it's saturday morning, something has happened with the shuttle columbia. They haven't said that they know anything yet but they've lost contact with the shuttle over texas....
Printable View
it's saturday morning, something has happened with the shuttle columbia. They haven't said that they know anything yet but they've lost contact with the shuttle over texas....
they just showed pictures of the shuttle breaking up over texas. looks very bad.
Doesn't look good at all. The picture I have here would seem to show the ship in three pieces.
That doesn't look good:(
So - time for wild speculation... I was listening to the radio, and it took a world record 30 minutes to say "hey, maybe it was terrorism"...
This is terrible... We've grown so accustomed to NASA doing everything right that shuttle missions have gotten routine.
I wonder what'll happen to the space program now.
>>> a world record 30 minutes to say "hey, maybe it was terrorism"...
With an Israelii on board, I suppose that was inevitable. The launch was incredibly tight security.
>>> so accustomed to NASA doing everything right
Steady on cheez, a good number of NASA's recent missions have been total disasters. Mars Climate Orbiter, Mars Polar Lander, Contour...
>>> This is terrible...
That, on the other hand, is absolutely true.
the only way it could have been any kind of terrorism is a sabotage of some sort. it couldn't have been shot down from that altitude or speed.
I wonder if they will even be able to find out what happened. of course they have a lot of data that is transmitted to nasa but the craft will be mostly destroyed.
> Steady on cheez,
Right, but I haven't ever heard of anything going major wrong with the SS since Challenger.
> the only way it could have been any kind of terrorism is a sabotage of some sort.
That's true. I don't think it was terrorism, but since it had the first Israeli astronaut on it, it's gonna be the first thing out of some peoples' mouths...
>>> anything going major wrong with the SS since Challenger.
True.
During Columbias launch, some insulation material broke off the EFT and struck the left wing causing some "minor" damage to the thermal tiles. The thought at the time was that the damage was not bad though.
The first israelian austronaut was there :( :( :( :(
They were 6 times faster than the normal speed, I think they can't survive this.
>They were 6 times faster than the normal speed, I think they can't survive this.
Not only the speed is fatal. But also the height, they were at 63 kilometers height. Very sad.
> They were 6 times faster than the normal speed
I don't believe you - from what I heard everything was perfectly normal until they lost commuinication. Prove it or retract it.
This is what I hear from the news of Israel....Quote:
Originally posted by Govtcheez
> They were 6 times faster than the normal speed
I don't believe you - from what I heard everything was perfectly normal until they lost commuinication. Prove it or retract it.
Hehehe. Read this at the NOS, one of the central news organisations in the Netherlands about the Columbia: "De shuttle had toen zes keer de snelheid van het licht." Translation: "The shuttle then had six times the speed of light." Both funny and sad that such a serious organisation writes such crap.
It would seem all was going normally then a sudden break of comms. I think if they were x6 normal re-entry speed, the telemetry would have shown that - in fact, I suspect the ship would have burnt up.
>>> "The shuttle then had six times the speed of light."
Ah, so it has not crashed, it is a relativistic effect and she will actually land last Tuesday.
To be more correctly, they were 6 times faster than the sound-speed...
While I'm very sad for the shuttle and the crew, I'm also very sad about the future of the space program now. I love astronomy and wish we had more funding for exploration, but I'm certain this will cause major cutbacks like what happened after the Challenger explosion :(
I, too, am a huge space fan, and have frequently been outraged by financial cutbacks and cancellations of, relative to defence spending for example, cheap projects. What will happen now, with a bit of luck, is that the various space shuttle replacements that have been shelved or cancelled, "because we can keep the shuttle fleet flying for another 20 years if necessary", will be revived.
What a sad day. I just found out a couple of minutes ago. The sad thing is people may not pay attention to the actual crash, but who did it, although it could just be a case of bad luck.
Was it in space when it disintegrated? If so it will be the first deaths in space. This is very sad.
That sucks......I heard on the news that there was some hit of explosion or a debre that hit the space shuttle before it took off for space...this is the only thing that they know so far that could've gone wrong.
>>> Was it in space when it disintegrated?
No. If it had been in space, there would not have been the vapour trails. It was about 62km up.
The shuttle broke up right over us! When I heard the news, I stepped ouside and looked up at the vapor trail, it was very eerie. There are pieces scattered all over northern Texas, some still smoldering, too. It appears that the vehicle was destroyed by the heat of reentry in some way. They say it was travelling at about 12, 500 mph (MACH 18) and roughly at 200,000 feet. Very sad. When the Challenger exploded we were at the Kennedy Space Center on a school field trip, this time I'm not so shocked, but it's truly sad that this time they were just minutes from landing safely.
Its a good thing that nasa has other space shuttle and that russia can use their vihecles to help US. Because if the Columbia would of had been the only transport there is, there would be people on the spase station that would not know what would happen to them now.
Slow death is what I fear the most. Very sad.
Did the debrie kill anyone on the ground!?
its 5:45 pt and no reports of debris hitting anyone. this whole thing is bad, but whats worse it when i go out into the living room and turn on cnn and tell my roomies whats going on, and one of em goes "so, people die everyday" ohhh i was so ........ed,
sorry i shared but i had to vent.
Yeah, That's very rude, But i'm affraid to conclude he's right, InQuote:
Originally posted by dP munky
"so, people die everyday"
wars people die everyday, BUT, They knew that when they where
going to participete, And an accident's with space don't seem
to happen that often anymore, But what makes it so tragic is
because these people wen't up there to do something for science
and get rewarded like this. This is with war the same, But war is
a little pointless.
War is VERY pointless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally posted by Travis Dane
But war is
a little pointless.
But sometiems neseserry
See I told you I can't spell!
i know people die everyday but that doesnt mean you cant feel bad for the people and show a little simpathy
I AM! I thought i expressed that clearly in my post.Quote:
Originally posted by dP munky
i know people die everyday but that doesnt mean you cant feel bad for the people and show a little simpathy
And yes war is very pointless but on the other hand sometimes
required to reach something (like wordpeace), of course if whe
would all be nice people war would be unnessecary.....
good point!Quote:
Originally posted by Travis Dane
of course if whe would all be nice people war would be unnessecary.....
I give my grievances to the families of the astronauts. It was an unfortunate tragedy. But of course the astronauts and people in NASA knew the risks.
Honestly, I feel a lot of the stuff NASA does is a waste of time, money and an unnecessary risk to human lives. Seriously, what did we get from putting a man on the moon, rover on mars, and sending a satellite to take pictures of Jupiter? It seems pretty childish to me. I do know there have been many scientific advances made because of space exploration, and that the astronauts did actually perform some important experiments in the past two weeks they were in space. But in my opinion, there are more important things going on in the world and in the United States.
Just my 2cents.
Quote:
Originally posted by qwertiop
I give my grievances to the families of the astronauts. It was an unfortunate tragedy. But of course the astronauts and people in NASA knew the risks.
Honestly, I feel a lot of the stuff NASA does is a waste of time, money and an unnecessary risk to human lives. Seriously, what did we get from putting a man on the moon, rover on mars, and sending a satellite to take pictures of Jupiter? It seems pretty childish to me. I do know there have been many scientific advances made because of space exploration, and that the astronauts did actually perform some important experiments in the past two weeks they were in space. But in my opinion, there are more important things going on in the world and in the United States.
Just my 2cents.
What do you mean by this.. Space in the future of mankind..(in long terms.. 2000, 3000 years maybe)... These research has indirectly improved our lives(sattelites, mateirals developed in space research etc)...... All these are not a waste... They make us understand the universe and space better which in turn will benifit us.. For example on this mission a experiment on many disease were done like calcium wastage, muscle wasting etc(which is common in space).
So who know.. In another 0 thousand years we may start colonizing other planets....
Ok lets leave that there.. I feel verry sorry for all the members abroad.. and i think death would have been imediate...Everything would have vapourised.... Kalpana Chawala (The most experienced astronout on board) was an Indian and she was the dream of every little girl in India...
Let all the 7 peoples soul rest in peace..
Quote:
Originally posted by qwertiop
I give my grievances to the families of the astronauts. It was an unfortunate tragedy. But of course the astronauts and people in NASA knew the risks.
Honestly, I feel a lot of the stuff NASA does is a waste of time, money and an unnecessary risk to human lives. Seriously, what did we get from putting a man on the moon, rover on mars, and sending a satellite to take pictures of Jupiter? It seems pretty childish to me. I do know there have been many scientific advances made because of space exploration, and that the astronauts did actually perform some important experiments in the past two weeks they were in space. But in my opinion, there are more important things going on in the world and in the United States.
Just my 2cents.
What do you mean by this.. Space in the future of mankind..(in long terms.. 2000, 3000 years maybe)... These research has indirectly improved our lives(sattelites, mateirals developed in space research etc)...... All these are not a waste... They make us understand the universe and space better which in turn will benifit us.. For example on this mission a experiment on many disease were done like calcium wastage, muscle wasting etc(which is common in space).
So who know.. In another 10 thousand years we may start colonizing other planets....
Ok lets leave that there.. I feel verry sorry for all the members abroad.. and i think death would have been imediate...Everything would have vapourised.... Kalpana Chawala (The most experienced astronout on board) was an Indian and she was the dream of every little girl in India...
Let all the 7 peoples soul rest in peace..
>Seriously, what did we get from putting a man on the moon,
>rover on mars, and sending a satellite to take pictures of Jupiter?
Just like technological developments for military purposes, also technological developments for space has a lot of applications in our daily live. Think about communication technology, think about laser technology and there is probably a lot more things developed for space that we currently use, but usually we are not aware of it.
That post sounds even better the second time vasanath!
exactly what I thought of!Quote:
Originally posted by face_master
That post sounds even better the second time vasanath!
That's very bad news, expecially because those were astronauts, and there are few of them arround the world.
Let the souls of this poor people rest in peace...
How about we change that to.....50 years? Science andQuote:
Originally posted by vasanth
10 thousand years we may start colonizing other planets....
technology reached just about it's peak in terms of speed.
And we keep learning more and more, faster and faster.
I'm pretty certain i'l be on mars in 50 years.:)
I think what i mean is colonizing another planet in 10 thousand years is so out of perspective for me. I'm more interested in advances close to home, that I will be able to see in my lifetime.
And I may be wrong, but I just don't see man landing on Mars in 50 years, let alone a practical purpose for it.
All long journeys start with the first step.
theyre selling debris on ebay, well they were, but ebay pulled a lot of em!! can you believe that, and now everybodys selling patches and pins, coins etc.
wow, give your life to space exploration and people will sell your fame on ebay for 4.95
>>theyre selling debris on ebay, well they were, but ebay pulled a lot of em!! can you believe that, and now everybodys selling patches and pins, coins etc. <<
hmmmmm, I may be wildly wrong here but does anyone else see any correlation between this kind of thing and the topic in the other 'Violence in the USA' thread? I mean these people obviously feel that making a quick buck is more important than respecting the lives of those dead. Now in the other thread, I have no doubt that most of those gun crimes were over money, directly or indirectly (e.g. drug territories). Seems to me that certain people in America and indeed increasingly in my country have a very low appreciation of the value of human life compared to the value of their own bank account.
>>America and indeed increasingly in my country have a very low appreciation of the value of human life compared to the value of their own bank account.
WOW! well put,
i went through and looked at like 4000, seriously 4000 items, before i came across this one ...http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...category=13904
at least there is one good hearted person out there
Seven people died. That's not too many.
In the news yesterday, after that 6-7 minutes long reportage about the space shuttle, it was mentioned in a half minute long reportage, that a train recently has de-railed in DR Congo, where 77 people died.
Thus, I mourn that catastrophe 11 times more.
Media thing, you do it in front of television cameras, it doesn't matter what you did, it'll be blown out of proportion.
Train crash in front of a TV camera would make the major news bulletins around the world, wherever it had happened, because they have pictures.
i agree, to some extent, space shuttles dont crash every day though, NOT to downplay a train wreckQuote:
Originally posted by adrianxw
Train crash in front of a TV camera would make the major news bulletins around the world, wherever it had happened, because they have pictures.
Unfortunately, from the news producers point of view, a "good" train crash with good pictures, and a shuttle accident would constitute a good day.
Gotta hate 'em all...
I obviously didn't read this whole thread, i just wish to state my condolences to the family's of those who died. They died living a dream, and god bless them.
-RoD
that's what they said in the 50's, i suppose they are all living on mars RIGHT now! :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by Travis Dane
How about we change that to.....50 years? Science and
technology reached just about it's peak in terms of speed.
And we keep learning more and more, faster and faster.
I'm pretty certain i'l be on mars in 50 years.:)
I thought I should inject some insensitivity here ->
"... we shall pay any price, bear any burden.."
by John F. Kennedy US PRESIDENT
Just a setback but that's what makes an american an american we get up, dust ourselves off and continue undounted.
I disagree. No american tradgety has ever let us walk away undounted, and this is good. To be undounted by this would be to go on without caring for those who have fallen.Quote:
Originally posted by OneStiffRod
I thought I should inject some insensitivity here ->
"... we shall pay any price, bear any burden.."
by John F. Kennedy US PRESIDENT
Just a setback but that's what makes an american an american we get up, dust ourselves off and continue undounted.
What makes us american is that we always come back to a stronger glory, but only because we ARE effected by these events. I don't think any american should forget that stab that we all (i hope) felt as we saw our fellow men and women, even those from another country, explode ine skies above america, and i hope that every american, despite age, race, or belief, can join our leaders in the mourning of those who have fallen, living their dream so that we may hope to see a better future.
God bless you, all seven of you.
Well I din't said it in the 50's but NOW:)Quote:
Originally posted by Commander
that's what they said in the 50's, i suppose they are all living on mars RIGHT now! :rolleyes:
So, am I the only person in the world capable of keeping a level head in so called "tragedies". So a 20 year old piece of machinery breaks down and kills some people, it was bound to happen. Machines fail eventually, no amount of maintenance can prevent that. The only thing that can be done is to try to have them fail in a controlled manner. It just wasn't the case this time. Big deal.
Quote:
Originally posted by deathstryke
So, am I the only person in the world capable of keeping a level head in so called "tragedies". So a 20 year old piece of machinery breaks down and kills some people, it was bound to happen. Machines fail eventually, no amount of maintenance can prevent that. The only thing that can be done is to try to have them fail in a controlled manner. It just wasn't the case this time. Big deal.
aside from why it happend, it is still a tragedy, that is not put out of question simply because of the reason.
Your relative gets shot in a drug war walking down the road, we know why, still sad.
Not really. It would probably be some much needed chlorine for the old gene pool. I can't stand my relatives. Or many other people for that matter.Quote:
Your relative gets shot in a drug war walking down the road, we know why, still sad.
Thats sad man, really sad.Quote:
Originally posted by deathstryke
Not really. It would probably be some much needed chlorine for the old gene pool. I can't stand my relatives. Or many other people for that matter.
Well my view is that it is very tragic, although no more tragic than any other. Of course there are obvious risks when travelling through the atmosphere at mach 20, and as with all professions, there are risks that some are willing to take, and that is their choice. What is really sad is that it is probably due more to negligence for not replacing Columbia sooner than for any other reason I think. Why must they reenter so fast, anyway? Takes too much gas to fight gravity, I suppose?
>>> Takes too much gas to fight gravity, I suppose?
Watch the launch, you can see how much energy it takes to get them up there, and up to orbital speed. In other words, yes, aerobraking needs control but not much fuel, more fuel you need, heavier the vehicle, the more fuel you need to control it...
I think they re-enter that fast so that they aren't overly exposed to the heat of the atmosphere, but i'm probably wrong.
Bassicly, I think wheyre not yet prepared to go into space.Quote:
Originally posted by adrianxw
>>> Takes too much gas to fight gravity, I suppose?
Watch the launch, you can see how much energy it takes to get them up there, and up to orbital speed. In other words, yes, aerobraking needs control but not much fuel, more fuel you need, heavier the vehicle, the more fuel you need to control it...
Mainly because the technology isn't there, Sure you can get into
space with brute force by means of igniting a huge amount of
fuel, But that's dangerous, Bad for the nature, Expensive.
I saw alot of new technology's developed far better than just
ordinary gas fuel.
>>>
I think they re-enter that fast so that they aren't overly exposed to the heat of the atmosphere, but i'm probably wrong.
<<<
It is the speed of re-entry that creates the friction that creates the heat.
Basically, in space, the orbiter, (or whatever), can, (and have too), travel very fast simply to orbit. Think about it, if you throw a stone vertically up in the air, it falls down again - gravity. Now throw the same stone horizontally, it falls to the ground, but some distance away. Throw it harder, (i.e. give it more velocity), it lands even further away. Now, consider this, if you threw the stone fast enough the stone would start falling to the ground, but the Earth is round, so it falls and falls, but the Earth's surface is "falling away" at the same rate, hence the stone never hits the ground - it has orbital velocity. (In practice you couldn't do this at ground level because the speed needed to acheive orbit would generate so much heat, the stone would vapourise!).
Next problem, the atmosphere. If you move something through the atmosphere, it pushes through the air. The air in front of the object has to rush around the object and take it's place behind the object, in doing so it creates friction, (more correctly called "drag" in aerodynamic terms), which creates heat. If you rub your hand accross a carpet for example, you feel your hand getting warm, rub it faster, you feel it get warmer.
Now, you have a space craft at orbital velocity in space where there is little or no drag, but you want it on the ground at zero speed. You have very little fuel to slow yourself down, because fuel is heavy, so what you do instead, is slow yourself a little, i.e. to just under orbital velocity, and you begin to fall in a long arc to the ground. As you get deeper into the atmosphere the drag, and the friction, increase, hence the the heat, but you also shed velocity since the friction slows you down, it acts a a brake, indeed, this is technically known as "aerobraking".
Now, as long as you can shield yourself from that heat, (which can be thousands of degrees), you get a free braking mechanism, a little fuel to keep the craft at the right angle, but otherwise, the atmosphere is doing all the work.
What may have happened to Columbia, is that some of the ceramic tiles which shield the ship from this heat have been damaged or knocked off, and the heat has got at the ship itself, damaging or melting parts of it. If that happens to a critical component, it can break, and cause a catastrophic failure of the entire system, remember, although it does not have orbital velocity any more, it is still going REALLY fast. (A Concorde airliner flies at Mach 2, these guys were doing Mach 18 when it started to go wrong). Loose a bit of wing or similar at those speeds and the thing will simply tumble out of control and break up in a fraction of a second.
I hope that makes sense. (To those who know more, yes, I know it is more complicated than that in practice, but that is essentially what is happening!).
TD:
>>> I think wheyre not yet prepared to go into space.
The problem with that kind of argument is that really, no one would ever get anywhere. If you sail a boat a few metres from the shore, and it doesn't sink, great - boats work! Sail the same boat out into the Ocean and it founders, okay, learn from that and build a better boat.
Point, you develop boats for centuries that work a few metres from the shore, but they may still fail further out - you just have to try them.
As for the newer technologies, have you seen any new technology capable of lifting a load, however small into orbit? They may come, but they're not available today.
And i quote that i said that far better means of transportation
are now under development, Why continue on the brute fuel
ignition method?
Quote:
Originally posted by Travis Dane
I saw alot of new technology's developed far better than just
ordinary gas fuel.
>>> Why continue on the brute fuel ignition method?
... and I quote...
Quote:
have you seen any new technology capable of lifting a load, however small into orbit?
Not yet, But wheyre working on it hard, As i said, There are someQuote:
Originally posted by adrianxw
>>> Why continue on the brute fuel ignition method?
... and I quote...
promosing technology's out there. At the moment, No there isn't
something capable of performing that task, But i don't find it
worth risking human lives just to go a little earlier into space.
Travis, you mind if I ask how old you are?
I feel something bad heading my way, 15.Quote:
Originally posted by Govtcheez
Travis, you mind if I ask how old you are?
OK, that's about what I thought.
Ok, Come on, Cough it up!Quote:
Originally posted by Govtcheez
OK, that's about what I thought.
Nothing - you just act your age.
How about specifying why you think that? Am I too carefull?Quote:
Originally posted by Govtcheez
Nothing - you just act your age.
Should whe just put some guys on a rocket and shoot them into
space? Well, Whatever....
Talking of technology for propelling rockets, a while ago I saw a program that had a demo of a new technology. It was, from what I remember (it was a while back) a laser or something similar that was projected onto the surface of a piece of metal coated in a substance of some sorts. Anyway, the result was a localised pressure increase (small explosion) against the coated surface. The demo had the laser on for a fraction of a second and blasted the piece of metal high up into the sky. It was cool, even if a little difficult to control.
>>> Should whe just put some guys on a rocket and shoot them into space?
Consider, if we had waited until a really safe launch technology existed, the first astronauts would have been suprised to find that their bones started deteriorating. We know that happens, because people have been in space and found it out. So now they go up knowing what to do about it.
Your approach may be commendable in terms of safety, but it is the boat a few metres from shore approach.
What alternative launch technologies are you thinking about anyway? I am well aware of the different types of engines being developed, (and cancelled willy-nilly by underfunding), and of different fuels being investigated. It is also possible that orbital velocities may be possible with SCRAM jets, (although I do not believe they are in any way safer than rocket engines - rockets have been around for centuries, despite a few cautious claims, I don't think anyone can say for sure their SCRAM worked! The Aussie machine looked interesting - just before it crashed.)
Wow - that's really cool. Would you happen to have a link to a video or story or something?
>>Wow - that's really cool. Would you happen to have a link to a video or story or something?<<
Sorry, it was a TV program I saw ages ago. Don't remember any details such as who was working with it or anything. I just remember the basics because it was so damn cool!!!
I agree with the fact that current technology developments isQuote:
Originally posted by adrianxw
What alternative launch technologies are you thinking about anyway? I am well aware of the different types of engines being developed, (and cancelled willy-nilly by underfunding), and of different fuels being investigated. It is also possible that orbital velocities may be possible with SCRAM jets, (although I do not believe they are in any way safer than rocket engines - rockets have been around for centuries, despite a few cautious claims, I don't think anyone can say for sure their SCRAM worked! The Aussie machine looked interesting - just before it crashed.)
still in it's child phase, But so are rockets, Sure rockets have been
around for a while but they where only used to blow up things,
not carrying people in, Rocket's aren't that safe.
>>>
a laser or something similar that was projected onto the surface of a piece of metal coated in a substance of some sorts.
<<<
I've not seen the demo you refer too, but, if you shine a very powerful laser onto an non reflective object, yes, you can get a small localised "explosion" as the energy of the laser is absobed. I remember a powerful Q-switched pulse laser blowing a hole in a piece of wood for example. If the wood had not been tethered, the explosion would have produced a force acting on the wood which would have reacted by moving away from the laser source.
A series of explosions behind a big blast shield have been proposed before. The British Daedalus star ship proposal used nuclear pulse drive. The concept has been proven with conventional explosives.
Another approach, once you are in space is to use a large solar sail to provide drive, but this does not work a long way from a star. A variation of solar sailing is to send the sailer off and provide the energy for the sail from orbital GigaWatt lasers, but even then, the inverse square law makes the energy required to drive the things greater distances impractical.
Laser Propulsion info:
http://www.google.com/search?q=laser+propulsion
http://science.howstuffworks.com/light-propulsion.htm
Video available here:
http://www.lightcrafttechnologies.com/gallery.html
Scramjet Info:
http://www.uq.edu.au/news/hyshot.phtml
http://www.mech.uq.edu.au/hyper/hyshot/
NASA is also experimenting with SCRAM jets, search google for "Hyper-X" or "X-43", or look here...
http://www.fas.org/spp/guide/usa/launch/x-43.htm
However, unlike uq, nasa has never achieved in-flight scramjet ignition despite its budget being many, many times greater.