Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

soph · 2003-02-01 13:12:16

I would hope our astronauts are more dedicated to our cause than to a 2% chance of failure.

Palomar · 2003-02-01 13:12:28

President Bush just addressed the nation (noon); he stated and then reiterated that space exploration will continue, that the desire to know and to discover drives mankind into the darkness of space and will continue to do so. He made it clear, I thought, that he certainly wishes for space exploration to continue and not to be discouraged by this. Of course, I agree.

--Cindy

Echus_Chasma · 2003-02-01 13:42:28

Hey,

just woke up and damn, thats very pissing off.

But, I believe that this accident will have some sort of positive rebound for the space programme.

Me being the optimist.

dickbill · 2003-02-01 13:54:41

Terrible, it's now time for NASA to separate the crew-only shuttle bussiness, which should be better than 98% reliability from the payload shuttle bussiness.
That means coming back to X38 like projects quickly, and so it means a renewal of the space shuttle fleet.

In my opinion, a smaller but stronger framed shuttle can be designed, allowing crews to access low orbit safer than the current 100 tons shuttle.

soph · 2003-02-01 14:26:35

its kind of ironic that the ISS, the whipping boy of a lot of people, is probably the largest factor that might keep our space program alive at this point.

Adrian · 2003-02-01 15:26:17

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that all astronauts, cosmonauts and taikonauts are more dedicated to their cause than to a 2% risk of death. But does that mean we should accept that for every 100 launches, two should be destroyed? Definitely not. If there is a way to reduce that risk, then we should take it, as long as it doesn't compromise the necessity of the cause.

And in this case, if we could have reduced the risk by simply designing a new and better spacecraft, then the loss of two whole space shuttle crews - some of the best and brightest people in the world, and two of the most expensive and complex spacecraft - is just unacceptable.

soph · 2003-02-01 15:30:03

Adrian, i completely agree. I was just trying to make a point. If there is a way to preserve lives, not just from the much more important humane standpoint, but from a resources standpoint, it must be taken!

there will always be a risk. there is a risk in driving your car. but the risk should be completely minimized-with efficiency and other factors in mind as well. we can't build a 100 ton spaceship that gets 100 pounds into orbit either. but safety should be our primary concern, followed by the performance of the orbiter.

Palomar · 2003-02-01 15:55:17

I probably shouldn't say this, especially not knowing the orbital route the shuttles take, but if there is anything to be grateful for in this disaster it's that it didn't explode and break apart over some hostile nation like Iraq or Iran. Imagine that being misconstrued for (especially) a nuclear attack (or some other) and that triggering something worse. Sorry, but it's been in mind.

My husband just brought in a bouquet of flowers for me...to cheer me up (pretty flowers, grateful for the gesture, but not cheered up). Then my aunt telephoned, saying body parts have been found in SE Texas. How gruesome (could be rumor, of course).

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2003-02-01 16:53:09

This is going to be a pivotal moment. If there are enough people who stand up for a manned space program for whatever reason (exploration, research, satellite maintenance, etc) this could be a huge impetus to proceed with develop of an alternative to the shuttle with renewed vigor.

Otherwise, this could be it. Everyone who gives a shit about the space program, it's time to make your voices heard, now more than ever. We need something new, something high profile to outshine this incident. Mars or bust.

This isn't about the outdated shuttle fleet. It's about who will lead humanity into the future. I choose America over Communist China any day...

Number04 · 2003-02-01 18:36:47

Just got back from work. Someone told me about the accident. tr?s not cool.

But like cobra said, this is an all or nothing situation. We can forge ahead, or get stuck in a rut.

And about the old computers, The TI-83 calculator that I have, and allot of other people use has more computing power then what Apollo 11 had. If you are not running windows, you don't need allot of computer

But I am deeply saddened by this. Not so much by the loss of life, but the possible loss of the program. I would take that 2% risk any day. But I would never want to risk the program.

soph · 2003-02-01 21:17:23

bah, they are the best in the world. russia cant use squat, they havent lived up to their comittments so far. and the ISS is important, while we have it. why waste it?

Cobra Commander · 2003-02-01 22:03:44

bah, they are the best in the world.

Hmm. Kinda like trying to pick the best car from a lot full of used Gremlins. ???

The shuttle was a poor compromise design when it was new, it's time for something new.

Palomar · 2003-02-01 22:15:58

*Yes, it's time for something new...however, I'm afraid if they shelve the shuttle program entirely they (the government bureaucrats) will drag their feet for actually trying something new. I've complained about the shuttle program myself, but I know that something is better than nothing. At least the shuttle does help carry out valuable scientific research. Also, the ISS will probably go to pot without the shuttle program. It's bad enough that we took a step-down from Apollo; what would a step-down from the shuttle be?

We've still got 3 shuttles. Until we get that better program, crafts, or whatever let's hold onto what we've got. The last thing we need is to GIVE the bureaucrats a reason to procrastinate.

I've heard many John and Jane Q. Public today voicing their support for continued space exploration and continued shuttle missions...it's the best we've got at this point, like it or not. No backpeddling, and no allowing the gov't to backpeddle.

--Cindy

soph · 2003-02-01 22:29:19

we need the shuttle until we have something new. exactly, cindy. to shelve it would be a terrible waste. like someone else said, we need a varied fleet in terms of size. we didnt really need a 110 ton orbiter for this last mission. so we have a few goals:

1) Decreased cost
2) More reliable, or less risky thermal protection
3) More ships in the fleet
4) Varied fleet
5) More missions
6) Pre-orbital abort capabilities

In terms of 6, even if we had known the implications of the foam pre-exit from the atmosphere, the orbiter was doomed. at that point, our only abort option would have been to leave the atmosphere, orbit and come down. obviously, the shuttle would have found the same fate. perhaps the crew could have boarded the ISS, and a repair effort could have been done from there. but i dont think we could have known. that ties back to number 2.

Cobra Commander · 2003-02-01 22:43:14

Certainly we can't mothball the shuttles immediately. I'm just pissed that I've been saying we need a new launch vehicle since the Reagan Administration to anyone who would listen (I was a little kid, probably a very annoying one) and watching every attempt to build it shut down.
It's time to quit screwing around and make something better than the half-assed "reusable" spacecraft we've been trucking all over LEO for the last two decades.

CalTech2010 · 2003-02-01 23:10:20

Wow. I was at a wrestling tournament all day today, and nobody bothered to tell me about this. My dad had to break it to be later this afternoon. I'm still a little bit in shock. It's even more frustrating to not know what went wrong... and to not be able to know for at least a few more months (or more likely a few years).

I think this whole issue can go one of two ways:

1.) The average American looks at this failure, and remembers Challenger from the 80's, and decides that they're fed up with the whole darn thing and that we have better uses for our limited funds.

2.) The average American decides that nothing keeps the average American from doing something, let alone an engineering problem or the Chinese.

Either way it's risky for Bush. If he increases funding without somewhat immediate results, it will appear like the money is being siphoned off, but if he doesn't it looks like America is quitting the space game for good.

I still can't believe this. I always thought that Challenger must have been "a freak accident" (in part because I didn't have to live through it), but now the whole risk of going into space seems much more real.

This all seems so unreal. I can't think. Maybe it will get better after some sleep...

P.S.- What does everyone make of the footage of the debris? It was some pretty graphic stuff. The helmet sitting on the ground was the most disturbing (FOX News stopped showing it this afternoon).

Themescules · 2003-02-01 23:33:27

I think there are a few different ways to look at this, Ok yes they are a bit out dated and a New Design is in order, I think that the Shuttles are just the beginning of what is yet to come. They do need to build new Shuttles that will be able to Take off and land on their own, The piggy back style of getting the Shuttles into the Atmosphere is slightly behind the times and they should have been able by now to develop a new type of propulsion/fuel to escape Earth's Gravity. But I don't think the Program and the Shuttles have been a waste, I just think they wanted to perfect the use of them. I just hope this accident doesn't set the program back.
Just like any form of transporation there will always be accidents, I hate to say it but things like this happening are the only way for these pioneer's to find ways to correct and perfect these venues. My heart goes out to all the Family's of the accident victims, they definitely are pioneer's for the Future of The SPACE program.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-02 01:06:09

Just saw the helmet in Yahoo!'s slideshow. Very sobering momment.

Saw some touching images though, including a picture of an American flag someone placed near a piece of the debris...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?g=....&e=1&t=

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-02 04:48:16

Nasa chiefs 'repeatedly ignored' safety warnings

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/st … 30201.html

Columbia's Problems Began on Left Wing

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/st … 30201.html

Looks like the foam that fell off during takeoff was the cause. Doesn't seem NASA could have done anything at all about it. But I'm betting had they looked into it further, they would have figured something out. At least the astronauts themselves could have made a more informed decision, and tried something to fix it. Who knows, they could have docked with the ISS, and had Russia send up a patch kit basically.

soph · 2003-02-02 10:14:24

Who knows, they could have docked with the ISS, and had Russia send up a patch kit basically.

heh, josh, look up the page a bit to my last post.

Mark Friedenbach · 2003-02-02 11:34:35

Columbia flew on a totally different orbit than the ISS. There is no way it could have manuvered to the ISS with the fuel it had, and from what I understand, really wasn't any concern about the foam. The tiles were built to withstand such impacts, and analysis of the tapes showed a piece of foam that technically shouldn't have caused any damage. So either a) it's a coincidence or b) there's something that didn't show up in the tapes, and NASA couldn't have known before hand.

As for in-flight repair, NASA says thats impossible, which I believe. An EVA might have told them the damage, but any EVA would be dangerous and would have taken away from the science of the mission.

This is a terrible accident, but I think all the choices made by NASA were right with the data at hand..

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-02 11:44:16

Yeah, and also, I don't even think the Columbia was able to dock with the ISS even if their orbits were compatable; I read somehting to that effect last night. The only reason I suggested anything is that everything which was done during Apollo 13 was considered impossible by many, but it was done. So if the foam was the culprit, and they had enough suspicion to think that it was, it wasn't necessarily a one way trip.

soph, heh, it was like 4 am when I made that post... didn't realize yours was made.

Pat Galea · 2003-02-02 12:47:52

Yeah, and also, I don't even think the Columbia was able to dock with the ISS even if their orbits were compatable; I read somehting to that effect last night. The only reason I suggested anything is that everything which was done during Apollo 13 was considered impossible by many, but it was done. So if the foam was the culprit, and they had enough suspicion to think that it was, it wasn't necessarily a one way trip.

If they had realised that there was bad damage to the shuttle (and I mean so bad that it was obvious they could not re-enter), then the options are severely limited.

Rendezvous with the ISS is out, due to the orbit differences mentioned above.

The only thing I can think of is to scrub that mission, and launch another shuttle to take 'em off. The rescue shuttle would have to be stripped to the bare minimum crew of 2. (I think the maximum crew complement is 9.)

Of course, the problem with this is that there isn't another shuttle ready to launch. In an emergency, I guess they could speed up the process. But there's not much time left for the crippled craft. Columbia had already been in space for a long time, and it doesn't carry an infinite amount of supplies.

I think they'd quickly cobble together a package of supplies, fuel cells etc. and launch it from a normal rocket to rendezvous with the shuttle. It'd be picked up, and the supplies could keep them going while they readied the other shuttle to bring them back.

They'd be stuck up there for weeks, and the crippled shuttle would be abandoned, at least for the time being. Maybe they could boost its orbit so that it could stay up for a couple of years while they figure out how to fix it and bring it back.

I have no confidence that this idea would work. It's very risky, and there's any number of things that could go wrong. But at least it's something.

Pat Galea · 2003-02-02 12:53:33

6) Pre-orbital abort capabilities
In terms of 6, even if we had known the implications of the foam pre-exit from the atmosphere, the orbiter was doomed. at that point, our only abort option would have been to leave the atmosphere, orbit and come down. obviously, the shuttle would have found the same fate.

I was reading this on the NASA site a couple of days ago:

Candlestick Rocket Ship

The idea is to use paraffin as a rocket fuel. This kind of technology would vastly increase the range of abort modes available; the current restriction is the fact that you can't turn off the damned SRBs. Once they're lit, you're going come hell or high water.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2003-02-01 13:12:16

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#52 2003-02-01 13:12:28

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#53 2003-02-01 13:42:28

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#54 2003-02-01 13:54:41

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#55 2003-02-01 14:26:35

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#56 2003-02-01 15:26:17

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#57 2003-02-01 15:30:03

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#58 2003-02-01 15:55:17

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#59 2003-02-01 16:53:09

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#60 2003-02-01 18:36:47

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#61 2003-02-01 21:17:23

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#62 2003-02-01 22:03:44

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#63 2003-02-01 22:15:58

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#64 2003-02-01 22:29:19

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#65 2003-02-01 22:43:14

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#66 2003-02-01 23:10:20

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#67 2003-02-01 23:33:27

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#68 2003-02-02 01:06:09

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#69 2003-02-02 04:48:16

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#70 2003-02-02 10:14:24

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#71 2003-02-02 11:34:35

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#72 2003-02-02 11:44:16

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#73 2003-02-02 12:47:52

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

#74 2003-02-02 12:53:33

Re: Shuttle Crash!!! - NASA TV.

Board footer