Oh my god, turn on your TV now
Balsa Boy
Tom of Bunyon
"Balsa Boy" <lovely...@norwegianblue.com> wrote in message
news:bIQ_9.9341$dC3....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> This is bad, the shuttle's disappeared.
>
>
>
Communications disappeared over Texas at 209,000 ft.
They are showing a video as it passed over Dallas & it looked like a number
of big chunks came off it looking just like the Mir breakup.
It's now overdue at the Cape.
John Stein
John
--
John Stein KC4RLL
NAR 74335 Sr L2
President - SEARS 572
http://www.sears572.com
"Tom of Bunyon" <t2...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:2EQ_9.22639$%12.2...@news.bellsouth.net...
Stones
doesn't look like any chance of bailout at that altitude :(
"Balsa Boy" <lovely...@norwegianblue.com> wrote in message
news:bIQ_9.9341$dC3....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
John Stein
and struck the left shuttle wing. They thought there was no problem and
continued the mission. Might have caused internal structural damage.
John
"Stones" <ston...@xxxnew.rr.com> wrote in message
news:80R_9.44232$wE.12...@twister.kc.rr.com...
Balsa Boy
> 200,000 ft.
> doesn't look like any chance of bailout at that altitude :(
I'd rather not even speculate about the fate of the crew. I just
think (as John said) their families and friends need our prayers
right now.
I wonder if telemetry was re-acquired after the re-entry, and prior
to the apparent breakup. i.e., is there a chance that the problem
can be ID'ed from the data stream.
I am hearing that there is some suspicion being placed on some
debris which hit Columbia's left wing during liftoff two weeks ago.
Whatever the cause, this surely ends the shuttle program.
Thomas Rau
>
> Whatever the cause, this surely ends the shuttle program.
>
>
>
First I have to agree with the other posts, the friends and families need
our prayers.
From the breakup footage its doubtful that even if the crew cabin remained
intact that the crew would have been able to ride it down low enough to bail
out. But this can't end the program simply because its all we have to
support the space station. It should however convince congress that its
time to start work on the shuttles replacement.
It's a sad, sad day.
--
------
Thomas Rau
NAR 80711 L2
TRA 50933 L2
Amateur Rocketry Society of America
Reece Talley
were traveling fast enough at the time of breakup to be trailing ionized air
in a plasma stream. The forces acting on the shuttle would have been too
great to expect anyone to have survived. Also, at 200,000 feet agl the odds
of survival in the event of emergency egress are astronomically stacked
against the crew. I saw five distinct pieces, each trailing its own smoke
plume. I'm afraid we have suffered another loss in the program and we must
endure another national tradgedy.
R J Talley
"Balsa Boy" <lovely...@norwegianblue.com> wrote in message
news:keR_9.9351$dC3....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
J.A. Michel
J.A. Michel
"Thomas Rau" <r...@nospamsnet.net> wrote in message
news:0qR_9.13910$GS4.357...@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com...
David S. Chen
>Whatever the cause, this surely ends the shuttle program.
>
What about the fate of the ISS (International Space Station)? How are se going
to get the current residents home? How are we going to maintain the station?
Through Progress and Soyus craft alone?
David S. Chen
Mike Pearson <see .sig>
Progress is resupply; there are never more than 3 astronauts left on the
station when a shuttle is not attached; that's the max the Soyuz can
evacuate.
--
Mike KD7PVT
NAR #70953 - Sr/HPR Level-1 ~ SeaNAR - The Seattle NAR Section #568
NO Junk Email, please! Real email to: amphoto [at] blarg [dot] net.
<Vegetables aren't food; vegetables are what the food eats!>
Balsa Boy
a pre-flight interview. He noted that Columbia, upon its return, would
be the heaviest shuttle landing yet. I wonder if it's somehow possible that
this factor is related. A heavier shuttle means increased stress and
thermal loads; taken in combination with possible tile damage, perhaps
this led to the long-feared "zipper" scenario, where one strategically
located tile fails, resulting in a domino effect and loss of structural integrity.
Balsa Boy
> Progress is resupply; there are never more than 3 astronauts left on the
> station when a shuttle is not attached; that's the max the Soyuz can
> evacuate.
The 3 astronauts onboard ISS now will certainly be returning via the Soyuz,
now. Even if the shuttle fleet isn't permanently grounded after this incident,
it will certainly be a long time (until the accident is thoroughly investigated)
before one flies again - remember after Challenger, it was 2+ years.
Jerry Irvine
"Balsa Boy" <lovely...@norwegianblue.com> wrote:
> I am hearing that there is some suspicion being placed on some
> debris which hit Columbia's left wing during liftoff two weeks ago.
Yes and aging of airframe. Columbia went into service in 1981. Are there
any commercial aircraft allowed that old?
>
> Whatever the cause, this surely ends the shuttle program.
Do not speculate.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01ro...@gte.net>
Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com
Bob Kaplow
There has always been a Soyuz craft docked at the ISS, jsut as there was
with MIR. That's why the limit on ISS crew has been 3. That's all the
lifeboat can hold. So the crew does have a way home.
Sadly, I suspect that ISS is about to be mothballed.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
>>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://www.pleimling.org/le/Phantom4000.pdf
www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
26-October, 2001: A day that will live in infamy
Support Freedom: http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/
Homeland Security Administration: The Gestapo of the 21st Century
Jerry Irvine
"Balsa Boy" <lovely...@norwegianblue.com> wrote:
> Michael Anderson, one of the astronauts, was just shown on CNN in
> a pre-flight interview. He noted that Columbia, upon its return, would
> be the heaviest shuttle landing yet.
This factoid could easily be a dominant factor.
> I wonder if it's somehow possible that
> this factor is related. A heavier shuttle means increased stress and
> thermal loads; taken in combination with possible tile damage, perhaps
> this led to the long-feared "zipper" scenario, where one strategically
> located tile fails, resulting in a domino effect and loss of structural
> integrity.
2 years from now I would not be surprised if an investigation concludes
this very thing you just posted live on rmr.
Richard Parkin
Jerry Irvine <01ro...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:01rocket-51E383...@news.bellatlantic.net...
> In article <kkS_9.9475$dC3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
> "Balsa Boy" <lovely...@norwegianblue.com> wrote:
>
> > Michael Anderson, one of the astronauts, was just shown on CNN in
> > a pre-flight interview. He noted that Columbia, upon its return, would
> > be the heaviest shuttle landing yet.
>
> This factoid could easily be a dominant factor.
I cant find a link to this interview, anyone have one? Failing that, why
was Columbia heavier than normal? By how much?
--
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Richard Parkin
UKRA 1268 L1
"Write a wise saying and your name will live forever" - Anonymous.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Balsa Boy
Balsa Boy
> Shut up, Jerry.
Jerry, I apologize. I am not in a good mood right now and I should
have thought before sending that. Once again, sorry.
Balsa Boy
> Yes and aging of airframe. Columbia went into service in 1981. Are there
> any commercial aircraft allowed that old?
Yes, many. In fact the youngest B-52 in service was built in the 50's
(o.k., that's not commercial, but either is the STS). But, you can't really
draw direct comparisons between the shuttle and conventional aircraft,
except perhaps where the core airframe is concerned. And the number
of hours flown by Columbia was only about 25% of its expected lifetime.
More important, are the effects of aging upon things like the TPS and
the electronics and hydraulic systems. But supposedly these systems
are subject to the highest levels of scrutiny that NASA can muster.
Jerry Irvine
"Balsa Boy" <lovely...@norwegianblue.com> wrote:
> Jerry, I apologize.
Apology accepted.
We are all stressed right now.
Roy Green
>In article <keR_9.9351$dC3....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
> "Balsa Boy" <lovely...@norwegianblue.com> wrote:
>
>> I am hearing that there is some suspicion being placed on some
>> debris which hit Columbia's left wing during liftoff two weeks ago.
>
>Yes and aging of airframe. Columbia went into service in 1981. Are there
>any commercial aircraft allowed that old?
>
while I'm not an expert on the subject, it is not uncommon for
commercial aircraft to be 20 years old. I've read that most jets in
America are 5-12 years old. The FAA has a specific maintenance
schedule of partial and complete overhauls that can keep specific
airframes flying for very long periods of time, even if most of the
innards have been replaced.
for instance, the average age of the Concordes is 24. the 727 is about
20. Northwest Airlines still flies some DC-9 jets made in the late
sixties.
There are military jets in service that are much older. B-52's were
designed in the late 40's and most were manufactured in the 50's.
Roy Green, Atlanta
http://www.roygreen.com
NAR 12605 (http://www.nar.org)
SoAR 007 (http://www.soar571.com)
Quilly Mammoth
death of the American Space Program.
--
"Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just an automatic
gain-say of anything the other person says!" ObMP
http://www.ReadAssist.org
"Balsa Boy" <lovely...@norwegianblue.com> wrote in message
news:bIQ_9.9341$dC3....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
zoot
<kali...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>We have witnessed the death of seven valiant people and quite possibly the
>death of the American Space Program.
I can think of no greater way to dishonor the memory of those seven
astronauts.
J.A. Michel
inspired my rocket habit which continues to this day. I don't think that
Columbia's age is really a factor. Those vehicles are completely torn apart
and gone through with a fine-tooth comb after every flight.
J.A Michel
"Jerry Irvine" <01ro...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:01rocket-C90F15...@news.bellatlantic.net...
Stones
news:W3T_9.9975$15....@www.newsranger.com...
> We have witnessed the death of seven valiant people and quite possibly the
> death of the American Space Program.
>
has. That's why this country is what it is. Have faith.
Stones
Stephen DeArman
John Stein <john_...@alaweb.com> wrote in message
news:b1glvf$11n0c8$1...@ID-30845.news.dfncis.de...
> Our thoughts and prayers are with the families.
Ours too and with the nation and also the international representitives that
were aboard.
It's a day of great sadness for many. That sadness will not permanently
disable us. It will be turned toward greater resolve, achievements and
success in the future.
Randy
Stephen DeArman
> In article <kkS_9.9475$dC3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
> "Balsa Boy" <lovely...@norwegianblue.com> wrote:
>
> > Michael Anderson, one of the astronauts, was just shown on CNN in
> > a pre-flight interview. He noted that Columbia, upon its return, would
> > be the heaviest shuttle landing yet.
What were they bringing back?
Randy
Stephen DeArman
> We are all stressed right now.
For sure.
Let's ALL hang together.
Randy
Stephen DeArman
>quite possibly the
> death of the American Space Program.
As the son of a man who worked at NASA and a man who was there in 1967, I
can absolutely tell you, it will NOT end the program. It may be a while
before they go up again but it's not going to end manned flight or NASA.
Randy
Mark Simpson
>
> In article <keR_9.9351$dC3....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
> "Balsa Boy" <lovely...@norwegianblue.com> wrote:
>
> > I am hearing that there is some suspicion being placed on some
> > debris which hit Columbia's left wing during liftoff two weeks ago.
>
> Yes and aging of airframe. Columbia went into service in 1981. Are there
> any commercial aircraft allowed that old?
There are DC-9's and other commercial jets (not to mention B-52's) way
older than 1981.
Mark Simpson
NAR 71503 Level II
Steven Bloom
We will grieve,
then study,
learn,
percevere,
and carry on.
Each in it's own time.
Steve Bloom
Stephen DeArman
Mark Simpson <mark.s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3E3AC5E0...@comcast.net...
> Jerry Irvine wrote:
> There are DC-9's and other commercial jets (not to mention B-52's) way
> older than 1981.
My daughter learned to fly and is flying, Marine aircraft MUCH oder than she
is. 24 years +.
Randy
Ron Zeppin
lost 2 shuttles in 115 missions...better than expected, not that it's good
in anyway, but the shuttles have actually performed better than it was
thought.
I have to lean towards the heavy load the shuttle was carrying this morning,
along with the damage the left wing sustained on ascent... I think it was
more than likely several factors stacked on top of each other that caused
the problem.
I don't think there are any dangerous chemicals going to be left in the
wreckage, but a friend made note of the fact that if they had a satellite on
board, it was very likely to have had plutonium batteries in it as well...
WAY bad!
--
Ron Zeppin
AHPRA
XRAA
www.ahpra.org
"Roy Green" <royg...@atl.mindxxxspring.com> wrote in message
news:4cun3vgrnplkcii1u...@4ax.com...
Stephen DeArman
Balsa Boy <lovely...@norwegianblue.com> wrote in message
news:bIQ_9.9341$dC3....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
On Fox, President Bush just said the space program will go on. So anyone
that was ready to bury NASA and manned flight can put your shovels away.
Bush is committed to the space program, always has been. Recently he gave a
speech about expanding the entire program and have even more countries
participate with the U.S.
He is absolutely behind NASA. I say good for our president and the
resiliency of Americans everywhere.
Randy
Stephen DeArman
Ron Zeppin <az_...@spammenot.cox.net> wrote in message
news:YWU_9.5371$XB.2...@news2.west.cox.net...
> When the Shuttle program was begun, they figured a loss of 2%...we've now
> lost 2 shuttles in 115 missions...better than expected, not that it's good
> in anyway, but the shuttles have actually performed better than it was
> thought
Good point Ron. The shuttle fleet has done very well.
Randy
Balsa Boy
> On Fox, President Bush just said the space program will go on. So anyone
> that was ready to bury NASA and manned flight can put your shovels away.
No, we won't bury NASA - or manned flight - but this will almost certainly
be the death knell for the current space shuttle design. A 2% PROVEN
failure rate is simply unacceptable for a sustained, manned launch program.
My prediction? We'll see a few more missions, but only critically important
ones for ISS. And ONLY after agreeing to retire the shuttle fleet ASAP and in
conjunction with funding a replacement system.
Pelysma
> death of the American Space Program.
>
It won't die. It might be reshaped.
There will be a delay, and the ISS program will be hurt. The program will
not end. Americans tend to look at something like this as a challenge to our
resolve. The astronauts themselves knew before flying that there was always
a substantial risk. That's why we honor them as heroes.
Technology has changed so much since 1981 that the means exist to build an
entirely new generation of spacecraft. Only funding has prevented that
until now. Once we get over the shock, expect something new, different, and
better to emerge.
--P.
Stephen DeArman
> My prediction? We'll see a few more missions, but only critically
important
> ones for ISS. And ONLY after agreeing to retire the shuttle fleet ASAP
and in
> conjunction with funding a replacement system.
There will no doubt be sweeping changes.
Randy
Darren J Longhorn
The science labs in the payload bay that they took up.
--
Darren J Longhorn http://www.geocities.com/darrenlonghorn/
NSRG #005 http://www.northstarrocketry.org.uk/
UKRA #1094 L2 RSO http://www.ukra.org.uk/
Len Lekx
<mark.s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>There are DC-9's and other commercial jets (not to mention B-52's) way
>older than 1981.
But they're not subjected to anything *near* the stresses that a
Shuttle goes through during takeoff and landing. Wild guess, I'd say
that a Shuttle ages ten times faster than a DC-9.
JACKIE L CRANE
out in a brilliant blaze than that it should be stifled by dry-rot. I would
rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a
sleepy and permanent planet. The proper function of a man is to live, not
exist. I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them. I shall use my
time.
Jack London
Jerry Irvine
LFL...@NOSPAM.rogers.com (Len Lekx) wrote:
Point.
From the commentary (educated) I have seen so far this morning (it is
about noon local here), the event that happened was vehicle and flight
specific, and delaying other shuttle launches would have little benfit
to program safety.
I hope a pattern of talk develops in the next 24-48 hours by Oberg
especially and by other heard voices generally, that going ahead without
delay is JUSTIFIED, since no redesign can avoid the likely failure mode
experienced here.
I vote for full speed ahead!
Jerry
To infinity, and beyond!
Chuck Rudy
>
>I don't think there are any dangerous chemicals going to be left in the
>wreckage, but a friend made note of the fact that if they had a satellite on
>board, it was very likely to have had plutonium batteries in it as well...
>WAY bad!
>
>
Since the tiles can survive the heat and are injected with toxins by
robot, I would guess that toxic chemical residues are a true
possibility. http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~nivek/FRC/tessellator.shtml
Chuck
>
Jerry Irvine
Chuck Rudy <cgru...@tradenet.nospam.net> wrote:
Maybe so but after a reentry and just sitting on the ground, as long as
you do not pick it up and rub it into your skin it cannot hurt you.
Certainly walking up to it on the ground is harmless.
I hope the people in nearby town go to the local Home Depot and get
those little construction and landscape flags and put one by each piece
of debris or at the corners of a debris field.
Jerry
Bob Kaplow
The payload bay contained a large Spacehab module, that essentially expands
the orbiters living / working space for what was a very long 16 day mission.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
>>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://www.pleimling.org/le/Phantom4000.pdf
www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
26-October, 2001: A day that will live in infamy
Support Freedom: http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/
Homeland Security Administration: The Gestapo of the 21st Century
Bob Kaplow
> I don't think there are any dangerous chemicals going to be left in the
> wreckage, but a friend made note of the fact that if they had a satellite on
> board, it was very likely to have had plutonium batteries in it as well...
> WAY bad!
No satellite. Spacehab. Large living / working quarters.
Stephen DeArman
Darren J Longhorn <darrenl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:s19o3vchfmeit9h8t...@4ax.com...
> >What were they bringing back?
> The science labs in the payload bay that they took up.
Well yes but the inference was that it was heavier coming back, than going
up meaning they picked up something. Just a moment ago, I heard that they
picked up a satellite to bring home, so that would make sense that it was
substantially heavier.
I don't know if this has been confirmed but they also said it may have had
plutonium batteries aboard the satellite. Not good if true.
Randy
Bob Kaplow
The hypergolic fuels in the orbiter are quite toxic. After a normal landing,
a ground crew in space suit like garb "safe"s the bird before anyone goes in
or out.
Stephen DeArman
Bob Kaplow <kapl...@eisner.encompasserve.org.TRABoD> wrote in message
news:wg$7L4e...@eisner.encompasserve.org...<az_...@spammenot.cox.net> !
> No satellite. Spacehab. Large living / working quarters.
Ok, I was mis-informed but that's good to know. Much better senario.
Thanks Bob.
Randy
David
characteristics of Government is to look for a scapegoat for any failure,
even when none exists.
-- David
"Jerry Irvine" <01ro...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:01rocket-EEFC7C...@news.bellatlantic.net...
Tim
>>Yes and aging of airframe. Columbia went into service in 1981. Are there
>>any commercial aircraft allowed that old?
>
>
> There are DC-9's and other commercial jets (not to mention B-52's) way
> older than 1981.
And C-130's and all manner of other military planes. There are even
DC-3's (WWII era C-47) that are still used in the cargo hauling business.
tim
Tim
Extremely well...considering its complexity and the brutal conditions of
launch and re-entry.
tim
Tim
> From the commentary (educated) I have seen so far this morning (it is
> about noon local here), the event that happened was vehicle and flight
> specific, and delaying other shuttle launches would have little benfit
> to program safety.
>
> I hope a pattern of talk develops in the next 24-48 hours by Oberg
> especially and by other heard voices generally, that going ahead without
> delay is JUSTIFIED, since no redesign can avoid the likely failure mode
> experienced here.
>
> I vote for full speed ahead!
Agreed...but I still want a next generation manned launch vehicle
program to start now so we can retire what's left of the current fleet.
We have the ability to take a good platform and make it much better.
The shuttles that are left deserve to have a permanent home in the
Smithsonian before the (projected) 2% failure rate finishes them off.
tim
RayDunakin
I would guess that toxic chemical residues are a true possibility. >>
Some of the materials on board the shuttle, such as the hypergolic fuels, are
also extremely toxic. Most likely they would have burned off, but that's not
certain, and even if they did, the residue could also be toxic.
Of course, the main concern I think is just to get people not to move or take
any debris. Even if they turn it in, it could compromise the investigation. For
instance, the location of pieces of the debris (where they landed) can sometime
help determine what took place.
Len Lekx
>Agreed...but I still want a next generation manned launch vehicle
>program to start now so we can retire what's left of the current fleet.
> We have the ability to take a good platform and make it much better.
Hear! Hear!
Let's call for a re-start of the DC-X program! :-)
Chuck Rudy
>
>The hypergolic fuels in the orbiter are quite toxic. After a normal landing,
>a ground crew in space suit like garb "safe"s the bird before anyone goes in
>or out.
>
> Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
>
>
Bob
What, in fact, are those hypergolic fuels? They were warning that if
they are inhaled they will encircle the oxygen in you lungs and
basically suffocate you in 48 hours. They did say they dissapate in
time, but the name has not been disclosed.
Chuck
Jerry Irvine
"David" <dav...@nomatech.com> wrote:
> Yes that is my vote too, but you forget that one of the persistent
> characteristics of Government is to look for a scapegoat for any failure,
> even when none exists.
Oh, I don't forget, which is why I called for the "fad" to begin of
calling for moving forward without delay. Somnetimes the best response
to political molasses is "will of the people".
"Let's roll."
Jerry
Jerry Irvine
Chuck Rudy <cgru...@tradenet.nospam.net> wrote:
That whole line of discussion is fear mongering to discourage debris
theft.
The fuels dissipate in air after about 5 minutes of exposure and the
superheated reentry and break-up makes it very likely to have happened
well before intersection with the ground.
Jerry
netnews.attbi.com
Jerry Irvine wrote:
> In article <3E3C367C...@tradenet.nospam.net>,
> Chuck Rudy <cgru...@tradenet.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>The hypergolic fuels in the orbiter are quite toxic. After a normal landing,
>>>a ground crew in space suit like garb "safe"s the bird before anyone goes in
>>>or out.
>>>
>>> Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Bob
>>
>>What, in fact, are those hypergolic fuels? They were warning that if
>>they are inhaled they will encircle the oxygen in you lungs and
>>basically suffocate you in 48 hours. They did say they dissapate in
>>time, but the name has not been disclosed.
>>
>>Chuck
>>
>
>
> That whole line of discussion is fear mongering to discourage debris
> theft.
>
> The fuels dissipate in air after about 5 minutes of exposure and the
> superheated reentry and break-up makes it very likely to have happened
> well before intersection with the ground.
>
> Jerry
>
IIRCC the shuttle uses N204 and Hydrazine, hypergolic and hydroscopic
chemical.
When Titan II was deactivated, it took weeks to decon the tanks.
These propellants will permiate even stainless steel.
Nitrogen Tetroxide becomes Red Fuming Nitric Acid on contact with water.
TLV is 3 PPM. If you breath it, it eats at the lung lining and you
can drown in the residue.
Hydrazine attacks the nervous system. TLV is 0.1 PPM. If you smell it,
it's too late.
An explosion will dissipate the residue in the tanks but won't do
anything about the stuff that has soaked into the metal itself.
There may not be much left of the tanks, but any contact could cause
serious harm.
Rocky Firth
GCGassaway
Jerry Irvine wrote:
>>>>>>From the commentary (educated) I have seen so far this morning (it is
about noon local here), the event that happened was vehicle and flight
specific, and delaying other shuttle launches would have little benfit to
program safety.
I hope a pattern of talk develops in the next 24-48 hours by Oberg especially
and by other heard voices generally, that going ahead without delay is
JUSTIFIED, since no redesign can avoid the likely failure mode experienced
here.
I vote for full speed ahead!
<<<<<<<<
High marks for enthusiasm for the manned space the program. Along the lines of
getting back onto the horse. But it's not prudent.
Challenger was lost in large part to “Go Fever”, flying regardless of
circumstances and serious problems that were ignored, or dismissed.
Nobody can really say that what happened today was vehicle and flight specific,
other than it was Columbia and STS-107. But that by itself has no bearing on
whether this can happen again with future shuttle missions.
Something went horribly wrong. Unlike Challenger, it may not be an inherent
design flaw. It may be a fluke. But whatever that was, it has to be understood
and changes made so it is extremely unlikely to happen again.
Heck, before Challenger, I had thought that if the shuttle had an accident it
would be more likely during re-entry.
Having said that, I am sure that the shuttles will fly again. But we only have
3 orbiters left now, it’s impossible now to build new ones (really short reason
why - assembly line, tooling, and trained worker base all gone). We have to
hope that the remaining ones fly safely, and that a reasonable replacement for
the shuttle is developed in a reasonable timeframe. No more half-attempts that
don’t get anywhere (Like VentureStar), because we can’t count on having enough
orbiters to keep flying them for decades like the B-52’s.
We need political leadership to provide strong backing to the space program.
Not to use this tragedy as an excuse to cut back or quit. And not for
opportunistic political supporters who offer their lip service support today,
but who do not in fact back it up later with their actions.
- George Gassaway
Jerry Irvine
gcgas...@aol.com (GCGassaway) wrote:
> Like everyone, I’m devastated by what happened this morning.
>
>
> Jerry Irvine wrote:
>
> >>>>>>From the commentary (educated) I have seen so far this morning (it is
> about noon local here), the event that happened was vehicle and flight
> specific, and delaying other shuttle launches would have little benfit to
> program safety.
>
> I hope a pattern of talk develops in the next 24-48 hours by Oberg especially
> and by other heard voices generally, that going ahead without delay is
> JUSTIFIED, since no redesign can avoid the likely failure mode experienced
> here.
>
> I vote for full speed ahead!
> <<<<<<<<
>
> High marks for enthusiasm for the manned space the program. Along the lines
> of
> getting back onto the horse. But it's not prudent.
>
> Challenger was lost in large part to “Go Fever”, flying regardless of
> circumstances and serious problems that were ignored, or dismissed.
Agreed. But a true rocket scientist knew it AT THE TIME since launch
followed icesicles hanging off the ship and discussion of launching
despite being below temperature limits. That political decision was not
the case this time. This truly WAS an accident.
It was lost ENTIRELY due to "GO FEVER".
>
> Nobody can really say that what happened today was vehicle and flight
> specific,
> other than it was Columbia and STS-107. But that by itself has no bearing on
> whether this can happen again with future shuttle missions.
>
> Something went horribly wrong. Unlike Challenger, it may not be an inherent
> design flaw. It may be a fluke. But whatever that was, it has to be
> understood
> and changes made so it is extremely unlikely to happen again.
Agreed. I simply feel it will be understood far sooner and have a
different resolution than Challenger.
>
> Heck, before Challenger, I had thought that if the shuttle had an accident it
> would be more likely during re-entry.
>
> Having said that, I am sure that the shuttles will fly again. But we only
> have
> 3 orbiters left now, it’s impossible now to build new ones (really short
> reason
> why - assembly line, tooling, and trained worker base all gone). We have to
> hope that the remaining ones fly safely, and that a reasonable replacement
> for
> the shuttle is developed in a reasonable timeframe. No more half-attempts
> that
> don’t get anywhere (Like VentureStar), because we can’t count on having
> enough
> orbiters to keep flying them for decades like the B-52’s.
Point, but I for one am willing to set aside that fact entirely in the
analysis of whether to fly or not. That decision should be 100% safety
driven, not asset management driven.
>
> We need political leadership to provide strong backing to the space program.
GFL.
> Not to use this tragedy as an excuse to cut back or quit. And not for
> opportunistic political supporters who offer their lip service support today,
> but who do not in fact back it up later with their actions.
>
> - George Gassaway
>
"Full speed ahead."
"let's roll."
Jerry
Jerry Irvine
> - George Gassaway
>
Do you and Matt make shuttles from molds? I have alot more of those
tubes handy.
Jerry
David Weinshenker
> What, in fact, are those hypergolic fuels? They were warning that if
> they are inhaled they will encircle the oxygen in you lungs and
> basically suffocate you in 48 hours. They did say they dissapate in
> time, but the name has not been disclosed.
The oxidizer is nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4), the fuel is mono methyl hydrazine IIRC.
-dave w
Stephen
--
Stephen Corban
NAR# 81338
GYRO# 1
When all fails, find someone
who knows what they are doing
www.geocities.com/ilrocketboy
Tripoli Quad Cities
"Tom of Bunyon" <t2...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:2EQ_9.22639$%12.2...@news.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Balsa Boy" <lovely...@norwegianblue.com> wrote in message
> news:bIQ_9.9341$dC3....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> > This is bad, the shuttle's disappeared.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Communications disappeared over Texas at 209,000 ft.
>
> They are showing a video as it passed over Dallas & it looked like a
number
> of big chunks came off it looking just like the Mir breakup.
>
> It's now overdue at the Cape.
>
>
>
Stephen
--
Stephen Corban
NAR# 81338
GYRO# 1
When all fails, find someone
who knows what they are doing
www.geocities.com/ilrocketboy
Tripoli Quad Cities
"Balsa Boy" <lovely...@norwegianblue.com> wrote in message
news:keR_9.9351$dC3....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> "Stones" <ston...@xxxnew.rr.com> wrote:
> > 200,000 ft.
> > doesn't look like any chance of bailout at that altitude :(
>
> I'd rather not even speculate about the fate of the crew. I just
> think (as John said) their families and friends need our prayers
> right now.
>
> I wonder if telemetry was re-acquired after the re-entry, and prior
> to the apparent breakup. i.e., is there a chance that the problem
> can be ID'ed from the data stream.
>
> I am hearing that there is some suspicion being placed on some
> debris which hit Columbia's left wing during liftoff two weeks ago.
>
> Whatever the cause, this surely ends the shuttle program.
>
>
>
Tom of Bunyon
"Chuck Rudy" <cgru...@tradenet.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3E3C367C...@tradenet.nospam.net...
Monomethyl Hydrazine and Nitrogen Tetroxide.
MMH is so poisonous that if you can smell it you've just inhaled a lethal
dose.
Stephen
--
Stephen Corban
NAR# 81338
GYRO# 1
When all fails, find someone
who knows what they are doing
www.geocities.com/ilrocketboy
Tripoli Quad Cities
"Jerry Irvine" <01ro...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:01rocket-C90F15...@news.bellatlantic.net...
> In article <keR_9.9351$dC3....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
> "Balsa Boy" <lovely...@norwegianblue.com> wrote:
>
> > I am hearing that there is some suspicion being placed on some
> > debris which hit Columbia's left wing during liftoff two weeks ago.
>
> Yes and aging of airframe. Columbia went into service in 1981. Are there
> any commercial aircraft allowed that old?
>
> >
> > Whatever the cause, this surely ends the shuttle program.
>
> Do not speculate.
Darren J Longhorn
<vernaran...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Darren J Longhorn <darrenl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:s19o3vchfmeit9h8t...@4ax.com...
>
>> >What were they bringing back?
>> The science labs in the payload bay that they took up.
>
>Well yes but the inference was that it was heavier coming back, than going
>up meaning they picked up something. Just a moment ago, I heard that they
>picked up a satellite to bring home, so that would make sense that it was
>substantially heavier.
No, it wasn't heavier coming back. It's just that it was the heaviest
thing they ever took up, that they also brought back. Where did you
hear that they picked up a satellite?
--
Darren J Longhorn http://www.geocities.com/darrenlonghorn/
NSRG #005 http://www.northstarrocketry.org.uk/
UKRA #1094 L2 RSO http://www.ukra.org.uk/
Stephen DeArman
>Where did you hear that they picked up a satellite?
One of the cable news channels, don't know which one, I was flipping through
about a dozen at the time trying to see or hear the latest.
I've since heard on several networks what Bob said, about the spacehab
thing. I was wrong. My apologies.
Randy
john
I've skydived from a DC-3 recently. Of course, skydivers ARE cargo, not
passengers.
>
> tim
Darren J Longhorn
<vernaran...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Darren J Longhorn <darrenl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:2lio3v8ci4dv8gecq...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 01 Feb 2003 20:39:48 GMT, "Stephen DeArman"
>> <vernaran...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Where did you hear that they picked up a satellite?
>
>One of the cable news channels, don't know which one, I was flipping through
>about a dozen at the time trying to see or hear the latest.
>
>I've since heard on several networks what Bob said, about the spacehab
>thing. I was wrong. My apologies.
That's OK.
Stephen DeArman
> That's OK.
Fox and CBS both have just reported, confirmed body remains found in
Louisiana by medical personel.
Randy
Chris Eilbeck
> Monomethyl Hydrazine and Nitrogen Tetroxide.
>
> MMH is so poisonous that if you can smell it you've just inhaled a
> lethal dose.
The limit at which you can smell MMH is the maximum allowable daily
dose. This comes from a propellant handling course run by Astrium in
the UK.
Chris
--
Chris Eilbeck mailto:ch...@yordas.demon.co.uk
MARS Flight Crew http://www.mars.org.uk/
UKRA #1108 Level 2 UYB
TRA #9527 PSMR
Chuck Rudy
Chuck
John DeMar
> We need political leadership to provide strong backing to the space program.
> Not to use this tragedy as an excuse to cut back or quit. And not for
> opportunistic political supporters who offer their lip service support today,
> but who do not in fact back it up later with their actions.
Our Congressman here in central NY state (Jim Walsh) was on TV talking
about the disaster. Local high school students had their "ants in space"
experiment on board (co-sponsored by Syracuse University, where I teach).
He and some of the students went down for the launch and met the families
of the astronauts. Walsh was very emotional about it, of course, but said
he would make sure NASA get the funding it needs (he's on the approprations
committee), and whatever was wrong would get fixed. I'll make sure to write
him a letter urging him to keep up the support.
-John DeMar
Jerry Irvine
<OaY_9.16766$rq4.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Stephen DeArman" <vernaran...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
LA means the debris field is over 100 mi long.
Jim Yanik
> On Sat, 01 Feb 2003 20:39:48 GMT, "Stephen DeArman"
><vernaran...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Darren J Longhorn <darrenl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:s19o3vchfmeit9h8t...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> >What were they bringing back?
>>> The science labs in the payload bay that they took up.
>>
>>Well yes but the inference was that it was heavier coming back, than
>>going up meaning they picked up something. Just a moment ago, I heard
>>that they picked up a satellite to bring home, so that would make
>>sense that it was substantially heavier.
>
> No, it wasn't heavier coming back. It's just that it was the heaviest
> thing they ever took up, that they also brought back. Where did you
> hear that they picked up a satellite?
>
I had heard that it was a science mission,and they had no capability for
spacewalks.They also had no robot arm.Thus,no pickup of any satellites.
They mentioned that the robot arm could have been used to inspect the areas
suspected of losing tiles,but they had no suits,and the tile replacement
kits had been taken off all orbiters,no way to repair any damage found.
That's going to have to change.
--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
remove X to contact me
Jim Yanik
news:20030201110413...@mb-df.aol.com:
>>
>>Whatever the cause, this surely ends the shuttle program.
>>
>
> What about the fate of the ISS (International Space Station)? How are
> se going to get the current residents home? How are we going to
> maintain the station? Through Progress and Soyus craft alone?
>
> David S. Chen
Columbia was not capable of mating with the ISS.We still have all the
shuttles capable of doing that job.
Jim Yanik
EEFC7C.121...@news.bellatlantic.net:
> In article <3e3c27e0.20371147@nntp>,
> LFL...@NOSPAM.rogers.com (Len Lekx) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:52:16 -0500, Mark Simpson
>> <mark.s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >There are DC-9's and other commercial jets (not to mention B-52's) way
>> >older than 1981.
>>
>> But they're not subjected to anything *near* the stresses that a
>> Shuttle goes through during takeoff and landing. Wild guess, I'd say
>> that a Shuttle ages ten times faster than a DC-9.
>>
>
> Point.
>
> From the commentary (educated) I have seen so far this morning (it is
> about noon local here), the event that happened was vehicle and flight
> specific, and delaying other shuttle launches would have little benfit
> to program safety.
>
> I hope a pattern of talk develops in the next 24-48 hours by Oberg
> especially and by other heard voices generally, that going ahead without
> delay is JUSTIFIED, since no redesign can avoid the likely failure mode
> experienced here.
>
> I vote for full speed ahead!
>
> Jerry
>
> To infinity, and beyond!
>
There should be means to inspect the outer surface before re-entry,and
means to repair any tile damage found.
(the Orlando TV stations reported that the sequence of telemetry failures
could indicate a burn-thru from lost tiles,and that take-off video showed
that something came off the Ext tank and struck the left wing,the same one
that had overtemp indications,tire pressure loss indications, and loss of
telemetry.)
Reece Talley
it's safe to say we do have some old acft still flying.
"Stephen DeArman" <vernaran...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:oXU_9.26399$zF6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Mark Simpson <mark.s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:3E3AC5E0...@comcast.net...
> > Jerry Irvine wrote:
>
> > There are DC-9's and other commercial jets (not to mention B-52's) way
> > older than 1981.
>
she
> is. 24 years +.
>
> Randy
>
>
>
Jim Yanik
news:ukT_9.74008$Ib.15...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com:
> "Quilly Mammoth" <kali...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:W3T_9.9975$15....@www.newsranger.com...
>> We have witnessed the death of seven valiant people and quite
>> possibly the death of the American Space Program.
>>
> I seriously doubt that. America will "endeavor to percervier" as it
> always has. That's why this country is what it is. Have faith.
>
> Stones
Would that be "persevere",not "percervier"?
Bob Kaplow
>>The hypergolic fuels in the orbiter are quite toxic. After a normal landing,
>>a ground crew in space suit like garb "safe"s the bird before anyone goes in
>>or out.
>
> they are inhaled they will encircle the oxygen in you lungs and
> basically suffocate you in 48 hours. They did say they dissapate in
> time, but the name has not been disclosed.
monomethyl hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
>>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://www.pleimling.org/le/Phantom4000.pdf
www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
26-October, 2001: A day that will live in infamy
Support Freedom: http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/
Homeland Security Administration: The Gestapo of the 21st Century
Jim Yanik
> "Stephen DeArman" <vernaran...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fox, President Bush just said the space program will go on. So
>> anyone that was ready to bury NASA and manned flight can put your
>> shovels away.
>
> No, we won't bury NASA - or manned flight - but this will almost
> certainly be the death knell for the current space shuttle design. A
> 2% PROVEN failure rate is simply unacceptable for a sustained, manned
> launch program.
>
> My prediction? We'll see a few more missions, but only critically
> important ones for ISS. And ONLY after agreeing to retire the shuttle
> fleet ASAP and in conjunction with funding a replacement system.
>
>
>
>
IMO,NASA suspected tile damage while they were in orbit,and still allowed
them to attempt re-entry,*gambling* that burn-thru would not occur.
(Although Columbia had no means to inspect,nor repair any damage found.)
GCGassaway
>>>>Columbia was not capable of mating with the ISS.We still have all the
shuttles capable of doing that job.<<<<
It was not ideal, but could be outfitted. Columbia was going to be used for an
ISS mission this fall, September or October.
The reason Columbia was not ideal is that it was the heaviest orbiter. As it
was being built, it was realized it was stronger than necessary, so others
built later were built a little more lightly.
ISS is in such a highly inclination orbit that it takes a lot of delta-vee to
get there. The high inclination orbit robs a lot of the velocity boost that can
be obtained by the Earth’s rotation. So for ISS assembly flights, Columbia
weighed too much to take a significantly heavy part there, and still have a
decent reserve of OMS fuel. But the ISS mission it was going to do in the fall
was not going to involve a lot of payload mass.
One of the many ironies is that about a year ago, there was very serious
consideration of mothballing Columbia. Since at the time there were only two
non-ISS missions on the books.
BTW - I am not suggesting in any way at all that had it been mothballed, this
kind of accident would not have happened. Whatever happened likely was
something that could have happened to any shuttle regardless of specific
orbiter. If the chain of events turns out to have been started by foam coming
off the ET during launch, hitting the orbiter to cause tile damage, it didn’t
matter which orbiter it was any more than in the Challenger accident.
- George Gassaway
Mark Simpson
>
> Monomethyl Hydrazine and Nitrogen Tetroxide.
>
> MMH is so poisonous that if you can smell it you've just inhaled a lethal
> dose.
Neither of which can survive 3000F during reentry. There are radioactive
nucleides on the shuttle,IIRC, however that could survive.
Mark Simpson
NAR 71503 Level II
Bob Kaplow
> There should be means to inspect the outer surface before re-entry,and
> means to repair any tile damage found.
There is a way at least to inspect the orbiter. THe military (AF, maybe NSA
or NORAD) has a camera capable of resolving "the laces on a baseball in
GEO". THey tried to use it on STS-1 to get a picture of Columbia's first
flight when they were concerned about tile damage. Of course even that
camera doesn't work when it's cloudy...
Bob Kaplow
> IMO,NASA suspected tile damage while they were in orbit,and still allowed
> them to attempt re-entry,*gambling* that burn-thru would not occur.
>
> (Although Columbia had no means to inspect,nor repair any damage found.)
If that was the case, it's not really any different than the way they
handled Glenn's Mercury flight. The alternative to bringing them home would
be to leave them up there...
Neil Tarasoff
Neil
Stones wrote:
>
> 200,000 ft.
> doesn't look like any chance of bailout at that altitude :(
>
Jerry Irvine
kapl...@eisner.encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) wrote:
> In article <Xns9315C45E831...@204.117.192.21>, Jim Yanik
> <jya...@kua.net> writes:
> > There should be means to inspect the outer surface before re-entry,and
> > means to repair any tile damage found.
>
> There is a way at least to inspect the orbiter. THe military (AF, maybe NSA
> or NORAD) has a camera capable of resolving "the laces on a baseball in
> GEO". THey tried to use it on STS-1 to get a picture of Columbia's first
> flight when they were concerned about tile damage. Of course even that
> camera doesn't work when it's cloudy...
But they have on-orbit versions now.
Jerry
Stephen
This is a really sad day
--
Stephen Corban
NAR# 81338
GYRO# 1
When all fails, find someone
who knows what they are doing
www.geocities.com/ilrocketboy
Tripoli Quad Cities
"Stephen DeArman" <vernaran...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:OaY_9.16766$rq4.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Chris Taylor Jr
they "thought" their might be a problem to when all hell broke loose was
mere seconds literally.
No time to even unbuckle.
they really need to design a crew cabin seperation like they had in planning
for the shuttle. where it could have an automated system to eject the entire
crew cabin. they really need something like that.
Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/
"Stones" <ston...@xxxnew.rr.com> wrote in message
news:80R_9.44232$wE.12...@twister.kc.rr.com...
David
through the atmosphere. The shuttle has to maneuver carefully to keep the
tiled surface at the proper angle. The least bit of roll, and the shuttle
spins uncontrollably and burns up. There is no way to jettison a cabin at
that phase of re-entry, and keep it stable. It would disintegrate
instantly.
-- David
"Chris Taylor Jr" <nos...@nerys.com> wrote in message
news:VB%_9.2830$gU.6...@news2.voicenet.com...
David Weinshenker
>
> That would do absolutely no good. They're traveling at 12,000 MPH and going
> through the atmosphere. The shuttle has to maneuver carefully to keep the
> tiled surface at the proper angle. The least bit of roll, and the shuttle
> spins uncontrollably and burns up. There is no way to jettison a cabin at
> that phase of re-entry, and keep it stable. It would disintegrate
> instantly.
The cabin would have to be a reentry-capable capsule in itself (like the
Mercury/Gemini/Apollo spacecraft, for example) for such a thing to work.
Space flight has an "eggs in one basket" nature to it that's probably
pretty much unavoidable. The trick is to build a _really_ good basket.
-dave w
RayDunakin
or NORAD) has a camera capable of resolving "the laces on a baseball in GEO".>>
Didn't the shuttle visit the ISS? If so, couldn't the folks on the ISS look the
shuttle over?
John DeMar
> There is a way at least to inspect the orbiter. THe military (AF, maybe NSA
> or NORAD) has a camera capable of resolving "the laces on a baseball in
> GEO". THey tried to use it on STS-1 to get a picture of Columbia's first
> flight when they were concerned about tile damage. Of course even that
> camera doesn't work when it's cloudy...
The CIA used a KH to inspect the STS-1 tiles. Modified the orbit a little
and got excellent shots, at least that's what was written in "Prescription
for Disaster".
-John
Bob Kaplow
No. Very different orbits. I never got a chance to see it, but if it hadn't
been so cloudy Columbia would have been visible here the past several
mornings. ISS would have been in the evening.
Columbia, being heavier than the other shuttles, can't reach the ISS orbit
with any significant payload on board. And the Spacehab from this flight was
the heaviest payload ever returned to earth via the Shuttle.
Alan Jones
<vernaran...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Balsa Boy <lovely...@norwegianblue.com> wrote in message
>news:YcV_9.9938$
>
>> My prediction? We'll see a few more missions, but only critically
>important
>> ones for ISS. And ONLY after agreeing to retire the shuttle fleet ASAP
>and in
>> conjunction with funding a replacement system.
>
>There will no doubt be sweeping changes.
I did notice that O'Keefe was wearing a red shirt. :(
I was surprised to learn that shuttles are flying without the tile
repair kit! But then, I guess they did not have EVA capability
anyway. This should be changed. But I'm so hoping that the problem
stems from an internal failure, rather than external tile damage. I
think the best possible finding would be that it was hit by a
meteorite during reentry. In that case, there is nobody to blame, and
nothing to fix.. In any case, I expect that they will build a
replacement shuttle, and not cancel or replace the fleet.
Alan
>Randy
>
Joel Corwith
Joel. ph
"RayDunakin" <raydu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030201223405...@mb-mt.aol.com...
Jerry Irvine
raydu...@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:
Wrong shuttle.
Wrong orbit.
Shit happens.