Slashdot Mirror


Space Shuttle Columbia Breaks Up Over Texas

An anonymous reader writes "NASA lost communication with space shuttle Columbia shortly before its scheduled landing on Saturday. It was unclear whether there were any other problems." Various news programs have been showing debris falling from the sky, and NASA has declared an emergency.Update: 02/01 15:29 GMT by H : Confirmation has come - the shuttle has broken up over Texas while coming in for landing Florida.

57 of 2,115 comments (clear)

  1. God rest their souls by black_widow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    God rest their souls...

    1. Re:God rest their souls by imadork · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Let them watch cartoons. Do they really need to know about everything bad in the world right when it happens, live?

    2. Re:God rest their souls by Floody · · Score: 5, Insightful

      BTW, I hope they launch an *extensive* investigation into NASA's current MO, and upgrade the whole shebang for more safety and efficiency. They need some kind of failsafe to preserve these people's lives if disaster strikes.

      You know what, I'll just go ahead and say what I've been wanting to say for AGES about manned space flight. It's fucking dangerous. It's one of the most dangerous operations that any human can be involved with. No amount of investigation, upgrading, efficiency, or what not is going to change that basic nature of the equation. The energy involved at certain critical points (launch, reentry) is of such a high order that it simply isn't feasibly to introduce life-saving components. When something occurs at such critical points (which of course, is when it is most likely that something WILL go wrong), everyone is going to die. Period.

      The Russian and US space programs have known this for ages, but the US public just doesn't want to accept the fact that their are serious risks involved with putting human beings in orbit and getting them home safely. The complexity of the systems required to do such is of such an order of magnitude that it's just impossible to create any orbital delivery system that is completely failsafe.

      This isn't, by any account, to say that NASA shouldn't attempt to figure out what happened and prevent it from happening in the future. Of course they should, that's their job. But to expect that accidents will never occur is naive beyond reason.

      We need to either accept the inherent risks or quit putting people in orbit.

    3. Re:God rest their souls by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are a bad parent. If you can't bring yourself to override your children in a case such as this, you're going to raise a bunch of self-centered losers. Consider becoming an adult. Children need that in a parent.

      Idiot. Do you know why they are called children? Why they are considered dependents? Why kids cannot vote, why they can't drink, why they can't agree to contracts?

      Because children are not mentally nor emotionally capable of handling the grim realities pumped out by the media. The job of the parents is to protect children from these horrid images until those kids are mature enough to understand. It is the job of the parents to shelter the kids from the harsh realities of life. To take the raw data and figure out how to put it into terms that the kid can 1. understand and 2. not scar them mentally or emotionally.

      If you want to fuck your own kids up, that's fine, but don't tell other parents how to raise their own kids.

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
  2. This is terrible by march · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is terrible. Obviously, it is terrible for the team members on board and their families.

    But once we are done with the grief and morning for these great people, the space program will be severely hampered from further progress. We need this program to continue, and I'm afraid we've just killed it for twenty years.

    Very sad all around.

    1. Re:This is terrible by the+gnat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't want to sound cynical, because this is a truly terrible accident (I hope). But the truth is that manned space flight has been one expensive disaster anyway for the past three decades. The space shuttle has been a fairly massive waste of money, used more for PR purposes like sending John Glenn or the occasional Saudi or Israeli pilot up than for real science. I don't mean to impugn the bravery of the astronauts, but this is not the future of space travel, and neither is the ISS. The future of space travel is unmanned probes exploring every corner of the solar system.

      If the money spent on the ISS and the shuttle was diverted to projects like the Pathfinder, we'd have robots sampling Europa's oceans within the decade. Why risk human lives and billions of dollars on lower orbit?

    2. Re:This is terrible by shayne321 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is end of the a manned space program, at least for the short-term.

      I totally agree with this, but now NASA will be in a VERY tough spot. ISS's Expedition Six crew which went up in November I think are scheduled to return sometime in April or May. I couldn't imagine NASA ungrounding the shuttle fleet by then.. This brings about a whole round of questions... How long CAN the Expedition Six crew stay on the ISS? Can the Russian space program possibly return the astronauts to earth? Will NASA be forced to temporarily unground one shuttle for the mission, keeping everyone on pins and needles during the entire flight? This is a say day for NASA, space exploration, and humandkind in general.

      Shayne

      --
      Today I didn't even have to use my AK; I got to say it was a good day -- Icecube
    3. Re:This is terrible by torpor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here's my standard argument to this question; would that I need not have mentioned it in the light of this utter tragedy:

      Why keep putting humans into space?

      If we can develop the technique of moving Life into Space, we can better manage the resources of this planet.

      Being able to keep a Human alive in space is kinda like trying to grow massive crops of useful resources - corn, weed, etc.

      If we can master this, we can stop raping Earth.

      Imagine if we moved all of our heavy, dangerous, high-pollutant based industry to a place in space where super-dangerous materials of Earth magnitude are puny compared to what's natively there ...

      Not to mention delivery is just a drop away.

      It's cheap to move shit in Space, once you get up there and work it out!

      A lot cheaper than here on Earth.

      Face it, Space won't happen until we make it valuable, and the intrinsic values are too numerous to imagine right now.

      We get more from looking at things directly, sometimes - or at least being close to the things we're looking at - than the devices we use to look in our place.

      A good way to get the tech we need to actually put Life into Space, is simply to accept the challenge - and defeat it - of putting Human Beings happily in Space, able to survive.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    4. Re:This is terrible by Aanallein · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Why risk human lives and billions of dollars on lower orbit?
      Because humans are not coldly analytical beings. We need to keep dreaming. We need to have projects that capture our interest and imagination, projects that make us want to give everything we have, to strive just that tad harder.
      Not because this in itself is a goal, but because it is an essential ingredient for a future with a world we might actually someday be proud of.
    5. Re:This is terrible by blair1q · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then the disaster is one of information, not rocketry. The space program is not all about politics, but ocasionally needs to play politics to retain its funding. And it is the farthest thing from a disaster. It is has been utterly invaluable in inciting the development of technology, and the procedures for maintaining relatively excruciating safety for extremely dangerous operations involving hypercomplex devices.

      Astronautical research created the way our world works, and saves lives in the air and on the ground daily.

  3. Re:Very sad... by smasherbob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apparently it happened around 12,000 mph or thereabouts, at something like 200,000 feet. If something could be done, I pray that it was done.

    This is terrible news; it feels like the Challenger all over. Just as senseless, just as disturbing. These people risked their lives to better mankind, and it's terrible that this could happen to such noble people.

    I keep switching stations, and I'm tired of hearing about "6 Americans and 1 Israeli". 7 people were in that shuttle. It's frustrating that the media can't let go of war sensationalism even now, at a time like this.

  4. Re:Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To be perfectly honest, I think solving the problem scientifically so it won't happen again will save more lives than praying.

  5. Irresponsible Fear Mongering! by Confessed+Geek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    God Dammit! We don't yet have a singe reason to think that there was anything but a technical failure. I was getting pissed with all the news stations immediatly jumping around speculationg about security and terrorism, making worse a terrible tragedy and playing into the current propaganda machine. I'm disgusted to see this same sort of non-rational fearmongering here on slashdot.

    Wait. Watch. Pay attention. We don't need more noise in the signal.

    1. Re:Irresponsible Fear Mongering! by EpsCylonB · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm watching the BBC, I don't think they are war mongering, they acknowledge the fact that there was an Israeli onboard because it was made a big deal of before the the shuttle took off. They have also had a nasa bloke on the phone who has said that he thinks it is very unlikely that it could be a terrorist attack.

      The fact that there was an Israeli onboard does mean that terrorism is a significantly more likely cause than it would be if there wasn't. The news people would be incompetent if they didn't acknowledge this fact.

  6. Re:Holy fuck by chegosaurus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    With something made of metal and ceramic hitting the atmosphere at 12,000mph, things like this can *always* happen.

    Space exploration is hard and it is dangerous, and there's always the chance of an accident. All the people on board new this, all their families and colleagues on the ground knew this, but *they did it anyway*.

    I just hope the powers that be don't use their deaths as an excuse to write off what's left of the space programme.

  7. Too high and too fast for missiles... by bourne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    at an altitude of 200,000 feet (61km) and velocity of 12,000 miles per hour (19,000 km/h)

    That makes terrorism highly unlikely. That's too high and too fast for much of anything to hit it. It's more like a ballistic missile than an airplane at that point, and we all know how well the Star Wars project is faring.

  8. Broken tile, not terrorism...? by jpatokal · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Before y'all start foaming at the mouth about terrorism and Osama bin Laden's dastardly plots (now just how is al-Qaeda going to hit something moving at twice the speed of sound at an altitude of 200,000 ft, and if they've planted nasty things on board why not blow them up during ascent?), consider this bit from Spaceflight Now:

    During a mission status news conference yesterday, Entry Flight Director Leroy Cain was asked about any possible damage to the shuttle's thermal tiles during launch. The tiles are what protect the shuttle during the fiery reentry into Earth's atmosphere.

    Tracking video of launch shows what appears to be a piece of foam insulation from the shuttle's external tank falling away during ascent and hitting the shuttle's left wing near its leading edge.

    But Cain said engineers "took a very thorough look at the situation with the tile on the left wing and we have no concerns whatsoever. We haven't changed anything with respect to our trajectory design. It will be a nominal, standard trajectory."

    Make of that what you will. Odds are we are looking at an all-too-natural catastrophic failure though; shuttles are insanely complex beasts, and rapidly aging ones at that.

    But the damage has been done: the astronauts are dead, and the U.S. space program -- which never recovered from Challenger's loss -- may soon be dead as well.

    -j.

  9. fuckfuckfuck Not again! by farrellj · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe now, the Government will give NASA the money to build a new earth to orbit reusable spacecraft. Why do people have to die to convince the American Government to do something?!?!?!?!

    They are/were brave people who have created and flown in the Shuttle, but it is time to replace and retire the bird. Please presure your elected representatives to fund a new spacecraft so that we can have a safer vehicle to take us into space.

    ttyl
    Farrell

    --
    CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
  10. Re:Plutonium on board? by chegosaurus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you were taking a strong radioactive source into space, wouldn't you have to shield it in lead? Isn't weight *very* important when designing anything to be launched into space?

    Would you want to put something very radioactive in a very confined space with 7 people?

    Would you want to launch a strong radioactive source on top of a chemical rocket which always has a (slight) possiblitly of crashing?

    Somehow I doubt it. People need to calm down. What happened is bad enough without trying to frighten yourself, and others, with wild speculation.

  11. Re:Not funny in any way by Moritz+Moeller+-+Her · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Realize that some people make jokes about tragedies. It makes them feel better.

    Just because YOU don't want to make jokes, you should not stop others from doing so.
    The world is cruel enough, it is better to laugh at hardships than to cry because of them.

    What makes me really sad, is that now ALL the US money they spent on the space shuttle will go out to the US military probably.

    --
    Moritz
  12. This is terrible... by tgd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know a lot of you on Slashdot aren't old enough to remember when Challanger exploded at takeoff, and don't remember the uphoria and excitement that we all used to have when the Space Shuttle was new, or the excitement that a honest to God civilian was getting to go into space. In this era of any rich playboy with $20mil can get into space with enough effort, its hard to imagine what that was like for us, especially those of us who were young at the time.

    You also may not remember the emptiness when it became clear that NASA with public and short-sighted government pressure was shying away from manned space flight, and there was so much fear that it may never recover. This was a tragedy of epic proportions -- the possibility that we in the US (and as one of the major players in manned space flight) might shy away from exploration and adventure because it was dangerous.

    Things truely never recovered. The idiocy that is the Interational Space Station is a direct descendant of those events 17 years ago (almost to the day). The loss of our looking outward at greater feats, better manned spacecraft and the like are all descendant from that instant.

    Now we stand at the cusp of it happening again. This depresses me. People today just don't understand that taking risks is important to advancement, and death is part of taking risks... something explorers have understood for centuries, and a lot of people have seemed to have forgotten today.

    While part of me thinks NASA getting out of the manned space business, and dumping this massive waste of energy going into the ISS would be a good thing, because it may open up that exploration and adventure to those goverments or business who still have that sense of longing. I'm scared, though, that no one else will step up and take the reigns.

    I hope we as a nation can recognize this for what it was -- an unfortunate event, but an outcome that can be expected when pushing the boundaries. We should feel pride in the people who lost their lives here, and rise up, and continue to do what they gave their lives for. I hope we as Americans don't shrink away even more in fear.

    As potentially unpatriotic as it is to say, it makes me glad to know that the hope, energy and imagination of the billion people in China are there to step up, if we turn our backs on this important step in Humanity's future. It matters far more to me that we do this as a species then we do it as a nation. I hate the thought of what losing this would be a sign of for us as a country, though.

  13. High Flight by Necron69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    'High Flight' by John Gillespie Magee, Jr.

    I wept in 1986 as a child, now I do it again as a man. Goodbye and Godspeed...

    - Necron69

  14. Re:figures by Ponty · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because when people die in the pursuit of peaceful international cooperation and science, it's always a tragedy. That's all there is to it.

  15. Re:The shuttle was the oldest by wolf- · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I find it interesting, that others here are making claims against Bush and implying Bush has something to do with all of NASA's current money problems.

    Columbia was built in 1978, first flown in 1981. thats 3 years. Now, scroll the time back to the beginning of the design process. Even if Bush handed NASA an unlimited budget the day he made it into office, we wouldn't have a new shuttle to use today.

    Now, terrorism? Yeah, the terrorists have a missle that can hit a Mach20+ target. *sarcasm*

    Seven explorers died today. Get off your political high horses, and think about that. Accidents do happen.

    My thoughts are with the families of the crews.

    --
    ----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab
  16. End of Nuclear power in space.... by Skyshadow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In a related note, I would venture a guess that this is the end of the Bush administration's attempt to revive nuclear tech in space with project prometheus.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
  17. Re:Please by 1nv4d3r · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Say a small prayer.

    Why is it always a small prayer? What is the proper ratio of prayer time to disaster magnitude?

    If prayer works, and only a small prayer is required, then why didn't you pray before this happened, you insensitive clod?

    What exactly will you pray for? Is the ship supposed to reintegrate now?

    Do me a favor and say a long prayer. Quietly. That should keep you busy for a while. The rest of us have work to do.

  18. Re:Several Comments by trout_fish · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The shuttles are 30 year old technology with an immense amount of development time gone into it. Replacing the shuttles completely will take many, many years to develop systems and software. 30 year old technology is often still in use because it works.

  19. Re:I heard it by Aerog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course, the reason they want to kill you has nothing to do with their "tan colored skin" (and everything to do with their f*cked-up religion)

    Oh, now I get it! We're supposed to be discriminating against Muslims, not just middle-eastern people! Do you even stop to consider the fact that not every Muslim is a terrorist? It's like saying that every Catholic has 47 kids and will kill a Protestant on sight (a few of them do it in Northern Ireland, that must make it true). Same for Protestants, right? Or what about the undeniable fact that every Hindu either works in a convenience store or lives on the top of a mountain? Les't not even mention the Jews. We all know what THEY're like.

    Sir, you are a moron. The odds that terrorism is a factor in this tragedy are sitting at about 0.00000001% right now. They claim that some insulation fell from the shuttle when they launched. Well if my brief experience with thermodynamics is any lesson, it's that things (like space shuttles) get really hot when they have a lot of friction trying to stop their rapid movement (like when they're landing). If something did fall, then I'd be highly suspect that there was some sort of external problem with the shuttle which overheated and caused an explosion. Or maybe not. It's still a lot more likely than your "terrorism".

    --

    - Relativistic? That's barely Newtonian!
  20. Re:Very sad... by Catbeller · · Score: 4, Insightful

    " 20 or minutes or so " to hit the ground... i have to disagree. nowhere near that long. a minute or so, at most.

    sorrow. remorse. anger at the u.s. for not building more modern designs and retiring that overdesigned piece of aerospace contractage.

    NASA will get all the blame, but those astronauts today died of terminal cheapness on the U.S.'s part. The Shuttle is a late-60's design, bastardized by Air Force demands into a flying boxcar. the tiles were a good idea 32 years ago, but we should have built a new shuttle from newer alloys, based on what we learned from what is essentially a prototype space vehicle.

    but all this for later. i fear the euopean and U.S. manned space program will be killed from this.

    rest in peace, people.

  21. Re:Please by zulux · · Score: 5, Insightful


    I hope,

    That five years from now, the wife of one of the astornauts will one day look up and see the bright stars, and smile.

    That ten years from now, one of the children of the astronauts will pick up one of the dusty flight-manuals out of a dusty box, and read one.

    That fifteen years from now, one of the husbands will look across the breakfast table at his daughter be proud, knowing that his daughter is entering flight school - just like her mom.

    That 20 years from now, there will be a small memoral, to the fallen. Placed on the soil of Mars.

    --

    Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

  22. Reagan's day-of Challenger speech by LinuxParanoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    [Taken from here. Emphasis mine... --LP]

    President Reagan's Speech on The Challenger Disaster
    Oval Office of the White House
    January 28, 1986

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I'd planned to speak to you tonight to report on the state of the Union, but the events of earlier today have led me to change those plans. Today is a day for mourning and remembering. Nancy and I are pained to the core by the tragedy of the shuttle Challenger. We know we share this pain with all of the people of our country. This is truly a national loss.

    Nineteen years ago, almost to the day, we lost three astronauts in a terrible accident on the ground. But, we've never lost an astronaut in flight; we've never had a tragedy like this. And perhaps we've forgotten the courage it took for the crew of the shuttle; but they, the Challenger Seven, were aware of the dangers, but overcame them and did their jobs brilliantly. We mourn seven heroes: Michael Smith, Dick Scobee, Judith Resnik, Ronald McNair, Ellison Onizuka, Gregory Jarvis, and Christa McAuliffe. We mourn their loss as a nation together.

    For the families of the seven, we cannot bear, as you do, the full impact of this tragedy. But we feel the loss, and we're thinking about you so very much. Your loved ones were daring and brave, and they had that special grace, that special spirit that says, 'Give me a challenge and I'll meet it with joy.' They had a hunger to explore the universe and discover its truths. They wished to serve, and they did. They served all of us.

    We've grown used to wonders in this century. It's hard to dazzle us. But for twenty-five years the United States space program has been doing just that. We've grown used to the idea of space, and perhaps we forget that we've only just begun. We're still pioneers. They, the members of the Challenger crew, were pioneers.

    And I want to say something to the schoolchildren of America who were watching the live coverage of the shuttle's takeoff. I know it is hard to understand, but sometimes painful things like this happen. It's all part of the process of exploration and discovery. It's all part of taking a chance and expanding man's horizons. The future doesn't belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave. The Challenger crew was pulling us into the future, and we'll continue to follow them...

    I've always had great faith in and respect for our space program, and what happened today does nothing to diminish it. We don't hide our space program. We don't keep secrets and cover things up. We do it all up front and in public. That's the way freedom is, and we wouldn't change it for a minute. We'll continue our quest in space. There will be more shuttle flights and more shuttle crews and, yes, more volunteers, more civilians, more teachers in space. Nothing ends here; our hopes and our journeys continue. I want to add that I wish I could talk to every man and woman who works for NASA or who worked on this mission and tell them: "Your dedication and professionalism have moved and impressed us for decades. And we know of your anguish. We share it."

    There's a coincidence today. On this day 390 years ago, the great explorer Sir Francis Drake died aboard ship off the coast of Panama. In his lifetime the great frontiers were the oceans, and a historian later said, 'He lived by the sea, died on it, and was buried in it.' Well, today we can say of the Challenger crew: Their dedication was, like Drake's, complete.

    The crew of the space shuttle Challenger honoured us by the manner in which they lived their lives. We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for the journey and waved goodbye and 'slipped the surly bonds of earth' to 'touch the face of God.'

  23. Disaster magnitude? by robbo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Disaster magnitude? Hmm. Do you measure that in dollars, lives lost, or shaken public confidence? My first thought this morning was: why don't I get this upset over a downed twin-engine aircraft with seven passengers? Somehow this is bigger, but I hope it's not just because the plane they were flying was a lot more expensive..

    --
    So long, and thanks for all the Phish
    1. Re:Disaster magnitude? by starseeker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You measure it in dreams. This is a dream of humanity - to travel to the stars. It's as old as humanity, but its strength waxes and wanes with the tides of fortune. For thousands of years, humanity dreamed. Then, in the 20th century, they actually did it.

      I don't think we can understand how profound that step was. This dream is older than us, older than our civilization, and older than any history or record that survives the ravages of time. And now we've made it real. We've seen birds fly, but nothing living on this earth above the level of virus has ever ventured beyond it. That is a unique human achievement, perhaps in a sense our greatest.

      That is why this is a greater disaster. Because it hinders our pursuit of the dream. People do not stop flying because a twin-engine plane goes down. But there is a real chance our resolve will weaken, and we will let this dream slip back to the shadows. Mankind needs a dream, to reach for the unimaginable. Space is our dream. We cannot afford to lose it, or we lose much more than lives.

      We all have to die. The tragic part of this is that these people will not get to see their children grow up, and their families suffer one of the greatest losses they can suffer. But if I were to pick the way I would die, daring the exploration of the stars is a great way to go. Better to die daring greatly, then remain always what might have been. That is our risk, and that is humanity's risk - that we become what might have been. We make mistakes, we suffer loss, but we dare greatness. That is what makes humanity worthwhile.

      --
      "I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
  24. Re:Not funny in any way by wildchild07770 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's called levity, in the face of horrible tragedy people need to laugh. This may be one of the worst disasters in space exploration ever. It's going to set space reaserch and exploration back YEARS when we're already decades behind where we should be. It's tragic that this happened, i'm sorry for the families and NASA who has tried so hard to maintain despite budget cuts and 30 year old technology. Now we're going to blame them and their lack of foresight. In short this was a tragic day, but people still need to laugh, there's no reason not to make a joke from time to time to lighten the mood when something this bad has happened.

  25. You reminded me of Robert Heinlein by Some+Bitch · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Green Hills of Earth

    Let the sweet fresh breezes heal me
    As they rove around the girth
    Of our lovely mother planet
    Of the cool, green hills of Earth.

    We rot in the moulds of Venus,
    We retch at her tainted breath.
    Foul are her flooded jungles,
    Crawling with unclean death.

    [ --- the harsh bright soil of Luna ---
    --- Saturn's rainbow rings ---
    --- the frozen night of Titan --- ]

    We've tried each spinning space mote
    And reckoned its true worth:
    Take us back again to the homes of men
    On the cool, green hills of Earth.

    The arching sky is calling
    Spacemen back to their trade.
    ALL HANDS! STAND BY! FREE FALLING!
    And the lights below us fade.

    Out ride the sons of Terra,
    Far drives the thundering jet,
    Up leaps a race of Earthmen,
    Out, far, and onward yet ---

    We pray for one last landing
    On the globe that gave us birth;
    Let us rest our eyes on the friendly skies
    And the cool, green hills of Earth.

    -- Robert A. Heinlein


    The seven astronauts were explorers and would have understood, even though there was always a chance they wouldn't get their 'last landing' they did what they had to do. Others will take their place, the 'arching sky' will always be calling us, there's too much still unknown to give up now.

  26. Magellan - death is part of taking risks by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Data point: Of the 270 men (some sites on the 'net say 237) who set out with Magellan, only 15 made it home.

    What would have happened if exploration had been written off as "too risky" after that? I guess those of us here in the New World (at least, those of European descent) are lucky that our ancestors were greedy enough to continue onwards despite those risks.

    --

    "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

  27. Exploration & Risks - Magellan by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Data point: Of the 270 men (some sites on the 'net say 237) who set out with Magellan, only 15 made it home. Magellan didn't.

    What would have happened if exploration had been written off as "too risky" after that? I guess those of us here in the New World (at least, those of us of European descent) are lucky that our ancestors were greedy enough to continue onwards despite those risks.

    --

    "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

  28. Re:Never mind Mars, what about the ISS? by The+Snowman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Three now. Four including the original Enterprise. I wonder if they'll retrofit her now, to replace Columbia?

    Unlikely. The Enterprise was never meant to go into space and is only for training inside the atmosphere. Retrofitting it would probably be more work and money than building a whole new shuttle. Enterprise is also very old, and it is likely that Columbia's age played an indirect part in this accident. If I were an astronaut, I would not want to fly on a retrofitted Enterprise.

    How about the whole ISS project anyway? Is this going to toast that for good, too?

    I expect rocky times ahead for the ISS. The United States is the primary financial backer and provides basically all of the manned missions. Without our support, the ISS is toast. I expect not only NASA to investigate and put things on hold, but also Congress. They are the ones that apropriate funding to NASA. Expect a lot of Congressional debate about our space program in the near future. I would not be surprised if this accelerates plans to privative NASA, an idea that our government has been kicking around for a while. We already contract out a lot of work at NASA.

    --
    24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
  29. Politics... by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, at 900 comments, probably nobody's going to see this, but if you do: this has the potential to destroy the space program. We live in a time when nobody considers space flight to be particularly important. The loss of the shuttle would be a perfect excuse to put NASA more on the back burner than it was before.

    So talk to your friends, tell them why space flight is important, and even more importantly, tell your congressmen what you think. They are the ones that control the money going into the space program. If nobody lets them know that we want space flight to continue, we might lose it entirely.

    --

    How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  30. Re:Very sad... by rocjoe71 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ..Sorry, mate, but if a so-called terrorist had a weapon that could travel 12,000mph (that's 2 MILES per SECOND)-- they're going to point it at stuff alot more interesting than a Space Shuttle.

    Just think of the amount of fuel you'd have to use to propel something from the Earth to the Space Shuttle at a velocity high enough to actually hit it-- probably the only thing fast enough on this planet that could carry that much fuel would be another Space Shuttle.

    Look, even if you remove every terrorist from the planet, bad things are still going to happen-- even to Americans.

    --
    Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
  31. Re:I heard it by freedom_leffo · · Score: 3, Insightful
    No, you're wrong. If you would have been travelling through Middle-Eastern countries the last couple of years you would, too, see that the majority of the muslim population is against terrorism.

    The problem is that Western MEDIA doesn't show us this. Clearly you can understand that.

  32. Re:Very sad... by macmurph · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I keep switching stations, and I'm tired of hearing about "6 Americans and 1 Israeli". 7 people were in that shuttle. It's frustrating that the media can't let go of war sensationalism even now, at a time like this.

    If this upsets you, get rid of your TV! I got rid of my TV in 1997 (and haven't owned one since). It's one of the smartest decisions I've ever made.

    Even if you dont own a TV you will be exposed to the media, but TV pervays the worst prepared, most informal 'journalism'. In other words, its largely useless as a source of information. What information you do glean from the TV, you can find in more trustworthy print media sources and internet sources.

    Maybe you like TV because of its shoddy presentation of facts and sensationalism. Some people enjoy getting angry at the TV. I often wonder what my dad would do if he couldn't yell at his omnidirectional sludge box.

  33. The future seems bleak...or does it ? by oh2 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Aside from being a personal disaster for the families of the killed astronauts the Columbia failure is a major potential setback for the space exploration efforts of the western world. ISS is dependent on the STS for deliveries. Even if Columbia was unable to do go there she did other important work freeing up the newer shuttles for ISS-related activities. The sensible thing would probably be to buy a few progress, soyuz and heavy lifter sorties to temporarily replace Columbias workload.

    The long term solution (circa five years)would be to completely replace the STS with a new, cheap and safe reusable launch system.

    Expect the cancellation of "Prometheus" shortly, the billion will be needed to replace the Columbia instead.

    Expect massive criticism and the selection of a NASA scapegoat by US congress, some of your congresscritters will want to destroy the entire space effort.

    Expect speeches by Bush Jr and President Cheney about the necessity to beat the Red Chinese and the former Soviets from being the only ones with a space presence.

    Space is too important to give up because of an old and slowly decaying STS. Replacements can be cheap and fast. If any of you have read "Encounter with Tiber" by Buzz Aldrin and Steven Barnes you know what Im talking about.

    --

    Now the world has gone to bed, Darkness won't engulf my head, I can see by infra-red, How I hate the night.

  34. Re:Space Shuttle by buswolley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    maybe if we supported nasa with money and REFORm we wouldn't have to fly an absurdly old space shuttle. The crew deserve better than that. Give them the equipment they need.

    --

    A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

  35. Re:Hrmmm... mars? by buswolley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    tasteless? How so. Don't be rediculous. This is a very valid question. After the challenger we gave up on space. Of course he feels for the crew, and their familes. But he is obviously scared that NASA will become too scared to take risks, ever. The challenger did that for years. These pilots risked their lives to be space pilots. They knew of the risks. They went willingly into those risks. Yes we should mourn. But we should realize that these pilots loved space, and to honour them we must explore space.

    --

    A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

  36. Silver lining? by Fly766 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I just had a thought that runs counter to pretty much everything I've read on here today. As horrible as it might be to say, this catastrophe might be actually end up being a good thing for the future of the space program. The general populus has forgotten about the space program for years now. This disaster puts them back in the news, along with the portrayal of astronauts as the brave adventurous scientists that seek to bring new advances to the people of their country and of the world. The folks who lost their lives today will be shown as heroes to Joe Sixpack once again, and might serve to rekindle a sense of adventure and pride in them. Also, it shows that this program has been forced to use old technology and scrape by on minimal budgets for far too long; and that with proper funding, this tragedy could have been avoided. Perhaps this will serve as a wake up call to Congress that we need to properly support this vital piece of the scientific advances that this country and this world needs. I just don't see us abandoning manned space flight, and more funding is the only viable alternative.

    Fly

  37. Your assuming it was a missle.... by Brian_Ellenberger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What about simple sabotage? Everyone is noting how complex a Space Shuttle is. Cut a line here or there. Change the adhesive used to attach the tiles.

    One again, as I said highly unlikely to impossible. I believe it was a mechanical failure of some sort.

    But flying 2 jumbo jets into the Twin Towers, destroying the towers and killing 1000s of people was unlikely too. So I retain some skeptism of "accidents" especially on such a large target.

    Brian Ellenberger

  38. Remember Gus Grissom's words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "If we die, we want people to accept it. We're in a risky business, and we hope that if anything happens to us it will not delay the program. The conquest of space is worth the risk of life."
    - Gus Grissom, responding to a reporter, at a press conference for the first manned Apollo mission.

  39. Terrible indeed, but... by fimbulvetr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Take a moment to think of all the people that died while going west to the americas back in the day.

    Sure, you might say we have more technology, but by no means do we have the technology to travel to and from the cosmos like we do to cross the oceans now.

    Alot more lives will be lost, and there will be nothing we can do about it, except hope we learn from our mistakes.

    Everyone knows there is a higher risk of death or injury to these brave people.

    But that is just a chance you have to take.

  40. Re:Photos by wackybrit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not about the fucking shuttle, dude. It's about the 7 people on board.

    Calm down. It's called the freedom of speech. People can say insensitive things and they're allowed to do so, it's the great thing about the US.

    And, please, what makes this any more sad than 7 people dying on the streets tonight? What makes this any more important than the prospect of hundreds of thousands of people dying in a forthcoming war?

    This is a sad event, and will rock the nation, but still.. it's 7 people. If Bush has his way, thousands more will be dead soon, and I bet you won't be crying into your hankies then.

    And because I believe in these rights to free speech, I'm not hiding behind the Anonymous Coward either.

  41. They should launch again as soon as possible by Synn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In skydiving it's not uncommon for someone to get killed. Typically when that happens the people at the dropzone continue to skydive on that day, not out of any disrespect of the person that died, but because dying is just another part of life and it should not interrupt what people do.

    Similairly when a person in skydiving has a near death event, it's also typical that they immediately go back up and do another skydive as soon as they're able to. It's kind of a cliche, but "getting back on the horse" is an important part of life. When people don't go back up, it's not uncommon for them to leave the sport entirely, ie. give in to their fears.

    Space travel is dangerous, and shit's gonna happen. No matter what decisions are made, how safe you play the game, eventually somewhere somehow something bad will go wrong and with the dangers and forces involved with space travel that will usually mean people will die.

    But that should not cause any interruptions in the space program. Just because a shuttle went down doesn't make them unsafe. In fact considering how often they go up, I'd say 1 shuttle down every 18 years is pretty damn good. NASA needs to get another shuttle up and get back on the horse ASAP.

    Unfortunately what will probably happen is that the space program will be suspended while everyone plays the blame game. Fingers will be pointed, a lot of If's will be thrown around: If they hadn't dismissed the damage done to the wing at launch - If they had rehauled the shuttle more carefully in '99 - If more money was spent on the program - If we weren't using 20 year old technology - If, if, if...

    If you skydive long enough, you'll see people die. The forces are extreme enough in the sport, that small mistakes can become lethal. Space travel involves forces even more extreme: here we had a craft screaming through re-entry into earth at 12,000 miles per hour. I can't begin to imagine the kind of stresses those forces put on a space craft.

    Eventually the odds are going to catch up with those involved, something nobody thought of will happen and with such extreme forces involved, people will die.

    But death doesn't mean you put all life on hold.

    When you push the limits of human experience, the price is risk. But life without risk is meaningless.

  42. Re:NASA site mission STS-107 by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Is space worth the risk?"

    No, it's not. More precisely, manned space travel isn't worth the risk. (Unmanned missions are risk-free by comparison)

    Just look at the kinds of leading edge science this crew died to perform:
    http://www.wff.nasa.gov/~sspp/sem/about.html

    Manned space flight (both shuttle trips, and the International Space Station) are today worth neither the risk nor the money. I like what John Pike said about the ISS: "The value of the science that can be done on the Space Station is trivial compared to the cost of the Space Station. Piloted spaceflight is about politics."

    Let's look specifically at the ISS, which is the destination for most of the recent shuttle flights. Keeping humans supplied in space takes many extra trips up and down: all the air, water, food, living space, and exercise equipement takes up valuable cubic meters. And all of the provisions for safety and gentle re-entry further reduce the fuel efficiency of the rockets.

    The ISS program, and the supply flights to build & support it, will have a total price tag of at around $100,000,000,000.

    Scientific-notation kinds of fundage ($1e11)!! You'd have to be a NASA researcher just to count it all.

    Virtually all of the science and maintenannce done on Shuttles and the ISS could be accomplished by semi-autonomous robots. Sure, today maybe our robotics and AI technology isn't good enough to substitute for some of the tricky things where a dynamic, flexible human is needed. Well, try investing a fraction of the $1e11 budget into researching those systems, and then tell me how well they work!

    Developing better robots to operate space equipment won't only make extra-planetary research safer and cheaper- it'll also produce technological advances that will benefit civilians around the world!

    (Rocket-boosters are only needed by astronauts and admirals. But reliable robot manipulators could be useful to anyone)

    I fear for the public reaction agenst NASA and space traval from this day forward.

    I hope the public wises up that manned space flight is an expensive and dangerous form of esteem-boosting entertainment.

  43. Re:NASA site mission STS-107 by ces · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But manned flight is essential if we want to live in space long term.

    I for one want to see a Moon colony, Mars colony, etc.

    We aren't going to get off this rock if we only send robots into space.

    --
    Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
  44. Re:NASA site mission STS-107 by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 3, Insightful
    And why exactly would you want to do that?

    Go build a plexiglass dome in Antartica and live there for a few years, to see how moon life would feel. Remember to keep it sealed, so you can't have any additional air, water, or food. Only sunlight gets in. If you survive, then we can talk about extraterrestrial colonies.

    "Getting off this rock" is a good goal- for a 100+ year timeframe! This discussion is science-fiction terrirtory.

    There's no need to start moving off-planet yet. Sure, it's arguably overpopulated already, and it'll get more crowded as the century goes on- but the most barren, desolate wasteland on earth is a paradise compared to what you'd find on the surface of Mars or Luna!

    To live in space soonest, we should fork the research into 2 branches:
    • The space element: developing rocket boosters, atomic engines, and robot-drones to perfect interplanetary travel techology. Once the robots have managed to erect a powerplant and radio array on the moon's surface, then we can start to build habitats.
    • The human element: learn how to keep people alive in a self-contained environment for a decade at a time. Essentially, keep repeating the BioSphere experiment until it finally works.


    Once those 2 research branches have been followed through to independent success, true space colonization research can begin. But trying to develop both the spaceflight technology and the human sustainment skills at the same time- as the ISS program is doing- is an expensive, dangerous folly.
  45. Re:NASA site mission STS-107 by vanyel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's not unreasonable to quibble over exactly how we go into space, but it's absolutely imperative that we continue going there. If we were to stop entirely just because the current direction isn't optimal, it would be that much harder to get going again once we were able to agree what "optimal" might be.

  46. Will we ever learn... by Alomex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In today's press conference a NASA official dismissed the importance of the debri that hit the left wing on launch. After all it happened in two of the previous three shuttle missions, and nothing happened.

    This brought back memories of a paragraph from the Feynman report after the challenger disaster which warns precisely about this:

    We have also found that certification criteria used in Flight Readiness Reviews often develop a gradually decreasing strictness. The argument that the same risk was flown before without failure is often accepted as an argument for the safety of accepting it again. Because of this, obvious weaknesses are accepted again and again, sometimes without a sufficiently serious attempt to remedy them, or to delay a flight because of their continued presence.

  47. Something Many seem to miss with the Tiles by tmortn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lets just say the tiles caused it. That critical tiles where somehow displodged by the foam on take off.

    There was nothing they could do about it. They could not repair any damage. They couldn't meet up with Station, They couldn't stay on orbit much longer, Certainly not long enough to mount a rescue. The only choice they had was attempting re-entry and landing. They couldn't launch the Soyuz on the pad for a rescue because soyuz is not capable of making shuttles normal orbit, not to mention that is a progres module and not one designed for re-entry and even if it were it could only hold 3 minus anyone needed for launch ( normally 2 )..Choices where

    A) Stay in orbit and die when life support failed. B) Hope it held together on re-entry.

    and thats if they discovered an issue before they went for de-orbit burn. If they found out after that there only choice was hoping it held together on re-entry.

    The same applies to almost any problem which may have developed of a structural nature.

    --
    I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.