Shuttle Columbia breaks up during re-enry
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: S.Yorkshire
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies
Point taken ORAC.
Just trying to add a little. Perhaps too soon.
Apologies to those offended.
This should remind us though, to have a good walk round before you take your machine flying. (reports of wing damage on take off, reported as O.K. by mission control)
Just trying to add a little. Perhaps too soon.
Apologies to those offended.
This should remind us though, to have a good walk round before you take your machine flying. (reports of wing damage on take off, reported as O.K. by mission control)
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A tragic loss of seven of the very finest. Sincere condolences to all family and friends; and a salute to those who have slipped these surly bonds one final time.
Regards
RP
Regards
RP
My condolences to the families of all those that died on Columbia today. May their loss not be in vain, and I hope Columbia II will rise from the ashes to take the programme forward.
Rest In Peace
Rest In Peace
Used Ink: The damage to the wing (not yet positively determined as a cause, or even factor, in the accident, we should remember) occurred after launch, not prior to it. You are therefore maligning the crew, and NASA launch support staff, with your unwarranted comment.
The Mission Commander, Rick Husband, has a UK background and the loss of all crewmembers will perhaps be felt even more keenly on the Eastern side of the Atlantic because of this.
The manned space programme has always, to me, felt like a worldwide endeavour - albeit mostly funded by the US. I find that this makes the loss feel to be a truly international one as opposed to simply a US and Israeli tragedy.
As well as condolences to the families, we should also remember those aboard the ISS who will no doubt be feeling the loss with particular hardship.
RIP, all these pioneers.
The Mission Commander, Rick Husband, has a UK background and the loss of all crewmembers will perhaps be felt even more keenly on the Eastern side of the Atlantic because of this.
The manned space programme has always, to me, felt like a worldwide endeavour - albeit mostly funded by the US. I find that this makes the loss feel to be a truly international one as opposed to simply a US and Israeli tragedy.
As well as condolences to the families, we should also remember those aboard the ISS who will no doubt be feeling the loss with particular hardship.
RIP, all these pioneers.
NASA noted the possiblility of wing damage in light of the insulation that blew off the craft during launch. Techical analysis of the film was inconclusive they report....they also noted there is no way to confirm that damage if any while in orbit and more importantly...."there is no way to repair any such damage to the tiles....sufficient redundancy has been built into the structure to prevent loss of the the thermal integrity...."....thus they felt no need to pursue the matter further. This issue will no doubt be reviewed. They noted they accepted the risk of such events and reported the operating environment was designed to prevent damage to the tiled area of the aircraft.
It is regrettable ...but sometimes when you walk on the thin edge...sometimes things happen. Heroes all....God Bless'em...they died living their dream ! The rest of us should be so fortunate.
It is regrettable ...but sometimes when you walk on the thin edge...sometimes things happen. Heroes all....God Bless'em...they died living their dream ! The rest of us should be so fortunate.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BossedEyed: I´m really with you in saying that it is an international thing endeavoring space. Even good old Neil spoke of mankind rather than Americans!
I can still remember watching Columbia launch for the first time when I was a seven-year-old. John Young, Bob Crippen, those were the heroes of my childhood. I´m really shocked by today´s tragedy, but I´m sure, absolutely certain, that they will continue to expand the high frontiers.
May God bless them all...
I can still remember watching Columbia launch for the first time when I was a seven-year-old. John Young, Bob Crippen, those were the heroes of my childhood. I´m really shocked by today´s tragedy, but I´m sure, absolutely certain, that they will continue to expand the high frontiers.
May God bless them all...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The USA space programme could be in for a lean time. They only have 3 remaining shuttles (Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour), no other man rated system and no planned replacement - having cancelled the X-33.
Jacko, they brained-stormed on the ground and decided that any damage would only be minor and that nothing need be done except check for damage on recovery. The same thing happened the launch before last, impacting an engine blister, and only minor surface abrasion was found on the tiles. I'm sure that decision will, in hindsight, be questioned.
This is regardless of the actual cause of the accident, which might be totally unrelated.
Jacko, they brained-stormed on the ground and decided that any damage would only be minor and that nothing need be done except check for damage on recovery. The same thing happened the launch before last, impacting an engine blister, and only minor surface abrasion was found on the tiles. I'm sure that decision will, in hindsight, be questioned.
This is regardless of the actual cause of the accident, which might be totally unrelated.
Last edited by ORAC; 2nd Feb 2003 at 00:43.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: S.Yorkshire
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BossEyed, thank you for your comment.
However, like a lot of people, you should read before you comment.
I said: "reports of wing damage on take off"
You said: "The damage to the wing (not yet positively determined as a cause, or even factor, in the accident, we should remember) occurred after launch, not prior to it.
NOW, correct me if I am wrong, but in all my days of flying, I've never known a take off to be prior to launch. Even on a carrier you could, technically, be launched before take off, but not the other way round.
You also said: "You are therefore maligning the crew, and NASA launch support staff, with your unwarranted comment."
I say: "I dont think so".
Used Ink I think you should quit while you are not ahead! All space flights are launched - they do not take-off!
PPP
However, like a lot of people, you should read before you comment.
I said: "reports of wing damage on take off"
You said: "The damage to the wing (not yet positively determined as a cause, or even factor, in the accident, we should remember) occurred after launch, not prior to it.
NOW, correct me if I am wrong, but in all my days of flying, I've never known a take off to be prior to launch. Even on a carrier you could, technically, be launched before take off, but not the other way round.
You also said: "You are therefore maligning the crew, and NASA launch support staff, with your unwarranted comment."
I say: "I dont think so".
Used Ink I think you should quit while you are not ahead! All space flights are launched - they do not take-off!
PPP
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: S.Yorkshire
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capricorn One
On Sky Text this morning, leading UK scientist, Professor Andre Balogh said, when pressed by Sky reporter;
"NASA would be fully aware(of the damage) and had in all probability known all along it was fatal."
Lets look at this for discussion purposes.
1. The crew WOULD have known about the damage.
2. They ARE highly trained scientists and aviators and would know the consequences.
3. With intelligent REASONING, would possibly doubt the integrity of the craft, bearing in mind the speeds and temperatures involved.
4. Human remains have been found, they have been shown on Sky. However, considering the speed, height, vapourisation conditions, how can a FULL body be recovered from the debris sight?
5. The astronauts helmet pictured, was merely charred.
Would YOU get on an aircraft that you were told was U/S and critically damaged?
"NASA would be fully aware(of the damage) and had in all probability known all along it was fatal."
Lets look at this for discussion purposes.
1. The crew WOULD have known about the damage.
2. They ARE highly trained scientists and aviators and would know the consequences.
3. With intelligent REASONING, would possibly doubt the integrity of the craft, bearing in mind the speeds and temperatures involved.
4. Human remains have been found, they have been shown on Sky. However, considering the speed, height, vapourisation conditions, how can a FULL body be recovered from the debris sight?
5. The astronauts helmet pictured, was merely charred.
Would YOU get on an aircraft that you were told was U/S and critically damaged?
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Used Ink, I'm not sure that you're giving the crew a fair go.
The craft wasn't - as far as we know - damaged until after, or at least during, the launch.
If they, and/or NASA, had known about the extent of the damage - if indeed that was the cause - and it's potential repercussions, would it not have been possible, desirable, and indeed expedient, to send up a second shuttle to rescue them?
I would take quite some convincing that either NASA or the crew were aware of any such potential problem prior to attempted re-entry.
The craft wasn't - as far as we know - damaged until after, or at least during, the launch.
If they, and/or NASA, had known about the extent of the damage - if indeed that was the cause - and it's potential repercussions, would it not have been possible, desirable, and indeed expedient, to send up a second shuttle to rescue them?
I would take quite some convincing that either NASA or the crew were aware of any such potential problem prior to attempted re-entry.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: S.Yorkshire
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, excuse me, but during recent comments on the Challenger disaster, "the incident occured during take off."
So my powers of deduction would deduce that even to NASA shuttles do indeed take off.
If this is what this has boiled down to, (arguing if a shuttle is launched or takes off),then you could be missing something big.
launch (v.) to send forth by hurling or thrusting.
take off (n.) the process of taking off in flying.
As the shuttle is in the business of space FLIGHT, then it must take off.
Mercury, Gemini, Apollo etc. would be launched.
Oh by the way,
flight (n.) 1. the process of flying, the movement or path of a thing through the AIR 2. a journey made by AIR.
So, how can a spacecraft fly?
Oh yes, Blue Wolf, "The craft wasn't - as far as we know - damaged until after, or at least during, the launch"
Thats what I said...read before you post.
So my powers of deduction would deduce that even to NASA shuttles do indeed take off.
If this is what this has boiled down to, (arguing if a shuttle is launched or takes off),then you could be missing something big.
launch (v.) to send forth by hurling or thrusting.
take off (n.) the process of taking off in flying.
As the shuttle is in the business of space FLIGHT, then it must take off.
Mercury, Gemini, Apollo etc. would be launched.
Oh by the way,
flight (n.) 1. the process of flying, the movement or path of a thing through the AIR 2. a journey made by AIR.
So, how can a spacecraft fly?
Oh yes, Blue Wolf, "The craft wasn't - as far as we know - damaged until after, or at least during, the launch"
Thats what I said...read before you post.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just seen on the news which lends weight to the damaged wing theory (speculation I know), that as the shuttle was re-entering temperature sensors in the left wing failed. The crew and ground control were aware of the problem which was being monitored when contact was lost.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Used Ink, you're out of order.
If NASA had known there was a problem, and it was likely to be fatal, then do you honestly think they would have brought the spacecraft back in the full glare of publicity, and all it entails, with the crews relatives waiting at the landing site? Dont you think they might have decided to delay the de-orbit perhaps, and analysie the options?
With regards to Launch / Take Off "debate", stop being a pedantic prick.
You speak as though the crew had the option after take off to just turn around and come back, actually do a full walk-round inspection, or get off at the next stop. Hmmm.
If NASA had known there was a problem, and it was likely to be fatal, then do you honestly think they would have brought the spacecraft back in the full glare of publicity, and all it entails, with the crews relatives waiting at the landing site? Dont you think they might have decided to delay the de-orbit perhaps, and analysie the options?
With regards to Launch / Take Off "debate", stop being a pedantic prick.
You speak as though the crew had the option after take off to just turn around and come back, actually do a full walk-round inspection, or get off at the next stop. Hmmm.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: S.Yorkshire
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you postie for your comments.
As for "being a pedantic prick", I didn't start that one and I suggest you read PPP's comment of ;
"Used Ink I think you should quit while you are not ahead! All space flights are launched - they do not take-off!"
PPP
If I may, I would like to refer you to
http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/mission/index.html
which as you can tell is NASAs own site, not one I've created, which refers to Columbias first flight.
Therefore it must have 'taken off'.
I rest my case on that subject.
You said, "You speak as though the crew had the option after take off to just turn around and come back, actually do a full walk-round inspection, or get off at the next stop. Hmmm"
I answer, "perhaps that would have been what you wanted me to say. don't be silly.
However the choice in orbit, whilst in the ISS, could have been to let lose Columbia, she was not repairable in space, and send a recovery shuttle to bring back to Earth the crew. There would be enough food/supplies on board for 2 months for all pers on the ISS.
As for "being a pedantic prick", I didn't start that one and I suggest you read PPP's comment of ;
"Used Ink I think you should quit while you are not ahead! All space flights are launched - they do not take-off!"
PPP
If I may, I would like to refer you to
http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/mission/index.html
which as you can tell is NASAs own site, not one I've created, which refers to Columbias first flight.
Therefore it must have 'taken off'.
I rest my case on that subject.
You said, "You speak as though the crew had the option after take off to just turn around and come back, actually do a full walk-round inspection, or get off at the next stop. Hmmm"
I answer, "perhaps that would have been what you wanted me to say. don't be silly.
However the choice in orbit, whilst in the ISS, could have been to let lose Columbia, she was not repairable in space, and send a recovery shuttle to bring back to Earth the crew. There would be enough food/supplies on board for 2 months for all pers on the ISS.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lincs.
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10/10 Postman Plod!
Its a shame that this site, has again, become a forum for some particular members to force their often uninformed opinion on the rest of us, regardless of the validity of their comments and with a blatent disregard of who they might offend by doing so. Has anyone thought the families might read this too?
If this is what PPrune has come to, I dont think wish to be a part of it any longer.
Its amasing how many experts appear at a time like this... I will wait to read the NASA report when completed.
God bless the crew and my deepest sympathies to the families of all concerned...
Its a shame that this site, has again, become a forum for some particular members to force their often uninformed opinion on the rest of us, regardless of the validity of their comments and with a blatent disregard of who they might offend by doing so. Has anyone thought the families might read this too?
If this is what PPrune has come to, I dont think wish to be a part of it any longer.
Its amasing how many experts appear at a time like this... I will wait to read the NASA report when completed.
God bless the crew and my deepest sympathies to the families of all concerned...
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: S.Yorkshire
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Divergent Phugoid! although I have in the past, been led to believe you and the postie are one and the same.
You said, " forum for some particular members to force their often uninformed opinion on the rest of us, regardless of the validity of their comments.."
I repeat, " Isn't that what PPRUNE is all about comrade? "
Uninformed opinion Opinion is based on information. I have based my opinion on the information given to me via the news agencies, NASA website and not forgetting here. OR does my opinion not count in your society?
You said,"Has anyone thought the families might read this too?"
I enquire, "Is there anyone here even remotely attached to NASA on here?"
Honest yesses only please!
You said, " forum for some particular members to force their often uninformed opinion on the rest of us, regardless of the validity of their comments.."
I repeat, " Isn't that what PPRUNE is all about comrade? "
Uninformed opinion
Opinion is based on information. I have based my opinion on the information given to me via the news agencies, NASA website and not forgetting here. OR does my opinion not count in your society?You said,"Has anyone thought the families might read this too?"
I enquire, "Is there anyone here even remotely attached to NASA on here?"
Honest yesses only please!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Used Ink, I can assure you that there is no connection at all between myself and Divergent Phugoid!, and any similarity between our names (clear similarity there obviously) is purely coincidental. Considering I've only posted on this forum at most 10 times, how you could possibly have "heard" that we are one and the same person is.... well.... laughable! I bet you've never even seen any of my posts!
I dont have a problem with informed opinion - as you say, that is what this forum is for. I have a problem with some elements of the news media, who often go looking for a story where there is none, or claim things where there is no proof - as what it sounds like Sky News did this morning suggesting that NASA knew. Is that helping anyone? Is that undermining the credibility of, in this case, a government body? I therefore think the news media's uninformed opinion cannot be relied upon, and they dont practice pure "fact" based reporting anyway - they talk utter c**p most of the time.
You may actually have said something interesting and worthwhile(I think, If I understood it, as it was a bit fragmented):
"However the choice in orbit, whilst in the ISS, could have been to let lose Columbia, she was not repairable in space, and send a recovery shuttle to bring back to Earth the crew. There would be enough food/supplies on board for 2 months for all pers on the ISS. "
So if NASA knew, amongst other options, they might have considered this? Yes, probably, but they almost certainly wouldn't have de-orbited the shuttle as normal if they knew - think of the political implications! Which suggests they didn't know. I think Sky News need a new "expert".
Finally, yes there are MANY people with links to NASA on this site, and I can guarantee that, as I know some of them.
Now can we actually get back to the subject perhaps, which is the tragic loss of Columbia?
I dont have a problem with informed opinion - as you say, that is what this forum is for. I have a problem with some elements of the news media, who often go looking for a story where there is none, or claim things where there is no proof - as what it sounds like Sky News did this morning suggesting that NASA knew. Is that helping anyone? Is that undermining the credibility of, in this case, a government body? I therefore think the news media's uninformed opinion cannot be relied upon, and they dont practice pure "fact" based reporting anyway - they talk utter c**p most of the time.
You may actually have said something interesting and worthwhile(I think, If I understood it, as it was a bit fragmented):
"However the choice in orbit, whilst in the ISS, could have been to let lose Columbia, she was not repairable in space, and send a recovery shuttle to bring back to Earth the crew. There would be enough food/supplies on board for 2 months for all pers on the ISS. "
So if NASA knew, amongst other options, they might have considered this? Yes, probably, but they almost certainly wouldn't have de-orbited the shuttle as normal if they knew - think of the political implications! Which suggests they didn't know. I think Sky News need a new "expert".
Finally, yes there are MANY people with links to NASA on this site, and I can guarantee that, as I know some of them.
Now can we actually get back to the subject perhaps, which is the tragic loss of Columbia?