Nute Gunray Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 watch the news. i'm not going to type it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 Or go to http://www.cnn.com A horrible tragedy. I wonder if this means everything will shut down again for years while it's all being investegated. If that's the case then I don't believe NASA will ever fully recover this time. This just might be the end of our space program as we know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmdr. Cracken Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 Horrible....just horrible..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Loyaltist Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 A horrific tragedy. My prayers are with all who were affected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander 598 Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 The Space Shuttle Columbia broke up upon reentry or so I have pieced together. Theres a huge debris cloud not far south of my position in Louisiana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold leader Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 This is terrible... I think the re-entry angle of attack became too large, could be due to an error in the pitch control program. This will affect manned space flight and the ISS, no doubt about that. But NASA will recover, this won't end the space program as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted February 1, 2003 Author Share Posted February 1, 2003 I suspect that damage to the left wing caused the orbiter to pull to the left more than they would have liked it to. After long enough, it overstressed the right wing right around the time the left wing 'burned through.' Left wing fails, shuttle goes...not right, rudder comes off, and then everything goes wronger and the right wing comes off. I assume this is logical. also, i think they said it might have been overloaded, which probably wouldn't help AND i was supposed to write a proposal about a paper i was going to write for a class concerning my desire for increased space exploration. now i will look unoriginal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabba The Hunt Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 a terrible terrible tradegy. Only last night I was reading an article in New Scientist about the mission costing about $1/2 billion, this really was the worst mission it could have happened on, mainly because of the loss of 7 good lives, and its really unusual for a mission, these days, to have more than 3 people on, but also the loss of resources and research when NASA is already dangerously underfunded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyah99 Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 I was watching the news this morning when it happened. I just felt sick. Praying also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 I must say, though, that considering all the tiny things in every flight that could go wrong and result in catastophy, that 2 in 120+ flights, on spaceframes more than 30 years old, isn't too bad of a track record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 And my take on it is either pilot error trying to correct for any damage done by that rogue foam on liftoff screwed up their entry angles, or else that foam just peeled off some of the heat tiling and melted the whole works when she started back down. And as for the end of Nasa? No way. Mark my words, barring some kind of discovery requiring major overhauls, the birds'll be back up in a year and a half at very the longest. Challenger had them grounded for under 2 years, and there's a lot more to go wrong on liftoff than reentry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taarkin Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Worldwide sympathy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Beastie Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 My sympathy as well (please don't bother with the "worldwide + Beastie" jokes). From the stars we were born. To the stars we shall return. Godspeed STS-107. Like Edlib, I'm concerned for the future. Originally posted by Nitro Challenger had them grounded for under 2 years, and there's a lot more to go wrong on liftoff than reentry. No-one's debating that. Heck, burning up on re-entry is just a risk that every astronaut lives with every mission. It's barely even an issue. But: Originally posted by Jabba The Hunt NASA is already dangerously underfunded. Exactly. More and more of NASA's budget has been siphoned of for more important things, like building tax breaks for Congressmen. After this tragedy, and with a war looming on the horizon, I'm more worried about the economic future of NASA. Let's face it, NASA is effectively a non-profit organization. Of course, if anything is to blame for this, it's the whole "faster, cheaper, better cheaper" mentality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Odin Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Um, your forgetting one major thing that will guarentee that the shuttle isn't grounded for 2 years. The international space station, we do have people on it. Granted they are not trapped they do have an escape vessel but still the shuttle is their main connection to Earth. I for one hope this puts the public's attention on NASA and pray they get more funding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted February 2, 2003 Author Share Posted February 2, 2003 The space shuttle is far and away the best non-military piece of military hardware we have. The timing is bad to say the least, but if we needed a satellite to have a look at Iraq and the shuttle was the only ride in town, it'd be flying tomorrow. The defense applications alone are reason enough for the shuttle program, for NASA as a whole, to survive. Frankly, I'm surprised it took so long to lose one on reentry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Beastie Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 Agreed. I mean, sure it's a tragedy, but let's face it; their track record (missions flown/irrecoverable accidents) is impressive by any standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 Originally posted by Nitro I must say, though, that considering all the tiny things in every flight that could go wrong and result in catastophy, that 2 in 120+ flights, on spaceframes more than 30 years old, isn't too bad of a track record. *cough* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Beastie Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 *hands Nitro a glass of water* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted February 3, 2003 Author Share Posted February 3, 2003 http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/presrep96/Presrp96/appa3.pdf I found that while I was just digging around at NASA. Look at may 12 1996. That would have been quite the sight to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylilin Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 May 12, 1996 - Classified Military Payload Now that's encouraging. BTW, I was in Cocoa Beach, FL in March of 1996, not sure of the week, anyways, Cocoa Beach is only a couple of miles from Cape Canaveral. One of the launches were at night, we went out on to the beach to watch it at like 11 at night, it was one of the greatest things I've ever seen. The rockets lit up the entire sky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 I think what Nute's getting at is that there were apparently several TitanIV launches that day,.. all with classified military payload. Or was it just one launch with a multiple payload? It doesn't seem that way though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted February 3, 2003 Author Share Posted February 3, 2003 They list multiple payloads per launch as such. Those were six Titan IVs launched in one day. They had to pull off one every four hours or something. That alone would have been epic. The classified military payload really is interesting though. I wonder what it could possibly have been. I lived in Jacksonville for a few years back in teh mid 80s. Night launches were even impressive from that distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold leader Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 Couldn't be too important, else they would have spread those launches over multiple days. At least, that seems logical to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmdr. Cracken Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 Quite possibly the military had to put something up really quick. granted, that's alot of stuff, but sometimes, you just need to get something delivered..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 You mean they called UPS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.