posted
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.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
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).
posted
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
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
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
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!?!
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
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. . .
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.
Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
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.
Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
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 ]
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
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.
-------------------- "Lotta people go through life doing things badly. Racing's important to men who do it well. When you're racing, it's life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting."
-Steve McQueen as Michael Delaney, LeMans
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
