Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!

Space Shuttle Columbia Lost....

13567

Comments

  • [quote]Originally posted by Rick:
    [b]I'm still in shock. I still remember the last disaster like it was just yesterday. It's a feeling I'd hoped I'd not have to feel again.[/b][/quote]

    Ayup. However, with what is quoted as the expectation of a 1 in 200 chance of a critical failure onboard a shuttle flight, it's bound to happen. The astronauts go into this knowing that their job is a very risky proposition and has the potential to be life-threatening. This said, they still willingly do the job.
  • The news was reporting that one of the tires possibly exploded...

    ------------------
    [b]whitestar90: [/b]"it would give the computer a heartattack just looking at it" -
    [b]Sanfam: [/b]"And Drazi didn't like it one bit.-
    [b]Mr.Bungle: [/b][i]"So that's where the forum went..."[/i]-
    ---
    [b][i]ahhh, the good old days of HTML.[/i][/b]
  • [quote]Originally posted by Keyan:
    [b]In the convference they are saying they started losing temp sensors all over the left side.[/b][/quote]

    And they also mentioned that this has happened before without an accident resulting, so it didn't worry them.
  • TyvarTyvar Next best thing to a St. Bernard
    [quote]Originally posted by A2597:
    [b]The news was reporting that one of the tires possibly exploded...

    [/b][/quote]

    A# when has the media EVER been reliable?

    The only vehicles which dont use inflated tires are combat vehicles/very uncomfortable cars running true runflats. A solid tire on an aircraft would be ALOT heavier, 2. Would transfer energy from the impact into the airframe where as some of that energy is absorbed by the air the tire, and 3. Hell the shuttle comes in so fast I imagine its possible that when rolling the tire would pick up such centrifical force (due to its much higher mass) that the tire might tear itself appart.
  • samuelksamuelk The Unstoppable Mr. 'K'
    [quote]And they also mentioned that this has happened before without an accident resulting, so it didn't worry them.
    [/quote]

    No, what they said was that it was normal to lose one or two temp sensors. Not a whole bunch of them at once.

    [This message has been edited by samuelk (edited 02-01-2003).]
  • shadow boxershadow boxer The Finger Painter & Master Ranter
    we have to find a much better way into orbit....

    *plays the last post*
  • RhettRhett (Not even a monkey)
    A moment of silence for those who died....

    I was on my way to drivers training when I heard this on the news. Pissed me off that I had to sit in a class with dumb freshman while people had just died in this tragedy. My prayers go out to the people who died and their families.

    What is odd is that my class had just watched Columbia liftoff (totally abnormal, we just did't have anything to do).

    I just don't look forward to the anti-Jewish sentiment that is going to run like: "It was Allah's judgement against a Jew in space." I hope that this does not happen. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img]
  • [quote]Originally posted by samuelk:
    [b] No, what they said was that it was normal to lose one or two temp sensors. Not a whole bunch of them at once.[/b][/quote]

    They did not say it was normal to lose sensors. They've lost sensors before, due to the failure of a multiplexing box or another piece of hardware with a name that name escapes me, at the moment. There is quite a difference between something being a normal happening and having happened before with no accident resulting.

    I've spun out on the road before with no accident resulting (3 times, to be specific), but that doesn't mean it's normal or typical to happen.


    [This message has been edited by JohnD (edited 02-01-2003).]
  • [url="http://www.firedragon.com/~lwg3d/members/Reaperman/Pictures/Challenger.jpg"] [img]http://www.firedragon.com/~lwg3d/members/Reaperman/Pictures/Thumbs/Challenger-thumb.jpg[/img] [/url]


    [url="http://www.firedragon.com/~lwg3d/members/Reaperman/Pictures/Columbia.jpg"] [img]http://www.firedragon.com/~lwg3d/members/Reaperman/Pictures/Thumbs/Columbia-thumb.jpg[/img] [/url]

    [This message has been edited by Reaperman (edited 02-01-2003).]
  • Wow reaperman, thank you for those.

    As far as tire pressure.....they are contained in the same kind of shielding as the rest of the shuttle and use an aluminum reenforced rubber just like the SR-71 used, which although it didn't get as hot, it was acutally a sustained heat for longer. And yes, out of all of the reentries, a tire has never been the problem.

    As far as the insulation is concerned...I dunno, I've actually seen it up close, the stuff is like a sticky foam, it's really soft. I can see how experts wouldn't think it a problem..and remember, we still don't know for sure what happened, and might never know for certain.

    I dunno, i wish they hadn't canceled the Venture Star, maybe now they will give it a second look.
  • thanks reaper....a beutiful tribute indeed.

    ------------------
    [b]whitestar90: [/b]"it would give the computer a heartattack just looking at it" -
    [b]Sanfam: [/b]"And Drazi didn't like it one bit.-
    [b]Mr.Bungle: [/b][i]"So that's where the forum went..."[/i]-
    ---
    [b][i]ahhh, the good old days of HTML.[/i][/b]
  • PJHPJH The Lovely Thing
    NASA told that there was a temperature increase in the shuttle's hydraulics and other systems.

    - PJH
  • Actually, they've been saying that the sensors actually went to essentially their "null" readings. "like someone had cut the wires" as one NASA guy said. It seems to happen with a couple of senors on a fairly regular basis, but when more and more started to fail, I think they started to wonder..then nothing. It's not like they could have done anything at that point..i think sometimes the media is like "you had inicators of trouble 7 mins before?"..well, even if they did, there was nothing they could do.

    They are finding remains...sometimes, the protection around the cabin can be a bad thing. I know with the challenger, there is speculation that the crew actually survived the explosion..only to slam into the sea with fatal force.

    [This message has been edited by Keyan (edited 02-02-2003).]
  • samuelksamuelk The Unstoppable Mr. 'K'
    [quote]Originally posted by JohnD:
    [B] They did not say it was normal to lose sensors. They've lost sensors before, due to the failure of a multiplexing box or another piece of hardware with a name that name escapes me, at the moment. There is quite a difference between something being a normal happening and having happened before with no accident resulting.

    I've spun out on the road before with no accident resulting (3 times, to be specific), but that doesn't mean it's normal or typical to happen.
    [/quote]

    By "normal" I mean that it was not an indicator of a serious problem. Bad choice of words.


    [This message has been edited by samuelk (edited 02-02-2003).]
  • Random ChaosRandom Chaos Actually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
    Thanks Reaperman...stunning tributes...
  • ArgoneArgone Genuine Klingon
    No matter what the problem was, lets all hope they find it and fix it.

    To the families, My God be with you in these trying times, they are my hero's doing that with I can only dream of doing one day.

    Now as they rest may they have the pleasure of watching the rest of us reach the stars.

    ------------------
    [b]May You Live Forever, and The Last Voice You Hear, Be Mine! [/b]
  • In BetweenIn Between The Ultimate Lurker
    Amen
  • MelkorMelkor Elite Ranger
    a truely tragic event... but one that just underscores the need to find a better and safer method to travel to and from space.

    I can think of few things appropriate to this. but one thing does come to mind.

    "Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of earth
    And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
    Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
    Of sun-split clouds - and done a hundred things
    You have not dreamed of - wheeled and soared and swung
    High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there,
    I've chaced the shouting wind along, and flung
    My eager craft through the footless halls of air.
    Up, up the long, delerious, burning blue
    I've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace
    Where never lark, or ever eagle flew -
    And while with silent lifting mind I've trod
    The high untrespassed sanctity of space
    Put out my hand and touched the face of God."

    - "High Flight" By John Gillespie Magee, Jr. 1922 - 1941
  • PJHPJH The Lovely Thing
    [quote]Originally posted by Keyan:
    [b]Actually, they've been saying that the sensors actually went to essentially their "null" readings. "like someone had cut the wires" as one NASA guy said. It seems to happen with a couple of senors on a fairly regular basis, but when more and more started to fail, I think they started to wonder..then nothing. It's not like they could have done anything at that point..i think sometimes the media is like "you had inicators of trouble 7 mins before?"..well, even if they did, there was nothing they could do.[/b][/quote]

    Actually the Nasa ground crew chief (whatever the title is) said that some sensors did show an increase and then a bit later some sensors started to report no data.

    - PJH
  • shadow boxershadow boxer The Finger Painter & Master Ranter
    when you wind a sensor off its scale you get null readings... something traveling at 18 times the speed of sound gets hot very very quickly.

    why o why NASA persists with 'high tech' ceramics when we already have a very effective albiet ablative re-entry heat shield. The chinese of all people rediscovered and ancient material effective in mitigating re-entry heat.

    good ole fashioned wood.

    chinese re-entry vechiles carry a thickish layer of timber over thier reentry surfaces, which acts as perfect insulation against the heat. It only lasts long enough for one short nasty trip back to Earth, but its ten times as cheap, and last I knew, you can form plywood to any shape you like and it laminations which would make the surface effectively a single piece if you wanted to. I dont know about adhesives in such situations but if I was looking for a way to replace the fragile and difficult to handle ceramic heat sheilding... I'd be seriously looking into just how the chinese do thiers.

    Wood is great stuff, iand it takes an awful lot of mechanical abuse which would ruin the tiles on the shuttle. ts a shame its not 'high tech', and readily acceptable to 'boffins', otherwise it may just have been the determining factor between todays tragedy and another routine return to Earth.

    the KISS principile is often a hard one to accept. The Germans of WW2 never did, they often had catastrophic failures in equipment because they were too complex, too technical, built with a degree of engineering pomposity and arrogance.

    While NASA is probably not guilty of the same level of sillieness, can you see NASA accepting wooden heat sheilding on its shuttles no matter how good it was ? How unseemly it would be to have smoking charcoal attached to the shuttle on landing...

    I just hope it wasnt another 'ten cent O ring' which undid the Shuttle again... and I also hope I'm wrong about the heat sheilding.

    I also hope this galavanises the US and the rest of the world into getting thier collective shit together to build a better system for getting men and materiel into space. No-one should have to sit atop a large chemical bomb and ride the furker into orbit... and then take the real 'Express Elevator to Hell' back down again.

    and heres another thought... how many X-craft could you build for the cost of an Aircraft carrier ? or perhaps a nice little war with Iraq ?

    for all you dickheads who voted Bush into office...

    "You suck."

    (the opinions expressed herein are entirely that of the author)
  • samuelksamuelk The Unstoppable Mr. 'K'
    [quote]Originally posted by shadow boxer:
    [B]when you wind a sensor off its scale you get null readings... something traveling at 18 times the speed of sound gets hot very very quickly.[/quote]

    temperature sensors record data at a very high rate. Any heat increase would have been shown before the sensors stopped taking readings. Plus, these sensors are meant to record temperatures well above the 3000 degree max temperature that the Shuttle experiences on reentry. They wouldn't just stop taking measurements that quickly.

    [quote]why o why NASA persists with 'high tech' ceramics when we already have a very effective albiet ablative re-entry heat shield. The chinese of all people rediscovered and ancient material effective in mitigating re-entry heat.

    good ole fashioned wood.

    chinese re-entry vechiles carry a thickish layer of timber over thier reentry surfaces, which acts as perfect insulation against the heat. It only lasts long enough for one short nasty trip back to Earth, but its ten times as cheap, and last I knew, you can form plywood to any shape you like and it laminations which would make the surface effectively a single piece if you wanted to. I dont know about adhesives in such situations but if I was looking for a way to replace the fragile and difficult to handle ceramic heat sheilding... I'd be seriously looking into just how the chinese do thiers.

    Wood is great stuff, iand it takes an awful lot of mechanical abuse which would ruin the tiles on the shuttle. ts a shame its not 'high tech', and readily acceptable to 'boffins', otherwise it may just have been the determining factor between todays tragedy and another routine return to Earth.

    the KISS principile is often a hard one to accept. The Germans of WW2 never did, they often had catastrophic failures in equipment because they were too complex, too technical, built with a degree of engineering pomposity and arrogance.

    While NASA is probably not guilty of the same level of sillieness, can you see NASA accepting wooden heat sheilding on its shuttles no matter how good it was ? How unseemly it would be to have smoking charcoal attached to the shuttle on landing...
    [/quote]

    The Chinese craft was launched back in 1999, and there are MAJOR differences between that craft and the US Shuttle.

    The Chinese reentry vehicles are very small (comparable to the size of the Soyuz escape vehicle used for the ISS, or the Apollo craft). Plus, they're not using plain wood; it's resin-soaked wood. The added weight to the shuttle would drive up the cost of launch. The silica-ceramic tiles that are currently used are very very light.

    I'm pretty sure that the Chinese craft fell to earth a LOT faster than the shuttle does. Given the time required for the shuttle's reentry, it's exposed to the heat for a greater amount of time than the Chinese craft. Wood is only practical to a certain point.

    [quote]I just hope it wasnt another 'ten cent O ring' which undid the Shuttle again... and I also hope I'm wrong about the heat sheilding.[/quote]

    This is nitpicky, but the O-ring wasn't a cheap piece of equipment. It was a very large ring that traveled the circumference of the solid rocket booster. And it wasn't the real problem. Unfortunately, the shuttle was launched under adverse conditions (namely, the cold temperature) that was beyond safe limits.

    [quote]I also hope this galavanises the US and the rest of the world into getting thier collective shit together to build a better system for getting men and materiel into space. No-one should have to sit atop a large chemical bomb and ride the furker into orbit... and then take the real 'Express Elevator to Hell' back down again.[/quote]

    Let's hope so. But it'll be a while before anyone devises a non-chemical-propellant method for launching vehicles into orbit. The next one will probably be nuclear, which has its own drawbacks.

    [quote]and heres another thought... how many X-craft could you build for the cost of an Aircraft carrier ? or perhaps a nice little war with Iraq ?[quote]

    Quite a few. But cost is only a small factor to consider; there's also R&D time. You can't just build five or ten X-vehicle at once and pour money into testing them all.


    [This message has been edited by samuelk (edited 02-02-2003).]

    [This message has been edited by samuelk (edited 02-02-2003).]
  • samuelksamuelk The Unstoppable Mr. 'K'
    [quote]Originally posted by PJH:
    [b] Actually the Nasa ground crew chief (whatever the title is) said that some sensors did show an increase and then a bit later some sensors started to report no data.

    - PJH[/b][/quote]

    Those were the temp sensors in the landing gear wheels and hydraulics. And they registered a heat increase AFTER the other sensors had failed.
  • shadow boxershadow boxer The Finger Painter & Master Ranter
    I'd rather be very heavy than very dead....
  • shadow boxershadow boxer The Finger Painter & Master Ranter
    we could learn alot from the Russians....

    They made and still make stuff to last.

    We should builf shuttles like the built Stormoviks... ony pussies build planes out of aluminium... Russians built the Stormovik out of STEEL...

    while it wasnt the most agile craft about... nothing put fear into a german tank crew than the drone of that stonking great steel killer coming in with 40mm cannon to tear their tank a new hatch....

    screw the payload.... send 'stuff' up unmanned, we have the technology to do so... the savings garnered from removing crew can make up for lost payload. Lets face it, theres bugger all that a shuttle pilot actually does during re-entry, the computer dominates such things. Virtually every aircraft these days 'flys by wire'. Putting the pilot on the ground or even tag teaming with one in orbit makes good sense.

    Send people up in another vessel entirely, built to suit with superlative crew survivability systems, wrap them up in crash couches back in the bowels of the craft and forget any lip service to thier being a 'pilot' on board. We should let go of the 'plane' mentality and treat it like a spacecraft which demands more than mere flesh can handle.

    We should also do our best to establish a permanent presence in space. I'm talking about a genuine moonbase which has enough critical mass of equipment and materials to make a damn good attempt at staying there for good. Somewhere to build craft to buzz about our immediate solar vicinity.

    Ferk it... scrap maybe only five percent of the worlds armed forces and put it into space research and development and I'd be enjoying a tour of the Sea of Tranquility on my 45th birthday...

    thats fifteen years...

    and Sam.... did I say anything about mass production of X craft straight off the bat ? of course you need X craft.. then production craft... thats what the X stands for experimental...

    besides which, throw enough men and money and material at any problem and you will.. by sheer force of numbers and willpower.. solve it.

    if you dont believe that... maybe you should go to t the Smithsonian and have a look at the Wright 'flyer'....
  • shadow boxershadow boxer The Finger Painter & Master Ranter
    I mean really.. why should we have to chuck our bodies up and down through the atmosphere, if we built stuff on the moon.... theres half your problems solved...if you have mines and processing on the moon you make stuff there and sling it into orbit if need be.

    I'm still not convinced that a reusable craft is so hot at the moment either with our current technology. If the atmosphere is such a bitch... why should we spend so long is a shallow dive , whats wrong with going in steep and hard and leveling out later ?? Ok so the Shuttle is a brick glider.... dump the sodding wings... who needs em anyways... whats wrong with chutes ? A dozen plus Apollo missons cant be wrong...

    and also.. isnt the idea to slow down fast ?? why do you think ole rentry vehicles come in arse first ?? you present as much reistance to the air and slow down fast... but no.. we build a shuttle which is aerodynamic.... silly... its not like we cant pick up a big rentry vehicle with a crane and plonk the sucker back on the pad with some new boosters. The shuttle certainly isnt driven up valet style to the lanch pad and the keys given to the next mission commander...

    heres to concrete shithouses falling out of the sky with intact crew inside....

    in fact....concrete is just well processed dirt... moon dirt would do.... a bit of iron ore for steel... bewdy... one cheap very effective and rather cheap re-entry vehicle... I could cast a foot thick concrete shell for a drop pod in my back yard... theres also nothing wrong with shedding the heat sheild once its fulfilled its purpose... over the ocean of course and the actual drop pod itself could be very light and relatively flimsy and come down on chutes.

    That still leaves the trip up... but I'm only one idiot with a few ideas.. I cant think of everything... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
  • samuelksamuelk The Unstoppable Mr. 'K'
    [quote]we could learn alot from the Russians....[/quote]

    Yeah, like how to grow mold on a space station. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]

    [quote]They made and still make stuff to last.[/quote]

    True, but they're also bankrupt.

    [quote]We should builf shuttles like the built Stormoviks... ony pussies build planes out of aluminium... Russians built the Stormovik out of STEEL...

    while it wasnt the most agile craft about... nothing put fear into a german tank crew than the drone of that stonking great steel killer coming in with 40mm cannon to tear their tank a new hatch....[/quote]

    Heh...can you imagine how much fuel would be needed to put a STEEL shuttle in orbit? The external tank would be HUGE(-er than it is already).

    [quote]screw the payload.... send 'stuff' up unmanned, we have the technology to do so... the savings garnered from removing crew can make up for lost payload. Lets face it, theres bugger all that a shuttle pilot actually does during re-entry, the computer dominates such things. Virtually every aircraft these days 'flys by wire'. Putting the pilot on the ground or even tag teaming with one in orbit makes good sense.
    [/quote]

    Unfortunately, we don't go into space just to reenter the atmosphere. I don't think an unmanned trip to the space station would do much good.

    [quote]Send people up in another vessel entirely, built to suit with superlative crew survivability systems, wrap them up in crash couches back in the bowels of the craft and forget any lip service to thier being a 'pilot' on board. We should let go of the 'plane' mentality and treat it like a spacecraft which demands more than mere flesh can handle.[/quote]

    Part of the reason we have the shuttle is to avoid having more than one type of spacecraft to worry about. Building and maintaining separate manned and unmanned craft would cost more money than maintaining the shuttle.

    [quote]We should also do our best to establish a permanent presence in space. I'm talking about a genuine moonbase which has enough critical mass of equipment and materials to make a damn good attempt at staying there for good. Somewhere to build craft to buzz about our immediate solar vicinity.[/quote]

    Sure, I'm all for that. But the space station has to be finished first.

    [quote]Ferk it... scrap maybe only five percent of the worlds armed forces and put it into space research and development and I'd be enjoying a tour of the Sea of Tranquility on my 45th birthday...

    thats fifteen years...

    [/quote]

    haha

    [quote]and Sam.... did I say anything about mass production of X craft straight off the bat ? of course you need X craft.. then production craft... thats what the X stands for experimental...[/quote]

    No, and I didn't say anything about mass producing x-craft, either.

    What I said was, it's not reasonable to build a bunch of different types of X-craft at one time. You research build one or two, test, then test, then test some more, and then you find out which contractor can build the cheapest one, and buy that one.

    [quote]besides which, throw enough men and money and material at any problem and you will.. by sheer force of numbers and willpower.. solve it.[/quote]

    As soon as we find those trees that sprout money instead of leaves, I'm sure NASA will get right on that. The brute force method is clumsy and inefficient, an not something that should really be used for space exploration. Too many cooks and all...

    [quote]if you dont believe that... maybe you should go to t the Smithsonian and have a look at the Wright 'flyer'....[/quote]

    You mean the same Wright flyer that only flew a few tens of yards in a strong headwind? The one that the Wright Brothers took to Kitty Hawk, NC because they couldn't get enough wind in Ohio?

    Seriously, I'm not knocking the Wright Brothers, but I also wouldn't equate their invention with the kind of "stuff" needed to fuel a good space program. The spirit is there, which is important...but the methods need to be different.

    [This message has been edited by samuelk (edited 02-02-2003).]
  • AnlaShokAnlaShok Democrat From Hell
    MSNBC has been pointing out a report that budget cuts were going to affect safety in NASA. So guess who cuts their budget even further? [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/mad.gif[/img]

    SB, I am not an expert on the sbuject, but if the wood only lasts for one return trip, doesn't that mean it's falling apart on the way down? Wouldn't that screw up the aerodynamics of the shuttle as its surface degrades? I also think that the chinese capsule landed in the ocean, putting out the fire.

    I actually held one of the shuttle tiles at an engineering exhibition at the University of Illinois once. While I held it, the demonstrator held a blowtorch to the other side. I felt no heat at all. It was very impressive, especially that it was so light.

    ------------------
    AnlaShok, Captain of the Gray Hand of Fate Squadron
    Sidhe-1
    Wielder of the Big Heavy Hammer of Obvious Truth
    "FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!"
  • Random ChaosRandom Chaos Actually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
    SB - the shuttle, while aerodynamic, DOES come in buttom first through the atmosphere. It angles such that the bottom of the shuttle (black zone) is into the atmosphere providing maxinum friction. It's wings are for use once through the atmosphere and slowed to about standard airplane speeds.

    The reason we want reusable craft is they are FAR cheaper in the long term then single use craft. For single use craft, you have to create all the parts every time.

    --RC
  • PJHPJH The Lovely Thing
    [quote]Originally posted by samuelk:
    [b] Those were the temp sensors in the landing gear wheels and hydraulics. And they registered a heat increase AFTER the other sensors had failed.[/b][/quote]

    Actually, to be accurate according to BBC website:

    * At 0853, the first indications of problems begin to emerge. There is a loss of temperature sensors in hydraulics systems in the trailing edge of the left wing.

    * At 0856, sensors in the left main gear tyre-wheel well report a temperature increase.

    * At 0858, three temperature sensors on the left side of the vehicle stop working.

    * At 0859, sensors monitoring tyre temperatures and pressures report no data. Mission control contacts the shuttle: "Columbia, Houston. We see your tyre-pressure messages. We did not copy your last."

    But the question was not about in which order which thing happened. I was saying that there was indeed a temperature increase reported.

    - PJH
  • I re-watched the interview last night with the NASA reps, he said later that "when I said there was in increase, I mis-spoke, the sensors just went to null"

    Wood would never work for the shuttle, it's heavy, and could not withstand the time the shuttle takes to land.

    Steel would be so heavy, they might not even be able to lanch it.

    As far as unmanned...good luck fixing the hubble with robots. Or conducting experiments which require the logic and deductive abilites that still elude computers.

    That and one day my friends THE SUN WILL DIE. We need to learn how to leave.
Sign In or Register to comment.