US Space Shuttle Missing - Worst Feared

US Space Shuttle Missing - Worst Feared

Author
Discussion

Amar360

Original Poster:

33 posts

258 months

Saturday 1st February 2003
quotequote all
The Space Shuttle Columbia has been missing since 14:00 GMT with loss of radar and communication contact. They fear the worst now with evidence the shuttle may have broken up over Texas.

It's very tragic, very sad...

TheLemming

4,319 posts

265 months

Saturday 1st February 2003
quotequote all

The Space Shuttle Columbia has been missing since 14:00 GMT with loss of radar and communication contact. They fear the worst now with evidence the shuttle may have broken up over Texas.

It's very tragic, very sad...


Oh shit...

Firing up news servers now...

Edited to add the BBC article:

Saturday, 1 February, 2003, 14:34 GMT
Nasa loses contact with shuttle


Reports are coming that the US space agency NASA has lost contact with space shuttle Columbia, minutes before it was due to land.
It was not immediately clear if there was a problem with the shuttle.

The shuttle's landing was overdue after it was scheduled to arrive at the the Kennedy Space Center in Florida at 0916 (1416 GMT).

There are reports that search and rescue teams have been mobilised.



>> Edited by TheLemming on Saturday 1st February 14:43

ultimapaul

3,937 posts

264 months

Saturday 1st February 2003
quotequote all
I'm following the story on BBC News 24. Tragic.

They said it would have been 400,000 ft up. Makes a terrorist attack unlikely?

Amar360

Original Poster:

33 posts

258 months

Saturday 1st February 2003
quotequote all
It looks really bad now - Sky News through the Fox News feed is showing multiple trails high up in the Texas sky, suggesting the Shuttle has broken up. Very sad...

apache

39,731 posts

284 months

Saturday 1st February 2003
quotequote all
multiple vapour trails on film now, it's not looking good

TheLemming

4,319 posts

265 months

Saturday 1st February 2003
quotequote all
God help anyone onboard.

The space shuttle's "Flaming Plunge" re-entry technique doesnt leave many options if something goes wrong. It also has the glide characteristics of a brick...

granville

18,764 posts

261 months

Saturday 1st February 2003
quotequote all
Oh sh1t; one of the guys here reckons the scanner showed an object moving towards the Shuttle before it all went tits up...

Problem here is, that with Dubya's current mood, this will just steel things completely whatever the cause.

Not good at all. I feel the need for a mid-70s Coca Cola TV advert...

anonymous-user

54 months

Saturday 1st February 2003
quotequote all
Just seen the pictures of three trails coming down over Texas on Sky News.


TheLemming

4,319 posts

265 months

Saturday 1st February 2003
quotequote all

derestrictor said: Oh sh1t; one of the guys here reckons the scanner showed an object moving towards the Shuttle before it all went tits up...

Problem here is, that with Dubya's current mood, this will just steel things completely whatever the cause.

Not good at all. I feel the need for a mid-70s Coca Cola TV advert...


At the risk of fuelling the inevitable conspiracy theories, is there anything that could have concievable taken down a space shuttle at that sort of altitude?

ultimapaul

3,937 posts

264 months

Saturday 1st February 2003
quotequote all
They're now saying 12500mph at 200,000 ft up. It don't look good at all does it?

anonymous-user

54 months

Saturday 1st February 2003
quotequote all
The Shuttle does have an escape capsule, but whether it would work at that speed and altitude I don't know.

I wouldn't think a missle could hit it at 200,000 feet at that speed.

The SR71 blackbird outran most at 2000 miles an hour, at about 70-100,000 feet.

Amar360

Original Poster:

33 posts

258 months

Saturday 1st February 2003
quotequote all
The Shuttle was carrying the first Israeli astronaut and there was a lot of security all the way up to blast-off. At those extreme heights of re-entry back from space it is hard to imagine anything sophisticated enough to hit it with such accuracy, or does someone have better information?

Anyway, it is tragic for the astronauts and their families.

cnh1990

3,035 posts

263 months

Saturday 1st February 2003
quotequote all
The Columbia is the oldest of the shuttles.
Built in 1981, many airlines don't have planes that old in their fleet.
Calvin

TheLemming

4,319 posts

265 months

Saturday 1st February 2003
quotequote all

cnh1990 said: The Columbia is the oldest of the shuttles.
Built in 1981, many airlines don't have planes that old in their fleet.
Calvin


Even so the ongoing maintenance and service life extension programs that NASA runs are very thorough.

>> Edited by TheLemming on Saturday 1st February 15:21

MoJocvh

16,837 posts

262 months

Saturday 1st February 2003
quotequote all

derestrictor said: Oh sh1t; one of the guys here reckons the scanner showed an object moving towards the Shuttle before it all went tits up...





Yes it's called the planet earth.

stc_bennett

5,252 posts

267 months

Saturday 1st February 2003
quotequote all
i have been following the mission everyday for the past 16 days,

there was a small problem when the external fuel tank detached during the mission, it hit the underside of one of the wings.

you can see all action live on Nasa TV on www.Space.com

The Launch and landing phase of the missions give the highest stress on the spacecraft and hence the riskiest.

Cheers

Steve

Eric Mc

122,038 posts

265 months

Saturday 1st February 2003
quotequote all
The Shuttle DOES NOT have an escape capsule. The only way to get out of a Shuttle in trouble is to open the door and jump - not likely at 12,000 mph and 200,000 ft.

In the 1980s the USAF successfully fired a missile from an F-15 fighter which intercepted and destroyed a target satellite orbiting at 100 miles altitude. It is therefore theoretically possible to shoot down something like the Shuttle but as far as I know this technology is not in the hands of any other nation apart from the US. In fact, the programme was eventually cancelled and the system never became operational so presumably none of these missiles (ASATS) now exist.

Structural failure or an accidental on board explosion will be the most likely cause of this accident. Stuctural break-up could be caused by a catastrophic failure of a main structural member, such as a wing spar or the inadvertant opening of a cargo bay door. Failure could also occur to the Shuttle's protective tiles/blankets which protect it from the intense heat of re-entry failed in some way. The loss of some of these tiles or a blanket could cause a "zipper" effect which would result in the vehicle breaking up almost instantly.
Columbia was the oldest operational Shuttle. She was built in 1979, making the first ever Shuttle flight in April 1981.

viperman

956 posts

265 months

Saturday 1st February 2003
quotequote all
OMG, trajic, jus had a look at sky news, absolutely awful, my true thoughts and feeings must go to the familly of those astronauts, who were waching it, i can begin to imagine,and the people in texas, god, shockng.

robp

5,770 posts

264 months

Saturday 1st February 2003
quotequote all
Oh dear, it does not look good.
If it has disintergrated where would the debris fall? Were they to high up for gravity to bring it down?

Eric Mc

122,038 posts

265 months

Saturday 1st February 2003
quotequote all
Height has nothing to do with whether "gravity" will bring anything down. The key as to whether something falls to earth is "speed". As the Shuttle was in the process of re-entering, its speed was such that the vehicle in its entirety would have fallen to earth - and that doesn't matter whether it was all in one piece or disintegrated.

Although not being mentioned anywhere on the networks, this is not the first re-entry tragedy in American spaceflight history. In 1968 Mike Adams was killed when his X-15 research aircraft broke up on re-entry.

>> Edited by Eric Mc on Saturday 1st February 15:38