Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-02 13:14:50

NASA has always shown that whenever problems occur, there are always always options. Their probe missions being the real proof of their ablity to deal with problems.

Russia probably could have done something about it, I think they have rockets readied around the clock for whatever. Had we noticed any problems, it would have been at the beginning of their mission, though, so it's not like they'd run out of food by the time we got something going. It's feasible that Russia could have basically launched an ISS style supply rocket, with EVA suits, a tile repair kit, and so on. And if Russia couldn't launch one, we probably could. I don't think another Shuttle launch could havebeen feasible, due to time constraints. We wouldn't want to rush a Shuttle launch in order to help repair another Shuttle, only to have that one blow up on the launch pad.

soph · 2003-02-02 13:28:19

actually, i believe atlantis is due to launch pretty soon, or it was, anyway. it was supposed to do more construction on the ISS. i dont know exactly when it was supposed to launch though.

PaganToris · 2003-02-02 15:34:18

as i heard from my friend phobos yesterday morning that suttle had just dascenagraded i was shocked it had alrdy past it was 9am california time and i went to yahoo news and turned the news on to see what waz the matter my guess that they did poor tileing on the shuttle or maybe as they said a foam piece fro the fuel box fell out i bet that had something to do wiht it who knows!

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-04 09:21:59

NASA memo figured wing damage

Foam debris that hit heat tiling on Columbia?s left wing on launch probably caused localized damage covering 7 by 30 inches, according to a NASA memo seen by NBC News. Engineers decided at the time that the damage posed no safety issue, but NASA officials ordered a complete re-examination of the incident Monday after acknowledging that it was now their leading candidate for what led the shuttle to break up.

More: http://www.msnbc.com/news/867336.asp?0cv=CA01

Roark · 2003-02-07 21:14:52

Columbia Investigation Enters New Phase, Air Force Picture Adds Intrigue

Looks like the left wing was definitely falling apart.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/st … 30207.html

anansi · 2003-02-10 13:54:32

After Apollo 204 burned on the pad, it was re-named Apollo One in order to emphasize its imprtance to the overall apollo mission. When Challenger was lost, it was early on in the prgram, and there was a strong motivation to make it work. Now?

I think it might be a good idea to consider what we want from any space program. Apollo took us to the moon, in competition with the soviets. That particular space race is not possible in today's world. The shuttle was meant to keep NASA employed and funded, I don't know that I want that any more. ISS seems designed as an international space embassy/hotel; it's not my first choice, but I like it better than a jobs program.

The mandate I would like to hand to my elected officials, is the establishment of a self-sustaining human infrastructure located outside the earth's gravity well. It might be an L-5 colony, it might be lunar, it could be mars, or even part of a space elevator... as long as it gets us off this rock, I'm for it!

My challenge lies in bringing this mandate down to the moment, in tems that the unimaginative can understand. Here and now, I want to equip the remaining 3 shuttles for robotic launch and landing, so they can serve out their remaining operational lifetime without needing to be man-rated all over again.

dicktice · 2003-02-10 19:32:11

An orbiting, accessible space platform is needed by us in order to learn how to live and work indefinitely in good health and (in the long run) happiness apart from Mother Earth, in order to survive as a species. That Earth-ecology will have to be adapted is a "given," but that will require living space and duration of controlled conditions.
Since living and learning how to accomplish this in low Earth orbit is all we are presently capable of--by default (having foolishly squandered Mir and Spacelab)--the ISS represents this generation's only remaining opportunity make this all-essential first step away from Earth. This should make Mars Society adherents very thoughtful....

soph · 2003-02-10 19:34:52

Or we can do the same research while actually exploring somewhere new, like Mars for example!

dicktice · 2003-02-10 20:46:10

Soph! But first, we need to be able to live routinely off-Earth, and the first step is to learn how to do this...through the use of the ISS. Why is that so hard to accept? Without the ISS, getting to Mars from Earth (motivated how, I wonder?) would be just another Apollo-like, Mars-or-bust exercise which, due to lessons yet unlearned in LEO, would most likely end in tragedy. The repercussions, at this fragile stage of the ISS program, if the U.S. were to let it go by default, would kill any chance for a meaningful Mars Program in my opinion. There's more to this scenario (e.g. possibility of "foreign" takeover) but I've got to quit and get some sleep. Nice chatting with you.

soph · 2003-02-10 20:49:30

Well, didn't they do that on Mir for 20 years?

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-10 21:03:39

Nope, we don't know how to live in space without being supplied every 3 months or whatever. We need to have systems which are able to recycle waste, air, and so on. As far as I know, NASA has only recently (in the past 5 years or so) begun to do research into that area. Which actually suggests how far behind we are, compared to where we could potentially be.

I agree with dicktice, the concept of going to Mars Apollo-style, a basic footprint and flag mission, is quite, well, uninticing.

soph · 2003-02-10 21:24:10

The point was to record this data en-route to and on Mars while doing a Mars Direct style mission!

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-10 21:49:33

You mean Zubrin's crazy suicide mission? I don't see how we'd benefit from a Mars Direct-style mission. Assuming it even worked at all.

Such research requires at least a little redundency. And as far as I know, like I said before, we have only barely begun in that area.

I don't think the ISS is the solution, though, not to confuse my position. I just think that any real solution is going to be in long term research, not shortsighted Apollo-style nationalistic races.

And we haven't even begun any good long term research. I thought that's what the ISS was for, but I've become skeptical.

soph · 2003-02-10 21:56:27

Suicide mission? It's sound from an economic, practical, and engineering standpoint-I see no reason to call it a suicide mission. It has science aims, production aims, and colonization aims.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-10 23:20:58

C'mon... it's quite a risky mission.

Zubrin says that he'd go to Mars if the chances of survival were 75%. That's to say (if I'm out out of it like before when I was talking about odds), his odds of dying were 1 in 4. Those are some nasty odds if you ask me! You have much better odds with a Russian Roulette!

http://www.newmars.com/archives/000049.shtml

You can't buy a safe mission for the kind of money you'd be putting in to Mars Direct.

Euler · 2003-02-11 02:52:52

What we should do with the ISS is use it as a base for reusable manned spacecraft that could be used to explore the rest of the solar system. That was one of the main ideas behind the space station when it was still Freedom. Such an approach has many advantages and it would save money in the long run because we would no longer have to launch spacecraft from Earth's surface for every mission.

soph · 2003-02-11 05:30:20

Whoa, wait a minute. He said he would go...he didn't say the mission has a 1 in for chance of failure :laugh:

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-11 11:32:34

I know that,and I certainly didn't say otherwise.

But if that's how he feels about going to Mars, do you really think he'd design a totally safe mission? It's not like he can afford to.

Palomar · 2003-05-01 06:06:09

*The Worms That Wouldn't Die!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....worms_2

Amazing little critters; the little world around them goes up in flaming debris and they're still boinking in the petri dish.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-05-06 21:51:29

Something I glanced on Slashdot about this was that, hello, the little guys were in petri dishes, in sealed containers. It's not that surprising that they survived.

It's an interesting story, but as another person pointed out (on Slashdot); this story is basically framed in such a way as to imply that ?all is not lost? since a few worms survived. The fact that stories about these sorts of things are framed that way sort of proves the contrary in my mind.

It's cool, but doesn't change much.

Palomar · 2003-06-12 09:15:59

*The link to the story I wanted to post doesn't work after posting...anyway, NASA has decided that all shuttle launches will now be held during daylight hours only.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-06-12 14:34:50

Bolts Threaten Shuttle Lift-Off Safety

*Just spotted this new article at Yahoo! news.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2003-02-02 13:14:50

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#77 2003-02-02 13:28:19

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#78 2003-02-02 15:34:18

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#79 2003-02-04 09:21:59

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#80 2003-02-07 21:14:52

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#81 2003-02-10 13:54:32

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#82 2003-02-10 19:32:11

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#83 2003-02-10 19:34:52

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#84 2003-02-10 20:46:10

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#85 2003-02-10 20:49:30

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#86 2003-02-10 21:03:39

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#87 2003-02-10 21:24:10

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#88 2003-02-10 21:49:33

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#89 2003-02-10 21:56:27

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#90 2003-02-10 23:20:58

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#91 2003-02-11 02:52:52

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#92 2003-02-11 05:30:20

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#93 2003-02-11 11:32:34

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#94 2003-05-01 06:06:09

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#95 2003-05-06 21:51:29

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#96 2003-06-12 09:15:59

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#97 2003-06-12 14:34:50

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

Board footer