Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-01 10:34:08

You may be right, Preston, the logic is sound. But if the fleet isn't shut down, though, future progress is going to be quite difficult. At least with regard to RLV.

And soph, it's only 500 million.

I think this is just an obvious situation for people to pounce and push forward their initatives, though. Times like these always are.

soph · 2003-02-01 10:35:29

no, its a billion. i can cite the discovery channel along with several nasa officials on that. care to cite your source?

Palomar · 2003-02-01 10:37:03

Man oh man, I shouldn't have had those three chili peppers for breakfast this morning. My stomach is really acting up badly. I'm literally sick here.

Yeah, my breakfast is doing somersaults in my stomach too.

I really REALLY feel for the families. NASA escorted them to a private area after contact was lost. I can't imagine the shock and grief they're going through.

Pat Galea · 2003-02-01 10:41:14

Heard about 20 minutes ago (jumped up to turn on TV for a few minutes) that a piece of debris (of what exactly wasn't stated) hit the left wing of Columbia as it launched, and also a notation was made about the insulation of it...full details weren't given.
If this doesn't take all shuttles out of commission completely and forever, then it'll probably be a few years before another mission is launched (same as after Challenger).

It's very sad news indeed.

That thing about the tile hitting the wing... trouble is, they had very little opportunity after it happened to do anything about it. Even if they realised right away what had happened (and I don't know if they did), there's not that much time available to make a technical assessment and decide whether to abort. Even then, the abort modes aren't that great, but at least some of them avoid the heat of re-entry.

Once the shuttle was in space, there's not really much they could do. I don't know of any procedures for inflight repair that would reduce rather than increase the risk.

Of course, this might not be the cause of the disaster. But I'll bet it's the best candidate they've got right now.

In the absence of any other information, this just looks like a very tragic accident.

Palomar · 2003-02-01 10:46:07

Heard about 20 minutes ago (jumped up to turn on TV for a few minutes) that a piece of debris (of what exactly wasn't stated) hit the left wing of Columbia as it launched, and also a notation was made about the insulation of it...full details weren't given.
If this doesn't take all shuttles out of commission completely and forever, then it'll probably be a few years before another mission is launched (same as after Challenger).
It's very sad news indeed.
That thing about the tile hitting the wing... trouble is, they had very little opportunity after it happened to do anything about it. Even if they realised right away what had happened (and I don't know if they did), there's not that much time available to make a technical assessment and decide whether to abort. Even then, the abort modes aren't that great, but at least some of them avoid the heat of re-entry.
Once the shuttle was in space, there's not really much they could do. I don't know of any procedures for inflight repair that would reduce rather than increase the risk.

Hi Pat, nice to see you again. Yes, you're right. I wonder if the debris incident at launch caused much nagging anxiety during the mission.

I just keep shaking my head "no" at all this.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-01 10:47:53

soph, http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/4411/faq-a.htm

A7. What does a single shuttle launch cost?

[written by Dwayne Allen Day]

About $400-500 million. This is just the cost of the 8 or so missions per year divided into the total cost of the program per year. Adding another mission to the ones already planned costs about $100 million or so. If you work in the development costs, then the cost of each shuttle mission can be as high as $1.5 billion, but this number keeps going down as more and more shuttles are launched and the development costs are amortized over more total flights.

I'd be willing to conceed that it's closer to a billion if you please not hijack another thread.

soph · 2003-02-01 10:51:05

fine, but stop blaming me for your hijacking. its getting very annoying when you say something that you expect to be closed to srutiny, becuase its "hijacking"

of course, its my fault, though.

Palomar · 2003-02-01 10:59:03

Just heard that a spy satellite (I presume U.S. owned, not sure) which is programmed to keep tabs on heat and power surges (from nuclear warheads testing and the like) reported a "heat spike" in the shuttle immediately prior to NASA losing communication with the shuttle; it also detected an explosion on board.

--Cindy

Nirgal82 · 2003-02-01 11:00:48

Official,

"No hope for shuttle or crew"
-senior US official

source Dan Rather CBS news 9:59

-Matt

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-01 11:03:46

They're going to be speaking soon. I'm trying to keep tabs on the news. Hopefully NASA TV will show the Presidents' speech (though I find that unlikely, guess it's c-span for me).

Cindy, do you think that would be indicatives of tiles burning off rapidly or do you personally feel it was something else entirely?

BTW, my stomach still kills me. I took some Maylock, but it didn't work at all.

Adrian · 2003-02-01 11:03:47

Look, it doesn't matter exactly how much a Shuttle launch costs, rather than the fact that it costs a hell of a lot of money. $500 million is still an enormous (and many would say excessive) amount of money, even if it half of $1 billion.

I was shocked to hear about this a couple of hours ago - I was sitting in a friend's room with a friend visiting from Canada (Katie from MDRS Crew 11). I got a message on my phone, and at the same time someone IMed the computer we were at - we were just shellshocked. Maybe it didn't have the same impact that the Challenger disaster had on people - we weren't watching it, after all, but it was still a real blow.

As for what this means for the US space programme, I think that the Shuttle fleet will be grounded for a while. Not as long as two years - but it's certainly likely that the next three or four missions will be cancelled. This will of course do no favours to the ISS. However, I think there is absolutely no way that the ISS can be abandoned, not after all that's happened.

Also, I believe that China may choose to capitalise on this event - not publicly, of course, but they may step up their space programme. Someone remarked that the next human to reach space will not be an American, but a Chinese.

Palomar · 2003-02-01 11:13:07

Cindy, do you think that would be indicatives of tiles burning off rapidly or do you personally feel it was something else entirely?
BTW, my stomach still kills me. I took some Maylock, but it didn't work at all.

To answer your question to me, I have no idea Josh; my head's spinning.

Maalox, no. Take Pepto-Bismol or chew some antacid tablets. If you don't have those on hand, stir a heaping teaspoon of baking soda (hopefully fresh) into 1/2 cup of water, stir, drink. That helps a sour stomach if nothing else is on hand and you don't want to have to run to the store.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-01 11:15:19

I was feeling nostalgic when I corrected soph, and I still am somewhat. The Space Shuttle was and is (at least until someone comes up with a better design) basically the state of the art, hands down. $500 million for a 63500lb payload is very cheap, by anyones standard. We just never utilized the thing to its full potential.

I agree with you that there will at least be a grounding, though. How long was the Concord grounded? I think they will ground it until they figure out what went wrong, surely.

And that's an interesting quote you heard, and damn, it may well be true. China plans to go before the end of the year. That's a really amazing metaphor. As the US's space program gets slapped, China's makes a leap...

Nirgal82 · 2003-02-01 11:17:32

My only hope at this point it this...

Let them not have died in vain...

-Matt

soph · 2003-02-01 11:18:35

:angry: moving on....

state of the art? hardly. we are using old computers, old technology, and a 20 year old launch system. how is that state of the art? i would really like to know.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-01 11:38:16

Nah, the Shuttles have new computers, and lots of new internal technology, it's not like they weren't upgraded as technology got better (which is silly). The engines themselves (if not the ships) were designed for 100 runs (the whole fleet has only done 113, for comparasion). And have a pretty high specific impulse if I recall correctly.

The point is that there is nothing to replace its duties at this point in time... it's like having a dump truck and calling it state of the art because a better one doesn't exist. This isn't a stretch or anything.

Unless your name is soph (and you are evil).

If NASA wasn't so mismanaged, we'd have a dang space station with gravity or whatever by now. How hard is it to design a strip based space station and make it so that each strip fills the shuttle payload?

BTW, listening to the news now, still no NASA report. I thought it was happening at noon, EST, but I guess not.

soph · 2003-02-01 11:41:16

actually, about the computers, theyre models that would hardly run the internet. they arent modern since a decade ago.

but about the rest of the ship, i cant comment. 500,000 gallons of hydrogen to lift 110 tons seems a bit wasteful to me. the tanks are almost as massive as the orbiter...correct me if im wrong.

oh, i believe o'keefe will be speaking at 1.

Nirgal82 · 2003-02-01 11:46:16

The conference is supposed to happen 1:00 Eastern
15 minutes from the time i write this...

-Matt

Adrian · 2003-02-01 11:48:31

Never mind the computers - they don't have to be sophisticated, they just have to work well and run the Shuttle. They have IBM Thinkpads on the Shuttle as well that can do the job of Internet browsers, data processing and entry and whatever.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-01 11:50:53

What else do we have, though? You don't feel somewhat nostalgic about this machine which we designed so long ago which could lift major payloads (along with people) into space? The thing was designed to build stuff. I guess you're too young. But the fact still remains, there is nothing else to replace it, yet.

I believe the computers were replaced with advanced replicas, merely because changing anything physically could potentially harm the overall strength of the system. But anyway, as they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

We usually send a payload which is less than half what the Shuttle can handle (sometimes sending nothing but people up), this is a horrible waste of resources. We should have, from the get go, been sending up 60k pound payloads. Every single trip.

Somewhat random comment. The odds of living a Shuttle Flight are not 1 in 75. Nasty odds.

soph · 2003-02-01 11:56:35

um...there have been 113 flights. 2 accidents. this is under a 2% failure rate. not to sound could, but for all the talk of huge risks and all, 2% is pretty damn good. the problem is when you spend so much per launch, and have so few shuttles, you cant afford that loss.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-01 12:07:37

Um, when you skew numbers like that, obviously it can look in ones favor over another.

0.1% of all pick 3 numbers match the pick 3. So, by your logic, an astronaut has a 1.9% higher chance of dying in a Space Shuttle crash than winning the pick 3...

1 minute.

soph · 2003-02-01 12:16:41

2/113=~2%
there is no number skewing. it is perfectly good math. looking for an error is pointless, because it is simple math. what other factors should i take into account? Accidents that havent happened? Flights yet to happen?

but i guess you could say that. An astronaut has a 2% chance of being in a failed mission. If they have a .1% chance of winning the pick 3, then yes, you have a 1.9% greater chance of being in a failed mission.

Adrian · 2003-02-01 12:52:43

My take on the risk is that while there are plenty of highly intelligent and skilled individuals that are willing to take the 2% risk of dying while flying into space, it simply isn't justifiable from a resources point of view - it is a waste of human talent and human work.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-01 12:57:38

Oops, sorry soph, mishappen logic there.

But I agree with Adrian. Those odds are quite horrible. In fact, if I were an astronaut, and I won the pick 3 the day before a flight, I wouldn't go! Totally bad omen, for sure (I've won the pick 3 several times before, while playing for fun).

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-02-01 10:34:08

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#27 2003-02-01 10:35:29

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#28 2003-02-01 10:37:03

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#29 2003-02-01 10:41:14

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#30 2003-02-01 10:46:07

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#31 2003-02-01 10:47:53

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#32 2003-02-01 10:51:05

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#33 2003-02-01 10:59:03

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#34 2003-02-01 11:00:48

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#35 2003-02-01 11:03:46

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#36 2003-02-01 11:03:47

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#37 2003-02-01 11:13:07

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#38 2003-02-01 11:15:19

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#39 2003-02-01 11:17:32

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#40 2003-02-01 11:18:35

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#41 2003-02-01 11:38:16

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#42 2003-02-01 11:41:16

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#43 2003-02-01 11:46:16

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#44 2003-02-01 11:48:31

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#45 2003-02-01 11:50:53

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#46 2003-02-01 11:56:35

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#47 2003-02-01 12:07:37

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#48 2003-02-01 12:16:41

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#49 2003-02-01 12:52:43

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#50 2003-02-01 12:57:38

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

Board footer