By Alan Kott (Fallen) (63.207.239.200) on Saturday, February 01, 2003 - 06:18 pm:

Just wanted the opportunity to mourn a great loss to all of us.

By Alan Kott (Fallen) (63.207.239.200) on Saturday, February 01, 2003 - 06:21 pm:

I meant to say adventurers.

By kevin phillips (Kevman) (210.48.25.223) on Saturday, February 01, 2003 - 07:22 pm:

I'm sorry? Who are you talking about - You've got me lost with that rather obscure posting!

By Larry Shultz "SplineGod" (Larrys) (209.178.140.234) on Saturday, February 01, 2003 - 08:56 pm:

The Space Shuttle Columbia broke up on reentry today killing all 7 astronauts on board.

By stephen gilbert (Cresshead) (62.254.0.4) on Saturday, February 01, 2003 - 09:46 pm:

a very sad day, i hope they [nasa] can quickly find out the cause of the breakup of the shuttle and keep on track with the space program..it's one of the main areas where we make progress and invent new technology..pushing the limits i'd hate to see a freeze for 2yrs like we had in 1986

the people we lost were pioneers, extending our achivements/hopes & dreams of a better world to live in.

steve g

By Panikos (Panikos) (213.149.179.151) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 01:17 am:

I prefer a world with even spread of resources for the entire planet.

Look at Brazil, Argentina, Africa.

By Burton R. Ogden (Burton) (172.139.188.234) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 01:33 am:

Steve,

i'd hate to see a freeze for 2yrs like we had in 1986

I think another shuttle mission is planned in a few weeks. But you can be sure there will be a thorough investigation of this tragedy. Pieces of the shuttle were spread over two or three states.

On TV they said a lot of people were offering pieces of it as "souveneirs" on eBay. eBay shut down those auctions.

By John DeFronzo (Johnd) (172.138.188.254) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 01:36 am:

My heart goes out to the astronauts and their families. I can't believe this happened again. Such a loss.

By Elmar Moelzer (Elmar_Moelzer) (62.47.36.118) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 03:32 am:

I too feel very sad about this.
And I am angry too! The officials at NASA know very well, that the shuttle is getting old and that every flight is a high risk (in fact they have statistics that said that another tragic incident should have happened a long time ago), still there are no serious attempts to replace the shuttle in the near future. If they dont go ahead with financing and building a replacement for the shuttle- fleet soon, this will mark the beginning of the end of manned spaceflight and for me this would mean the beginning of the end of mankind...
CU
Elmar

By Colin Kai Heaps (Colkai) (81.86.199.212) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 04:55 am:

It seems there was a question over damage at launch. The sad fact is, even if you knew the exact damage, chances are, the shuttle would have been in a no-return window before a decision could be made to abort.
It *is* a terrible tragedy, but then, space flight is a risky business. I remember watching a documentary where an astronaut put it bluntly, they are hurtling toward space strapped to a controlled explosion.
When you think of the number of airline disasters over the last couple of years, and the number of missions the shuttles have flown, they have a really good safety record in a very hazardous line of work.
Not, of course, that this is any comfort at all to the family and friends of those lost. We should always honour the dreamers and the seekers, they represent the best in us.

By Chris S. (Fez) (68.51.141.174) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 06:54 am:

"in fact they have statistics that said that another tragic incident should have happened a long time ago"

Hi Elmar. By many accounts the space shuttles are perhaps the most pampered vehicles ever manufactured. I think the shuttles are certified for 100 missions and that this was mission 28 for Columbia. Please tell me where these "statistics" are published? Thanks.

By Chris S. (Fez) (68.51.141.174) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 07:07 am:

Nevermind Elmar. I found an article in USAToday mentioning former Nasa administrator Blomberg's warnings. Definitely disturbing...

By Alan Kott (Fallen) (63.207.239.200) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 07:39 am:

For myself, I am just so glad that we as a people (all people) are venturing to better our understanding or our universe . In my opinion frontiers have always reminded us of the fragile and precious nature of our lives. I just hope that the endeavor to learn more isn't hindered by this accident. An accident was inevitable sooner or later.

By Alan Kott (Fallen) (63.207.239.200) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 07:47 am:

Yah, it really sucks when things like this happen. My feeling is that this endeavor to learn more about our universe is slowly bringing the world together though. Sure, an accident was bound to happen again. I would gladly be on the next flight though, and hope that this accident doesn't keep us from carrying on. I think any goals that bring us together are great goals.

By Jim Williams (Hiraghm) (65.70.121.97) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 01:53 pm:

I'm just going to ignore the communist statement above. Ignorance of that kind doesn't deserve recognition. The benefits of the space program have touched almost every life on the planet.

The shuttle was crippled in its design, thanks to budget cuts and the efforts of Walter Mondale.

We've been stalling for 20 years. It's past time for us to stop exploring space and get on with the business of *conquering* it. That means manned lunar bases. Generic, manned interplanetary spacecraft (modular design). Multiple launch capabilities (different designs for different missions.) More astronauts. Eventually Martian bases. A century from now, terraforming Mars.

Does anyone realise that a century ago this year (December 17), two guys in Kittyhawk, North Carolina made the first powered flight? ONLY 100 years ago! In 1948, Truman's chances of winning the Presidential election were equated with his chances of going to the moon. In less than 20 years, we went to the moon. In 21, we walked on it. It's been 34 years since we first walked on the moon; we're behind schedule!

It's easy to scoff when people promote these seemingly crazy notions... but only when you don't look back at how fast we got to where we are, and what we've gained in the process.

"When an elderly (in this case over 30) and respected scientist says something is possible, he's quite possibly right. When he says something is impossible, he's very probably wrong." - Clarke's 1st Law.

By Ken Mac (Kenmac) (67.83.211.28) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 02:32 pm:

God Bless America and this World....
There are so many uncertainties.

By Panikos (Panikos) (213.149.179.151) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 02:46 pm:

The opposite of ignorance, is having knowledge of every inch of this planet, before conquering others.

I am not against scientific evolution.

Nowdays, for arresting 10 terrorists, an entire nation is bombed, and the bomb-polution spreads at the 20 surrounding countries too.

At least, I have the courage to express my opinion, without hiding behind words.

Though this place is not suitable for such discussions. I wont type further for this.
End of my msg.

By riki (Suture) (203.109.249.132) on Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 04:34 pm:

Hi Panikos, it's not really the time and place to vent.

By kevin phillips (Kevman) (210.48.25.104) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 02:59 am:

I agree - No venting here, its a bit off-topic for the subject matter, and well, of this whole board really - I'm here for LightWave, 3D art and to hang out with cool people!

Our newspaper this morning was filled with disaster photos and stories about the shuttle - Seems we got the news a day later... What an awful tragedy for many people...

However, I do feel I should correct the statement about Kittyhawk and the first powered flight. Historically, that's not quite correct...

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/pearse1.html

...Now, wasn't that an interesting read!

By Anthony Mazzeri (Antonym) (203.58.21.22) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 09:39 am:

Jim, I assume you can't be referring to anything else but Panikos's statement of "a world with even spread of resources for the entire planet" as a communist statement? The way you say it, it can't be taken as anything but a natural belief that the wealthy sharing with the poor is a bad thing and to be dismissed out of hand.

'Let them eat cake', eh Jimmy boy?

....meanwhile back at the ranch... Louis XIV and his courtiers are wondering in blissful ignorance why the disenfranchised peasants are at the gates with their torches and pitchforks and any other weapon they can get their filthy blistered farm hands on.... "Oh dear, was zat ze Bastille I just heard fall? Mais non, quelle surpirize!" says Louis to Marie Antoinette. "Why would zey attack that building, mon cherie? Eet haz no strategic value whatsover. I simply do not understand these peasants...."

(Apologies for my poor schoolboy French.)

By Beam Tracer (Beamtracer) (203.109.241.109) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 03:25 pm:

If it was "a world with even spread of resources for the entire planet" it wouldn't be necessary for one country to slaughter the civilians of another country in order to steal their oil.

By Chris Moschella (Chris_M) (12.101.14.2) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 04:31 pm:

Come on beam, is that really necessary here? any real point in a one sentance statement that is obviously loaded and clearly unsubstantiated? cant we just let the thread be as it was intended, please?

By W Wade Woehrmann (Thewww) (208.143.74.82) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 07:23 pm:

I marvel at the fact that the shuttle had such a diverse crew from so many countries, I think its part of the NASA mission is to bring this world together as we reach for others. What an in credible accomplishment the shuttles are. I am proud to be a part of a people and country that does feed more of the worlds hungry than any other this while also reaching for the stars, Is it by chance that as we fail and succeed its been with a varied crew Men, Women, Black, White, Indian, Jew! I am proud, I marvel, I cry for our lose, who has this not touched? It will impact us all for the better. NASA has a mission my they pursue it with renewed vigor.

I once a few years ago watched from south Texas the shuttle fly to a landing along the same path - west to east an hour or two after dark. What a sight! The plasma trail stretched from one end of the sky to the next and faded only after it was gone from sight to the east. If I ever have kids I will find a clear night and take them out for such an event.
May the friends and family of those lost be at peace? Thank you for all you have given to us.

You’re Neighbor on this small one of a kind world,

Wade

By Kelly Lee Myers (Kmyers) (209.89.36.152) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 07:28 pm:

Hey Beamtracer???
Whats the deal? IF you are going to go down that road, then maybe you could ask the french and the germans about all the wonderful contracts they have in place currently and ready to go in Iraq which means more money in their pockets at the price of the suffering of the Iraqi people by maintaining the status quo through UN Sanctions and dragging out inspections only to delay the innevitable???

If you want to get into the American bashing mode here Beam you are going to be met by people who know their stuff and will take you to task on your statements and you will loose.

Contrary to the leftist movements (Old Europe) claims that the west robs the middle east of its resouces, OPEC which is made up of oil producing nations, and are for the most part a majorty of them being Arab - -- SET THE PRICE OF OIL. Bought and sold. There is no theft here unless you are refering to the oppresive governments in place in these so-called "poor countries" - not passing the weath on to its citizens.

You have taken a tragic event for the world, and twisted it into a David Icke seminar just to "bash America" through baseless accusations of events and policy which you are obviously not an expert of considering your posts and conspiracy theory undertones.

I will not respond to any of your replies or anyone eles in this thread in an attept to counter of swing at my statements here. Not because you will directing comments at deaf ears, but instead an empty room; as the real people of the world now have dead heros to burry and a people to liberate. Why is it that so many, keep forgetting about the people? Cause they are not human themselves - and certainly not citizens of this planet.

Later...

By Beam Tracer (Beamtracer) (203.109.241.109) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 08:12 pm:

Hi Kelly,

You asked about French and German contracts involving Iraq. Twenty-four companies from The U.S., UK, Germany, France and other Western countries were involved in supplying Iraq with weaponry with as was the U.S Departments of Defence, Energy, Trade and Agriculture, as did the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories.

These were published on December 19 by the German newspaper 'Die Tageszeitung'.
http://www.taz.de/pt/2002/12/19/a0012.nf/text

These contracts to supply Iraq with weaponry were initiated by Donald Rumsfeld, who in December 1983 traveled to Baghdad to meet Saddam Hussein. US intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defences following Rumsfeld's visit.
Source: Washington Post, December 30, 2002.

The loss of Space Shuttle Columbia was a huge tragedy, with the loss of 7 talented astronaughts.

It is a more difficult task for our minds to extend this empathy to the thousands of people in Iraq who will soon lose their lives as a result of the imminent invasion.

It's a difficult concept for many to comprehend that all human life is equally precious, no matter who they are, what status they have, or what country they live

By Anthony Mazzeri (Antonym) (203.213.83.176) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 09:18 pm:

I love that footage they showed on TV the other day of the Reagan/Bush Administration Special Envoy Rumsfield sitting there with Saddam amiably negotiating an agreement while thousands of Iranians' eyes and lungs were being toasted to a lovely marshmallowy consistency by mustard gas.

I can see why they chose to send him. He did a damn expert job of disguising his sheer horror and disgust at the inhumane atrocities being committed by the dictator he was sitting with even as they spoke.

The friendly avuncular smile he was beaming at Saddam back then looks remarkably like the one he beams at the reporters and cameras in his press conferences now, but that's only to be expected I guess as he still looks the same, just a bit older now.

Yep, I'm sure he hasn't changed much at all.

By Elmar Moelzer (Elmar_Moelzer) (62.47.36.118) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 10:36 pm:

Hello Beam!
I think you and many other people (in your country, this seems to be a bit extreme), tend to think that a special form of society will guaranty a better life, but this aint true. We all have a great life because we have great technology and great people that are educated and trained enough to keep the technology going. So technology is the key, not the society itself. Societey should only help giving equal opportunity(only opportunity!) to everyone, so as few talent as possible is lost and it should help getting science/technology going. And technology is all space- exploration is about, (to get back on the original topic hint, hint).
CU
Elmar

By Beam Tracer (Beamtracer) (203.109.241.109) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 10:48 pm:

Hi Elmar,

The beautiful city of Graz, where you are, is always a pleasure to visit, and your country has stated its opposition to the coming invasion of Iraq.

I'm not against space exploration. Just against wars. The two issues are actually linked. NASA has been starved of funds, and unable to undertake all the safety recommendations it should have. Guess where all the government funds have gone? Even this week, the US congress has been asked, yet again, to increase funding to the Pentagon. If only all this money went to NASA, what a better world this would be! Imagine the kind of space vehicles that could have been built.

By Elmar Moelzer (Elmar_Moelzer) (62.47.36.118) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 11:14 pm:

Hello Beam!
Actually the current US- government has raised NASAs budget just recently (even before the accident). Yes funds could always be higher for any scientiffic organization, but in case of NASA it was also a lot of missmanagement by the not so loved former administrator Goldin. They have spent a lot of money into Lockheed to build a X33 tha should evolve into a replacement for the shuttle. For this they had proposlas by other companies like Boeing and Rockwell too, but they chose Lockheed BECAUSE(!) their proposal involved the most technical challenges. This project was doomed from the beginning IMHO. If they had chosen one of the other proposals that relied more on off the shelf tech we would have had a replacement for the shuttle some time ago already.
Maybe someone remembers the DC-X or Deltaclipper, that was researched by the airforce at the beginning of the nineties. It was comparably simple in concept and would have worked, thats for sure, but at the time people thought that the NASA would be better at this. Maybe it is time to knowck some doors at the airforce and relaunch the project...
Concerning war I too would rather spend the money on spaceplanes than on war(but the people in the USA have to know themselves, what is good for them). On the other hand, you know "war is the father of all things" (not sure if this was translated into english propperly) and without any wars we would still not have reached the moon (probably would still hunt with spears), sad but thats how our world works...
CU
Elmar

By W Wade Woehrmann (Thewww) (66.142.150.88) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 12:22 am:

The wind is blowing cold and dry out side the stars are bright in the empty dark blue-black sky just a slight sliver of a moon tonight in Houston. I heard some of the wreckage of the shuttle was found not to far away today.
I morn the loss of people from around the globe I never would have met but now miss. I do hope we keep pushing the edge. I look forward to seeing the day when we can partner with the countries we now face war with. Who could have known at the time that the U.S. would someday be partners and allies with almost every country we have ever fought.

The UK, Spain, Germany, Japan, the north and the south - our selves! Are the people of Afghanistan better off today they were a year ago? they seem to be.

The chill outside is the last push of winter spring will be here soon.

Check out who was on that shuttle read about who the people were, where they came from where they wanted to go.

Wade

By jin choung (Jin) (63.28.231.156) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 01:38 am:

a sad loss indeed.

at least from the small amount of data that has been released so far though, failure seems pretty straightforward - though it may be too rash to connect the dots in the news yet.

1) insulation broke off the big orange dealy and whacked off/ damaged underside tiles of shuttle.

2) upon reentry, the tiles in the underside failed.

3) either that was enough to undo the orbiter (heat hit propellants or oxygen tanks, etc) or

4) the heat caused the pressure to build up in the wheels (was reported by nasa) and the wheels actually exploded - that blowing apart the orbiter itself or - compromising the aerodynamic properties of the orbiter to such a degree that it 'disintegrated in the wind'.
-----------------------------------------------

biggest question is after such an event after liftoff, why the heck didn't they perform a spacewalk to check it out?

the answer that i keep hearing on the news is that they wouldn't have been able to do anything anyway... ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

how is that an answer?!

heck, delay reentry until they can send up a repair mission!

it's very very surprising that there currently IS NO CONTINGENCY for damage incurred during liftoff!

jin

By jin choung (Jin) (63.28.231.156) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 01:42 am:

and actually,

here's the very best most realistic thing they could do-

1) assess the damage with spacewalk and if safety is AT ALL AT ISSUE-

2) keep them on the space station and bring the astronauts down one at a time if need be on future missions.

3) if space 'dry dock' repairs is not possible, at that point, you can jettison columbia as space junk after you strip it for supplies, consumables and tech. you lose a shuttle but nobody gets hurt.

jin

By riki (Suture) (203.109.249.132) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 01:57 am:

As I understood from the news reports, no one on board was trained up for a spacewalk and there wasn't enough fuel onboard to make it to the space station.

By Alan Kott (Fallen) (63.207.239.200) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 02:29 am:

I agree with you Jin. If they would have performed an EVA to check out the damage, they might have been able to tell if there was a life threatening problem.

If so, get that sucker to the space station and make a spacewalk to shelter. Even if noone was trained for an EVA, it would have been a better option than riding a fireball home. Then atleast there is time to come up with viable options.

By Alan Kott (Fallen) (63.207.239.200) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 02:31 am:

Riki, where did you hear that they didn't have the fuel? So far, I have only heard that they didn't have the means to dock to the space station.

By riki (Suture) (203.109.249.132) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 02:38 am:

I just heard it on the Channel 9 News Report last night, in Sydney. They also said something about doing a spacewalk on the Columbia was near on impossible becuase nothing to hold on to. Not sure if it's true??

By Beam Tracer (Beamtracer) (203.109.241.109) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 03:03 am:

Maybe they could have just orbited... floated around a while until the Russians could send up a rocket to rescue them. The Russians had a rocket ready to go within 2 or 3 days anyway.

By jin choung (Jin) (63.28.231.156) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 03:17 am:

well, i hope to god i'm not the only one thinking about this but they should re-consider shuttle destinations if fuel is at all an issue:

that is, unless the shuttle MUST go out of range of the ISS to perform missions (launch a sat, repair a sat, hubble, whatever), all shuttle launches should end up in the vicinity of the ISS!

heck, i'm not even an astronaut and don't know anyone who is but even from where i'm sitting, the constant thought is "HECK - JUST IN - freaking - CASE!"

it's all true what they say about hindsight, and i suppose all of nasa's 'launch damage' scenarios result in instant catastrophe.

but they really should consider putting up some kind of redimentary maintenance facility on/near iss.

and yah alan, even though they were not specifically trained for an eva mission, ya gotta believe they probably had the know how and basic training to perform one. you hear about how multidisciplinary/skilled all the astronaut crews are... i'm sure they could have.

jin

p.s. spaceshuttle = 1billion+ parts?!?!?! i can imagine it's a legacy we live with out of financial necessity (like x86 i guess) but geez, there's got to be a better way. billion!!! i can't BELIEVE that there are man made, artificial things that consist in interdependent units of billions+ ! god, i'd hate to be project manager on that.

By james ricks (Jricks) (66.69.13.153) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 03:59 am:

Jin,

I couldn't help asking many of the same questions.
Hindsight may be 20/20 but knowing there was no way down if something went wrong is too.

I may be wrong as info continues to come out. The way I currently understand the space walk issue is that they couldn't because there were no jetpacks on board so getting to the area of damage would have been impossible. Even if untrained to do it, I'll betcha "have jet pack will travel" under those circumstances.

Give them at least one jetpack and a bunch of fireproof super-putty that solidifies in space. If we can't do it, figure it out, or figure out a real answer under this type of failure scenario, a small rc controlled robo-camera would be in the realm of believable.

Granted, this has never happened before, but could easily be seen as a possible scenario. Considering the extent of technology and it's limits, these are truly incredible people that are willing to face the realities and take the known risks in order to bring the benefits of the exploration to the world.

No roboarm to check for damage. I also heard mentioned they didn't have enough fuel to get to the station. Also heard it questioned as to whether they had the appropriate hardware to dock even if they did. Wow.

Budget cuts are true, no contingency plan is true, it can't possibly be perfectly safe. That leaves me with an even more profound sense of admiration for those that go, their character and a deeper feeling of loss for the 7 on Columbia.

By Beam Tracer (Beamtracer) (203.109.241.109) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 04:37 am:

Who would go again? I'd say it's quite reckless for anyone with a family. There's about a 1% chance that each mission will result in the deaths of everyone. It's much safer to go skydiving, parachuting or swimming in crocodile infested water than riding a shuttle.

I think it's long been old technology. It's time that something else was developed. Something that flies down a runway and avoids the complicated launch proceedures of the Shuttle. The only reason the Shuttle program has been continued is because of national pride.

The whole concept of the Shuttle was to make launches cheaper. In the end, Shuttle launches were about 100x more expensive than conventional rockets, so it defeats the point. Now the national pride has been shattered, also.

By Alan Kott (Fallen) (63.207.239.200) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 04:39 am:

Yah, 1 Billion+ parts and because of constant budget wars the personnel turnover has culled out many of the most experienced technicians. So subtle problems can more easily go unnoticed. I'd still go up in the darn thing!

By Elmar Moelzer (Elmar_Moelzer) (62.47.36.118) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 06:59 am:

Hello
To set some hings straight here:
1. An EVA was not possible, because of no equipment for it being on board. They did not have any EMUs(extravehicular maneuverability units) on board and without them it is impossible to reach the underside of the shuttle.
2. There are 20k Heat- shield - tiles on a single shuttle it is unlikely a problem if it existed could have been found during one single EVA.
3. Even if they had found the problem, there was nothing they could have done other than returning to earth the way they did. Because the shuttle only had life- support for the astonauts for another week on board. They had no tools for repairing tiles on board and in that short time there would have been no chance to get a rescue- mission going. Neither the Russians nor the US have had a launch-ready vehicle at the time and even if the russiany had one, their ships can carry 3 people at max, on board of the Columbia were 7 people.
4. The Columbia was the oldest and most heavy of the shuttles. It was the only shuttle that never flew to the space- station because of this. It could have reached the orbit of the space- station but its cargo would have been very limited. This was a very heavy mission and all fuel was spent for it, nothing left to reach ISS.
5. Even if it had reached the space- station it would not have been able to dock with it, as the docking- mechanism required to dock with ISS was not on board.
6. While it seems to be publicly accepted (though there are not official results that confirm this), that the failure was because of damage caused by isolation breaking of the ET, it is very unlikely, this is truely the case.
The isolation is made from styrofoam, which is very, very lightweight and not very hard compared to a shuttle. It is unlikely that the damage could have been caused by this.
This is also why the crew at NASA did not even think of a potential problem until the Columbia desintegrated.
My theory would be that it was rather caused by structural failure (microcracks, stress) in the supporting structure for he wing- tips, that are AFAIK most stressed during reentry. They could either have been there all the time, but were overlooked during the last great maintenance- break from which Columbia had just returned, or happened during that break or during the mounting f the shuttle on the tank etc.
The other possibility might be that something they changed during the maintenance- upgrades caused another problem that lead to a chainreaction finally destroying the shuttle. Remember, that it all started with some heat (that was not that bad at the time the contact broke off) and a loss of tire- pressure.
We will hopefully have more answers once the investigation is complete (maybe in a year and a half).The problem is, that we cant wait until tis happens, or otherwise ISS will become the most expensive piece of space- chunk floating around up there.
CU
Elmar

By Alan Kott (Fallen) (63.207.239.200) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 10:24 am:

Hey Elmar,

I did hear that if somehow they did notice something, that Nasa could have sent up the next shuttle in 2 or 3 days, but, as they put it, they would have to throw out the safety book on launches first. But, from everything you guys have said, it does sound really unlikely that they would have actually found a problem in flight even if they did do an EVA.

By W Wade Woehrmann (Thewww) (208.143.74.82) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 10:47 am:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/867734.asp

Something on the crew itself.

By Chris S. (Fez) (68.51.141.174) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 11:40 am:

"Who would go again?"

I would. Those missions are not set up so astronauts can get their adrenaline fix. EVERY mission has some sort of SCIENTIFIC agenda. Nothing to do with thrill seeking...unless you count that passenger who paid the Russian space program millions to be on board.

By Will Silver (Lw_Will) (66.27.96.238) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 01:51 pm:

Elmar...

IF they had seen the danger, if they had thought that they were in trouble the day they went up to orbit, if they had gotten the next shuttle into orbit, and if they had managed to get to Columbia in that critical two weeks...

Could they have transfered the crew to a rescue vehicle? And, was there one of the RMAs in the cargo bay? I thought that the old configuration of a science lab in the payload bay facilitated the removeal of the EVA pack, the RMA and most other cargo, right? (except for the mission packs)

It's like Thunderbird 2 people... you have to leave Thunderbird 4 if you need to take the Elevator cars!

Will

ps. Put me down for the next trip, please... I'll be ready to go next week.

By Mike Grusin (Mgrusin) (206.124.0.48) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 02:43 pm:

I have to comment on this...

I have friends who work for the shuttle program in both Florida and Houston. And I can say without reservation that these are the most quality and safety-conscious engineers, technicians, and managers in the world, because they have to be. I can understand all the second-guessing going on; it's human nature (and sadly media nature as well). But having experienced first hand how deeply quality and safety pervades their entire program, I am convinced beyond a doubt that given everything they know from 100+ successful, and one unsuccessful, shuttle flights to date, everything was handled properly (and honorably) on this one.

The level of quality and safety they hold themselves to is beyond our everyday understanding of the words. Imagine tearing down, microscopically inspecting, and rebuilding your car engine every morning before you go to work. Or every time you hit a pothole, having a remote team of engineers work around the clock to determine whether there was any damage. As flight-crew director Robert Cabana said at a news conference on Sunday, it's one thing to accept the risk of strapping yourself into a rocket; it's quite another to accept the risk of strapping your friends into that rocket. This attitude pervades the program from the top to the bottom.

If one good thing came from Challenger, it was destroying the "we are invincible" mentality. As tragic as Columbia is, I am encouraged that the mood seems to be more that of a plane crash; unfortunate, with important lessons to be learned, but inevetable as we take our first steps into space. The accident investigation may turn out to be the most difficult in history, but given the skill of the people involved, I am confident that they will find the cause (most likely causeS, complex systems have complex failure modes), fix the problem, and continue with their mission, as IMHO they should.

After the accident I wrote my friend in Florida, who works directly with the vehicles, with a quote by Richard Bach (an author and pilot) who said something along the lines of, "in a normal job, the worst thing that can happen to you in a day is that your pencil might fall off your desk. When you're flying, the risks are much greater, but the rewards are much greater too".

If given the opportunity, I would fly on a shuttle in a second, both because I know that the risk has been reduced as much as humanly possible, and because the risk is worth it.

-Mike Grusin.

By Elmar Moelzer (Elmar_Moelzer) (62.47.36.118) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 05:42 pm:

Hello

Allan wrote:
I did hear that if somehow they did notice something, that Nasa could have sent up the next shuttle in 2 or 3 days.

Very unlikely. The remaining shuttles are all in maintenance or like Discovery being prepared for another launch (meaning it has to be turned upright and fixed to the ET as well as refueled etc. I cant imagine this can be done in 2 days. Even if they could do it, putting all serious security aside would only risc another crew...

Will, there are to many ifs in this and as I stated, there was no chance having a rescue- vehicle in any form up in time anyway.

Mike, yes they certainly made everything right, yet there still is room for failure. The biggest fault of NASA IMHO, was to think that the shuttle does not need a replacement in the near future (means until 2040). These ships are old and they never were that great a design IMHO. If I were at NASA I would try to get a replacement for the fleet ASAP and at all cost, especially since the shuttle- fleet is now shrunk to 3 vehicles. AFAIK there is no way we can build another shuttle without starting from scratch anyway, as all tooling has been lost and there is noone left who knows how to do it. Without wanting to paint the devil on the wall, but what if they loose another one (hopefully without a loss of the crew next time)?
I already doubt that the 3 remaining will be able to keep the current flight- rate going, but if for some reason only 2 are left, all big projects that require the shuttle are endangered (like ISS i.e).
Oh, just to keep things straight, I too would go on board a shuttle without hesitating
CU
Elmar