US Space Shuttle Missing - Worst Feared
Discussion
The physics of the situation suggest that if there are any alternatives to the giant firework, they will be few and most likely just as dangerous.
To overcome gravity, the transport mechanism has to attain incredible speeds. This is not to simply get there faster, but just to get there at all without falling back to earth. In order to get there therefore there has to a phenominal energy release to generate the acceleration forces required.
It is always going to be dangerous.
To overcome gravity, the transport mechanism has to attain incredible speeds. This is not to simply get there faster, but just to get there at all without falling back to earth. In order to get there therefore there has to a phenominal energy release to generate the acceleration forces required.
It is always going to be dangerous.
Psychobert said
True, but its virtually rebuilt after each flight..
Looking like a failure of the insulation; poor sods onboard probably wouldn't have felt a thing at least..
There are personal egress packs onboard, STS-51 (Challenger) also had them and IIRC several were activated. In both cases, I think they would be ineffective.
It was refurbished, I think in 98. But the air frame is the same. I did see the effects of stress on the airframe of regular plane. A commuter airline jet in Hawaii did peel like a banana in flight many years ago. Who knows what went wrong. Very tragic.
Calvin
I do feel deeply sorry about this. I try to keep reminding myself that a large number of people,around the world, have died today, each of them (well I hope most) important to someone else, but when I hear of this sort of thing I can't help but get a lump in my throat. I'm not sentimental - since the loss of someone very close to me I realise there is no future in that, but when there are instances like this I do feel we have lost something important.
Perhaps it is the fact that a large number of very intellegent people who were willing to risk everyhing to, ok to experienece the adventure of a lifetime, but also to push that envelope a little wider, something I that will admire always.
Paul
>> Edited by gopher on Saturday 1st February 22:34
Perhaps it is the fact that a large number of very intellegent people who were willing to risk everyhing to, ok to experienece the adventure of a lifetime, but also to push that envelope a little wider, something I that will admire always.
Paul
>> Edited by gopher on Saturday 1st February 22:34
Eric, please don't think I do not admire the people or the technology, I stayed up as a kid to watch the lunar landing and have been a fan ever since, these people are genuine heroes. Maybe someone can help me out on this one, I remember someone involved in the Starchaser project saying that Nasa's decision to use the shuttle as a reuseable vehicle had set development back years. The british 'HOTOL' (sp)for one was touted as being a viable proposition as far as I recall. Statistically the losses have been low but when looking at how long the technology has been in use and the care and skill of the operators (as proven by the cost)it might be deemed that a catastrophic stuctural failure such as this should not happen. I realise that at this stage this is pure conjecture. Did anyone else notice on the replay that there was a large piece of something trailing behind and below the main trail from the very start of the break up, a wing or tail?
To me these people will always be heroes.
I don't just mean the Isreali man on board, I mean the entire crew.
As someone pointed out, there are may human beings, real people, individuals every one, who die each day. The discrepancy I see is it as follows.
How many of those people would have chosen to die?
None. I admit. But I am willing to bet that none of the 'ordinary' people (apologies to any who know someone who was lost recently) were risking their lives to better mankind.
The people who died in space in this event were a special breed, they were doing their best to further our collective knowledge of the universe around us.
They chose a path in life that was exceptionally dangerous.
Despite the safety record of the shuttle I believe there is not a sane person on this Earth who can argue that being an astronaut is not a dangerous career.
These were gifted people who deserve our respect. They were lost furthering the horizons of humanity, which IMHO is what we, as a species, are all about.
My deepest comiserations to their families, and I pray they will be able to cope well with their loss.
God rest them all.
I don't just mean the Isreali man on board, I mean the entire crew.
As someone pointed out, there are may human beings, real people, individuals every one, who die each day. The discrepancy I see is it as follows.
How many of those people would have chosen to die?
None. I admit. But I am willing to bet that none of the 'ordinary' people (apologies to any who know someone who was lost recently) were risking their lives to better mankind.
The people who died in space in this event were a special breed, they were doing their best to further our collective knowledge of the universe around us.
They chose a path in life that was exceptionally dangerous.
Despite the safety record of the shuttle I believe there is not a sane person on this Earth who can argue that being an astronaut is not a dangerous career.
These were gifted people who deserve our respect. They were lost furthering the horizons of humanity, which IMHO is what we, as a species, are all about.
My deepest comiserations to their families, and I pray they will be able to cope well with their loss.
God rest them all.
FunkyNige said: I just think it's a shame that in 6 months time, people will only remember the first Israeli on board and on-one else, just as people only remember the first civillian on board the Challenger 17 years agoand don't seem to remember the 6 other, equally important, souls.
RIP.
Have to agree with you, it is a shame that we don't remember all the Challenger crew of
Michael Smith, Dick Scobee, Judith Resnik, Ronald McNair, Ellison Onizuka, Gregory Jarvis, and Christa McAuliffe
funkihamsta said: Does anyone see this event being used 'as a sign' by certain anti-American parties. For example: US and Israel astronauts. Wreckage coming down over Palestine (!), Texas.
I had noticed that ,,, just one of the strange coincidece`s that happen in life and death .
But then comercial aircraft crash , shit happens every day in every way , space exploration is a risky business.
As is flying off on your summer hol`s its just that it all seems like an everyday thing , we get so used to the Shuttle flying or our selves flying off on business or for vacation`s that we forget the real risks involved , even in driving a car as we have seen on here recently people die doing these thing`s we just put the risk factor out of our mind when we do it .
Anyone who has ever considered spaceflight as a routine activity obviously knows very little about the technology and the risks involved. So much of our knowledge of what's happening in the world is based on whether the media deem it importtant for us to know. Shuttle flights, because of the lack of "newsworthy" incidents since the Challenger accident had fallen into the "non-news" category, hence people's assumption that the flights were routine.
A Shuttle is a rocket and anyone knows that rockets are not the most reliable of vehicles. Even though higher standards of maintenance and preparation are applied to the Shuttle and its boosters, every so often there HAS to be a major failure, I remember some expert saying after the Challenger accident that it was almost definite that there would be another total loss of vehicle and crew, probably within the next 50 flights. he was almost correct. And whats more, if the Shuttle does return to service, another one will be lost, eventually.
THe main decisions that NASA, the American government and people have to ask themselves over the coming months are:
i) does America want to stay in the manned spaceflight business?
ii) will it continue to fly using the Shuttle - a 30 year old design?
iii) is it willing to fund a replacement system for getting men into space?
iv) is it willing to set long term ambitiuos goals for manned spaceflight ( a return to the moon, flights to Mars etc) or will it be content to carry on with the current low earth orbit missions - which I think are of dubious benefit considering the risks involved.
Getting back to the Shuttle itself, the vehicle as finally built is not the vehicle as originally specified by NASA. NASA had set out requirements for a smaller spacecraft, based on the lifting body research conducted in the 1960s. Its main job would be to ferry crew to and from a permanent space station in orbit round the earth. From this space station flights would go on to the moon using a special "tug" vehicle and a Mars craft would eventually be constructed in orbit. All this was scheduled to be fully in place by 1985. However, from 1970 onwards, nearly all these projects began to be axed until only one element was left - the Shuttle itself. Senator Walter Mondale described the Shuttle as "a spacecraft looking for a mission", and he was right. As all the tasks NASA had planned for the Space Station now needed to be carried out in the Shuttle itself, the craft began to grow in size. In addition, the US Air Force got on board the project as they decided that they wanted to launch their large spy satellites from the Shuttle's cargo bay. That made the vehicle even bigger. Finally, the USAF also wanted better gliding characteristics than the original lifting body would have been capable of so the Shuttle became a winged design. If wing failure is the ultimate cause of yesterday's disaster, then the real cause lies with USAF intereference in the design over 30 years ago. The USAF abandoned the Shuttle after Challenger. The original design also envisaged a large liquid fuelled manned booster on which the orbiter rode piggyback into space. The manned booster was also dropped for cost reasons and replaced with the dubious system of solid rocket boosters and large external fuel tank. It now seems that the external fuel tank might also have been a factor in yesterday's accident.
Sorry about the history lecture but I thought a bit of the background as to how the Shuttle design ended up the way it finally did was in order.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 2nd February 11:28
A Shuttle is a rocket and anyone knows that rockets are not the most reliable of vehicles. Even though higher standards of maintenance and preparation are applied to the Shuttle and its boosters, every so often there HAS to be a major failure, I remember some expert saying after the Challenger accident that it was almost definite that there would be another total loss of vehicle and crew, probably within the next 50 flights. he was almost correct. And whats more, if the Shuttle does return to service, another one will be lost, eventually.
THe main decisions that NASA, the American government and people have to ask themselves over the coming months are:
i) does America want to stay in the manned spaceflight business?
ii) will it continue to fly using the Shuttle - a 30 year old design?
iii) is it willing to fund a replacement system for getting men into space?
iv) is it willing to set long term ambitiuos goals for manned spaceflight ( a return to the moon, flights to Mars etc) or will it be content to carry on with the current low earth orbit missions - which I think are of dubious benefit considering the risks involved.
Getting back to the Shuttle itself, the vehicle as finally built is not the vehicle as originally specified by NASA. NASA had set out requirements for a smaller spacecraft, based on the lifting body research conducted in the 1960s. Its main job would be to ferry crew to and from a permanent space station in orbit round the earth. From this space station flights would go on to the moon using a special "tug" vehicle and a Mars craft would eventually be constructed in orbit. All this was scheduled to be fully in place by 1985. However, from 1970 onwards, nearly all these projects began to be axed until only one element was left - the Shuttle itself. Senator Walter Mondale described the Shuttle as "a spacecraft looking for a mission", and he was right. As all the tasks NASA had planned for the Space Station now needed to be carried out in the Shuttle itself, the craft began to grow in size. In addition, the US Air Force got on board the project as they decided that they wanted to launch their large spy satellites from the Shuttle's cargo bay. That made the vehicle even bigger. Finally, the USAF also wanted better gliding characteristics than the original lifting body would have been capable of so the Shuttle became a winged design. If wing failure is the ultimate cause of yesterday's disaster, then the real cause lies with USAF intereference in the design over 30 years ago. The USAF abandoned the Shuttle after Challenger. The original design also envisaged a large liquid fuelled manned booster on which the orbiter rode piggyback into space. The manned booster was also dropped for cost reasons and replaced with the dubious system of solid rocket boosters and large external fuel tank. It now seems that the external fuel tank might also have been a factor in yesterday's accident.
Sorry about the history lecture but I thought a bit of the background as to how the Shuttle design ended up the way it finally did was in order.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 2nd February 11:28
Eric Mc said: Anyone who has ever considered spaceflight as a routine activity obviously knows very little about the technology and the risks involved. So much of our knowledge of what's happening in the world is based on whether the media deem it importtant for us to know. Shuttle flights, because of the lack of "newsworthy" incidents since the Challenger accident had fallen into the "non-news" category, hence people's assumption that the flights were routine.
A Shuttle is a rocket and anyone knows that rockets are not the most reliable of vehicles. Even though higher standards of maintenance and preparation are applied to the Shuttle and its boosters, every so often there HAS to be a major failure, I remember some expert saying after the Challenger accident that it was almost definite that there would be another total loss of vehicle and crew, probably within the next 50 flights. he was almost correct. And whats more, if the Shuttle does return to service, another one will be lost, eventually.
THe main decisions that NASA, the American government and people have to ask themselves over the coming months are:
i) does America want to stay in the manned spaceflight business?
ii) will it continue to fly using the Shuttle - a 30 year old design?
iii) is it willing to fund a replacement system for getting men into space?
iv) is it willing to set long term ambitiuos goals for manned spaceflight ( a return to the moon, flights to Mars etc) or will it be content to carry on with the current low earth orbit missions - which I think are of dubious benefit considering the risks involved.
Getting back to the Shuttle itself, the vehicle as finally built is not the vehicle as originally specified by NASA. NASA had set out requirements for a smaller spacecraft, based on the lifting body research conducted in the 1960s. Its main job would be to ferry crew to and from a permanent space station in orbit round the earth. From this space station flights would go on to the moon using a special "tug" vehicle and a Mars craft would eventually be constructed in orbit. All this was scheduled to be fully in place by 1985. However, from 1970 onwards, nearly all these projects began to be axed until only one element was left - the Shuttle itself. Senator Walter Mondale described the Shuttle as "a spacecraft looking for a mission", and he was right. As all the tasks NASA had planned for the Space Station now needed to be carried out in the Shuttle itself, the craft began to grow in size. In addition, the US Air Force got on board the project as they decided that they wanted to launch their large spy satellites from the Shuttle's cargo bay. That made the vehicle even bigger. Finally, the USAF also wanted better gliding characteristics than the original lifting body would have been capable of so the Shuttle became a winged design. If wing failure is the ultimate cause of yesterday's disaster, then the real cause lies with USAF intereference in the design over 30 years ago. The USAF abandoned the Shuttle after Challenger. The original design also envisaged a large liquid fuelled manned booster on which the orbiter rode piggyback into space. The manned booster was also dropped for cost reasons and replaced with the dubious system of solid rocket boosters and large external fuel tank. It now seems that the external fuel tank might also have been a factor in yesterday's accident.
Sorry about the history lecture but I thought a bit of the background as to how the Shuttle design ended up the way it finally did was in order.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 2nd February 11:28
Why shouldnt they continue to fly the shuttle, they fly concorde 45 year old design, they fly the Jumbo (Boeing 747), Boeing started the DEsign of the Jumbo in the 1960, it still flies.
As all aircraft that has been designed have evolved over the years to include technological advances. The russia Suyuz/Proton Craft was designed in the 1950 launched in the 1960's
Steve
Prof Balogh: UCL
Dr Mark Sims: Space Scientist
I can not believe what this idiots have been saying, or why the news stations use these people as there advisors. as both of thses scientists are against the american shuttle, and there comments are bias. IMO. I have met both of these people through work in confrences and are completely against manned space flight, and more inportantly against the ISS...
This biasness has came about because the UK is not a member of ESA no more on a development level and does not get offered work as much as our european counterparts. This is because the government started its on space agency the BNSC rather than funding ESA. There is always a certain amount of overengineering, to say a degree of reserve in a system to maintain high safety levels even though things may have gone wrong.
Dr Mark Sims: Space Scientist
I can not believe what this idiots have been saying, or why the news stations use these people as there advisors. as both of thses scientists are against the american shuttle, and there comments are bias. IMO. I have met both of these people through work in confrences and are completely against manned space flight, and more inportantly against the ISS...
This biasness has came about because the UK is not a member of ESA no more on a development level and does not get offered work as much as our european counterparts. This is because the government started its on space agency the BNSC rather than funding ESA. There is always a certain amount of overengineering, to say a degree of reserve in a system to maintain high safety levels even though things may have gone wrong.
THe problem about the Shuttles is not that they are just old designs but that the actual individual vehicles are getting on too. Although various incorrect dates have been given for the age of Columbia in the media, she was actually completed in 1979 - 24 year ago. Discovery is 20 years old, Atlantis is about 18 years old and Endeavour, the replacement for Challenger, is about 15 years old. Actually, I don't think age related issues (fatigue etc) will turn out to be a factor in the investigation as the vehicles are scrupulously maintained. Don't forget, even if the 747 is a design dating from 1966, hardly any of the original aircraft (which first flew in 1969) are still in use today. Ironically, two of the oldest 747s in service are the pair used by NASA to ferry the Shuttles around.
Unfortunately, the US government has pulled the plug on two possible replacements for the Shuttle, the National Air and Space Plane (NASP) and the X-33 Venture Star project. The Venture Star was interesting in that it used a revoltionary type of rocket nozzle called an "Aero Spike" which is much more efficient than the traditional "Bell" shaped nozzle. Venture Star was also Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) which does away with the need for dangerous strap-on boosters. Unfortunately, if the US government gave the go-ahead for a Shuttle replacement today it would be at least ten years before the vehicle flew. The current shuttle got funding approval in December 1972 and first flew in April 1981 - kust over eighteen years later.
HOTOL (Horizontal Take off and Landing) was an interesting design study by British Aerospace in the mid 80s. Its "big idea" was that it would use engines that worked as jets in the atmosphere and rockets in space. It was never more than a "paper project" and a couple of fancy animations for TV - unfortunately.
Unfortunately, the US government has pulled the plug on two possible replacements for the Shuttle, the National Air and Space Plane (NASP) and the X-33 Venture Star project. The Venture Star was interesting in that it used a revoltionary type of rocket nozzle called an "Aero Spike" which is much more efficient than the traditional "Bell" shaped nozzle. Venture Star was also Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) which does away with the need for dangerous strap-on boosters. Unfortunately, if the US government gave the go-ahead for a Shuttle replacement today it would be at least ten years before the vehicle flew. The current shuttle got funding approval in December 1972 and first flew in April 1981 - kust over eighteen years later.
HOTOL (Horizontal Take off and Landing) was an interesting design study by British Aerospace in the mid 80s. Its "big idea" was that it would use engines that worked as jets in the atmosphere and rockets in space. It was never more than a "paper project" and a couple of fancy animations for TV - unfortunately.
I grew up living through the space race of the sixties, and was always fascinated by the whole thing. It is such a shame that this incident has happened, but no-one ever said that space exploration would be safe.
All the indications are, that with the high temperature readings from the left wing tyres, hydraulics etc, that one or more of the ablative tiles was missing from that area. It was not a sudden catastrophic failure, such as a wing or tail fin seperating, but a more gradual, although rapid, event. From the initial departure from normal telemetry to total failure of the shuttle, a period of about 6 minutes elapsed.
I question the accuracy of some of the so called eye witnesses, who claim to have heard a bang. Come on, 200,000 feet? Who are they kidding?
All the indications are, that with the high temperature readings from the left wing tyres, hydraulics etc, that one or more of the ablative tiles was missing from that area. It was not a sudden catastrophic failure, such as a wing or tail fin seperating, but a more gradual, although rapid, event. From the initial departure from normal telemetry to total failure of the shuttle, a period of about 6 minutes elapsed.
I question the accuracy of some of the so called eye witnesses, who claim to have heard a bang. Come on, 200,000 feet? Who are they kidding?
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff