quote:
Blindy McBlinderson's fortune cookie read:
Am I the only person that thinks that it is ironic that alot of the debris landed near Palestine, Texas?
Yeah, I thought that was pretty messed up too.
quote:
Ninok painfully thought these words up:
In the end, they will come to the conclusion that the launch was the cause of this...during re-entry they were losing connection with many systems in the left wing. And which wing took a hit on launch? The left wing...
I'm not sure. For one, it was FOAM, and secondly NASA assessed it to be absolutely no danger, and while assessments can be wrong, they didn't really even give it a percentage chance at all to cause problems. That's why they didn't change a trajectory or anything.
quote:
Suddar wrote this stupid crap:
I'm not sure. For one, it was FOAM, and secondly NASA assessed it to be absolutely no danger, and while assessments can be wrong, they didn't really even give it a percentage chance at all to cause problems. That's why they didn't change a trajectory or anything.
Not all foam is soft. There's some insulating foam at my house that sprays in like normal but then hardens to be about as hard as wood is. The fact is either A) The foam was hardened to the point where it didn't need to have an external steel shell or anything to prevent it from breaking off during launch, in which case it would probably be hard enough to strike and do some damage... or B) The foam was inside such a container made of steel or aluminum or something hard enough to (normally) contain the foam without breaking apart. If the foam insulation was contained inside, then for it to leak, the container would need to be damaged, which suggests that parts of the container itself may have been what struck the wing.
If I'm proved wrong, well, I am. Aluminum I could see doing some kind of damage at the right angle, but I'm not sure if that actually hit the shuttle or not. They probably would've mentioned it if it was a possibility, but again, I may be wrong.
quote:
Suddar had this to say about Optimus Prime:
I believe that those shuttles are built to take much more punishment than that just the same.
Actually the shuttles are EXTREMELY fragile.
You can toss a small rock at it, crack one of the solar reflectors on the bottom, and the shuttle will be destroyed upon re-entry.
That foam was probably about as hard as a chunk or iron.
quote:
Densetsu probably says this to all the girls:
Actually the shuttles are EXTREMELY fragile.You can toss a small rock at it, crack one of the solar reflectors on the bottom, and the shuttle will be destroyed upon re-entry.
Um... yeah, unless I'm mistaken the shuttle isn't fragile at all. I mean it's bombarded by little rocks in space all the time, so I think you're mistaken. After all, space isn't a friendly environment. However, I might be wrong I've never actually put much research into that topic.
quote:
Cebreu had this to say about Pirotess:
Well, the shuttle is equipped with a bail-out system they put in after the Challenger, but the world's highest freefall was 115,000 ft AGL and at no forward speed. They would be just as dead if they tried to bail at 1000 mph as 12,500. Sad as it is, about the only left is to look for pieces and try to puzzle out what went wrong.
They were going freakin MACH 18 when it blew up!!!
my prayers to their families
quote:
A sleep deprived Azizza stammered:
Also remember why that foam came off.
It was frozen. That big orange tank contains a liquid that is the coldest thing known on earth. If you get that stuff on you there is no warming up. Your skin will freeze and shatter. Yes just like in the movies.That foam was probably about as hard as a chunk or iron.
Same thing happened to Challenger, no? too cold to launch?
edit [ 02-01-2003: Message edited by: ~*~Beaukat~*~ ]
MGOMGOMG double post!! OMGOMGOMG
This sucks. I hope their families can pull through.
I also hope none of our board members in the Southern US (or their friends/families) run into problems caused by the debris.
As for the Terrorist question? I'm glad it was asked so quickly. That allowed them to give reasons why it couldn't have been terrorists, and stop most of those ideas before they really have a chance to grow.
quote:
So quoth Ninok:
No, the challenger had a crack somewhere near the fuel tank, and when the explosives on the rockets fired (They use actual explosive charges to break off the rockets at a certain height), the entire tank went taking everything with it.
Incorrect. The rubber O-rings on the solid fuel boosters are very vulnerable to freezing and cracking. That is what happened on the Challenger. There was a burn through on the O-ring, so basically they had a gigantic gout of flaming coming out of the booster... then blammo.
quote:
This one time, at Suchii camp:
Incorrect. The rubber O-rings on the solid fuel boosters are very vulnerable to freezing and cracking. That is what happened on the Challenger. There was a burn through on the O-ring, so basically they had a gigantic gout of flaming coming out of the booster... then blammo.
Yep. Basically, the O-ring failed, and flame came out of the rocket's side like a blow-torch. The flame was aimed right at the big gas tank. It burned through, and the tank blew.
I remember that very clearly. When it happened, my mom was working at the place that makes the O-rings for the MinuteMan Missiles (along with alot of more mundane things). I used to hear her complain about the sloppy Quality Control of some of her co-workers all the time, so the exact cause of the Challenger explosion had both her and my attention.
quote:
Ninok had this to say about Robocop:
Well the O-ring is where the explosive is, I know the problem was right there....
Not quite. It was basically a seal between parts of the rocket, where the thrust was being generated. The O-ring itself was just part of the seal that held parts of the rocket together.
When the main tank blew, the two booster rockets survived and few off on their own (yep, the one that caused the explosion was still intact and flying). Fearing that they might hit ground somewhere and cause massive destruction, someone sent them a self-destruct command and blew them out of the sky. This actually made it harder to figure out the cause of the explosion, but I think it was the right call.
By looking at footage of the take-off, they saw the "blow torch" coming out of the rocket. That told them where to look, and they figured it out from there.
Even when Pesco told me about it, I don't remember any of what I may have said... My mom called and told me about it too... and I didn't say much to the effect either.
I feel like I am being a callous bastard about it... but these painkillers and so on arent letting me think.
quote:
Alek Saege had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
Um... yeah, unless I'm mistaken the shuttle isn't fragile at all. I mean it's bombarded by little rocks in space all the time, so I think you're mistaken. After all, space isn't a friendly environment. However, I might be wrong I've never actually put much research into that topic.
This is what I'm thinking, that and I find it hard to concieve (at least without more information) that a piece of foam, no matter how hard, could really gather enough energy through speed to crack anything. However I know that shuttles are still fragile, but they HAVE to be built to take the crap space will (literally) throw at it, at least to a certain degree.
Azizza makes a good point too though, if that's at all true I could see the problem here (about the tanks containing it).
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Suddar was all like:
This is what I'm thinking, that and I find it hard to concieve (at least without more information) that a piece of foam, no matter how hard, could really gather enough energy through speed to crack anything. However I know that shuttles are still fragile, but they HAVE to be built to take the crap space will (literally) throw at it, at least to a certain degree.Azizza makes a good point too though, if that's at all true I could see the problem here (about the tanks containing it).
I have a hard time believing that foam could have damaged the shuttle to that extent.
The shuttle is fragile by "Something that goes mach 15" standards but not fragile by "something that foam can break" standards. It seems to me (and I really don't know what kind of foam we're talking about here) that if the foam really caused catastrophic damage then the act of launching would have shown some kind of damage other than minor solar tile damage.
the most damning evidence to me so far is the fact that Columbia is 22 years old. The Shuttle was designed as a stop gap measure until something better could be developed. Then they cancelled the replacement. Space flight in the way the STS does it has never been the goal.
).If they scrub a mission to take down the entire shuttle and inspect it to make sure that one peice of foam that popped off and hit the wing (And maybe punctured a hydraulic line), they'd be in deeper shit then they are now. Only because NASA would be seen as being "Overcautious" and get flak for it.
They can't win against penny pinching politicians. Ever.
When the pathfinder mission to mars was in concept phase, they asked people from all over the world (Specifically MIT) to find a way to get something to mars for cheap as shit, but still accomplish certain mission goals. Technology at the lowest bidder. Yeah, it worked, but shit like that has set the space program back AGES and ages, because of failures. Well, they wouldn't have failures if you gave them the money to do it right. But you won't give them the money to do it right if they fail, will you?
This is going to set the ISS back another year. Or more. This is going to make congress seriously consider not having the ISS up at ALL. And I think that's pretty shitty.
On another note, yes, it was a frozen, faulty Oring that caused the challenger disaster in '86.
Secondly, after every mission, the shuttles are taken apart peice by peice, examined, replaced as nessicary, and reconstructed. Then they go through every test known to man in order to make sure they are flightworthy. And they are REALLY meticulous.
Edit: Also, the insulation on the bottom of the shuttles can take tempuratures that are like.. really hot. They DO lose some tiles on the way down, due to bits in the air chipping at them, but it usually isn't a problem. Losing a tile before going into space, having it freeze, thaw (Temp fluctuation in and out of the sun is from -120C to 200C or something ungodly wide like that in orbit) over and over, and then re-enter with it.
At the very least, they could have done a spacewalk to inspect and attempt to repair a section, rather then push for a non-delayed mission..
You know the runway in Florida that they use? They get enough people to stand shoulder to shoulder on that runway, and walk down the entire length, picking up every stray peice of debris from it an hour before re-entry.
When the shuttle starts re-entry, it's travelling about mach 30 (The exact numbers escape me at the moment, but it is fucking fast.). They don't actually stop breaking the sound barrier until a few thousand feet over the runway.
*sighs*
I fear we won't have a space program in a month. [ 02-01-2003: Message edited by: Delphi Aegis ]
quote:
Delphi Aegis had this to say about Robocop:
I fear we won't have a space program in a month.
Quit worrying, it aint going anywhere. Been through worse before. Like HELL the American public will let a point of pride go byebye.
)One desktop computer could replace ALL computers on the shuttle, be lighter, and be more user friendly (So to speak) then the one they have now. Unfortunatly, the one they have now is all the 'nauts have trained on, so they don't want to have to REtrain them. Oi.
Bloody hell.
[ 02-01-2003: Message edited by: Dr. Pvednes, PhD ]
quote:
ACES! Another post by Delphi Aegis:
One desktop computer could replace ALL computers on the shuttle, be lighter, and be more user friendly (So to speak) then the one they have now.
One desktop computer would also completely malfunction and prove useless when bombarded by radiation in space.
quote:
Delphi Aegis's account was hax0red to write:
Stuff
Okay I think you have the situation backwards as far as NASA and it's funding is concerned. Congress and NASA have both had their good points and their bad points.
For years, NASA was tossing it's money away on stupid projects that were so grossly inefficient that it wasn't funny. They'd spend ten times the necessary budget on something with almost nothing to show for it. And they expected Congress to more or less give them a blank check to do it with.
You mentioned Pathfinder, for instance. Did you know that NASA's original plans for the Pathfinder probe, for sending this wee bitty little rover across the expanse of space to Mars, was almost twenty-five times the cost of what they ended up spending? For something which (as a later Mars pole probe has proved) could very easily skip off the atmosphere and burn up. Congress said no. NASA said they couldn't do it for less. Nothing happened. NASA gets a new operations director, a guy who you would call a penny pincher. He says "Hey make it cheaper. Take everything off the damned probe that we don't absolutely positively need" and cuts the cost WAY down. They now have an affordable Pathfinder they can send up and out. If it skips off the atmosphere, so what? It cost a fraction of how much it was originally going to cost, and they can (when conditions are right) send up another. Pathfinder, as it turns out, is an amazing success. So is the Mars orbiting thing they have up there. The pole probe burns up and disappears. It stings financially, but it's not the end of the Mars research program.
Now NASA more efficiently spends it's money. Sure some missions are complete failures. But there's more missions. Rather than putting all their eggs in one basket which might break, they put the eggs in separate baskets.
So NASA is in many ways in a financial bind because of it's own gross misspending in the past. On the other hand, however...
The shuttle was never designed to go for 22 years. By this point we were either supposed to be using the next generation shuttle/orbiter, or it was supposed to be in the pipeline. But Congress got into the habit of putting it off and putting it off and putting it off, and finally cut funds to the point that while there's been a lot of computer modelling for the next generation shuttle, any prototyping or even hard real life field tests have been a no-no.
As for the issue of "Well radiation would fry the chips" there's no good reason why there should be a 10 year lag (and it is closer to a 10 year lag; they use the equivalent of old 386 chips in the shuttle) in tech. Oh they shouldn't be buzzing around with P4's in there, but NASA shouldn't be buying it's spare parts and processors off of eBay and cannibalizing parts out of old medical equipment (which, believe it or not, they do on both counts). There should be better research into shielding for systems.
There should, in fact, be an upgrade by now. But the money hasn't been there for it.
NASA got itself into this boat by mishandling it's money, but Congress overcompensated by underfunding. My concern isn't that this is in any way the death of the space program. I'm mostly worried that Congress will say "One less shuttle, let's cut the budget for it out" and reduce the budget for NASA on the whole. Ideally, after a situation like this (which for the record has reduced the fleet by 25%), they'll take the money that would have gone to repairing/maintaining the downed shuttle, appeal to Congress to add more funds, and get to work on the next generation shuttle, which I'd say is probably more important at this point than going to Mars.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
I was in middle school when the Challenger exploded. I was home sick, and happened to turn on the TV.
Then, all launches were televised because it was still new.
I watched it explode infront of my eyes.
What a tragedy.
Thinking about your posts
(and billing you for it) since 2001
Now, I don't mean to start any flames, or the like, but I just don't find myself moved, or touched, or really at all saddened by this. People die everyday, and most of them have families. And the way I see it, when you strap yourself to a rocket headed towards outerspace, you're taking some certain risks. The possibility of dying comes with the job description. (Not that it should.)
quote:
Delphi Aegis wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
And for the record: The computer onboard the shuttles is 25 years old. In otherwords, your pocket calculator has more computing power then the entire shuttle itself (Aside any laptops they bring.)
One desktop computer could replace ALL computers on the shuttle, be lighter, and be more user friendly (So to speak) then the one they have now. Unfortunatly, the one they have now is all the 'nauts have trained on, so they don't want to have to REtrain them. Oi.
Alright, I've seen quite a bit of malarky so far. For the record. The Columbia underwent an overhaul in 1999.
quote:
From NASA's website.On September 24, 1999, Columbia was transported to Palmdale California for its second ODMP. While in California, workers will perform more than 100 modifications on the vehicle. Columbia will be the second orbiter outfitted with the multi-functional electronic display system (MEDS) or "glass cockpit". Last year, Shuttle Atlantis had the full-color, flat-panel displays installed on its flight deck during an OMDP. The new system improves crew interaction with the orbiter during flight and reduces the high cost of maintaining the outdated electromechanical cockpit displays currently onboard
Also, keep in mind that the shuttles (ALL of them) have quadruple redundancy in all major systems. There were 4 computers keeping track of things. If one fails the other three compensate. They all work in unison to agree on what the problems may or may not be. Also, while writing this I've searched Boeing's website (they built the shuttles) and found this...
quote:
MEDS eliminates obsolescence concerns and is less expensive to maintain than present electro-mechanical devices. Besides reducing maintenance costs, MEDS will reduce vehicle weight and power consumption, improve Shuttle reliability and performance and improve Shuttle safety by simplifying cockpit panels and providing a redundant display capability. MEDS is also capable of future upgrades.Columbia also will be installed with a single Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite navigation receiver and prepared for future installation of a triply-redundant GPS system that may eventually replace the current system. GPS will provide more accurate and capable vehicle attitude and location data and reduce Shuttle program costs by eliminating ground stations.
Several modifications to Columbia are designed to accommodate the possibility of supporting International Space Station (ISS) missions in the future. Included are electrical and structural provisions for modifying the orbiter's docking system, increased cooling and power capacities, a wireless video system that will support payload requirements for near-term ISS missions by documenting the assembly process, and upgrades to the ship's UHF space communications system. Columbia will retain its internal airlock.
Operational enhancements include increasing Columbia's load-carrying capability; upgrades to thermal protection system tiles and blankets; orbital maneuvering system/reaction control system thruster performance improvements; and a series of measures to reduce the orbiter's weight. Most notable among the weight savings will be the removal of approximately 1,000 pounds of development flight instrumentation wiring unique to Columbia that was used during the fleet's first flights to monitor Shuttle performance. Safety and reliability enhancements include provisions to protect the orbiter's cooling system and the leading edges of the wings from space debris, a partial structural fortification of the crew module floor to increase the crew's probability of surviving a hard landing and enhancements to the vehicle's hydraulic system.
This shuttle wasn't the dinosaur it's being made out to be. Something catastrophic did happen. Perhaps it was the impact of the insulation (or ice) from the external tank. Wait and see, jumping to conclusions helps no one. Assume: Making an ASS out of U and ME !
I was 14 when Challenger blew up. I happened to be at one of the colleges as an alternate for Honors Band (regions best jr. high musicians) and watched the Challenger blow up. Today made it all come back again. I've always been "Plane brains" and have always loved space exploration. I sent in a drawing of a shuttle ( I named it the Challenger II) and sent it in to NASA way back when. A couple months later I received a preprinted postcard from NASA thanking me for it. I think I still have it somewhere. I've already started a new drawing, this one will be considerably different and will also likely be colored with Photoshop. I will always support the shuttle program and while this is just another bump in the road, we'll only learn from this experience and grow. The next generation of space planes may come into being that much quicker. We can only hope... and pray...
To take from what President Reagan said in his tribute to the Challenger tragedy:
The crew of the space shuttles Challenger and Columbia honored us by the manner in which they lived their lives. We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, as they prepared for the journey and 'slipped the surly bonds of earth' to 'touch the face of God.' [ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: Kaglaaz How'ler ]
Besides, I did say there's a 10 year lag in the tech, not that it's using the same tech it used when it first came out. There's clearly been some upgrades to the shuttle from it's inception to the modern day (you can easily see it in the cockpit, for instance). Still, it's an old design. Time to work on phasing out the reliable old workhorse and bring out a new reliable workhorse.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
This will at least give the uninformed a heads up on what Columbia's condition really was. The entire ship wasn't old technology. I'm here merely to inform. Call it my own little 'Deth Essay 
But I'm mostly right on the whole dissasembling/putting it back together each time it comes down, and the clearing of the runway, though.
It's just outdated. Old. Not inferior, but it could stand with an upgrade.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
From the book of Black Mage, chapter 3, verse 16:
Am I the only one who acknowledges this as a bad thing but is emotionally hardly affected by this?Now, I don't mean to start any flames, or the like, but I just don't find myself moved, or touched, or really at all saddened by this. People die everyday, and most of them have families. And the way I see it, when you strap yourself to a rocket headed towards outerspace, you're taking some certain risks. The possibility of dying comes with the job description. (Not that it should.)
That's pretty much how I feel.
quote:
Delphi Aegis thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
Meh. No worries, Kag. I got most of my stuff from programs in the late 90's, before all that work was done.But I'm mostly right on the whole dissasembling/putting it back together each time it comes down, and the clearing of the runway, though.
Most definately. I've been part of a runway clearing when the Concorde came to Duluth, MN for an airshow. Kinda interesting what you'll find out on a runway.
The entire fleet was grounded a year or so ago when microfractures were found in the Hydrogen fuel lines. NASA began to look even harder when 2 of the 4 computers on board Columbia shorted out 5 seconds after launch in July 1999. The cause was worn and frayed wiring throughout Columbia. 2000 breaks were found in 100 of the 230 miles of wiring on board the Columbia. 
That was thier wakeup call that caught those microfractures.
quote:
How.... Black Mage.... uughhhhhh:
Am I the only one who acknowledges this as a bad thing but is emotionally hardly affected by this?Now, I don't mean to start any flames, or the like, but I just don't find myself moved, or touched, or really at all saddened by this. People die everyday, and most of them have families. And the way I see it, when you strap yourself to a rocket headed towards outerspace, you're taking some certain risks. The possibility of dying comes with the job description. (Not that it should.)
"You know we're sitting on four million pounds of fuel and a thing that has 270,000 moving parts built by the lowest bidder. Makes you feel good, doesn't it?"
Quote mildly butchered for accuracy.
It's not something people hear about.
