that much earlier. Not that we cared so much, but it was a golden opportunity to convince our teacher to let us out as early as possible.
We did. I walked out of the room and outside the building as fast as I could without making it look like I cared at all. Outside, every student on campus who was outside stopped and turned south, in the direction of Kennedy Space Center, and we watched a plume of orange climb the sky, producing the most extraordinary contrail we had ever seen.
After she had climbed beyond sight, we went about our business, without a word or further care. I was glad to have gotten out of class early. It was the third time I had ever seen a shuttle launch. It may very well have been my last.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Grisly as it may be, the loss of an orbiter will probably only help the shuttle program financially, if secondary, psychological effects can be ignored. One less piece of equipment to worry about, more spares for the rest. The missions never turned profit anyway, so the fewer, the better. And as said, the ISS flights will not be affected much. Provided that the cause of the loss can be established, that is.
But this does nothing to lessen the human tragedy. My sympathies are on the families and the coworkers. While this probably spells the end of both the more reasonable teachers-in-space and the more frivorous tourists-in-space programs, manned spaceflight will survive. It has to, as nobody can afford to call it quits now.
What did go wrong? Apart from the possibility of heat tiles failing, the Columbia carried a potentially explosive EDO package, and was at the stage of return where RCS systems would be firing in rather extreme conditions. Plus the guidance software was in something of a flux, between upgrades - perhaps attitude control was lost due to a software glitch?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
I was in the first grade when Challenger exploded. I remember being in class watching it on a television. I can't recall for certain if I was watching it live or if we watching the news. It was horrible, as this is now.
It looks like the remains of the shuttle and her cres is concentrated in East Texas, stretching from about the small towns of Corsicana to San Augustine. I can't even believe right now that I'm watching this on the news. The first I heard of it was in my car driving to my parents' house an hour ago. I heard a brief ad for the news radio station to tune in for more on the Columbia tragedy.
I just can't believe this. Just last week there were remembrances for Challenger and Apollo 1. Now there's Columbia.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: What did go wrong? Apart from the possibility of heat tiles failing, the Columbia carried a potentially explosive EDO package, and was at the stage of return where RCS systems would be firing in rather extreme conditions. Plus the guidance software was in something of a flux, between upgrades - perhaps attitude control was lost due to a software glitch?
My guess is merely that damaged tiles allowed the wing to heat up too much, and be ripped off. At Mach 18, losing a wing would just twist Columbia apart from the G-force and it just, literally, disintigrated. Crew most likely dead before they knew anything was wrong.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Well, they have been working on replacement designs for about twenty years now, but none of them are up to scratch yet. One things certain, though... The fleet can't stay grounded for too long. We've got a manned space station up there.
--Jonah
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
CNN.com has an article (actually at Time.com) about three basic scenarios that have been proposed as the cause of the disaster. Of course, there's little data at this point, but the expert in that article believes that the oft-mentioned damage to the heat-resistant tiles probably wasn't enough to cause a complete breakup, but was instead some kind of loss of aerodynamic control.
But at this point, who knows? It's really all just speculation.
In another vein, who didn't see something like this coming? Iraqis Call Shuttle Disaster God's Vengeance. Surprise, surprise... Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Has anyone else seen President Bush's speech in reaction to the shuttle's destruction? Surprisingly enough, it seemed quite heartfelt and effective. He specifically emphasized the point that the U.S. space program will continue, and that this is as it should be, as otherwise the loss of the shuttle's crew would be for no purpose.
Personally, I am not hugely concerned that this occurrence will furnish any great setbacks to the program. Not simply because of the President's assurances, but because---as others have said---the United States has far too much invested in the space program to even consider abandoning it, and the loss of one shuttle in no way changes this.
And, at this point, the work of human astronauts aboard shuttles and the ISS is still quite indispensable, as it surely will be (IMO) when we take further steps into space. You simply can't do with machines what you can do with thinking individuals. So while this may deepen the convictions of those who would call for the cessation of manned space missions, I doubt it will do much to convince NASA or the government of this point of view.
Nonetheless, it is indeed a tragic event, and it certainly holds a great deal of emotional and psychological impact.
-MMoM Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
NASA's news conference has now stated that they received data of excessive heat in the left wing along with a change in the pressure of the landing gear in that wing, and they also lost control of the aerolons on that wing a second before they lost contact.
I think this tells us what exactly happened.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
To make a skiing analogy, looks like they caught an edge.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Damn. Cause of the disaster: one or more ceramic tiles were dislodged at liftoff (as was known and previously pointed out), taking others with them during re-entry in a cascade "zipper" effect. There will be many a gnashing of teeth over this... and a rolling of heads.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
Ailerons.
Posted by Akira (Member # 850) on :
See they should have know this and sent a repair team out. We Need something like work bee for something like this
Sad day for Space
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
According to the technical briefing, the day after the launch NASA technical analysts and outside-of-the-agency experts reviewed the footage of the insulation striking the Columbia. The consensus was that any damage that might have occurred from the impact was minor and not a safety-of-flight issue. Reviewing the footage and doing a lot of analyses was the best they could do.
The Shuttle Program Manager made it quite clear that using telescopes to examine the damage would probably be useful based on a previous time they had tried to do so (when the drag chute door fell during launch a few years ago). In addition, the Columbia wasn't equipped for the kind of spacewalk that would be necessary to examine the underside of the wing. And in addition to that, it's apparently impossible with the present technology to do a tile replacement in space.
While you can point to specific fault and say "they should have known" with the Challenger's o-ring, I think it's premature at this point to do so.
On another note, my roommate and I (and probably his girlfriend) are going to be leaving flowers at the front gate of the Johnson Space Center. The news stations have said a makeshift memorial has been set up there, and we very much want to show our support for the families.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
A sad, sad day in American history. I express my sympathy for all 7 people lost, and their families. One person, in fact, was from a city (Racine) near where I live (Milwaukee).
My God, what a terrible day. Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Mum just woke me up before, and I've been watching the news since. I can't believe it. The wierd thing is I was watching a doco on the Discovery Channel like, 2 days ago and I tuned in at the re-entry bit - it showed a complete re-entry. Even that was scary - but I was astounded by the remarkably calm voice by the pilot. They have no electrical control during re-entry and it's essentially a gliding lump of metal!! Amazing - and to land it how they do.
Sad day for America? Sad day for Space? Nay, a sad day for the World.
I also had a dream about being in space the other night - probably after watching that doco on the Discovery channel - so when Mum wakes me up wit this news... I couldn't believe it.
God Speed, Columbia and her crew.
Andrew
P.S. At 12am - Australian Eastern Standard Time - when the tragedy occured - I was sitting down to watch my DVD of "Contact" - which I hadn't seen before. FANTASTIC MOVIE! And while "The Machine" was being built. The Columbia was coming home. The message of the movie is quite profound and has an extra special significance after what has just happened.
Andrew
Posted by Middy Seafort (Member # 951) on :
I published this essay on my intial thougths on the Columbia over at the Subspace BBS (which I published under my real name, not my board name). I present it all to you as well:
quote: A Time to Mourn. A Time to Heal.
Initial Thoughts on the Tragedy of Space Shuttle Columbia.
By Ryan Thomas Riddle
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade, and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win."
--John Fitzgerald Kennedy Rice University, September 12, 1962
This morning began like any other Saturday morning. I awoke from a lengthy sleep, far longer than I would normally sleep on a weekday morning. My eyes still crunched together in slumber, not wanting to except that it was morning and that the sun was already up, I awoke to the news that another space shuttle had been lost.
It took a while for the news to reach me. The television was not set on any of the countless news stations, both network and cable. The front page of the San Diego Union-Tribune had no mention of an incident in the skies; instead, a picture of dogs cooling off at one of the local beaches graced that first news page. I had sat down for a morning meal of cold cereal, when my father came up to me and said, simply, "Have you heard the news, this morning?"
"No, I just woke up," I muttered, my eyes still reading the morning funnies.
"The shuttle exploded this morning."
Another shuttle. Another seven men and women. Another loss.
For an instance, I am ten-years old again. It is January 28, 1986. I am sitting in an elementary classroom watching the launch of Space Shuttle Challenger. I am watching seven men and women rise into the skies and to the stars above. But two-minutes into that launch, the Challenger explodes into a bright-star in the daylight sky.
Now, sixteen years later, I am hearing the news that another space shuttle has turned into a bright-star in the sky. Seven men and women would not return to their families.
As a nation, we will mourn. As a world, we will mourn. As a people, we will mourn. But we will heal.
In the past two years, the world has endured change. Shortly after the September 11th attack of the World Trade Center, an essay was published in the New York Times that stated September 11th would forever divided the world into two parts-- before and after. This is another such event. The Space Program has now been divided into two parts, before and after.
The Space Program will never be the same. It should never be the same. We, as a people, will never be the same.
What next? Indeed, what next. President George W. Bush, son of a former president who was vice-president the day Challanger exploded, said that the space program will continue. It must continue.
We must not abandoned the stars. We must never abandon a dream. John Fitzgerald Kennedy told a bunch of young, eager college students in 1962 that we must go to the moon, not because it was easy but because it is hard.
Kennedy was right. We cannot be content to do the easy thing. In that same speech, Kennedy quoted William Bradford. I quote that once again because it is an axiom of the human condition.
Bradford said at the founding of the Plymouth Bay Colony that "all great and honorable actions are accomplished with great difficulties, and both must be enterprised and overcome with answerable courage."
The men and women of Space Shuttle Columbia, like a all those before them, met the challange with answerable courage. They will forever be remember. And it is because of their courage that we cannot give up the stars. Because if we were to give up and never touch the stars again, then they died for nothing.
We will return, but now we must take time to mourn. We must take time to heal. We must go to the stars.
Posted by Sarvek (Member # 910) on :
quote:Originally posted by E. Cartman: In memoriam.
Thank you for posting.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Can I ask - where is Dick Cheyney SP? in all of this? The Vice-president IS the head of the Space-program, is he not?? Heard hide-nor-hair from him. Probably at Camp David or in a hospital getting another heart!?!
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
There's going to trouble over that speech. The people who pull Bush's strings would no doubt have preferred him to curse the blasphemers who dared to pierce the crystal spheres of the firmament, or something. . .
Posted by Starship Millennium (Member # 822) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Can the Enterprise be made flyable? Exactly what made it unusable in orbital operations, anyhow?
A NASA team inspected Enterprise a few years back at the Smithsonian... it's in suprisingly good condition, and they determined it could be used for parts if the need should arise, or even be modified to flight status if it was really needed. Realistically, though, I don't see this happening for several reasons. First, the Smithsonian probably doesn't want to lose the centerpiece of its newly-constructed annex; secondly, the shuttle production line has been cold for some time now (it was exceedingly difficult to get Endeavour assembled back in the late 80s/early 90s, basically because all of the people responsible for the shuttles in the 70s had moved on to other projects); and lastly, if you're going to spend the money, you might as well just build a brand-new ship that has zero years on it.
I'm still in a state of semi-shock... this doesn't seem possible: two shuttles now lost, one of them Columbia. It's also doubly weird since I had been following the mission and ironically, some of the Challenger rememberance back on the 28th. I just hope that the problem can be solved quickly and we can get back up there ASAP. Recoiling and pulling the plug on NASA's manned efforts would be a great dishonor to the memories of the Columbia crew.
Posted by Starship Millennium (Member # 822) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: Can I ask - where is Dick Cheyney SP? in all of this? The Vice-president IS the head of the Space-program, is he not?? Heard hide-nor-hair from him. Probably at Camp David or in a hospital getting another heart!?!
Perhaps he's just laying low out of respect for the families: this isn't the Clinton regime where every bit of news was used as a press junket for shameless self-promotion.
quote:Originally posted by Vorgon Poet: There's going to trouble over that speech. The people who pull Bush's strings would no doubt have preferred him to curse the blasphemers who dared to pierce the crystal spheres of the firmament, or something. . .
Riiiiiiiiiigh-t. Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
Shit.
I get home while pulling a full day at my new job at Staples. I just can't believe it happened.
Six of the crew were married. 5 had kids. It's hard for the kids when they look up to mommy or daddy as shuttle pilots only to find out that they aren't coming home.
I thought that the Challenger explosion is supposed to teach a lesson to NASA not to take any chances. I guess this is not the case. Seriously, if they knew about the damage to the tiles, could they at least do something about it?
I then thought of three possible rescue scenarios:
1) They repair the Shuttle before re-entry. This was dismissed after I found out that none of the crewmembers were trained in doing this. This may now change.
2) Send another shuttle to possibly transfer the crew out of Columbia. This was also dismissed as the logistics of getting a shuttle launched to meet up with Columbia is literally impossible as Columbia would have starved.
3) Send the shuttle over to the International Space Station, transfer the crew over along with the supplies, then send another shuttle over to transfer the crew home, or to repair Columbia. The ISS should have enough supplies, but there would be a question on if it will be enough.
This has to really suck though. I don't think I could say any more on this.
[ February 01, 2003, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
Posted by Starship Millennium (Member # 822) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tahna Los: 1) They repair the Shuttle before re-entry. This was dismissed after I found out that none of the crewmembers were trained in doing this. This may now change.
Furthermore, it seems as if Columbia didn't have its airlock installed, as there weren't any EVAs planned.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
An interesting tie-in to Iraq: the Israeli astronaut (I can't remember his name) was flying one of the jets that destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. Seems like he was in some way responsible for Iraq's WMD setback. I'm not saying he is the cause of the war, or that the Iraqis somehow caused the Columbia explosion in revenge, I'm just noting one of his accomplishments...
I'm still in a state of semi-shock, also. I found out about around 1 PM CT while I was away from home. Some people had the TV on to MSNBC, and I saw the trail, and I thought "Oh no, not again..." Another major date in early 21st century history.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tahna Los: 3) Send the shuttle over to the International Space Station, transfer the crew over along with the supplies, then send another shuttle over to transfer the crew home, or to repair Columbia. The ISS should have enough supplies, but there would be a question on if it will be enough.
Columbia can't dock with the ISS. Of the four shuttles, it's used the least for anything related to the ISS. I believe the reasoning is that Columbia weighed too much (hence less payload and more stress on the docking port). I also believe Columbia, since it had no airlock, couldn't attach to the ISS even if it wanted to try.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
quote:1) They repair the Shuttle before re-entry. This was dismissed after I found out that none of the crewmembers were trained in doing this. This may now change.
2) Send another shuttle to possibly transfer the crew out of Columbia. This was also dismissed as the logistics of getting a shuttle launched to meet up with Columbia is literally impossible as Columbia would have starved.
3) Send the shuttle over to the International Space Station, transfer the crew over along with the supplies, then send another shuttle over to transfer the crew home, or to repair Columbia. The ISS should have enough supplies, but there would be a question on if it will be enough.
1. Columbia didn't have the arm installed for this mission and besides the arm's reach wouldn't have allowed anyone to get to the underside.
2. For the reason's you've already stated, this isn't possible. It actually takes a few months to prep a shuttle for launch.
3. As has already been mentioned, she had no airlock installed and she's too heavy. If she could have docked, she would have put too much stress on the station.
Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
Here are a couple of answers/clarifications to some of the comments made so far:
Someone mentioned an external tank tile earlier up in the thread...the external tank doesn't have tiles. It uses spray on foam insulation. The part that fell off was probably a frozen section of ice/foam...I'm still not sure how this could cause any severe damage (depends on which type of shuttle tile it impacted.)
Tahna Los: There is NO on-orbit repair method for damaged TPS materials. It is done here on the ground in a controlled environement with strict control on cure times, temperatures, and compression loads (among lots of other variables)that firmly seat each tile.
Your exactly right that NO Shuttle could have been prepped and launched in time to aid STS-107 even if damage had been known. Even using an orbiter that was in the processing flow, its doubtful they could ramp up any faster than the next scheduled launch date (March 1)...owing to the fact that there would have to be provisions made for the returning STS-107 crew, something NO shuttle was designed to do.
Why not fly over to the station and?...I'll just stop right there. I can just hear some folks claiming "well what's that expensive station up there for anyway" (not u Tahna) Despite the fact that Columbia did not have the docking module installed in the payload bay, Columbia couldn't even have made it to the station just to let the station crew take a look at the possible damage. The shuttles are only loaded with enough fuel to perform their orbital burns for reentry and stationkeeping, they simply don't have the capacity to carry enough propellants to perform the massive orbital change required to change to the flight path of the station. As a matter of fact, Columbia was the only orbiter that did not recieve the added tankage that would allow it to travel to the station from launch. That is the reason you have never seen Columbia travel to the station. Even if it had been any of the other orbiters they would not have been able to transfer to the station's orbital inclination...you leave the ground with the required amount of fuel to get to where you plan to go, no more, no less.
Starship Millenium: Actually, if I remember correctly, Columbia was the only orbiter left with an internal airlock. The other orbiters were modified to use the external airlock, which reduced weight and allowed them to reach station orbit. So Columbia probably did have the capabilty to perform EVA's, but not to the underside of the vehicle (no handholds etc.)
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
What, they didn't have a really long ball of twine?
Posted by Starship Millennium (Member # 822) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shipbuilder: Starship Millenium: Actually, if I remember correctly, Columbia was the only orbiter left with an internal airlock. The other orbiters were modified to use the external airlock, which reduced weight and allowed them to reach station orbit. So Columbia probably did have the capabilty to perform EVA's, but not to the underside of the vehicle (no handholds etc.)
I'd also assume that it wasn't equipped with any EVA suits...
Posted by leuckinc (Member # 729) on :
Talk about shock... Last night my friend crashed a 575 Ferrari (works at a Ferrari lot) and this morning I woke up to this... I am not going to be able to sleep tonigh....
And the people! AHHHHH!
Posted by Fleet-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
My god... I don't think I'll ever look at those shuttles the same way again. Today, I wondered what the Trekkies who saw the Challenger explode felt like after seeing the Galaxy Class Challenger in Timeless... not something I'm looking foward to. Didn't a couple of astronauts visit the NX-01 sets last year?
Posted by Starship Millennium (Member # 822) on :
IIRC, it was actually some sailors from the U.S.S. Enterprise CVN-65:
And as darkness settles over the land, let us not forget that tomorrow brings forth light yet again.
[ February 02, 2003, 02:08 AM: Message edited by: Fleet-Admiral Michael T. Colorge ]
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Lieutenant Colonel Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom, USAF Lieutenant Colonel Edward Higgins White II, USAF Lieutenant Commander Roger Bruce Chaffee, USN Major Francis Richard "Dick" Scobee, USAF Captain Michael John Smith, USN Judith Arlene Resnik, Ph.D. Lieutenant Colonel Ellison Shoji Onizuka, USAF Ronald Erwin McNair, Ph.D. Captain Gregory Bruce Jarvis, USAF (Ret.) Sharon Christa McAuliffe, B.A. (Hist.), M.Ed. Colonel Rick Douglas Husband, USAF Commander William Cameron "Willie" McCool, USN Kalpana Chawla, Ph.D. Lieutenant Colonel Michael Phillip Anderson, USAF Captain David M. Brown, M.D., USN Commander Laurel Blair Salton Clark, M.D., USN Colonel Ilan Ramon, Israeli Air Force
"If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." -- Isaac Newton
Sic itur ad astris...
--Jonah
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I see you have forgotten:
April 23-24 1967 Soyuz 1: Vladimir M. Komarov was killed when his craft crashed after its parachute lines, released at 23,000 ft for reentry, became snarled.
June 6�30 1971 Soyuz 11: three cosmonauts, Georgi T. Dolrovolsky, Vladislav N. Volkov, and Viktor I. Patsayev, found dead in the craft after its automatic landing. Apparent cause of death was loss of pressurization in the space craft during reentry into the earth's atmosphere.
quote:Originally posted by Starship Millennium: I just hope that the problem can be solved quickly and we can get back up there ASAP. Recoiling and pulling the plug on NASA's manned efforts would be a great dishonor to the memories of the Columbia crew.
Here, here!
I was watching the news where they were talking to Willie McCool's mother, Audrey. And she said that would be the last thing he would have wanted to have happened... the Space Program to stop.
Andrew
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
And, of course, God only knows how many other cosmonauts the Soviets lost.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Yeah, the Kremlin walls are filled with "unannounced" losses.
Funny thing, though. Everyone keeps saying "there's no way to get to the ventral surface. Whatever happened to the MMUs?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
That's a big part of the reason I chose not to list cosmonauts up there. I couldn't be sure I got all of them. Plus, as so many people are focussing on the track record of the American space program, and casting doubt onto it's continued life, I thought at least an acknowledgement of the seventeen astronauts who were the U.S.' responsibility was in order. My little way of saying these people have given their lives to NASA -- don't let those sacrifices be in vain by killing manned spaceflight in this country... and by extension, the world, as we're pretty much the only game in town these days, unfortunately.
--Jonah
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Until the end of the year, when the Chinese launche Shenzhou 4.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
MMU systems were replaced with something called SAFER Simplified Aid for Extravehicular Activity Rescue which was strictly an emergency use system (one way ticket BACK to the shuttle in the event an astronaut got separated during an EVA). I think some of the orbiters were modded to carry the MMU's just in case, but it's doubtful one was onboard Columbia due to the projected mission.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I know it doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things but there is a poll at http://ninemsn.com.au - there's a link just under the main head-lines. It says "do you think that the space-shuttle missions should be discontinued" or something. Of course I, and a lot of others said 'no'.
[ February 02, 2003, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: AndrewR ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Y'know, a lot more people have died in wars than in space shuttle accidents. Maybe we should stop wars before we stop exploring space.
Oh, wait. I was going to say something sarcastic, but I guess I screwed up.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
So, anybody know how long the ISS can survive without the shuttle?
Supply flights for crew and consumables could presumably be handled by Soyuz TM and TMA and Progress craft, provided the US starts to pour tankerloads of dollars to the Russians. And the station can manage on what she's got so far, structurally speaking. But a Soyuz or a Progress can't do orbital boosting the way a shuttle could, nor deliver a dedicated booster package. (A Proton or Ariane 5 probably could launch a booster module, but who'd let the upper stages of either of those firecrackers anywhere near the station's orbit?)
How often does one have to do "decay management" on the orbit?
Here's wondering if the situation will force NASA to conclude "Well, we didn't find anything specific wrong with the STS, so we're resuming launches and crossing our fingers" after a year or so.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
I am opposed to the manned space program.
Why?
First, money. NASA is given $15 billion every year since 1992. This budget doesn't take into account differences in the value of the dollar. So, NASA is receiving less this year than in 1992.
Second, safety. The Columbia astronauts were dead the minute they left their orbit and headed home. NASA had no backup plan. The shuttle couldn't dock at the station, the astronauts couldn't evacuate the shuttle for lack of space suits, and they couldn't wait for aid for the next mission isn't planned until March. Furthermore, NASA control managers were complacent. One sensor fails they figure no worries. Several go out they figure we worry. In 1962, when John Glenn did orbital flight above the Earth, a single sensor failed. NASA moved quickly to abort the flight and determine the best way to get Glenn home.
Third, training and experience. Simply put, both are in short supply. They don't have the people to build a new shuttle. I figure if you don't have the means to build a new shuttle, you don't have the means to repair an older shuttle.
Fourth, a pattern of escalating failures. There have been warnings of impending failure to the program over the past years. These have included wiring issues, a broken fuel line at the launch pad, delayed launches related to mechanical issues, and the like. Additionally, the facilities are not being maintained. I have also been reading of mechanical failues on aboard the ISS. This is a new facility and she is already showing signs of serious failures. In the last, the ISS's atmospherics failed and the station was heating up fast. The problem was fixed, but my question is, what will be the next issue and will the crew be able to fix it or will it cost them their lives?
Fifth, no plans for a second generation shuttle or no money for the X-38. The space plane, designed by the USAF and with NASA assistance, is awaiting budget approval.
Finally, there are only two real partners in the space station program-Russia and the US. Russia is very poor and is unable to afford to build more Soyuz craft. The Soyuz craft in operation are very old and not in the best of shape. There is a timeline for the end of construction for these vechicles which is approaching fast. (Europe is providing less, and Japan has stopped building a majority of her sections. The remaining sections were completed before the stop order.)
Many of these problems and others have been raised in official government publications, including one released the day before the accident by the GAO.
Unless more money is provided to NASA, I think it's best to cancel the manned programs and continue with the unmanned programs. The space program has never been a top priority, contrary to what our president has said, and has received only a small percentage of the total funds available.
I know many of you wax poetically about the excitement of space travel and how we should continue in the names of those died. I agree we should go further, but only after a nation has committed its resources and people to the space program. A space program shouldn't be used to continue our presence in space. It should be used to advance mankind. At this time, I feel our space program is more for the former rather than the latter.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
The second generation shuttle, VentureStar, is being worked on as we speak. It is being built privately by Lockheed Martin Skunk Works. The X-33 (not X-38) was merely a 1/2 scale prototype that was cancelled.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Well, despite the STS being an inescapable deathtrap, spaceflight has never been as safe as it is now. Loss of life per flight or per astronaut or per hour in space is going down fast, and would keep on going down if the shuttles kept on flying at the current risk levels.
And keeping on flying isn't just making things safer in the statistics-subterfuge sense. Deaths and lesser accidents force improvements in safety procedures and equipment. The shuttle failed to have evac systems because it didn't suffer accidents, and because the Apollo/Saturn stack didn't. Had, say, Apollo 15 gone up in a great ball of flame, we'd have a safer shuttle - even if it was first built in 1999.
Also, repeated accidents might drive home the point that spaceflight ain't cheap. It won't produce a profit, and it won't stay within budget. If you want to play, you must be prepared to waste at least tens of billions in various accidents every decade. Once you are resigned to that, then you can have a meaningful space policy.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
My point is, NASA needs more money, not less, for the manned space program. Each year, the agency is given less money and compromises are made in an effort to balance the budget. These compromises are now endangering lives.
I support the goal of space exploration, but not at the cost of lives as a result of cutting corners. Columbia's crew died not because of stress fatigue, but because of decisions made by bureacrats and number punchers in the day-to-day functions of the agency.
Unless NASA is given a larger budget and the budget is supervised by an outside committee, I fear we will lose one of the other three shuttles.
As for the vehicle mentioned earlier, I have heard a launch date of 2010, if the project is completed on time. This gives us 8 years in which another shuttle may be lost. (Wolf 359-The Venture Star was the name of the project cancelled.)
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
1) I don't think the physics of reentering the atmosphere give a damn about 'bureacrats and number punchers'. The shuttle was destroyed because of an accident, not because someone in the government said so. Quite frankly, there was nothing that could have been done to avoid this. Yes, granted, maybe they could have had an alternative, but they didn't know that anything was that wrong in the first place.
2) Read my name better
3) NASA cancelled its funding of the X-33 prototype. The X-33 was, as I said before, a 1/2 scale prototype of the VentureStar, which would become the next generation shuttle. Lockheed Martin has decided to continue work on the VentureStar (but abandon the X-33) even after NASA pulled out their funding. VentureStar is now a private, civilian project.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
You do know that the forces Columbia was subjected to were so extreme there was NO way her spaceframe could possibly have remained intact, wether NASA was on a tight budget or not? That extensive re-entry simulations didn't show anything out of the ordinary despite the damaged/missing tiles? That the astronauts who board those shuttles take many calculated risks they fully understand and accept each and every time? That a safety record of two fatal accidents in over twenty years and more than a hundred missions during which literally MILLIONS of things can go wrong, is unparalelled?
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
I am opposed to NASA. I wasn't always this way. When I was younger, I was very supportive of our space program. However, over the past few years and having read countless articles on the program, I grown more hostile. I see an agency running on fumes. They are using antiquated machinery which can be bought on-line from E-Bay and other computer junkyard stores. Their facilites are degrading and their best people are leaving for lucrative jobs in the private sector. They no longer have the ability to build a second replacement shuttle for the knowledge and materials aren't available.
I say very clearly that I blame the officials at NASA for their incompetence in running the program, and their incompetence has played a contributing factor in the loss of seven lives. (Accidents are the result of many factors. From the accidents I have read or heard about, one of the factors which contribute greatly to an accident is one of mismanagement of money. If X had put more money into this Y (thing, system, etc.), the accident wouldn't have occured.)
I know many of you support space exploration. But, please take off the blinders. This program is in serious trouble and no amount of evasion by you will hide that fact. There are reports by the GAO and commissions which show an agency in desperate need of a fix. Would you be as forgiving if an airline company had let an airplane filled with passengers be destroyed by the stresses and pressures of the stratosphere if you knew the airline was in financial trouble and had sent the airplane knowng there might be potential dangers in flying an aging plane whose last overall was cancelled due to budgetary concerns? I wouldn't be, nor should you.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
I don't care if you pour a trillion dollars into NASA, the Columbia would still have been lost.
And, *gasp*, I can tell you every damn plane in the sky right now runs a risk of crashing to the ground in a giant fireball because of any number of mechical failures. Do we still get on them anyway? Hell yes. Some of those planes up in the sky are the same age as the Space Shuttle. Hell, some where designed before the Space Shuttle was even designed herself.
Finally, Columbia was overhauled in 1999, and this was only its 2nd mission since that overhaul, so you can just scratch that statement out right now.
Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
The skilled workforces exist... overseas. The material and manufacturing exist. overseas.
This is what happens when you aloud an uncontrolled bleed. Job-loss after layoff after cutback after downsizing... We're rapidly becoming a nation of StarBucks and BurgerKings. In 20 years "Skilled Labor" will be the person who adjusts the esspresso maker. Within 30 years there will be no more american manufacturing.
My sister summed it up quite nice... "the space shuttle was in orbit? Whatever."
We need to get serious with the space-program. THIS TIME it came down without any loss of life on the ground. Next time it could be worse than 9-11.
Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
Lockheed Martin is NOT working on X-33, that program along with the Venture Star successor is dead. Contractors simply cannot afford to continue work on multi-billion dollar programs without government contracts or a clear purpose of the craft's usefulness, NEITHER of which the X-33 has.
Even before the end of X-33 the contractors were aware of problems that were going to make it unusable as originally intended (e.g. material issues with the aerospike engines and the decision to make the payload bay an external pod). Immediately before program termination, the contractors were actively looking at making the vehicle a two stage to orbit vehicle with strap on liquid rockets...effectivly negating its orginal mission of single-stage-to-orbit. We just weren't ready for X-33.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I figure if you don't have the means to build a new shuttle, you don't have the means to repair an older shuttle."
I'm curious, when was the last time you saw an auto repair garage that had the capacity to scratch-build a car?
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote: A NASA team inspected Enterprise a few years back at the Smithsonian... it's in suprisingly good condition, and they determined it could be used for parts if the need should arise, or even be modified to flight status if it was really needed.
Enterprise should be made ready to fly at short notice, as a rescue plan. It wouldn't need any bells and whistles. Just enough to get into orbit, be able to dock with the space station, and come back.
The news is saying that the station personel are good till June, and that the Russians can resupply them if nessessary.
quote: I am opposed to NASA. I wasn't always this way. When I was younger, I was very supportive of our space program. However, over the past few years and having read countless articles on the program, I grown more hostile. I see an agency running on fumes. They are using antiquated machinery which can be bought on-line from E-Bay and other computer junkyard stores. Their facilites are degrading and their best people are leaving for lucrative jobs in the private sector. They no longer have the ability to build a second replacement shuttle for the knowledge and materials aren't available.
I say very clearly that I blame the officials at NASA for their incompetence in running the program, and their incompetence has played a contributing factor in the loss of seven lives. (Accidents are the result of many factors. From the accidents I have read or heard about, one of the factors which contribute greatly to an accident is one of mismanagement of money. If X had put more money into this Y (thing, system, etc.), the accident wouldn't have occured.)
I know many of you support space exploration. But, please take off the blinders. This program is in serious trouble and no amount of evasion by you will hide that fact. There are reports by the GAO and commissions which show an agency in desperate need of a fix. Would you be as forgiving if an airline company had let an airplane filled with passengers be destroyed by the stresses and pressures of the stratosphere if you knew the airline was in financial trouble and had sent the airplane knowng there might be potential dangers in flying an aging plane whose last overall was cancelled due to budgetary concerns? I wouldn't be, nor should you.
This is just so much B.S. NASA's budget has gone up by 600,000,000 in each of the last two years. The best and brightest may not always go to NASA, but it is not easy to get into space. They can and do pick and chose Astronauts.
Columbia was the first of the shuttles to reach space, and completed 27 missions, out of 28. That includes being strapped to a giant Hydrogen bomb and two boosters every trip, and following the very small corridor coming back, and falling out of the sky, evey time. It's a bigger wonder that there hasn't been more accidents. There have been so few because our people are very very good at what they do. We are the only ones to come close to making it work. The Russians never did get there version to go. Columbia had a major overhaul before this flight. The overhaul includes checking for metal fatigue, and updating electronics. It was as safe as it could be.
The Shuttle is a wonder all by it's self. It gets shot into space like a rocket, acts as a space station in orbit, becomes a capsule on reentry, then a glider, or a brick with wings that has managed to land 111 times out of 112, not counting Challenger, which didn't get the chance to land.
Anyone who expects space exploration to be safe is a fool. Maybe in 300 or so years, we'll have the technology to make it safe, but for right now, we have what we have.
As for E-Bay, someone from NASA confirmed that at some point they had bought some things online that were better priced then what they could get by their regular connections. They did not buy "junk" but good useable parts. More power to them if they can do just as well, and save a few bucks.
quote: I know many of you support space exploration. But, please take off the blinders. This program is in serious trouble and no amount of evasion by you will hide that fact. There are reports by the GAO and commissions which show an agency in desperate need of a fix.
That may have been true in the post Challenger 80's, but I think they have solved a lot of those problems, under the current administration. There may stil be problems, but there are always problems to solve, and always will be.
There are just to many benifits to stop now. Every time you use a calculator, or have a medical test, or use a fast, up to date computer, you can safly bet that the Space Program has contributed to that in one way or another.
Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by newark: [QB] I am opposed to the manned space program.
Why?
"First, money. NASA is given $15 billion every year since 1992. This budget doesn't take into account differences in the value of the dollar. So, NASA is receiving less this year than in 1992."
Agreed.
"Second, safety. The Columbia astronauts were dead the minute they left their orbit and headed home. NASA had no backup plan."
A backup plan for what? You're assuming you already know the cause of the accident. Even if it turns out the TPS was the issue, NASA doesn't and probably never will be technologically able to ensure that TPS repair can be done on orbit.
"The shuttle couldn't dock at the station,"
The shuttles were never designed nor equipped to do such cross range and orbital change maneuvers that would be required to do so.
"the astronauts couldn't evacuate the shuttle for lack of space suits,"
Where were they going to evacuate too even if they had suits?
"and they couldn't wait for aid for the next mission isn't planned until March."
Agreed
"Furthermore, NASA control managers were complacent. One sensor fails they figure no worries. Several go out they figure we worry. In 1962, when John Glenn did orbital flight above the Earth, a single sensor failed. NASA moved quickly to abort the flight and determine the best way to get Glenn home."
It's amazing how easy it is to call people complacent from the comfort of a nice armchair. Sensor failure is a common occurence, its a pattern of failures that cause concern. The shuttle has thousands more onboard sensors than the Mercury capsule so that's not a valid comparison. Sensors on the capsules were limited in number and capability so when you had one fail, you pretty much knew something was wrong immediately.
"Third, training and experience. Simply put, both are in short supply. They don't have the people to build a new shuttle. I figure if you don't have the means to build a new shuttle, you don't have the means to repair an older shuttle."
True, the technology and "people" base used to build and develop the shuttles has been whittled away. Could a new shuttle be built, certainly so with enough funding, but at some cost amount, it becomes easier/cheaper/smarter to design build a new vehicle than to utilize a design from the 70's
"Fourth, a pattern of escalating failures. There have been warnings of impending failure to the program over the past years. These have included wiring issues, a broken fuel line at the launch pad, delayed launches related to mechanical issues, and the like."
I doubt any of these "patterns of escalating failures" were contributory to the tragedy and most of the issues you brought up were infrastructure issues, not relative to the orbiter itself.
"Additionally, the facilities are not being maintained."
Agreed, very little money is available for facilities upgrades.
"I have also been reading of mechanical failues on aboard the ISS. This is a new facility and she is already showing signs of serious failures. In the last, the ISS's atmospherics failed and the station was heating up fast. The problem was fixed, but my question is, what will be the next issue and will the crew be able to fix it or will it cost them their lives?"
And how many space stations have we successfully designed built and flown before? You have to crawl before you can walk.
"Fifth, no plans for a second generation shuttle or no money for the X-38. The space plane, designed by the USAF and with NASA assistance, is awaiting budget approval."
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Budgetary restrictions forced a slow down in 2nd generation activities with more emphasis placed on what is called the Orbital Space Plane. The OSP was not designed by the USAF with NASA assistance. In fact AF is behind NASA in forming up requirements for the vehicle and no specific design has been set. X-38 is sadly another dead project (atleast in long term storage)
I'll just kinda stop right there. I agree with you that NASA has been underbudgeted to perform the requirements heaped up on it. But I find it very unnerving to see folks laying blame on others without knowing the whole story.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
I'd like to point out there is a reason that computers used by NASA for their probes and spacecraft are so old. They are rigorously tested by NASA for space usage. That take a lot of time.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
The only thing which newark said which I can agree with is that NASA needs more money to build better, safer, more advanced shuttles.
(And newark? That doesn't make you against manned spaceflight, or even against NASA. It makes you against Congress. And those millions of marching morons who don't think ANY money should be spent on space programs at all.)
The rest? Is poo.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Against congress... Does that then mean you're for progress?
--Jonah
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
COMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMEDY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
On a less light note...
Someone posted this on another web site I frequent. I thought I'd share it here:
This is dedicated to the crew of Apollo I, to the crews of the orbiters Challenger and Columbia. This is dedicated to all people of all nations, past, present, and future, lost while bravely challenging our limits and perceptions.
A Tale of the Sea, the Wind, and the Void. By Andr� �Moose� Maillet
Early in our History, we were limited to where our feet could take us, with whatever goods we could carry on our backs or drag behind us.
We were limited.
Eventually, we learned how to harness the Sea, and built ships which could carry far more goods than we could alone. We learned how to harness the Wind so that ships could be sailed with smaller crews.
And ships were lost, for the Sea is a harsh and fickle mistress.
And crews were lost, for the Wind is just as harsh and fickle a master as is the Sea.
And only a few things had to go wrong to lose a ship with all hands.
Still, we who survived learned from the Sea and from the Wind how to make bigger, faster, stronger and safer ships. And we were better able to harness the Sea. And we were better able to harness the Wind.
And we were limited to the Coast and to where our feet could take us.
Still, we stayed within sight of the Coast, for the Sea is vast.
When there is naught but the Sea, and naught but the Wind around you, it is all too easy to become disoriented. Disoriented, we could run out of supplies. We could be unable to find anchorage if the Wind, in His spite, raised a tempest, and the ships, and the crews, would be lost. Even with a gentle Wind, we could and did miss our landfall, and we starved.
Eventually, we discovered Magnetism and learned how to navigate using the World's magnetic field. We discovered that by measuring the height of certain Stars in the Void, we could determine how far north or south we were. We learned to determine the speed of our ships and the speed of the currents, and we could then determine how far east or west we were.
We learned to navigate, and were able to sail out of sight of the Coast.
Eventually, we found a large, sparsely settled Land. And we came. Your ancestors came. My ancestors came.
We came to build new lives for ourselves and formed great Nations, Cities, and Cultures. Nations that exist yet to this day.
And we never stopped building bigger and better ships, and we never stopped learning better ways to harness the Sea and the Wind.
Still, we lost ships, and crews. For still, we are at the mercy of the Sea. For the Sea is still a harsh and fickle mistress and what She wants, She takes.
We eventually learned how to harness the Wind in a new way. And we took to the Sky. And we were no longer at the mercy of the Sea. And we were no longer limited to the Coast. And we were no longer limited to where our feet could take us.
We took to the Sky and the surface of our World held few secrets from us.
And still, we lost aircraft, and crews. For the Wind is a harsh and fickle master.
And we who survived learned how to make bigger and safer aircraft, and learned to go further, and faster, and carry more goods with us.
And still we lost aircraft, and crews, for the Wind is a harsh and fickle master, and what He wants, He takes.
And we learned how to sail 'neath the Sea and return. And we were no longer at the mercy of the Wind, for we could sink 'neath the tempests and return when the Wind was calm.
And we lost submersibles, and crews, for the Sea is a harsh and fickle mistress.
And we who survived learned how to make bigger and safer submersibles. And we learned to better harness the Sea and carry more goods.
And still we lost submersibles, and crews, for the Sea is a harsh and fickle mistress, and what She wants, She takes.
And we learned to harness the Void, and return. And we were no longer at the mercy of the Sea, and we were no longer at the mercy of the Wind. And we were no longer limited to the World, which held few secrets from us. And we were no longer limited to the Coasts, nor to where our feet could take us.
And we lost spacecraft, and crews, for the Void is a harsh and fickle mistress, and what She wants, She takes.
And we lost spacecraft, and crews, for the Wind is jealous of the Void, and contrary in His spite. And what He wants, He takes.
And we lost spacecraft, and crews.
And we who survive shall learn to build bigger and safer spacecraft to carry more goods and go further, and faster. And we shall learn to better harness the Void, and to soothe the Wind so He will no longer be jealous of the Void.
And we will go to the Stars. Your descendants. My descendants. We will go to the Stars to build new lives for ourselves. And we will form new Nations, new Cities, and new Cultures.
And the Stars will hold few secrets from us.
Still, we will lose spacecraft, and crews, for the Void is a harsh and fickle mistress, and what She wants, She will take.
But we will no longer be limited.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Nothing like a good old fashioned tragedy to open the sluicegates of slipshod writing.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Hey, at least it's not glurge... no mentions of God or kittens or "email this to 10 people"
You could do better, I'm sure.
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
Congress gives funds to NASA. It is NASA's discretion as to how the funds are dispersed. This is why I am against NASA, not Congress.
I am hearing reports of the shuttle breaking apart above the skies in California. At the Caltech Observatory in the Southland (as southern California is known), the shuttle's descent was videotaped. Just before the shuttle reaches intersection with Venus, as seen from Earth, there is a bright flash and, subsequently, a grayish contrail is seen streaking across the sky.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by newark: Congress gives funds to NASA. It is NASA's discretion as to how the funds are dispersed. This is why I am against NASA, not Congress.
That's not entirely so. Congress can and does earmark money for specific purposes wihin NASA. A while back it added funding for a Pluto-Kuiper probe, money that NASA had decided not to ask for.
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
My mother and I had a discussion. She had grown up in the Golden Age of Space Exploration in the 1960's. In July 1969, my mother witnessed the Apollo Moon landing from her living room tv in Oakland, California.
In her opinion, she sees our country's space program akin to the ocean explorations of the Spaniards and Portuguese. These nations were the first to explore the New World. Eventually, both nations were unable to support their explorations and ended their programs.
I disagreed with her. I see our program as akin to the great Chinese programs of exploration in the early 1400's. They explored the nations around the western Indian Ocean. The government of China made a decision not to fund future exploration programs. The decisions were based on internal and external pressures which required greater attention from the Chinese government. There were no Chinese colonies as I pointed out to my mother. Our nation has left no colonies and has no intention of returning to the Moon or even going to Mars.
I am for a hiatus for the space program. There will be less money for the program as baby boomers enter retirement, as the war on terrorism rages, and as the deficit grows larger.
I have also grown weary of the talk of our nation going to Mars. Even before I was born, there was talk of going there in 1969. This is 33 years of talk. Where are the results of so much talk?
I feel our nation is torn between our desire for space exploration and our apathy for space exploration. The budget reflects this tension I believe. I want our nation to decide if space exploration is vital for our nation, and, if so, provide the funding for a successful and healthy program. Otherwise, cancel the damned program. Space will always be there for us.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Me, I want the exact opposite. Never stop to think about the necessity of space exploration. Because if you do, you'll never start to move forward again. There *is* no necessity for space exploration, not in the short term. It's all an investment in the far future. And "reasonable" people never invest in the far future.
If the shuttles are too much to manage, let's develop an American space capsule that rides an Atlas V. A craft that's nothing more than a stunt to keep America in space, possibly not even on par with the Souyzes. Let's pretend it is "necessary" for keeping the ISS manned, an endeavor that itself is "necessary" only in the loosest sense.
Let's keep on doing things like the Pathfinder crawler, things that are far more primitive and less ambitious than what was done in the seventies, but serve to keep the space program alive and to give it an aura of importance. Let's make space routinely accessible and accessed before it's made safe or profitable.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
We have, unfortunately, grown up in a society based largely on immediate gratification, and when it became apparant that we weren't going to have orbiitng space stations, moon bases, and expeditions to Mars by the '80s, most people's attention drifted. When Shrub too office there was a budget surplus for the first time in decades, which he and his warmongering cronies all-too-quickly pissed away. We want it all, we want it now, and when we don't get it, we get bored and turn on the TV.
I've known we weren't going to get to Mars for decades. I know it's probably going to be a millennium before we start to go to the stars, unless something utterly unexpected occurs. It was over a century between Columbus running into Haiti and the first serious European colony in North America. I'm just amazed the private sector has remained so ambivalent to space exploitation.
Ideally, we would keep the Martian and Jovian expeditions as a background thread, while sending out probes to explore the far planets and the Oort cloud and establishing more of a nearspace presence. Multiple orbiting space habitats -- not a collection of modules like the ISS, but an actual STATION, a la 2001, constructed using materials mined from the moon and near-Earth asteroids. We've piddled around in the shallows long enough without leaving a permanent presence. Even the ISS isn't home for too many for too long. We need someplace people can live and work and call home for their entire lives without suffering deliterious effects. Whether this is through artificial gravity or through centrifugal force or whatever.
There will still be accidents and deaths and the like. Such is the cost of living in this universe. Whether it is from being gored by a mastodon, having a building fall on you in an earthquake, or by having a bulkhead blow out and leave you sucking vacuum, you're just as dead. Trying to find a point to justifiably "hold back" from going too far is futile. You'll end up back at the primordial soup where going out on land was too dangerous because of the ultraviolet rays bombarding this planet...
quote: I am for a hiatus for the space program. There will be less money for the program as baby boomers enter retirement, as the war on terrorism rages, and as the deficit grows larger.
We wasted enough time after the Apollo missions were cut short. We, the Baby Boomers, can lose a little weight, live with a little less, and we could get by without this war on Iraq, although Korea is starting to look like it's going to have to be there. and the deficit will grow, no matter what we do.
quote: I have also grown weary of the talk of our nation going to Mars. Even before I was born, there was talk of going there in 1969. This is 33 years of talk. Where are the results of so much talk?
We like to talk things to death in this country, but in the case of Mars, we are just not that good yet. Talk about risky! That's really risky, and we will need a new propulsion system before we can do it with any reasonable hope of the Astronauts getting there and back.
quote: I feel our nation is torn between our desire for space exploration and our apathy for space exploration. The budget reflects this tension I believe. I want our nation to decide if space exploration is vital for our nation, and, if so, provide the funding for a successful and healthy program. Otherwise, cancel the damned program. Space will always be there for us.
Space expolation provides a chance for research. Things that they might not think of otherwise, we research because we need to know about it for the next launch. When you turn on your computer, and it's better then 64K, think of the space program, or the next time you us a calculator, or have a major medical problem, thank the Space Program for all the reseasch that's been done, and all of the technology that has come out of it. One of the major reasons we are as far advanced in technology is because of reseasrch for or during the Space Program.
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
Forgive me if this has already been said (just so much content in this topic). Doesn't the space station have an old-stype pod (like the one's the Apollo's and the Russians currently used/use)? I heard that they have one as an escape pod-type vessel. Why don't they just use that and come home?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Because they now have supplies until June, and it's very much a last-chance solution. And if they leave that may be it for the ISS - any other solution at least gives a chance of a relief crew to carry on the work. Plus there's the symbolism of it all.
"Did Archer give up and go home after he was beaten by the Germans in 'Shockwave?' Hell no!" "Germans?" "Forget it, he's rolling. . ." 8)
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:as the war on terrorism rages
I'm not sure rages is exactly the right word to use but hey... Also how exactly do you wage war on an abstract noun?
Yes, these are worrying times and yes there are many other budgetry requirements BUT the space programme is a vital investment in the future, in this better world we hope to create. The technology, jobs and not to mention the morale boost successful programs generate are all vital. And I believe it is our future.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
If, in the worst case, no one can go get them, is there a pod?
I know there was supposed to be one, and it would make sense to have it there before there was a crew, but is it there? That wasn't really clear when they were talking about it on TV.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Yes, ISS has a Soyuz capsule that doubles as lifeboat.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
I saw some pics of the Enterprise today. It is sitting in a building at Dulles Airport. If I can find them again, I'll link to them tomorrow.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Kosh: It is internationally recognized that NO ONE will put more people in orbit than they have the ability to bring back down - it's just common sense. The station is plenty capable (or at least WILL be capable) of supporting more than the current crew of three, but they're not going to do it unless they can bring everyone back if need be.
One of the big concerns about the ISS is that the shelving of the X-38 Crew Return Vehicle has effectively eliminated the ability to have a crew of six or seven on the station - the capacity of the long-duration CRV capsule. Russian Soyuz capsules can only take three people, plus are replaced every six months (they can only last in space for a year AT MOST). Furthermore, the Russians are only contracted to provide Soyuz capsules for so long.. The CRV was to replace them by 2006, but this ain't gonna happen.
A few weeks ago a bunch of ISS people resolved that increasing the crew of the ISS is imperative to accomplish the goals of the station (the crew of three have barely any time to work on science as so much time is spent just keeping the station going), and so are hoping to allocate the funding to have the Russians provide two Soyuz capsules to ISS at a time. This will double the crew capacity of the station, and allow for most of the science objectives the station is designed to do. It's unknown if they'll provide more Progress resupply ships to match, or if they'll need to if the ESA can finish off the Jules Verne ATV...
Unfortunately the station will never be at its designed effectiveness without the cancelled habitation, propulsion and additional lab modules, but that's a whole other thread.
Mark
[ February 04, 2003, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Mark Nguyen ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
And of course, the Soyuz isn't any safer than the Shuttle, having suffered at LEAST as many fatal accidents (2 that the Russians have admitted. Possibly more).
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The Soyuz family of spacecraft probably have the single best success/failure ratio of any spacecraft, thanks to their age and how often they have been used. I'm having some problems digging up exact numbers, but I would not be surprised if there have been at least twice as many Soyuz launches as shuttle ones, and would be surprised if there had been twice as many capsule failures.
And, of course, that's taking the entire Soyuz family into account. If we only talk about the modern versions the success rate only goes up.
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
Last April, NASA released some members of the advisory board. This advisory board had issued warnings on the health of the space program. The people who were released feel they this was a self-motivated action by NASA to protect its interests. If you like, I will get the relevant article which goes into more detail on this event.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Also the Soyuz is a little less complex than a space shuttle orbiter. Less complex = less that can go wrong.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
quote:Originally posted by newark: Last April, NASA released some members of the advisory board. This advisory board had issued warnings on the health of the space program. The people who were released feel they this was a self-motivated action by NASA to protect its interests. If you like, I will get the relevant article which goes into more detail on this event.
Read the same article. It states the members who were released were at the end of their terms anyway. So it's just conspiracy assumption to think that the only reason they were released was for this.
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
I was careful in my post to say that the people on the board, not myself, believe that NASA had other motives. There are some who distrust NASA more than I.
Looking at the budget for this coming year, Pres. Bush proposes a decrease in spending for the shuttle program, than a modest increase in spending for the shuttle program. In terms of inflation, the increase is 1.5 of inflation. Any increase which is 2.0 of inflation is a good thing; an increase of <2.0 is not a good thing. Amusingly, this budget makes no allowance for war in Iraq or North Korea. Wishful thinking?
I have read coverage in Newsweek and Time. There is no coverage of the incident in US News and World Report. The DOD, who receive more money for their space program, are less interested in a manned program. They are looking at an increased presence in space by Americans through the utilization of unmanned recon and defensive space vehicles. Seeing how our country is headed, I will argue that their approach is the future, not NASA's two programs of manned and unmanned. Our nation is moving away from risking people's lives in combat. I heard on NOVA that the F-35, the JSF, may be the last jet fighter with a human fighter in our arsenal.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I fail to see how military decisions have any effect on the civilian, scientific space programme. Just because the USAF are doing one thing it doesn't necessarily follow that NASA will do the same.
The DoD has a fundamentally different role in space to NASA. Do not forget that.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
quote: and we will need a new propulsion system before we can do it with any reasonable hope of the Astronauts getting there and back.
No.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: The Soyuz family of spacecraft probably have the single best success/failure ratio of any spacecraft, thanks to their age and how often they have been used. I'm having some problems digging up exact numbers, but I would not be surprised if there have been at least twice as many Soyuz launches as shuttle ones, and would be surprised if there had been twice as many capsule failures.
Perhaps we are comparing apples and oranges... IIRC, Soyuz capsules are not reusable.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I don't think they're supposed to be, no.
But, so what? They're a lot cheaper. And frankly, the space shuttle is only reusable for certain values of the word. It's almost necessary to rebuild the entire craft after each mission. If we can do the same jobs with a cheap and expendable craft, why not?
I don't think it is at all harmful to the memories of the Columbia crew, the craft itself, or even to the reputation of NASA (though I don't think we should be worried about the latter) to point out that the space shuttle program has not exactly been a raging success when we take into consideration the original design criteria. The shuttle is not the cheapest way to get payloads into space, not even human ones. It is not the safest. (Though, to be sure, as seats strapped to explosions go, it is very safe.)
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
I pointed the differences between the DOD and the NASA for I wanted to make a very important point.
Humans are moving to a stage in their development where they don't to expend lives wastefully. We are coming to value lives more.
Look at the abortion debate. We are redefining the moment when life begins in an unborn baby. Centuries ago, our ancestors believe that if a baby died before its first month, the baby was a piece of meat and not human. (Talmud) In the 21st century, we are defining life as beginning in the sixth month of gestation. This is a fundamental change in our thinking and our values.
I believe this change, which is being more reflected in the world as a whole, will play a major role in our explorations of space in the future. We are not as willing as our ancestors to see men as expendable commodities in our quest for riches and glory in the name of the nation.
I am disgusted with the hatred shown toward me on this board. This is a free nation still where a man or a woman or a child can express their views either in favor of the majority or in favor of the minority. You are so willing to expend American blood in the cause of freedom on another man's land, but you are not willing to support freedom of thought here in your own country. What hypocrites!
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
. . .
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
Erm, we're entitled to not like your opinion just as much as you're entitled to state your opinion... Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"This is a free nation..."
Erm... This isn't a nation. It's an Internet message board. Privately owned and operated, no less.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Oh yes, thick with hate this thread is. Like a gingersnap cookie. Because of the molasses, you see. Which is thick.
And delicious!
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I feel I should post a picture of me and Tom hugging. But someone forgot their camera. Bastard.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Perhaps we can steer this thread back to where it should be. The Columbia disaster is still less than a week ago. I don't want to be forgetting the accident that soon.
So, how about those guys who're arrested for allegedly stealing bits of Columbia wreckage?
Mark
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
Well,there is new footage showing the underside of the shuttle. There is no damage to her left wing. This is proving to be more of a structural failure in the shuttle as she reentered the atmosphere.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Regarding the purpose of the shuttle in the first place, you can lay that one at Nixon's feet. He was presented with a proposal for an Earth-orbiting space station with an attendant service vehicle. He vetoed the station, but kept the service vehicle -- nifty way to put spy satellites in orbit. But, he didn't realize, an incredibly risky and expensive one.
I find the entire shuttle program to have been a very poor use of funds and expertise. Far better, for all past and present concerns (I think) to have a good, cheap, and reliable unmanned launch vehicle like the Ariane to get payloads into orbit, and then a smaller lifting body shuttle to get work crews into orbit when needed. More like an expansion of Gemini than the shuttle as built. This is why I had such high hopes for the Venture (I refuse to call it Venture*Star).
--Jonah
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
If the failue is structural, then NASA's maintenance program may become the focus of the probe. This is typical in airplane crashes when human error has been ruled out and there is evidence of structural failure.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Of course, if someone hadn't neglected to tell me he was coming to this country, because he was apparently afraid of me, I might have been there AND I'd have remembered a camera to capture his and Liam's happy moment.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote: I am disgusted with the hatred shown toward me on this board. This is a free nation still where a man or a woman or a child can express their views either in favor of the majority or in favor of the minority. You are so willing to expend American blood in the cause of freedom on another man's land, but you are not willing to support freedom of thought here in your own country. What hypocrites!
I don't hate you, I disagree, that's different. I did say your opinion was B.S., that's Bachlor of Science material.
quote: The shuttle is not the cheapest way to get payloads into space, not even human ones. It is not the safest. (Though, to be sure, as seats strapped to explosions go, it is very safe.)
I think Vogan had the right idea, but maybe take it a little futher. Instead of giving the Russians money to build Energia, lets do the capitalist thing, and buy it from them, lock stock and engineers. I'd be just as happy with them building it in Russia. If there record is to be believed, Energia is a hell of a rocket, but I wouldn't mind seeing the work come to the USA. Maybe they would make some parts in West Virginia, maybe even in Coalwood.
quote: Of course, if someone hadn't neglected to tell me he was coming to this country, because he was apparently afraid of me, I might have been there AND I'd have remembered a camera to capture his and Liam's happy moment.
And that just needed to be repeated.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Maybe it's all those ICQ messages saying simply "Boo!" I sent him. 8)
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: I think Vogan had the right idea, but maybe take it a little futher. Instead of giving the Russians money to build Energia, lets do the capitalist thing, and buy it from them, lock stock and engineers. I'd be just as happy with them building it in Russia. If there record is to be believed, Energia is a hell of a rocket, but I wouldn't mind seeing the work come to the USA. Maybe they would make some parts in West Virginia, maybe even in Coalwood.
I wonder if it might be possible to eventually combine the two space agencies? (I would say ESA as well, but the frogs wouldn't allow that). After all, there's already increased co-operation due to the collapse of the USSR and the ISS program; combining them would cut down on duplication of jobs/some equipment and hopefully leave more money available for safty, R&D, etc.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
*hee hee* UN SPACEY!!!
--Jonah
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote: I wonder if it might be possible to eventually combine the two space agencies? (I would say ESA as well, but the frogs wouldn't allow that). After all, there's already increased co-operation due to the collapse of the USSR and the ISS program; combining them would cut down on duplication of jobs/some equipment and hopefully leave more money available for safty, R&D, etc.
That would be the ultimate answer, including the ESA.
I saw a photo on TV last night, that was supposed to have been taken by the military. It was a black outline of the shuttle about two minutes before it was lost. It appears to show something sticking out from the left wing, but it was just a dark area, with no real detail. I suspect it will end up being nothing more then a blurry spot on the picture.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)