Space Shuttle Columbia EXPLODES!
BATWING FAN SFA said:
I'd say this is proof positive that space travel is just too risky & we should just halt our space program indefinitely as a result.
Yes, and if that was a common attitude throughout human history, we'd still live in caves, or more likely, never survived as a species.
Exploration is part of our evolution. It's a dangerous and risky proposition, but one necessary to continue our forward movement. If anything, this to me is a call for more funding and a renewed sense of purpose for our space program. Pushing further into the next frontier is a far more noble cause to me than fighting a war in the name of finite fossil fuels.
------------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com - Sillynonsense.com
"The world rotates to The Ultra-Heavy Beat!" - KMFDM
My heart is with all the families. We obviously lost seven special people who gave their lives to research and development. They are indeed true heroes in my book.
I remember very vividly seeing the Challenger explode live on TV. I was in 8th grade at the time and was home sick from school. This will be just as memorable.
I think we can all stop complaining about our trivial little problems in our lives now. :-) Kind of puts things in perspective doesn't it? It kind of reminds you that you do take things for granted even though you don't mean to.
------------------
Feel The Adrenaline....
www.intenserides.com
*** This post was edited by coasterqueenTRN 2/1/2003 6:08:17 PM ***
While I never met Mr. Brown, I know many people that have, and even through their brief contact with him, he is deeply missed.
While my thoughts are, of course, with the families of each of the 7 astronauts, please don't forget to think about the many thousands of other people involved with NASA; on the ground and on the launchpad.
Every one of them, I can assure you, has been affected by this loss. They are pioneering individuals that carry with them the fervor for exploration and knowledge like that harbored by legends. Each one of them is the Christopher Columbus of the 21st Century in body and soul.
While these individuals will be gravely missed, the spirit of exploration and the pursuit of knowledge that each housed within their heart was not lost with that spacecraft this morning. It can live on. Inside NASA. Inside each one of us.
BatwingFanSFA - Don't give up on the hopes and dreams of humanity because of this tragic event. Make sure it wasn't in vain.
*** This post was edited by Chernabog 2/1/2003 6:09:26 PM ***
Though old, Columbia was by no means unfit for exploration. Everything about her, barring only the hull and frame, had been replaced at one time or another (mostly on her major re-fit). There is no reason to suppose her frame had any problems. Thirty years is not oo long a time for most planes. True, Columbia had to face many more stresses on her flights. However, she only had one or two flights a year, compared to the one or two flights a day most modern passenger jets have. Also, I ran across an interesting fact at the CNN web site: Although Columbia is the oldest, she is not the most experienced. She was comepleting her 28th mission. Either Discovery or Atlantis (I don't remember which) has successfully completed 30.
I sincerly hope this does not hamper the space program. It has brought us many benefits, accurate weather forecasting, velcro, and satellite TV only being the most obvious. A year or two ago, it was procaimed that the human race had established a "Permanent Pressence in Space," with the manning of the International Space Station. I can not believe that anyone will allow this not to continue. We still have nuch to learn about, and from, space exploration. Who knows what it may be like in years to come? Perhaps this tradgedy will even accoplish some good. NASA has hesitated for years about begining real development on a smaller, more economical orbiter. Now, they may actually do it. Whatever happens, I am sure that our current three orbiters will fly again (though not before we know what happened, and how to prevent it). There may even be four of them, again. For Endeavour would never have been put into service after the Challenger tradgedy if it hadn't already been mostly built, as a kind of spare parts rack for Atlantis and Discovery. But we do have another partially built orbiter lying around- Enterprise.
I think that would be appropriate.
------------------
I hear America screaming...
------------------
Ohio State Football Sucks.
Kent State Rocks!
-Danny
*** This post was edited by Six Flags Over Nebraska 2/1/2003 11:29:52 PM ***
(note the persons name whos bidding on it)
Edit: eBay got rid of the item.
------------------
"Le grill? What the hell does that mean?"- Homer Simpson
*** This post was edited by SFDLAndy 2/2/2003 10:19:53 AM ***
*** This post was edited by SFDLAndy 2/2/2003 12:28:44 PM ***
(SF)Great American said:
There may even be four of them, again. For Endeavour would never have been put into service after the Challenger tradgedy if it hadn't already been mostly built, as a kind of spare parts rack for Atlantis and Discovery. But we do have another partially built orbiter lying around- Enterprise.
Authorization to build Endevour was given by Congress over a year after Challenger exploded... but it was built from existing parts (interesting). NASA changed its policy from seeking a new craft to extending the lives of the current fleet of orbiters. Soon their time will come, though. Even the newest one is over 10 years old now.
The Enterprise was a prototype that was built to operate for test flights at low speeds in the atmosphere (it was launched from a Boeing 747 to test its glide capability)--it cannot be used in regular flights and launches.
EDIT: Enterprise is now the gatekeeper at Dulles Intl. Apt. in Washington, D.C. Originally it was going to be named the Constitution, but Star Trek fans won a write-in campaign to the White House.
*** This post was edited by General Public 2/2/2003 11:00:16 AM ***
General Public said:
The Enterprise was a prototype that was built to operate for test flights at low speeds in the atmosphere (it was launched from a Boeing 747 to test its glide capability)--it cannot be used in regular flights and launches.
*** This post was edited by General Public 2/2/2003 11:00:16 AM ***
Neither was the Challenger. Originally it was used just for structural testing but in 1979, NASA upgraded it to make it a fully functional shuttle. Enterprise could undergo upgrades as well, in fact it was considered but rejected in 1978, but I personally doubt NASA will pay for an additional shuttle if they will be phased out in the next 20 years anyway.
------------------
Don't Fight It, Ride It, RAGING BULL!!!!!!- Six Flags Great America
RideMan said:
You are telling me that a ceramic tile engineered to survive hypersonic collisions with hard debris in orbit and to supply heat resistance to thousands of degrees can't withstand being clobbered by a comparatively lightweight chunk of comparatively slow-moving debris?
If only that were true, though. The sad thing is, the shuttle tiles CAN'T take that kind of impact. The bottom and leading black tiles are a very porous, lightweight silica tile sprayed over by a black glass compound. They can take extreme thermal shock (from the extreme cold of space to up to near 3000F), but aren't very strong physically.
A NASA engineer was on CNN earlier today with one of the tiles from an earlier mission. The tiles are reused when possible, but this one hadn't been, because of all the pock-marks on it. While he was talking, he was using his fingernail to dig out pieces, to demonstrate how fragile it really is.
Space debris is actually a huge concern nowadays for manned missions. One of the first things that went through my mind before they released the information about the ice, was that the shuttle had been hit by some sort of debris, damaging a tile.
Was it this ice/foam from the external tank? We don't know, and may never know for sure. The official party line seems to be that they're focusing on issues with the left wing (they lost thermal readings on that wing shortly before they lost contact with the shuttle), and that's where this supposed debris on launch hit.
-----
--Greg, aka Oat Boy
My page
"Friendship -- more lasting than love, more legal than stalking."
Often in space travels, we see video feeds of the astronauts in action. Obviously we don't see everything that get's recorded, but does mission control have the ability to visibly monitor the cockpit and other areas during descent? I know they can broadcast from space, but is there something in the re-entry process that eliminates the video or audio capability? They played some audio recorded during the descent, so I am not sure if there is a difference. We were discussing this at work today, and I thought of this, and of course none of us knew. Any ideas?
GP, yeah, I'm very familiar with the Enterprise, how she got her name, and her flight status. However, as Krazy said, she could be upgraded, just as the Challenger was. I know the shuttle will be phased out in the next few years, or at least that it should. But before it can be, we need a new shuttle. That will take several years. Until that time, we could still use four shuttles to keep the International Spce Station up and running.
------------------
I hear America screaming...
------------------
Nobody tosses a dwarf!!
-Gimli, Son of Gloin
But that's beside the point. It makes a helluva gatekeeper over at Dulles (and is owned by the Smithsonian).
------------------
Is that a Q-bot in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
Matt said:
I do have a question for anyone who might know this..Often in space travels, we see video feeds of the astronauts in action. Obviously we don't see everything that get's recorded, but does mission control have the ability to visibly monitor the cockpit and other areas during descent? I know they can broadcast from space, but is there something in the re-entry process that eliminates the video or audio capability? They played some audio recorded during the descent, so I am not sure if there is a difference. We were discussing this at work today, and I thought of this, and of course none of us knew. Any ideas?
Here's the thing about live video. It all depends on being able to receive signals clearly. During re-entry, the ultra high speeds of the shuttle combined with the density of the atmosphere temporarily generate more heat than the surface of the sun. This in turn leads to a plasma forming around the vehicle, due to the amount of energy being dissipated (think of a launch as a huge lift hill. That energy's gotta go somewhere) By its nature, a plasma is nothing but high energy gas molecules moving so fast that they lose their electrons, and can block transmission of radio signals. Hence the "blackout" during re-entry. Obviously I'm a space nut. But it can't be helped; my father-in-law is a high mucky muck at NASA. Hope this helps.
*** This post was edited by AndrewStarzl 2/2/2003 10:18:33 PM ***
------------------
"Look out kid. It's something you did. God knows when but you're doin' it again." -Bob Dylan
You must be logged in to post
