|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Columbia down
Casebook Message Boards: Pub Talk: Columbia down
Author: Vila
Monday, 03 February 2003 - 11:56 pm |        | Hello everyone,
I'd like to concentrate on the topic of this thread, but I assure you that I do not ignore the threat of war that looms over us all, worldwide. But war is not germane to the subject at hand, except peripherally.
I too am saddened by the loss of Columbia and her crew. And I am angered by the budget cuts that seem to be the ultimate cause of the tragedy. If you want to point the finger of blame, then you have to go all the way back to the Nixon administration and the first cuts to the funding for the space program.
To address the CNN coverage of the Columbia disaster, one has to remember that CNN is on 24/7/365 and is geared towards people who tune in, watch for a few minutes, then go back to whatever they were watching before. They aren't in business to provide anyone with constant, timely updates of what we as individuals deem important. They can only do so much with what they have given to them before its time to show another advert for the latest car sale/computer sale/newest patent medicine/whatever. News doesn't make money, commercials do. People *watch* news programs, so they sell ad time. So when CNN runs out of new news, they have to repeat the old news, then comment upon it, ad infinitium nausium.
Unfortunately, this is normal for our culture.
As for the finding of some remains of the crew, I for one was bloody glad that some were able to be found. Not for any ghoulish reason, but for the fact that the families will have something besides an empty casket for the funerals. They will have some sort of closure.
Those of us who aren't family members, can be granted some degree of closure too. This is a human thing, and to be praised.
There are tons of other disasters in the world, every minute of every day. All directly affect differing groups of people to differing degrees. The American space program has always been a highly visible (and newsworthy) endeavor. But Americans have gotten complacent with years and years of successful missions. The rare disaster tends to draw us all together to once again pay attention to what should always be the most thrilling attempt of humankind- To reach for the stars, to strive to learn about the universe that spawned us, and to insure that we pitiful blobs of protoplasm continue to advance towards a greater future.
We, each of us, live out our lives as individuals. Alone within our own skulls, only forming connections with those other individuals who share our bloodlines and our deepest interests. Everyone else on the planet is a stranger. And those individuals that draw us together, that force us to think of other people we have never, will never, could never meet should be honored.
We have spoken of heroes- Both of legend and of inspiration. Columbia's crew were inspirations to us all, and they have passed into legend. They *are* heroes, in the finest tradition that mankind has given birth to. Let us not dishonor them by confusing their lives and loss with the crass commercialism that permeates television in our modern, global society. TV is geared towards the lowest common denominator, but how else can it reach the most diverse of us all? We are, none of us, absolutely alike. How else can we all be reached, together? I abhor the dimwittedness of TV, but am I the standard that all others should strive to emulate? By no means. I'm just this guy, you know?
So heap criticism where you feel it should lie, but be aware of the differences that also lie between us all.
And let us not forget that we all can be heroes, if push comes to shove. When disaster strikes and we are there, we can all act to the greater good. If we are not there, we can damn well *go* there and act- if we determine to do so. There is no place on this planet that is so far away that we cannot reach it, in some way, to make a difference.
So if you think that TV is populated by newsghouls, salesmen, and pablum-- Turn the damn thing off, leave the house, and go out and make a difference in the lives of your fellow human beings. Don't just sit there moaning about the crassness of commercialism, 'cause that isn't going to make it go away.
And nothing will make the pain and loss of heroes go away either. But one can learn from it and strive to make one's own little corner of the planet a better place to live in, to raise children in, to leave a better world for those children to grow up in.
No hero should pass unmourned. No lesson should go unlearned. No injustice should go unchallenged. No threat to life and liberty should go unfought.
Whether it is the terroristic threat of a mad dictator, or the hunger of a child in some poverty stricken region, or the tragic death of intrepid explorers of the great unknowns of the universe-- Each of us as individuals must find what it is that we abhor and strive against it. To rage against the darkness and never to admit defeat. To strive towards a time where each of us can look toward those eternal mysteries of the universe with real hope of finding answers, of reaching out to our fellow beings and living together as family. Together, forever, amen.
Vila |
Author: Alegria [Moderator]
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 07:08 am | | Discuss the Colombia, her crew, your thoughts, your feelings, do not discuss the relevancy of the news media today.
Yet another nice thread, created for the specific purpose of providing an outlet for people who were upset by the tragedy has been turned into a snit thread.
Thank you. |
Author: Esther Wilson
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 10:53 am | | My thoughts and prayers to all those who have been affected by this tragedy.
Esther |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 11:30 am | | Hi, all--
I was startled to read yesterday in the New York Times that NASA did nothing whatsoever to have the astronauts check out whatever damage was done to the left wing of the shuttle by the foam that broke off and hit the wing on takeoff of January 16. The supposition, sight unseen, was that the damage, if any, was inconsequential. I understand the protective tiles on the underside of the shuttle are sensitive enough to show the impression of a finger.
One wonders what damage was really done, particularly if as is now thought, the foam might have been frozen and to have been rock hard when it hit the wing at some 1,600 mph around 80 seconds into liftoff. While it is acknowledged that the astronauts would not have been able to effect any repairs to the protective tiles, a spacewalk to inspect the damage, if any, could have told NASA that the shuttle was badly damaged and so unable to effect re-entry to the earth's atmosphere without the disastrous consequences that ultimately occurred. It could have been decided to keep the astronauts in space for some weeks until another undamaged shuttle could bring them safely home. Of course all this is hindsight but it highlights a possible bad decision by the space agency.
I predict that this disaster is going to lead to a rethinking of the role of the space agency and possible major redesigns or replacement of the shuttle technology. Possibly the underside of the shuttle should be coated in a more permanent protective skin instead of the fragile heat-resistant tiles now used.
Another aspect is that the Challenger explosion took place at virtually the same time of year. Coincidence? Or are wintertime launches too hazardous to continue? Of course I realize that the foam could have frozen on ascent on liftoff rather than while the shuttle was on the launching pad, but what if it was already frozen on the ground? I am not sure what the temperature was on the launch date of January 16.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 11:56 am | | Hi Chris,
I am also dismayed that the government apparently ignored warnings about this impending disaster.
Don Nelson, the former Missions Operational Director at NASA, wrote a letter to President Bush last year asking for a moratorium on the flights due to safety concerns that, in his words, made another Challenger disaster inevitable.
And then, in a report last year, NASA reported that inadequate funding was putting the safety of the astronauts at risk.
There are some commentators, notably Charles Krauthammer on the right and Paul Krugman on the left, who question the need for manned space flight at this point.
In any case, if the government is unwilling or unable to dedicate to NASA the resources to make flight safer for humans, the U.S. should consider limiting its current space program to automated functions until the adequate resources are available.
Today, almost all the benefits from space flight has come from unmanned vehicles. This, of course, does not rule out future manned flights. At present, there does not appear to be a need to risk lives for these paltry benefits.
Manned space flight, at this point, is prohibitively costly in terms of treasure and life. Until a more effective and safer mode of travel is developed, such as project orion, such trips should be suspended.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 12:01 pm | | Hi, Chris
Thanks for those thoughts. But the problem with taking a spacewalks is that they're complicated manuevers that are planned out well before launch. And from what I understand, a spacewalk under the vehile wouldn't be possible, because there are no grips for the astronauts to hold onto. Likewise a trip to the ISS, at least an improvised one--I think it would be very difficult to accomplish unless you'd put the planning into it.
I'm not sure the tiles are fragile--don't forget, in over twenty years of use, this is the first time they've failed (if they did). And many of these tiles survived the break up (some are scorched, others not). Have you seen any of the demonstrations they've been doing with the blow torches? I thought they were impressive.
What does sound fragile is the method they use to attach the tiles (glue). But this must be effective, otherwise this would happen more often. But as you say, a bad decision was made somewhere. NASA admitted as much on Saturday when someone at a press conference said 'we missed something, somewhere.' But I question that NASA would've been able to effect any repairs once the shuttle leaves Earth. I'm not even sure the damage would have been apparent if they had looked--it might be that slight damage at launch (if there was) wasn't aggravated until they were in re-entry.
Anyway! That's my take on it, my friend. I think you're right that the question of the shuttle's usefulness will be debated. I don't believe they're planning to build a replacement for Columbia. If they do replace the old workhorses, it'll be exciting to see what kind of technology will be developed because of this tragedy. The vehicles using ion and hydrogen based energies (machines used as explorers and not ferries) are particularly interesting. You might remember that George Bush was talking about 'hydrogen cars' in his State of the Union last week.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Spryder
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 12:18 pm | | Repairs on the tiles while in orbit would have been absolutely impossible - there are 27,000 tiles, each one of them uniquely shaped, so in order to be able to replace a failed tile they'd have to carry 27,000 separate replacements with them in the shuttle. Just not feasible.
It should be noted that it is not uncommon to (a) have foam and ice strike the shuttle on launch or (b) lose insulation tiles during re-entry. One or two tiles are considered an acceptable loss, from what I've heard.
It seems to me the only way this will be solved is if they find debris or shedded tiles somewhere west of Texas, perhaps in Arizona or New Mexico - maybe even California. If there was a major loss of tiles, or some sort of explosion that led to the break-up, it most likely occurred while Columbia was directly over these states, and the debris from the localized area of the initial, causative loss/explosion may be found there. Of course, finding a 6" x 6" tile in the vastness of the American Southwest might be near-impossible. We can only hope it landed on a frequently-trodden piece of property. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 12:32 pm | | Hi, Stephen
Let me add that since the loss of Challenger, ground crews are particularly cautious about ice forming before launches.
If it does turn out that shedding foam caused damage to the left wing, maybe NASA should look at what causes that. It's a common occurence during launches. I guess it's possible foam could have caused damage because of the high velocity at which it fell, but it's clear the foam completely disintegrated, and I don't think anyone has spotted anything coming loose from the wing.
Finding a tile in the vast expanse of California is indeed daunting--but I bet they'll find it, if it's there. They won't have to search the entire state, they can make an educated guess about where to look. Plotting trajectories, that's what these people do. I admit I'm an optimist.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Billy Markland
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 12:42 pm | | Spry, the latest I had read was that they are searching California for debris. Saturday on NPR they mentioned a California astronomer had said debris was coming from the vessel while over that state. That also came out in the news conference mid-afternoon.
Thanks for the info regarding the tile shapes. I previously had thought that it was something to do with bonding the tiles but had not heard either way.
I suspect, and hope, that whatever they find was the root cause, and I have faith that it will be found, an awful lot of brain power will be devoted to procedures for repair while in orbit and emergency docking with the ISS.
Best of wishes,
Billy
P.S. Modifed a sentence for readability at 12:09 CST |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 12:45 pm | | Hi, Rich
I couldn't disagree with you more. By its very nature, human space exploration will never be 'safe'. The cost in human life is (and will be) worth it. The cost in money is more than worth it, when you consider all the spin off technology the public receives (communication satellites, weather satellites, medical-imaging technology, etc). While unmanned missions are incredibly valuable and necessary, it takes people to put satellites into orbit, like Hubble.
When people complain about the cost of these missions, I'm always flabbergasted. Consider the science that's learned--the cost is cheap. They say, "What about the homeless? What about the starving people?" These are political questions. They're not a question of not having the money. We're a wealthy nation. We can do both, and should.
Putting a halt to manned missions until it's 'safe' isn't even open to debate, I'm afraid. I think the overwhelming majority of people (not only in the U.S., but everywhere--listening to Fi Glover's call in show on BBC 5, I was surprised by how similar the viewpoint of the Brits calling in were to ours) support manned flights. They'll continue, and there will be spectacular successes punctuated with failure and loss of life. We'll learn from our mistakes and make corrections. It's well worth it--exploration always has been. From what I've heard, the relatives of those lost agree.
Dave |
Author: Kevin Braun
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 01:08 pm | | Chris,
I believe NASA addressed the issue of keeping Columbia in orbit until another undamaged shuttle could bring them safely home. Columbia only had enough fuel, food and liquid oxygen for five (streching seven) days. Not enough time to prepare for a rescue.
Indeed, the protective tiles on the underside of the shuttle are sensitive. On a previous fight, after a hail storm, the water proofing on the tiles was washed away and numerous white dot impressions (from the hail) were seen on the underside tiles. It was estimated that the shuttle took off with an additional 2000 lbs. of water weight. Maybe your are right, "wintertime launches too hazardous to continue". Each launch cost an estimated $500,000,000.
Dave,
I like the idea of hydrogen cars, but at present it's a Catch-22. It is easy to produce hydrogen from water, however it requires a huge amount of electricity. So the real question is how do we make electricity? We have to produce hydrogen from renewable energy otherwise we may make a mistake. If you make electricity from coal then you do not do any good to the environment, natural gas or oil, back where we started . In order to produce large amounts of hydrogen, more effort will be required in developing renewable energy sources, such as solar power, and that may take some time yet.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 01:10 pm | | Hi Dave,
My concern is when important figures in NASA say that a crash is inevitable unless certain safety steps are taken, and the government and NASA decide that those costs are too high and they need to proceed with flights anyway.
The people complaining about costs are specifically NASA and the U.S. government - both of which decided to proceed without spending the necessary funds.
I agree with your comments about the dangers involved in any exploratory mission. However, I do not support sending astronauts up when a 36 year veteran NASA official states that unless a problem is corrected disaster is "inevitable" and pleads with the President to halt the flights until the problem is corrected.
As you know, a couple of days ago Bush added the $470 million earlier requested by NASA to next year's budget.
If America favors manned space flights, then spend the money NASA claims to need to make them safer before the flight - not after it crashes.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 01:16 pm | | Hi, Spry, Dave, Rich et al.:
As I stated in my post, I understand that repairs to the left wing, if damaged, would have been impossible for the astronauts to effect. I also acknowledge your point, Spry, that the damage might have been too small to notice even if the astronauts took a walk in space to investigate. If a space walk was not possible, and sure these things are planned ahead of time but, gracious, they have to think on their feet when mishaps like Apollo 13 occur and surely they could have done the same thing here. It was mentioned that possibly the underside of the spacecraft could have been photographed from Earth to detect possible damage but that wasn't done either. Instead the assumption was made on the basis of video and film of the launch that the damage caused by the foam would "should be limited to coating [of the tiles] only and have no mission impact" (as quoted in this morning's New York Times.
I read in the New York Times this morning that Ronald D. Dittemore, NASA's shuttle program manager, stated yesterday that he is particularly interested in anything that might have fallen from Columbia in California, Nevada, or New Mexico that might provide a "missing link" in the investigation. I read that a heat-resistant tile has been found near Fort Worth and presumably the searchers will now be looking for more such tiles in Texas west of Fort Worth and in those three other states.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Vila
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 01:49 pm | | Hi again,
Another thing to consider is that the shuttle's cargo bay was full with the Space-Hab module. And that, in turn, was connected with the only airlock that the astronauts could have used to EVA. They couldn't *go* outside to inspect anything.
Neither could they have flown higher to reach the ISS-- They didn't have the fuel, nor the food and air necessary to wait for a re-fueling mission, even from an unmanned rocket. Nor was Columbia fitted with the correct docking collar to dock with ISS, and was the only shuttle left that had yet to be outfitted thusly. (The necessary wiring *had* been installed in Columbia's last re-fit, though.) Columbia was the oldest shuttle, too. It was heavier for one thing, and those built later had the benefit of Columbia being used to fine-tune the design. NASA also thought that the other three shuttles would be the ones that should be used to reach the ISS, and so scheduled Columbia as the last one to be modified to dock with the ISS.
These things have been discussed by scientists and science-fiction fans in another group of which I am a member. (I'm one of the SF fans, by the way, not a scientist.)
One of the possibilities discussed was how to resupply Columbia and get her to the much higher orbit that the ISS is in, and how to use the robotic grappler arm on the ISS to clamp on to her and allow the astronauts to EVA to the ISS airlocks. The consensus was that with the airlock blocked by the space-hab module in the her payload bay, the amount of air that leaks out of her as a normal state of affairs, and the fact that the astronauts had little more than a two week supply of food, such re-supply would have been almost impossible in the time they could survive in orbit. No one has stated this to me, but I theorise that the space-hab module wouldn't have been easy to be removed even if everyone suited up and used the escape hatch (losing all the cabin air in the process) to go outside to unhook the space-hab module to free the airlock to keep from losing the cabin air supply. I'm not saying that it *couldn't* have been done, but that there wasn't time. And all this presupposes that the damage was to be detected before re-entry anyway.
As for the source of the ice on the external fuel tank that may have caused the damage to the tiles-- Remember that it is filled with liquid hydrogen and the ice forming on it on the ground is normal. Every shuttle launch has ice flying off of that tank. And anywhere from two to a hundred tiles come off in every mission. Spryder pointed out the unique nature of the tiles and the impossibility of carrying spares, in closing I'd like to add that the glue used to attach the tiles on the ground most likely couldn't be used/wouldn't work in space anyway.
Vila |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 02:13 pm | | Vila - Are the astronauts on the ISS in danger now? How much experience is there with unmanned resupply missions?
Sir Robert |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 02:26 pm | | Hi, Rich,
"If America favors manned space flights, then spend the money NASA claims to need to make them safer before the flight - not after it crashes."
There's no 'if' about it--you only have to put your ear to the ground to know that the overwhelming majority support the idea of going to space. The problem is, it takes a disaster before people want to spend the money. Unfortunately, vision is in short supply in Congress--the main goal of a politician is to get themselves re-elected and throw back as much money to their state as possible. There's no concept of twenty, fifty or a hundred years from now. To them, the question is 'What's the benefit NOW? What do I get NOW?" It's cheeseburger and french fries thinking, Rich. So while we might whiplash NASA for being concerned with money, I think we also need to turn an eye to the politicians who refuse to give it to them.
Especially now, when the world finds little to admire about the United States, human space travel is the exception. We should support that.
Vila--I thought I heard they didn't have the arm on this mission. Is that right?
Incidentally, the people in the ISS are fine for now. They've got an escape capsule if necessary, but I think they're good until June (although they were scheduled to come back in March).
Dave |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 02:42 pm | | Hi, Vila:
Thanks for giving us the benefit of your knowledge of Columbia and the shuttle program based on your discussions in your Sci-Fi group. Very interesting. I had assumed that Columbia was descending to earth after docking with the international space station but from what you say Columbia was in an orbit of its own separate to and lower than the higher orbit of the space station, is that so?
Best regards
Chris |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 03:01 pm | | Hi Dave,
I agree with your sentiments about politicians being short-sighted regarding NASA funding. In fact, I think they bare the greatest responsibility - NASA officials implored them to give them the necessary resources to make the space shuttle safer - recognizing disaster was inevitable with their inadequate resources.
You are right about the public sympathy and support for NASA. I wonder what would have happened if the head of NASA had said, "I am grounding all flights until we have the resources to address these safety concerns. I am not sacrificing the lives of my people."
I believe NASA leaders are afraid if they take such a stance the government would end the program - or severely cut back on it. But as you note, with public support of NASA so high, I think more than likely public sentiment would force the government to give NASA what it needs.
Then again, we as the public also shoulder some responsibility. Few of us were holding politicians responsible for their failure to support the space program adequately.
On the other subject, I heard a NASA official on NPR say the space station personnel could actually remain there for another year - the Russians have an automated supply ship scheduled to rendezvous with them in the near future.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 03:10 pm | | Here are a couple of interesting reports from Texas. The first from a poet who lives in Houston and was posting on Saturday, the day of the Columbia disaster, and the second is from a woman who lives in Nacogdoches where the major debris field from Columbia was centered.
***************
From Sharon Valdez, Houston, Texas:
1:45 pm ~ February 01, 2003
The mood here in Houston is stricken. Clear Lake and the Johnson Space Center are under lockdown conditions, and rightfully so. This morning, the only traffic along Nasa Road 1 was the steady stream of NASA employees, most of whom rose from their beds without waiting for the call which would have instructed them to drive in to work. By the time the military arrived, anyone who needed to be inside the gates was already there. The soldiers and National Guards have spent most of the day directing citizens where to place their flowers and memorials along the gates.
Because of the risk of falling debris, the FAA has temporarily suspended all air traffic, with one dreadful exception. The families of the lost astronauts are to arrive from Florida within the next few minutes. Like the days following the World Trade Center attacks, it's eerie when there is no air traffic. It makes the one aircraft above somehow more ominous. As though it could be any worse.
In the supermarket, all anyone can talk about is the tragedy. People are walking around under a collective pall. A small child laughs aloud at something her brother has said. It's the first laugh I have heard since I entered the store. Everyone knows someone who works at NASA; it's a close-knit community of people who understand that when the worst happens, the helplessness can consume you. The loss belongs to us all; not just Houstonians, not just Americans and Israelis, but all people of the Earth. This feeling is palpable and devastating. When people speak to one another, it is to share their stories of where they were when Challenger exploded. We just marked our 17th anniversary last Tuesday. Strangers hug in the parking lot. Just as it was 17 years ago, it is an incongruously sunny, warm day.
The words of Laurel Clark, who greeted Houston's mission control this morning from the Columbia, play again and again. How was she to know those would be her last words to us? How could she have known that, instead of the greeting she intended for her family, that transmission would be her goodbye? They were good words. In retrospect, they were hauntingly prophetic.
The newscasters are asking why, how. Inside the gates of the Johnson Space Center, you can be sure they are asking the same. Out here, though, nobody is asking. We seem to accept that sometimes, when we reach for the stars, we fail.
We fail. We fall. We mourn.
****************
Excerpt from a letter from Nacogdoches, Texas:
I saw two kids playing with some debris inside of a yellow tape cordon behind a grocery store on my way to work last nite. There have been over 80 people reporting to the ER with problems they related to handling debris, but no treatment or injuries have been reported even from that. Nacogdoches is running out of yellow tape. The rescue teams need to bring their own.
The debris shower is now considered to be 140 miles in length, and 15 miles in diameter. That is an incredibly large area, very hilly and full of pines. To say we will never recover all of the parts is an understatement. A bird will nest in a helmet, a family of rats in a hose. There is an object the size of a Volkswagen in Lake Sam Rayburn.
Two fishermen were out on their boat Saturday morning in Hemphill when the silence was shattered by a huge boom, and a shower of metal objects hurdling down from the sky. The fishermen had no protection from the shower in the lake, however somehow they were not hit. They describe missiles thundering thru the tree cover, cracking branches on the way to the ground. Splashes in the water as pieces fell to the murk. They witnessed the "Volkswagen" fall from the sky and wondered which of Dante's gate of hell had opened and released this on them. And they lived to tell about it. That is what is so amazing. . . .
The National Guard is pulling out today, to be replaced by Department of Public Safety troopers. The teenagers get to go home, and some huge, strapping Men (with a capital M) are here to take their place. The Guard people were unfailingly polite, some quite shy. I've been called 'Ma'am' quite a few times in the past two days! The DPS troopers have a totally different aura about them. Because of their job they have learned such confidence in themselves and can command a room just by walking into it. I can tell even without looking around when a DPS Trooper walks into the lobby in uniform by the air they exude. And they are all HUGE men. Interesting contrast.
After I got off work this morning I finally went downtown to visit the piece of debris we have all seen on CNN over and over again, as if it was the only piece in town. You know the one, the piece behind the bank where the news reports are held. By the time I drove by they had just finished taking down the yellow tape. The traffic still goes around and around that block, hoping, like me, to get a sense of what it was like there. Only the flowers remain, lined up in a row along a grassy median in the parking lot. Just a wisp of a ghost left. Funny, I wanted to ask the trooper if he was going to recycle that yellow tape, tell him there is a shortage right now and to not re use it would be wasteful. It was all I could do not to stop and get into a dissertation on such an inane subject. . . .
Thanks for listening!
Nancy Hinds
Nacogdoches, TX |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 03:37 pm | | Rich,
I agree the public also bears some responsibility here. I hadn't heard that the astronauts on the space station might be able to hold out another year--this is an area where Russian input is invaluable, since they're far more experienced with what is and isn't possible on a space station than we are. Earlier, Chris mentioned about thinking on your feet. Certainly, the Russians did some of that while they had Mir. I think the only thing holding Mir together at the end was spit and Elmer's.
Chris,
Thanks for those letters--I heard one of those fishermen on the radio last night, talking about being in the lake with the debris falling. He said it fell so fast he couldn't even see what was hitting the water. He just heard the booms and splashing; he had no idea about the shuttle coming in. I don't know what I would have thought in his place.
If you don't mind my filling in until Vila responds, you and Villa are right that the Columbia didn't dock with the space station on this mission and were on a different orbit. Hopefully Vila will chime in, since I think he knows more than I do about it, but as he said, Columbia wasn't equipped for docking this time around.
Dave |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 03:41 pm | | Hi, Dave:
Thanks for your answer on the orbit Columbia was following. I am glad you liked the two Texas first hand letters that I posted.
A good question that should perhaps be asked is whether Columbia should still have been flying since it was the oldest and least "modern" of the four shuttles.
All the best
Chris |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 03:52 pm | | Hi, Chris
Yes, an important question--was Columbia outdated? Although Columbia was over twenty years old, it was refitted in 2001. And the shuttles were designed to make 100 trips, while this was only Columbia's 28th. Some point out that when the shuttles were conceived, that it was thought that they'd be used more often than they are, that it wouldn't take twenty years to complete a hundred missions, so therefore the parts weren't meant to last that long. My own feeling is that Columbia was spaceworthy, but I guess we'll have to see what the investigation tells us.
Dave |
Author: Vila
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 05:08 pm | | Hi again,
The arm in question is one that is part of the ISS rather than the arm that can be mounted in the shuttle.
And yes, Columbia didn't go anywhere near as high an orbit as the ISS is in.
Vila |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 05:14 pm | | If I am correct, the total number of astronauts lost in the history of the US Space Program is 14. Three incidents and a near miss in the total history of the US role in space exploration. Two of the incidents involved shuttles and when we lose a shuttle we lose a large number of people. In reality, this is not a bad record. When we look at the exploration of the new world, the loss of life was tremendous. Maybe if Portugal would have allocated more money to their exploration program the sailors could have had oranges and not so many would have died of scurvey.
We will never make space exploration or any exploration completely safe. There will always be risks involved. However, we have come a long way from small sailing vessels sailing, what was pretty much, uncharted waters.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 05:24 pm | | Thanks, Scott--add to those seven from Challenger and the seven from Columbia, the three from Apollo I--Ed White, Roger Chaffee, and Gus Grissom (I think you already have Apollo I in mind since you mention three incidents). Those are the American losses--I have to confess I'm ignorant as to what losses the Russians suffered in their own program.
Dave |
Author: Vila
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 05:57 pm | | OK, I just found a link that addresses some of the questions we've posed about a possible repair or rescue of Columbia:
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/02/shuttle_rescue.htm
Vila |
Author: Spryder
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 10:28 pm | | Interesting precedent involving a major loss of tile integrity from the Washington Post:
Quote:Even some of the pros have trouble accepting the notion that foam could have caused the catastrophe.
"I am absolutely stunned," said astronaut Mike Mullane, who rode Atlantis into orbit in 1988. "I can see it scratching or even gouging a couple of tiles. But God, the idea that it could compromise the system. I don't know, but I just have a hard time believing that."
He recalled that a tip of one of his booster rockets broke off during launch and slammed into the belly of the shuttle, damaging a few hundred tiles. One came off entirely. Yet Atlantis and its crew of five still made it safely home.
Good article - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26248-2003Feb4.html |
Author: Neale Carter
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 11:29 pm | | Dave,
The Russian (formerly Soviet) space program has lost at least 5 cosmonauts: 1 in a Soyuz test flight 1967, 1 in a Zond rocket launch accident 1968 and 3 during landing from Salyut 1 in 1971. Their program has been quite exceptional considering they have had nowhere near the resources and infrastructure of NASA. The respective space programs of the US and Russia were a catalyst for detente and the start of closer ties for the two countries. I'm sure the loss of Columbia is keenly felt in Russia, especially those in the space community who know only too well the enormous risks faced by those who explore space. We can only admire those who explore on our behalf.
"Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth,
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I've climbed and joined the tumbling mirth of sun-split clouds and done a hundred things You have not dreamed of wheeled and soared and swung high in the sunlit silence.
Hovering there I've chased the shouting wind along and flung my eager craft through footless halls of air.
"Up, up the long delirious burning blue
I've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace,
where never lark, or even eagle, flew;
and, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod
the high untrespassed sanctity of space,
put out my hand and touched the face of God." |
Author: Nicole Robinson
Wednesday, 05 February 2003 - 12:50 am | | Hi all,
I was just as shocked and saddened as anyone was upon turning on the news and seeing the shuttle debris in the sky. My thoughts and prayers are with the 7 crew members lost and their families left behind in the wake of their tragic loss. However I have a question concerning whether they could've prevented this tragedy...If they can perform spacewalks for various research why couldn't they send up another shuttle and have them put on the gear needed for spacewalks and board the other shuttle that way. If this was a possibility, they could have come home safely. |
Author: Vila
Wednesday, 05 February 2003 - 10:39 am | | Nicole,
Check out the link in my last post on this thread for the reasons why such a rescue as you proposed was impossible.
Or perhaps I should just repeat the link here:
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/02/shuttle_rescue.htm
Vila |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 05 February 2003 - 11:53 am | | Hi, all:
In regard to Russian losses, though not a loss while in their space program, their pioneer cosmonaut, and indeed the first human in orbit, Yuri Gargarin (1934-1968), was killed in a jet crash on March 27, 1968. On April 12, 1961, Gagarin became the first person to orbit Earth in Vostok 1. A number of the U.S. astronauts have also died in non-space related accidents.
Here is a listing of the American and Russian astronauts killed in mishaps related to the space programs of their respective countries or in non-space program aircraft accidents:
Aircraft Accidents
Theodore Freeman
Charles Bassett II
Elliot See
Clifton Williams, Jr.
Robert Lawrence, Jr.
Michael J. Adams
Yuri Gagarin
Stephen Thorne
Manley Carter, Jr.
Apollo 1
Virgil Grissom
Edward White II
Roger Chaffee
Soyuz 1
Vladimir Komarov
Soyuz 11
Georgi Dobrovolsky
Viktor Patsayev
Vladislav Volkov
STS-51L (Challenger)
Francis Scobee
Michael Smith
Ellison Onizuka
Judith Resnik
Ronald McNair
Gregory Jarvis
Christa McAuliffe
STS-107 (Columbia)
Rick Husband
Willie McCool
Kalpana Chawla
Laurel Clark
Mike Anderson
David Brown
Ilan Ramon
From Space Memorial
All the best
Chris |
Author: Nicole Robinson
Wednesday, 05 February 2003 - 11:58 am | | Hi Vila,
Thanks for that, perhaps if I had looked up further in the thread I would've seen that link. Sorry for the repeat of the question. I do think it's a shame with all the technology that something like that could not have been accomplished though. It seems to me like such a waste of not only science and technology, but also human life.
Nickie |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 05 February 2003 - 12:56 pm | | Hi, all:
Another report from Texas that might be of interest that I picked up from a maritime list to which I belong--
I attended the STS-107 memorial service at Johnson Space Center today. I am posting this report mainly because I noticed what seemed a nautical flavor to the service, so I felt it worthy of comment on this list.
The band was Air Force, from Lackland AFB. There was a chorus present, the USN Band Sea Chanters. Two chaplins, both Navy spoke; a rabbi, who gave the invocation, and a minister who gave the benediction. Remarks were made by the NASA Adminitrator, Sean O'Keefe, the Chief of the Astronaut Corps Capt. Kent Rominger (USN), and George W. Bush, President of the United
States.
There were three hymns -- "O God, Our Help in Ages Past," "God of Our Fathers, Whose Almighty Hand," sung before and after the invocation, and "Eternal Father, Strong to Save," sung between the remarks of Captain Rominger and President Bush.
After the invocation, a navy bell was rung seven times, and that was followed by a fly-over by four NASA T-38s in a missing man formation.
The entire ceremony took an hour. I hesitate to guess the crowd, but the entire green area between Buildings 1 and 30 -- the duck pond area -- was filled. Perhaps there were 5-10K people.
I come from an Orthodox Christian background, and am of an age where I am not yet attending funerals or memorials for my contemporaries, so I am unfamiliar with Protestant traditions. (Despite the presence of a rabbi, this service followed a Protestant structure.) The few times I have heard the hymns used have been in naval funerals. As I have not attended any Air Force services, it could be that they are also used there. . . .
I supported this mission in the Mission Evaluation Room in Bldg 30. I listened to the crew going about their activies while at the Flight Control console. At that time I was amused, pleasantly so, by their enthusiasm and the fun that they were having. On Saturday I remembered having listened to them, and heard the echoes of A. E. Houseman's poem, "The Lads In Their Hundreds," in those memories.
The Lads in their hundreds to Ludlow come in for the fair,
There’s men from the barn and the forge and the mill and the fold,
The lads for the girls and the lads for the liquor are there,
And there with the rest are the lads that will never be old.
There’s chaps from the town and the field and the till and the cart,
And many to count are the stalwart, and many the brave,
And many the handsome of face and the handsome of heart,
And few that will carry their looks or their truth to the grave.
I wish one could know them, I wish there were tokens to tell
The fortunate fellows that now you can never discern;
And then one could talk with them friendly and wish them farewell
And watch them depart on the way that they will not return.
But now you may stare as you like and there’s nothing to scan;
And brushing your elbow unguessed-at and not to be told
They carry back bright to the coiner the mintage of man,
The lads that will die in their glory and never be old.
Mark Lardas
League City, TX
Tue, 4 Feb 2003 |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Wednesday, 05 February 2003 - 02:54 pm | | | BBC: Email from Laurel Clark |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Thursday, 06 February 2003 - 11:02 am | | An interesting article about space debris in orbit (there's been some speculation it may have been the cause of the accident). Last week on Charlie Rose, one of the Americans who spent time on Mir spoke of seeing a tiny piece of garbage punch a big hole in one of its solar panels.
Space.com link
Dave |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 06 February 2003 - 11:46 am | | Hi, Dave:
Thanks for posting the article on space garbage in orbit. I agree that orbiting space junk might be another possible suspect cause in the downing of Columbia. This is something that I have thought about for some time after having heard previously about the floating debris field that is said to be orbiting the earth from prior space flights, manned and unmanned. It surprises me that NASA has not made it a priority to begin to clean up the space junk because of the hazards it could conceivably pose.
Best regards
Chris |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Thursday, 06 February 2003 - 12:48 pm | | Thanks, Chris
Yes, this stuff certainly needs to be cleaned up, but I wonder if Congress would really fund such an operation. Imagine a politician voting to spend money on what is basically a garbage truck. They dragged their feet about charting asteroids in near-earth orbits (incidentally, did you know we had two near-misses about a year ago?).
At least they're tracking the big pieces of trash. It's crazy the amount of damage even a paint chip can do when it reaches such fast speeds and how something the size of a marble can penetrate a cabin. But I don't know if anybody's really capable of cleaning all this stuff up, at least right now.
This stuff is certainly dangerous, and if it wasn't a cause for this disaster, it sure has the potential down the road.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Jon
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 02:46 pm | | http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/02/07/sprj.colu.wrap/index.html
Photo's captured by an Air Force Tracking camera on re-entry?
(edited)
Is it surprising that those photo's were not reviewed at the time?
Did someone know 7 days ago or, has someone not done their job?
Its sad that NASA have been attempting to sidestep and downplay the 'wing-damage' theory.
The media have suggested that these days the public tend to be a little 'nonchalant' about space flights. It makes one wonder if that has not extended into NASA itself.
Best regards, Jon |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 03:08 pm | | Thanks for posting this link, Jon. However, the article says the Air Force photos were taken during re-entry, not at launch. In between, there is a 16 day gap. Since no such structural damage was noted in any of the launch photographs, it seems possible there is another culprit besides the foam.
Regards,
Dave |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 03:19 pm | | New information (new to me) from Craig Corvault's Aviation Week article:
"Another key factor is that the leading edge of the shuttle wing, where the jagged shape was photographed, transitions from black thermal protection tiles to a much different mechanical system made of reinforced carbon-carbon material that is bolted on, rather than glued on as the tiles are."
Aviation Week
Best,
Dave |
Author: Vila
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 08:06 pm | | Another point is that the damage you infer could only be caused by something moving at relative speeds greater than the foam and the wing, which were both moving at the same speed. Both Nasa, and my friends on the SF chat group have pointed out that the foam was moving quite slowly in relation to the shuttle wing. Both were moving in excess of 1600 MPH at the time, but the difference between the foam and the wing can be calculated as less than 10 MPH. The damage that could have been putatively caused by the foam is minimal, therefore. Obviously, something *else* must have damaged the wing and the tiles. What damage that has been shown in the NASA films is incredibly minimal, and well within the range of what normally happens on each and every shuttle launch.
Obviously, something *else* had to have happened to cause Columbia's tragedy. And this is not *my* opinion, but those of the real rocket scientists in the SF group whose Newsgroup I read daily.
Vila |
Author: judith stock
Saturday, 08 February 2003 - 03:20 am | | I know that one day someone will strangle me for being such a pedantic nit-picker, but I must pass this on {'cause my hard wiring doesn't allow it to pass}: a listener "infers"; a speaker "implies".
Sorry about that.....just goes to show what trouble I can get into at 3 in the morning!
Cheers,
J |
Author: brad mcginnis
Saturday, 08 February 2003 - 11:44 pm | | | Hi Gang! Ive been kind of busy so Im not up on the boards. After viewing the messages for the last week I see Neale Carter copied the poem "High Flight" without attributes. This famous poem was quoted by President Reagan after the Challenger accident and is a sort of mantra for pilots. It was written by Flight Officer John G Magee Jr, an American serving with the R.C.A.F in Briton before America entered WWII. He was killed in action on a mission Dec. 11th, 1941 and his poem was shipped with his kit back to his folks in the U.S. Just to set the record straight and avoid any copyright infringements. Brad |
|
|
|
|
