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.

209 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 TomServo · · Score: 2, Informative

      --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.

      I tend to think that any MO like this is due to budget constraints, and so far the reaction to anything like this has never been to increase funding for more safety & efficiency, it's been to cut funding to NASA because the risk is not seen to be on par with the return.

      We can expect bad things to happen to NASA now...

    3. 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.

    4. Re:God rest their souls by PasteEater · · Score: 2, Funny
      The way my dog looks at me - I think he knows something I don't

      Wow Beliskner, your sig really says it all!

      --
      There are two kinds of people in the world: those with loaded guns, and those who dig.
    5. 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.
    6. Re:God rest their souls by Perrin-GoldenEyes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree with you that the guy was an asshole for posting that comment. It was totally out of line. But that is, unfortunately, the kind of immature crap that will crop up frequently on internet boards.

      OTOH, I do think it might be better for kids to watch the news in this case. I very clearly remember watching the footage of the Challenger disaster and the subsequent memorial service when I was in third grade. It was heart-breaking, but I wouldn't trade that experience (even as young as I was) for anything.

      Just my $0.02.

      --
      -Perrin.
      Now I want you to go in that bag and find my lightsaber. It's the one that says bad mother-fscker on it.
    7. Re:God rest their souls by Alizarin+Erythrosin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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

      I agree 100%. Space flight is indeed dangerous. But one also has to look at the statistics of NASA's shuttle program: 107 launches, 2 failures (losses?). That's a pretty good record for this type of thing. There's gonna be speculation out the ass about what caused it... maybe it was old age (structural failure) or that insulation thing they're thinking about that damage the heat shield. I don't know.

      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.

      In a case such as the re-entry breakup in question, I actually feel that it would be feasible to have a life saving component here. Perhaps they were going too fast but then again, people have free-fallen from very high altitudes and survived. My first though was maybe some kind of expandable, I don't know let's call it an air brake, on the crew capsule that can be deployed once they pass the firey part of the re-entry procedure in case of an emergency. Couple that with some parachutes and it might actually work.

      Regardless, the lessons learned from this tragedy will help to prevent another one in the future. I think NASA needs to "get back on the horse" as the expresison goes. The crew change and additional module for the ISS should go up on schedule, unless this is found to be a structural failure of some kind that affects all shuttle orbiters, or they decide to implement some sort of system in the crew capsule.

      --
      There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
    8. Re:God rest their souls by BTWR · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >My kids are watching cartoons and won't let me change the channel. :(

      I did the exact same thing when Challenger blew up. I was 6 years old and I wanted to watch USA Cartoon Express and my parents kept watching the news. I always felt a little weird about that - understandable, but weird.

    9. Re:God rest their souls by Bandman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.


      I have to disagree with you. It completely depends on the individual child whether or not they can handle the stresses that life brings. I remember watching the news of the explosion in 1986...I was 7 years old, and I understood the magnitude of what had happened. It didn't "fuck me up". It was a realization that bad things happen, and when they do, there isn't always going to be a happy ending.

      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.

      I hope that your children don't end up sheltered from reality to the point that when they do have to face it, they come running back to you so you can make it better.

    10. Re:God rest their souls by XO · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I just think it's too bad that all of the U.S's space activity will stop for years now as they wring their hands over what went wrong, and how to do better next time.


      And they'll continue to use the same 8088 based microprocessors, and the same control software, and all the same hardware that is now mounting on 20-30 years old, because all new designs and projects keep getting cancelled.

      This should be a perfect excuse to get a NEW program going, completed, and get a NEW vehicle out there. The government should DEMAND it of NASA if NASA doesn't DEMAND it of itself.

      Yes, we've had relatively few space vehicle accidents compared to number of successful launches, orbits, flights, landings, etc.. and yes, I recognize that space travel is dangerous.

      I hope that this affects the right people in the right ways to make it the impetus for PROGRESS rather than to SIT ON OUR ASSES as NASA did for the 2 and a half years after Challenger. (yes, I know they were determining the cause and working to protect the other shuttles from that.. but come on. 2 and a half years of no flights?)
      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
  2. Very sad... by Ponty · · Score: 2

    Is there any chance that people could survive? I know the shuttle has emergency abilities, but it's traveling at what, six times the speed of sound?

    1. Re:Very sad... by Bandman · · Score: 3, Informative

      well, the guy on CBS (some NASA spokesman) said that while they have the door they can exit out of, he couldn't imagine a situation where that would be feasable. So probably not, no. :-(

    2. Re:Very sad... by GMontag · · Score: 4, Informative

      Impossible.

      The emergency exit business is the hatch on the side, astronauts hook to a pole and slide out. Only if they have time. Parachute down.

      They made no indication that they knew anything was wrong before contact was lost.

      There was a report on FOX that a tile or some piece had come off on launch and hit a wing, was not supposed to be a problem. Not sure if that was this missions launch or not.

    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:Very sad... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, it couldn't be a SAM due to the altitude of the Shuttle on breakup.

      At 200,000 feet, there'd be no way to survive.

    5. Re:Very sad... by waytoomuchcoffee · · Score: 4, Informative

      I had always assumed that the front compartment would be highly reinforced and could remain intact longer than the rest of it. It seems that is not the case.

      It is, however it won't help them. Even if the front compartment survived the explosion, it will still drop all the way down.

      That's what happened to Challenger btw. At least some were alive for the 20 or minutes or so it took to hit the water. While there were no recordings, evidence was found, such as the emergency air supply being turned on for the pilot -- that can only be done behind the seat by another person, so it was obvious people were moving around.

      Let's all hope that is NOT the case this time. That would be a simply horrible prolonged way to die :-( Rest in peace, shuttle astronauts, this is an extremely sad day.

    6. Re:Very sad... by Brian_Ellenberger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It's frustrating that the media can't let go of war sensationalism even now, at a time like this."

      Yea, why would anyone want to kill an Israeli? Completely unprecedented. They are never kidnapped from Olympic games or blown up while worshipping on their holiest days.

      Look, I'm not saying it is terrorism. I highly doubt it. Blowing up an American Space Shuttle with the first Israeli astronaut would be a Extreme-Muslim Terrorist's dream.

      Brian Ellenberger

    7. 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.

    8. Re:Very sad... by waytoomuchcoffee · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

      You are correct, it wasn't 20. It was a bit over 3 minutes. My memory seems to have exaggerated after almost 20 years.

      "Analysis of crew cabin wreckage indicates the shuttle's windows may have survived the explosion. It is thus possible the crew did not experience high-altitude cabin decompression. If so, some or all of the astronauts may have been alive and conscious all the way to impact in the Atlantic some 18 miles northeast of the launch pad. The cabin hit the water at better than 200 mph on Scobee's side. The metal posts of the two forward flight deck seats, for example, were bent sharply to the right by force of impact when the cabin disintegrated.

      "The internal crew module components recovered were crushed and distorted, but showed no evidence of heat or fire," the commission report said. "A general consistency among the components was a shear deformation from the top of the components toward the +Y (to the right) direction from a force acting from the left. Components crushed or sheared in the above manner included avionics boxes from all three avionics bays, crew lockers, instrument panels and the seat frames from the commander and the pilot. The more extensive and heavier crush damage appeared on components nearer the upper left side of the crew module. The magnitude and direction of the crush damage indicates that the module was in a nose down and steep left bank attitude when it hit the water.

      "The fact that pieces of forward fuselage upper shell were recovered with the crew module indicates that the upper shell remained attached to the crew module until water impact. Pieces of upper forward fuselage shell recovered or found with the crew module included cockpit window frames, the ingress/egress hatch, structure around the hatch frame and pieces of the left and right sides. The window glass from all of the windows, including the hatch window, was fractured with only fragments of glass remaining in the frames."

      Several large objects were tracked by radar after the shuttle disintegrated. One such object, classified as "Object D," hit the water 207 seconds after launch about 18 nautical miles east of launch pad 39B. This apparently was the crew cabin."

    9. 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)
    10. 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.

    11. Re:Very sad... by The+Snowman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes... The report earlier this morning on NPR mentioned that a tile had dislodged on launch, and struck a wing. There was supposedly no serious damage at the time.

      A piece of insulating foam broke off the external fuel tank and hit the left wing of the shuttle during liftoff. The chances of this causing problems is highly unlikely, given the titanium shielding along the leading edge of the wing and the super-strong construction of the airframe's wings.

      But maybe it did cause a problem. Obviously something did. We will find out in due time.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
  3. I heard it by revscat · · Score: 2, Informative

    I live in the Dallas area. Around 8 AM CST we were making breakfast when we heard what sounded like the distant sound of thunder, loud enough for me to hear over the crackling of bacon. 30 minutes later we turn on the TV and are told that NASA lost contact with Columbia at around 8AM CST somewhere south of Dallas.

    Now they're speculating about the presence of an Israeli on board.

    Not again.

    1. Re:I heard it by somethingwicked · · Score: 2, Informative

      Now they're speculating about the presence of an Israeli on board

      Um, not speculation. The first Israeli astronaut was on board

      --

      ---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---

    2. Re:I heard it by RoyalHoser · · Score: 2, Informative

      I live an hour east of Dallas, and we got hit with a rather significant shockwave... It was enough to make me turn on the cable news networks right away.

    3. 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!
    4. Re:I heard it by Fishstick · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, _obviously_ it had to be the work of terrorists, now we just have to figure out who to bomb in response!

      Probably Iraq! ...or Afghanistan, or maybe, er... what's that other one? You know, the one with all the brown-skinned people that worship a different god? Evil, I tell you!! Evil!!

      * I'm being sarcastic. Most likely this was some kind of mechanical failure and I'm sure I'll feel really bad for the families as soon as this sinks in a little. I'm still in shock.

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    5. 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.

  4. NASA site mission STS-107 by EaglesNest · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's the yet not-updated NASA site for mission STS-107.

    1. Re:NASA site mission STS-107 by AgentUSA · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's updated:

      Deorbit burn occured at 8:15 a.m. EST (1315 GMT). Communication lost with Columbia at 9:00am EST while Columbia was at approximately 200,000ft over Central Texas.

    2. Re:NASA site mission STS-107 by BigBir3d · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The public reaction is based on the Shuttle Program itself. Seriuosly outdated hardware that is starting to fall apart at the seams. The program was fine for the 80's but it is 20 years later...

      I feel deeply for the families and friends of all of those involved in this horrible tragedy.

      It is time that we give up on the Shuttle Program and create/use something better.

      We are a planet of one race... I think it is time we start acting like it.

      Unity. Peace. Exploration. Knowledge.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.

  5. More links and info by ke4roh · · Score: 4, Informative
    This was my submission, seconds later than this story post:

    The U.S. Space Shuttle Columbia, flying STS 107 apparently dissentegrated over north Texas during re-entry according to CNN, CBS, and NBC TV reports. Columbia launched on January 16 for that orbiter's 28th journey. Communication was lost at 8:00 Central Time (14:00 GMT), 16 minutes prior to the scheduled landing, at an altitude of 200,000 feet (61km) and velocity of 12,000 miles per hour (19,000 km/h). NASA advises people to report and avoid debris in the area because it may inlude toxic propellants.

    --
    I hate call waitin`~+~~~
    NO CARRIER
  6. Only waiting for confirmation by Fideaux! · · Score: 2, Informative

    Reports have them at 2x the speed of sound, and altitude of 200,000 ft. Not very good conditions for a bailout.

    CBS seems to have the most hi-res footage of the breakup.

    Analyist on NBC discusses launch/pre-launch dammage to heat sheild on the leading edge of the wing, that was deemed safe by NASA.

  7. Photos by PD · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have my photos on my website:

    www.pdrap.org, link from the front page.

    The actual photo page is here

    I didn't actually see the space shuttle until it had exploded, so all my photos are of the shuttle as it burns and breaks up. The instant that the shuttle exploded was dramatic. One second I'm looking for it, the next, it was a bright burning ball of fire.

    Very sad. Columbia was my favorite shuttle.

    1. Re:Photos by gimpboy · · Score: 5, Informative

      i'm working on it right now. it's slower than dirt :). i emailed the guy and asked for a tar ball. when it's done it will be here:
      http://sage.che.pitt.edu/~harrold/tmp/shuttle/www. pdrap.org/photo_albums/columbia_disaster/

      it's going to be a while though.

      --
      -- john
    2. 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.

  8. 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 debrain · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      Maybe it is not so bad for the space program itself. It was the first failure of the Apollo mission that sparked NASA's motivation, and inherent success, thereafter, I believe. The results of this, although acutely tragic, could certainly bring about renewed motiviation. If that is the case, then at least this loss will not have been in vain.

    2. Re:This is terrible by handorf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I hope you are right, but I think you mis-estimate the current situation. Economic rough times, expensive war ahead, little precieved benefit.

      Within a year the ISS will be abandoned and manned space flights will be a novelty for the rest of my life.

      My thoughts go out to the families and us all. Finally the use of an aging orbiter fleet has come back to bite us.

      --
      -- IANAEG - I am not an elder god.
    3. 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?

    4. Re:This is terrible by elvum · · Score: 2

      Well, don't just sit there - write to your elected representatives to express your support for continued funding of manned spaceflight!

    5. 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
    6. Re:This is terrible by FatRatBastard · · Score: 2

      Or, write to your elected representatives to express your support for allowing the private sector to play in space. Chances are they'd get there faster and cheaper anyway.

    7. Re:This is terrible by ar32h · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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? Simple: Robots do not have the popular interest that humans do among the general population. If you take out the human interest you take out the popular support. The best thing Bush could do now is announce a program to get a team on mars like what JFK did for the moon(a side effect of which would naturally be a replacement for the shuttle) nothing gets support like a triumphant recovery from tragedy.

    8. Re:This is terrible by bokmann · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is a Soyuz space cupsule on the ISS that can be used to return the astronauts currently there (2 Americans, 1 Russian). This is, in fact, why the ISS has been limited to 3 astronauts; it is all they had the room for on the escape capsule.

      I think this will actually help Russia's space program; unless we want to close up the ISS and come home, Nasa is going to throw some big bucks Russia's way... They now have the only vehicle that can get to and from the ISS, at least as long as the shuttle is grounded.

    9. 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. --
    10. 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.
    11. 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.

  9. talking with the autoclave guy by chloroquine · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was talking with the guy who repairs the autoclaves at my building yesterday about the challenger disaster. Our autoclave had a compromised O-ring. It turned out that he had done some electronics work for the Challenger and the Discovery back in the day. He ended up getting downsized and remembers thinking how his life was going badly, but at least there was the Challenger that he could point to proudly and say, "I was part of that." Obviously the disaster was both a national and personal tragedy for him. So this morning, looking at the news on the lab computer, it was a little eerie to read that NASA had lost contact with Discovery.

  10. Pieces? by farnham · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is there any info on where the debris is landing? It look slike it could be from mid texas to misissippi. Do any of you have knowledge of where this stuff is landing?

    May god bless the souls of the brave men and women on board.

    --
    pending committee review
  11. BBCTV and NASA TV by sh0rtie · · Score: 5, Informative
  12. Nasa TV feed by EvilBastard · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.h tml

    Voiceover says (paraphrased) Declared a contingency over central america. If you find debris, inform law enforcment and do not touch as it may be hazardous

    one of the screens showing what looks like a debris trail

    Use the Dial up 55kb, not the 225 kb please

  13. Now we have a stranded ISS crew... by black_widow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Remember how long it took to reinstate the STS program after the Challenger Incident?

    What are the chances NASA will send up STS 108 on schedule?

    Will they use the soyuz emergency capsule to return earthside?

    1. Re:Now we have a stranded ISS crew... by Floyd+Turbo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The chances of STS108 launching on schedule are zero. It may not launch at all, this accident may ground the remaining shuttles permantently; they certainly won't fly again this year. The current station crew will have to use the Soyuz. That's what it's for.

    2. Re:Now we have a stranded ISS crew... by Floyd+Turbo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Checking the schedule, the next flight to the station was scheduled to be STS114, which was supposed to launch in March. That clearly won't happen now.

  14. Several Comments by p_trekkie · · Score: 5, Informative

    1. No Surface to Air missile can reach above 100k feet.

    2. There is almost no fuel on the space shuttle during reentry.

    3. Most likely cause of destruction was damage to heat shield.

    4. Survival is possible... space shuttle was relatively slow, already mostly throught the atmosphere the crew may have been able to bail out, and they do have parachutes.

    5. This does not bode well for manned space exploration

    1. Re:Several Comments by Temkin · · Score: 5, Informative

      1. No Surface to Air missile can reach above 100k feet.

      True of shoulder launched missiles, but I'm not so sure about things like the Aegis SM2's, or fighter launched air-to-air missiles. However, it's safe to say, it's very very unlikely it's a missile.

      2. There is almost no fuel on the space shuttle during reentry.

      Compared to the main tank, true. But they use thruster rockets right down to the point they drop subsonic, and these thrusters use hypergolic (self igniting) fuels.

      4. Survival is possible... space shuttle was relatively slow, already mostly throught the atmosphere the crew may have been able to bail out, and they do have parachutes.

      Not at 200,000 feet. Entry interface is at 400,000 feet. Region of maxiumum heating is at 43 miles up, or 227,040 feet. At that point, they're still doing 15,000 miles per hour. They exit ionization blackout 12 minutes before touchdown, still doing 8200 miles per hour. Surviving egress from an aircraft above Mach 1 is dangerous. Above Mach 3, pretty much not surviveable, unless you have some kind of armored escape pod.

      5. This does not bode well for manned space exploration

      Agreed. I think we need to replace the shuttle system. It's 30 year old technology.

      Temkin

    2. 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.

    3. Re:Several Comments by mpe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Survival is possible... space shuttle was relatively slow, already mostly throught the atmosphere the crew may have been able to bail out, and they do have parachutes.

      Only compared with its orbital speed. Still many times the flat out speed of any other aircraft. You cannot simply bail out of something travelling at hypersonic speed. The only possible escape would be something like the F-111 capsule, which is not fitted to the Shuttle.

    4. Re:Several Comments by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "True of shoulder launched missiles, but I'm not so sure about things like the Aegis SM2's, or fighter launched air-to-air missiles. However, it's safe to say, it's very very unlikely it's a missile."

      Time to play devil's advocate.

      Everybody is rulling out terrorism because no known surface- or air-to-air missle could have hit the shuttle. But none of this rules out the possibility of sabotage. Right now, we can only assume that the debris seen falling off the orbiter during launch was an accident.

    5. Re:Several Comments by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No. Only one shuttle failed, not two. Challenger worked perfectly on January 28 of 1986. It was the solid fuel booster rocket *attached to it* that failed. Why is this relevant? Because the boosters don't get the same amount of re-use as the shuttles themselves, and the boosters are interchangable. The booster that failed on Jan 28, 1986 was not part of Challenger and may vary well have been used previously on Columbia, Discovery, or Atlantis or all of the above.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  15. Toxic Substances by hughk · · Score: 3, Informative
    Red Fuming Nitric Acid + Hydrazine, I think are on board. These are hypergolic (recting spontaneously don't need an igniter) which is why they are ideal for manouvering jets. They are also exemptionally nasty.

    Under normal circumstances, the shuttle is checked and astronauts don't leave for a good 15 to 30 minutes after the shuttle has landed.

    --
    See my journal, I write things there
  16. Re:God rest their souls - Here is the Crew profile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is sad, sad day. Here's CNNs profile of the crew of the Columbia.

  17. Timestamped report from Spaceflight Now by joe_janitor · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's a timestamped update of the final minutes of the mission on the Spaceflight Now site.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. Not funny in any way by perfects · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't know about anybody else, but if even one post about this gets modded Funny, I will walk away from SlashDot for good.

    If the posts so far are any indication of the number of Genuine Assholes who frequent this site, it's a lost cause anyway.

    This is not funny in any way.

    1. 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
    2. Re:Not funny in any way by uhmmmm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      sometimes people need a little humor to get through things like this. They're not poking fun, but just dealing with it in their own way.

    3. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. Before everyone gets hung up on terrorism... by Some+Bitch · · Score: 3, Informative

    On launch day, a piece of insulating foam on the external fuel tank came off during liftoff and was believed to have struck the left wing of the shuttle. Leroy Cain, the lead flight director in Mission Control, had assured reporters Friday that engineers had concluded that any damage to the wing was considered minor and posed no safety hazard.
    Source: cnn.com

  23. 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.

    1. Re:Too high and too fast for missiles... by ZaMoose · · Score: 2, Offtopic

      I'm sorry that I misconstrued your intent. While the general population of /. tends to be very pro-space exploration, they also tend to be fairly anti-U.S. gov., particularly when it comes to the DoJ and DoD. I mistook you for one of the anti-DoD'ers.

      Many apologies. I'm a bit broken up over this whole thing. I was home sick on Jan 28th, 1986 and watched the Challenger disintegrate live on TV. This whole incident brought those memories back in a flash. Sorry that I rushed to judgement.

      --
      I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
    2. Re:Too high and too fast for missiles... by NMerriam · · Score: 2, Informative

      Many, many ceramic tiles come off during reentry -- they are completely replaced with every flight. Losing tiles is not a problem (unless you lost a huge number of tiles in the same area all before you start reentry, that is).

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    3. Re:Too high and too fast for missiles... by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You missed the relevant detail - it blew up during the re-entry phase where it normally is on fire. Missing or faulty heat tiles could also cause the breakup. A bad angle could cause the breakup. I guess it was like this: Some heat tiles failed or were missing on one spot, causing one small part of the shuttle to overheat and possibly even melt. If the failure of that part caused the shuttle to be unable to maintain its orientation, then it could tumble into an angle where the top of the craft (where there are no heat tiles) is exposed to the re-entry burn. At that point it would just get ripped to shreds since metal gets soft as it nears its melting point.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  24. 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.

    1. Re:Broken tile, not terrorism...? by cap'n+foolsy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      as soon as i saw the news on CNN, i immediately thought to myself, "how long before they blame even *this* on terrorism?" (sorry, i'm way too cynical to think that that wouldn't happen)

      it seems that the world beat me to the punch. people were blaming it on terrorists before they even knew what happened to the shuttle.

      --
      It might look like I'm standing motionless, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away
    2. Re:Broken tile, not terrorism...? by bozone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the U.S. space program -- which never recovered from Challenger's loss -- may soon be dead as well.

      This appears to be a very common thought in the posts....my question is why? Airplanes have crashed, boats have sunk, and cars have had accidents yet we have not abandoned them. As flying to outer space an inherently more dangerous and risky proposition, why the shock that an accident has occurred and the concession to forgo further space exploration?

      Many people have died exploring the earth, yet humans pressed on. Let us grieve for the families of the fallen, honor the astronauts for their bravery and desire to better human kind....and let us continue to press on.

      --
      "Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated" ...George Bernard Shaw
    3. Re:Broken tile, not terrorism...? by t · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, we all know how sneaky terrorist are, like flying planes into buildings. It was not a terrorist because if it was it would be obvious. That is their goal, that is what puts the "terror" into terrorism. People don't go thourgh life being afraid of freakaccidentism.

  25. Where were you when you heard the news? by PingPongBoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Mark this day in your life. Oddly, I was reading slashdot when I heard then news.

    I hear that
    - Columbia is the oldest shuttle
    - The crew compartment can re-enter by itself allowing the crew to jump out. I wonder if anyone has tested this!

    --
    Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  26. 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
  27. 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.

  28. Feynman and Tears by dosun88888 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In his book "What do you care what other people think?" he talks about the Challenger thing, and talks about NASA in general.

    Just a good book all around. Wish we still had Feynman around to see what happened this time.

    This is sad. Very sad. But not for the astronauts.

    I'll go out on a limb here and say that the astronauts themselves would trade their lives in a second to be in space, and to contribute whatever it was that they did on this mission. I know I would.

    So I won't waste a tear mourning them. I'll save the tears for their families and friends. I have no business mourning sad. Only remembering them.

    ~D

  29. Don't watch FNC by cyranoVR · · Score: 2, Informative

    it would be a real shame to take that as a reason to accelerate the war processus.

    Well I would advice you not to turn on Fox News Channel...right under the Shuttle coverage their ticker is running stuff about Iraq, Saddam and "coming war." Not very subtle if you ask me.

    (By contrast, CNN's ticker has nothing but information about the shuttle)

    1. Re:Don't watch FNC by cyranoVR · · Score: 2, Troll

      Just because there's been a tragedy doesn't mean that news concerning a war (which will be fought; if you think war is anything but inevitable, you're deluded) is irrelevant.

      Well, I think it's fucking suspicious that a news organization that parrots everything the Bush administration says did not have anything on air about an administration Official saying that's its "highly unlikely that the accident is due to terrorism."

      Instead it's more crap about Saddam. Ever hear of subliminal messages? Anyway, I know war is inevitable but my feeling (and apparently the feeling of every other news channel except FNC) is that for a few brief hours the looming war is what's irrelevant.

      I wonder...can you take your mind off the fucking war for even an hour or two to mourn this tradgedy???

    2. Re:Don't watch FNC by leviramsey · · Score: 2, Informative
      Well, I think it's fucking suspicious that a news organization that parrots everything the Bush administration says did not have anything on air about an administration Official saying that's its "highly unlikely that the accident is due to terrorism."

      Funny you should say that. At this moment, the ticker is in the shuttle run. Fox keeps about 100-200 headlines for the crawl, grouped by subject. The shuttle is now the lead on the crawl. In addition, the "FOX NEWS ALERT" is "WHITE HOUSE: NO INDICATION OF TERRORISM" (stronger words than "highly unlikely").

      I wonder...can you take your mind off the fucking war for even an hour or two to mourn this tradgedy???

      I am mourning this tragedy... I have been since I heard about the lost contact on the Weather Channel. Your value system is fucked up if you think that seven deaths is more important than orders of magnitude more deaths in a coming war.

    3. Re:Don't watch FNC by gilroy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Blockquoth the poster:

      Instead it's more crap about Saddam. Ever hear of subliminal messages? Anyway, I know war is inevitable but my feeling (and apparently the feeling of every other news channel except FNC) is that for a few brief hours the looming war is what's irrelevant.

      God help me, but I'm about to defend Fox News Channel... IMHO, they're using the ticker in exactly the right manner. The main story occupies the main window, but other news doesn't suddenly stop happening. I don't know if what they're running really counts as "news", but that would be an appropriate thing to run.
    4. Re:Don't watch FNC by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Just because there's been a tragedy doesn't mean that news concerning a war (which will be fought; if you think war is anything but inevitable, you're deluded) is irrelevant.

      Nothing in politics is inevitable. People can always make the difference. In this case we have essentially a single individual, George W Bush who is the advocate of this war. Without him there would be no war. In a constitution of checks and balances individual power is seriously limited.

      The numbers of casualties in the war are likely to dwarf this disaster. It is likely that the civilian casualties alone will be tens of thousands. The number of US troops killed is unlikely to be less than hundreds.

      I don't agree that the war is inevitable though. Blair just got an extension of six weeks to try to convince other allies. In particular they really need permission from Turkey to use bases there. Blix has stated that the Bush administration deliberately misrepresented his report. The diplomatic initiative could well swing against Bush and his chickenhawks.

      It is one thing to say you will start a war with no allies, no UN support and little domestic support. It is quite another to actually send the troops in for a land invasion.

      What is very likely to happen is a prolonged bombing campaign launched from air craft carriers and Diego Garcia. The real issue will be whether Bush can keep the attacks going long enough to get Saddam before the news reports of hospitals, schools etc. being bombed take their toll. The British press don't think Blair will last more than a few weeks if there is a war, he does not have party support, even the Tory opposition, Thatcher's party is opposed.

      The bulk of the US casualties would come from an actual land invasion. Bush may habe the theoretical ability to launch an invasion with no other support, in practice there are real limits to his authority. It is very unlikely he could launch an invasion if there was serious opposition to the war and people such as Schwatzkof and Powell went to Congress and said that there would likely be thousands of casualties if the land invasion went ahead.

      The GOP has set a very dangerous precedent with their frivolous impeachment of Clinton. It would only take a small number of disaffected Republicans to bring an impeachment.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  30. Some More Info (speculation) by jafiwam · · Score: 4, Informative

    One of the eye-witnesses in Texas stated that it appeared the contrail had a spiral characteristic that might mean the craft was tumbling during or before re-entry. This may imply that it was not a catastrophic explosion, rather some other event that went wrong.

    Part of the insulation on one of the boosters apparently came off on takoff (gaining orbit) and struck a wing. The wing was checked during flight and said to not be damaged.

  31. 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.

    1. Re:This is terrible... by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

      Don't worry about being unpatriotic. This is the problem with America hit right on the nose. Profit rather than success and a sense of history is the motive for our endeavors. Rather, we equate profit with success. Every major religion points out that long term success is not found in riches, but in collective memory. Forget the war on terrorism. The war should be on short-sightedness. Short-sightedness on the part of a powerful nation like the US leads to the world we live in now. As Jose Ramon-Horta, East Timorese leader, says "The US has the potential to do so some good and clearly wants to do so. It just lets the interests of a callous few control its obvious means to greater good." America should be focusing on greater endeavors than the "War on Terrorism" -- Space is one of them.

      The Buddha said:

      "See yourself in others. How can you do harm?"


      It is hard to say that a totalitarian regime like the one in China could be more prescient than the US and realize that space is part of humanity's destiny. Maybe their understanding of intense privation has a lot to do with it. There has to be something better.

      --
      Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
    2. Re:This is terrible... by wkitchen · · Score: 2
      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.
      I stayed up all night to watch the first shuttle launch. The very same shuttle that was lost today. I'm not an overly emotional person. But this cuts me deep.
    3. Re:This is terrible... by rsatter · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      This is exactly the worse thing to happen at least from a US prospective. The US military is the strongest in a battle because we control the sky. If China controls space guess who controls the war -- China. China Space program and dedication to that cause are more of a threat than Iraq or North Korea.

      Say all you want but if we do not get off our butts, dust ourselves off and get back into space in major way we will go the way of the Soviet Union, British Empire, Ottoman Empire, etc. There use to be a time when Astronuats died and yes it was tragic and the country morned but then we moved on and continued our quest.

      Whomever ends up controlling space will be the next Superpower. Right now the US is looking more and more like the British Empire at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century.

      --
      Rabi Satter
  32. 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

  33. 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.

  34. 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
  35. ISS by Lord_Byron · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    Imagine the horror for the people still on ISS.

  36. Re: $DEITY rest their souls by xScruffx · · Score: 2, Informative

    Thank you very much for pointing this out. Much like the other (well-publicized) tragedies that have happened of late, it's probably best for the chillin' to be *told* about this stuff by their PARENTS rather than CNN/FNN/whathaveyou.

    Now, if that's the only tube in the house . . . let them play in their room or something for a bit.

    xScruffx

  37. Just a note to remember the servicemen as well. by Psyko · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not to play down this immence tragedy, but while you are praying for everyone aboard the shuttle, don't forget about the servicemen that have recently been lost in military operations abroad. Both of these professions are highly dangerous and come with great risks, but when a squad of US troops is lost it only makes the front page for a few minutes.

    Life == Life.

    --
    01:36AM up 426 days, 2:46, 1 user, load average: 0.14, 0.11, 0.05
  38. Looks like Feynmann was right :( by Snowhare · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Following the Challenger disaster 17 years ago, Richard Feynmann came to the conclusion that catastrophic shuttle disaster had odds off approximately 1 in 100 (See RISKS Digest 18.09) based on the fact that 4% of unmanned space shots go bad - and presumably manned flight gets that 'extra' attention that would reduce their rate a bit.

    Challenger was flight STS-51L - this was flight STS-107. I'd say even Feynmann may have been somewhat optimistic (although 2 failures is a thin data set - anyone want to figure a chi-square on it?).

    1. Re:Looks like Feynmann was right :( by gunnk · · Score: 4, Informative

      Feynmann was very unhappy with the report on the Challenger disaster. As a member of the committee responsible for the report he refused to sign off on it unless he could include his views on shuttle safety as an appendix. As another /. reader pointed out previously, you can read Feynmann's appendix here:

      http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/ docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt

      Down near the end of the appendix Feynmann places the odds of catastrophic failure for a shuttle to be "on the order of 1%". This does NOT mean he said it was 1%: when a physicist says "on the order of" he means "the same order of magnitude" or (for the less mathematically rigorous) "about the same power of 10 as". He even went on to apologize for being unable to be more specific.

      So, Feynmann's estimate was really that the chance of failure is CLOSER TO 1 IN 100 than to 1 in a thousand or 1 in 10.

      --
      Life is short: void the warranty.
  39. 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.
    1. Re:End of Nuclear power in space.... by rkent · · Score: 4, Interesting

      At the risk of running OT, I highly doubt this is the end of project prometheus, although it is an excellent argument against it: just doesn't seem safe to fire up rockets full of nukes anymore.

      As evidence that the project will continue, I refer to this PopSci article:

      "The New War in Space"
      http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/arti cle/0,12 543,334743,00.html

      Not because PopSci is really the definitive source on such issues, but because it contains some quotes from Rumsfeld about his (hence, the administration's) intent to "weaponize" space, and some analysis thereof.

      The choice quote, which I can't track down at the moment, is something like "All media (land, sea, air) have been used for combat, and it's unrealistic to think space will be any different." Unfortunately, I doubt the administration will be dissuaded by the deaths of 7 astronauts, or the broader implications of this tragedy relative to the safety of sending *anything* into space.

  40. 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.

  41. end of the Space Program by dpilot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Thousands die on the road every year, and we haven't closed down automobile travel, yet.

    Thousands die from tobacco-related causes...

    Thousands die essentially from poor eating habits...

    We have a poor sense of risks in our society.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  42. TEXT OF Re:Timestamped report from Spaceflight Now by joe_janitor · · Score: 2, Informative

    Since it seems slashdotted...



    1502 GMT (10:02 a.m. EST)
    News reports say President Bush is being briefed. It is expected he could soon make a statement to the nation.
    1500 GMT (10:00 a.m. EST)
    There have been no further announcements from Mission Control.
    1440 GMT (9:40 a.m. EST)
    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."
    1436 GMT (9:36 a.m. EST)
    NASA is asking that any persons finding debris should stay clear given the hazardous nature of the materials and alert local authorities.
    1435 GMT (9:35 a.m. EST)
    The last voice communications from the crew involved a tire pressure message. Communications were then garbled and static. Contact with the shuttle was lost at about 9 a.m. EST.
    1429 GMT (9:29 a.m. EST)
    Search and rescue forces are now being deployed, NASA says.
    1427 GMT (9:27 a.m. EST)
    NASA says the shuttle was about 200,000 feet up and traveling at 12,500 miles per hour when contact was lost. From all the reports we're receiving, it is becoming clear that the shuttle broke apart over Texas.
    1419 GMT (9:19 a.m. EST)
    Contingency plans are in effect in Mission Control.
    1416 GMT (9:16 a.m. EST)
    This was the time of Columbia's landing. What we know is contact was lost with the shuttle at about 9 a.m. EST and a sighting by residents in Texas reported a debris cloud following the plasma trail as Columbia streaked overhead.
    1415 GMT (9:15 a.m. EST)
    The flight dynamics officer reports there is no tracking of the shuttle.
    1414 GMT (9:14 a.m. EST)
    Entry Flight Director Leroy Cain has instructed flight controllers to get out their contingency plan.
    1410 GMT (9:10 a.m. EST)
    NASA is still seeking tracking data. Communications with the shuttle were lost about 10 minutes ago.
    1409 GMT (9:09 a.m. EST)
    Still no contact with Columbia or crew.
    1406 GMT (9:06 a.m. EST)
    Mission Control waiting for C-band tracking data and UHF communications with Columbia through MILA. Houston lost communications with the shuttle a few minutes ago over Texas. We have gotten reports of debris in the sky.
    1405 GMT (9:05 a.m. EST)
    THERE HAS BEEN NO COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE SHUTTLE. Mission Controllers waiting for tracking data from the Merritt Island station.
    1404 GMT (9:04 a.m. EST)
    We're getting reports from Texas of debris behind the shuttle's plasma trail during reentery.
    1401 GMT (9:01 a.m. EST)
    Columbia is out of communications with flight controllers in Houston. Now 15 minutes from landing time.
    1359 GMT (8:59 a.m. EST)
    At an altitude of 40 miles, shuttle Columbia has entered Texas.
    1357 GMT (8:57 a.m. EST)
    The shuttle is now 43 miles over New Mexico. Columbia is now reversing its bank to the left to further reduce speed.
    1356 GMT (8:56 a.m. EST)
    Columbia's speed is now about 15,000 miles per hour as it streaks over northern Arizona.
    1355 GMT (8:55 a.m. EST)
    The shuttle is now soaring over the southern portion of Nevada. Columbia set for touchdown at Kennedy Space Center in Florida in about 20 minutes. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2003
    1353 GMT (8:53 a.m. EST)
    Columbia is now crossing the California coastline. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2003
    1351 GMT (8:51 a.m. EST)
    Altitude 47 miles. Speed 16,400 miles per hour.
    1349 GMT (8:49 a.m. EST)
    Columbia is beginning the first in a series of banks to scrub off speed as it plunges into the atmosphere. These turns basically remove the energy Columbia built up during launch. This first bank is to the right.
    1346 GMT (8:46 a.m. EST)
    Thirty minutes to touchdown. Altitude 64 miles. Columbia will be making landfall over California shortly, flying north of San Francisco. The shuttle's course will take it over Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and then along the Gulf Coast and into the Florida Panhandle.
    1344 GMT (8:44 a.m. EST)
    ENTRY INTERFACE. The protective tiles on the belly of Columbia are now feeling heat beginning to build as the orbiter enters the top fringes of the atmosphere -- a period known as Entry Interface. The shuttle is flying with its nose elevated 40 degrees, wings level, at an altitude of 400,000 feet, passing over the southern Pacific Ocean, about 4,400 nautical miles from the landing site, at a velocity of Mach 25. Touchdown is set for 9:16 a.m. EST at Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
    1342 GMT (8:42 a.m. EST)
    Columbia is currently above the Pacific Ocean at an altitude of 90 miles.
    1336 GMT (8:36 a.m. EST)
    Now 40 minutes to touchdown. Today's landing will be the 62nd to occur at Kennedy Space Center in the history of space shuttle program. Dating back to May 1996, this will mark the 40th of the last 45 shuttle missions to land in Florida. KSC is the most used landing site for the shuttle. Edwards Air Force Base in California has seen 49 landings and White Sands in New Mexico supported one.
    1332 GMT (8:32 a.m. EST)
    The remaining two Auxiliary Power Units are being activated to supply pressure to the shuttle's hydraulic systems, which in turn move Columbia's aerosurfaces and deploy the landing gear. One unit was started prior to the deorbit burn; the others just a few moments ago. The units are only activated during the launch and landing phases of the shuttle mission. Also, a dump of excess propellant through the shuttle's Forward Reaction Control System has been completed.
    1331 GMT (8:31 a.m. EST)
    Columbia's current altitude is 146 miles. Time to touchdown: 45 minutes.
    1323 GMT (8:23 a.m. EST)
    Onboard guidance is maneuvering Columbia from its heads-down, tail-forward position needed for the deorbit burn to the reentry configuration of heads-up and nose-forward. The nose also will be pitched upward 40 degrees. In this new position, the black tiles on the shuttle's belly will shield the spacecraft during the fiery plunge through the Earth's atmosphere with temperatures reaching 3,000 degrees F. Columbia will begin interacting with the upper fringes of the atmosphere above the Pacific in about 20 minutes.
    1318 GMT (8:18 a.m. EST)
    DEORBIT BURN COMPLETE. Columbia has successfully completed the deorbit burn, committing the shuttle for its journey back to Earth. Landing is scheduled for 9:16 a.m. EST at Kennedy Space Center in Florida to cap Columbia's 16-day microgravity science flight.
    1315 GMT (8:15 a.m. EST)
    DEORBIT BURN IGNITION. Flying upside down and backwards about 176 miles above the Indian Ocean to the west of Australia, Columbia has begun the deorbit burn. The firing of the two Orbital Maneuvering System engines on the tail of the shuttle will last nearly three minutes, slowing the craft by over 250 feet per second to slip from orbit. The retro-burn will send Columbia to a touchdown at 9:16 a.m. EST on a runway just a few miles from the Kennedy Space Center launch pad where the shuttle lifted off 16 days ago.
    1311 GMT (8:11 a.m. EST)
    Pilot Willie McCool is activating one of three Auxiliary Power Units in advance of the deorbit burn, now four minutes away. The other two APUs will be started later in the descent to provide pressure needed to power shuttle's hydraulic systems that move the wing flaps, rudder/speed brake, drop the landing gear and steer the nose wheel. NASA ensures that at least one APU is working before committing to the deorbit burn since the shuttle only needs a single unit to make a safe landing.
    1309 GMT (8:09 a.m. EST)
    GO FOR THE DEORBIT BURN! With the fog burning off and high-altitude winds deemed acceptable, entry flight director Leroy Cain has given space shuttle Columbia's astronauts the "go" to perform the deorbit burn at 8:15:30 a.m. EST for return to Earth. The upcoming two-minute, 38-second retrograde burn using the twin orbital maneuvering system engines on the tail of Columbia will slow the shuttle's velocity just enough to slip the craft out of orbit and begin the plunge back into the atmosphere. Columbia is headed for a landing at 9:16 a.m. EST at Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
    1303 GMT (8:03 a.m. EST)
    Columbia is now in the proper orientation for the deorbit burn. The shuttle is flying upside-down and backwards with its tail pointed in the direction of travel. The shuttle's vent doors have been closed and final configuring of the onboard computers has been completed.
    1259 GMT (7:59 a.m. EST)
    A weather briefing is being given to flight controllers. The fog is burning off. But the question is whether the situation is clearing fast enough to permit an on-time landing of Columbia today.
    1255 GMT (7:55 a.m. EST)
    A report on the conditions at the Shuttle Landing Facility indicates sky conditions scattered at 5,000 feet, scattered 29,000 feet and visibility of 4 miles.
    1249 GMT (7:49 a.m. EST)
    Mission Control has told the crew to maneuver the shuttle and press on with the final preparations for the deorbit burn. However, the weather is still being evaluated and a final "go" to perform the braking rocket firing to drop from orbit has not been made. The deorbit burn is scheduled for 8:15 a.m. EST to send the shuttle on the course for landing at Kennedy Space Center at 9:16 a.m. EST. If this deorbit and landing opportunity is waved off, Columbia would make another orbit of Earth and target a deorbit burn at 9:49 a.m. and touchdown at 10:50 a.m. EST.
    1245 GMT (7:45 a.m. EST)
    The crew has deactivated the shuttle's kitchen area. And pilot Willie McCool has completed the Auxiliary Power Unit prestart, which positions switches in the cockpit in the ready-to-start configuration. One of the three APUs will be started prior to the deorbit burn. Coming up on a "go/no go" decision for the deorbit burn in the next few minutes.
    1232 GMT (7:32 a.m. EST)
    The latest check on upper level winds shows conditions are trending more favorable, NASA says. It remains quite foggy, however, at the runway. But visibility is expected to improve as the morning continues.
    1212 GMT (7:12 a.m. EST)
    The crew has been given the approval to begin their "fluid loading" protocol to drink large amounts of liquids to help in readapting to Earth's gravity, a precursor to today's landing. Although there is still optimism for favorable conditions at Kennedy Space Center for touchdown at 9:16 a.m. EST, visibility is currently restricted by fog at the runway. But it is expected that as the sun continues to rise the fog will burn off this morning. In addition, strong winds aloft are being monitored.
    1200 GMT (7:00 a.m. EST)
    The astronauts are finshing up the chore of checking the hundreds of switches in the crew module, verifying that they are in the right position for entry. In Mission Control, officials are continuing to monitor and discuss the winds aloft at Kennedy Space Center. Weather balloons have revealed that the winds are strong and shift directions are various altitudes. Based on the conditions, NASA will have to determine if Columbia can safely fly through the winds. And, if so, which end of the runway to use.
    1128 GMT (6:28 a.m. EST)
    CAPCOM Charlie Hobaugh in Mission Control has given commander Rick Husband the Deorbit and Landing Preliminary Advisory Data update. The deorbit burn is now targeted to begin at 8:15:30 a.m. EST and last for two minutes and 38 seconds, slowing the ship by about 250 feet per second. That will put Columbia on course for its hour-long glide back to Earth. Once in the skies off Kennedy Space Center, Husband will pilot the shuttle around a 213-degree right overhead turn to align with Runway 33 for touchdown at 9:16 a.m. EST. Meteorologists are monitoring upper-level winds in determining which end of the runway will actually be used today. At present, Runway 33 is being targeted.
    1115 GMT (6:15 a.m. EST)
    Now two hours away from the deorbit burn. Weather continues to improve at Kennedy Space Center this morning. In the next hour, the crew will begin suiting up. And then in about 90 minutes, entry flight director Leroy Cain is scheduled to make the final "go/no go" decision on the deorbit burn.
    1050 GMT (5:50 a.m. EST)
    Columbia's clam shell-like payload bay doors have been closed and locked for today's fiery descent into Earth's atmosphere and 9:16 a.m. EST landing at Kennedy Space Center. Mission Control has given commander Rick Husband a "go" to transition Columbia's onboard computers from the OPS-2 software used during the shuttle's stay in space to OPS-3, which is the software package that governs entry and landing. And Columbia will be maneuvering to a new orientation in space to improve the communications link with NASA's orbiting data relay satellites. Meanwhile, NASA astronaut Kent Rominger is flying weather reconnaissance around Kennedy Space Center aboard a T-38 jet trainer. The low clouds and fog reported earlier are expected to dissipate for landing on the first entry opportunity today at 9:16 a.m. EST. There is a backup opportunity available an orbit later. The wind is expected to pick up for the 10:46 a.m. EST landing attempt but should be down the runway and within limits. So with weather expected to cooperate in Florida today, the astronauts should be back on Earth in a couple hours to wrap up their 6.6-million mile voyage.
    1000 GMT (5:00 a.m. EST)
    The seven Columbia astronauts are marching through the deorbit preparation timeline at this hour, stowing away equipment and readying to close the ship's payload bay doors for today's reentry and landing to conclude the 16-day science mission. Earlier this morning the Spacehab module was closed after the success marathon research mission that featured about 80 experiments. The weather forecast remains favorable at Kennedy Space Center's shuttle runway for a touchdown at 9:16 a.m. EST. However, meteorologists are watching low clouds and fog in the area. It is believed the cloudiness and fog will burn off as the sun rises. FRIDAY, JANUARY 31, 2003 Columbia commander Rick Husband, pilot William McCool and flight engineer Kalpana Chawla tested the shuttle's re-entry systems today, setting the stage for landing Saturday to close out a 16-day science mission. Touchdown on runway 33 at the Kennedy Space Center currently is targeted for 9:15:50 a.m. EST. Read our full story. THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 2003 Astronauts aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia are completing their final runs on experiments in the Spacehab Research Double Module and beginning preparations for Saturday's landing. Most of the 80 experiments already have completed their data collection, and today was the last day for the remaining investigations, in particular the Water Mist Fire Suppression Experiment (MIST)
    , the Mediterranean Israeli Dust Experiment (MEIDEX)
    and the Advanced Respiratory Monitoring System (ARMS)
    . MIST, which got a late start due to problems setting up the test chamber, is nearing its 30th run as it studies the effectiveness of fog-like water droplet concentrations in putting out flames. The experiment is sponsored by the Center for Commercial Applications of Combustion in Space at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden as part of continuing program to design replacements for environmentally hazardous chemicals such as Halons. MEIDEX will be recording its final data takes of lightning "sprites" and "elves," after successfully imaging a major dust concentration in support of its primary objective to study how fine dust particles, or aerosols, affect the Earth's environment. MEIDEX was sponsored by the Israeli Space Agency and Tel-Aviv University in association with Payload Specialist Ilan Ramon's first space flight for an Israeli. Crewmembers also began wrapping up and storing the final blood, urine and saliva samples they are providing for studies of human physiology associated with the ARMS cardiovascular experiments and the Physiology and Biochemistry Team experiments. The samples will be kept at appropriate temperatures in refrigeration systems in the Spacehab module for return to Earth and further study. And the Biotube experiment, which was activated Wednesday, looked at flax seeds as they grew in the presence of strong magnetic field. Scientists on the ground used video downlinks to monitor the length of root growth to ensure appropriate fixation times. Commander Rick Husband and Flight Engineer Kalpana Chawla of the day shift took turns simulating landing on the PILOT computer-based training system. Pilot Willie McCool of the night shift will get in his practice session overnight. Landing is scheduled for 9:16 a.m. EST Saturday and preliminary forecasts show excellent conditions at the Shuttle Landing Facility in Florida. If weather decides not to cooperate, there are plenty of supplies to support the crew until conditions are favorable. Husband also peeked under the floor of the Spacehab module to look for water that might have leaked out of the balky air-conditioning system earlier in the mission. He reported finding no moisture that could contaminate Spacehab systems if jostled during Saturday's re-entry and landing, but covered several holes in the water sub-assembly with tape as a precaution.

  43. ISS crews usually use Soyuz, not Shuttles by jpatokal · · Score: 3, Informative
    Remember how long it took to reinstate the STS program after the Challenger Incident?

    Yes.

    What are the chances NASA will send up STS 108 on schedule?

    Zero. I wouldn't be surprised if the shuttles never fly again.

    Will they use the soyuz emergency capsule to return earthside?

    Unlikely. Remember, the Soyuz is not just an emergency capsule, it's a full-blown launcher system. Most supply and crew change missions to the ISS are flown with Soyuzes, so technically the shuttle is not an irreplaceable part of the ISS program.

    However, Russia's financially strapped space program has been hard pressed to produce even the current number of spacecraft (the "escape capsule" Soyuz is swapped for a new one every 6 months), so whether they alone can keep going is doubtful.

    -j.

    1. Re:ISS crews usually use Soyuz, not Shuttles by pudknocker · · Score: 2, Informative

      Incorrect. All crew change missions are flown by the shuttle. Soyuz missions fly every 6 months to replace the Soyuz capsule with a fresh one. They fly a new one up and take the old one back. This is the type of mission that Dennis Tito and Mark Shuttleworth flew on. Both the Shuttle and Russian Progress capsules deliver supplies.

    2. Re:ISS crews usually use Soyuz, not Shuttles by jmauro · · Score: 2, Informative

      If need be the crew change missions could be flown using Soyez. The first crew went to ISS using Soyez and returned on the shuttle. The shuttle is still needed for constrution though. Especially since most pieces were designed to fly inside of the shuttle cargo bay.

  44. This Is To Be Expected by MarkX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I find it interesting that many people here are wringing hands and bemoaning the space program. I would simply say that this is to expected. Accidents happen. Life happens. NASA is engaged in some of the most dangerous endeavours humans have ever undertaken. The reality is vehicles will be lost, people will die. It is the nature of things.

    All of us undertake serious risk in pushing forward our human lot every day. Just getting in a car and going to work places us in seroius danger of our lives. You could die tomorrow. NASA is launching people into space on the backs of rockets and plunging them back into the atmosphere at incredible speeds. All to improve the lot of our species, to push the envelope, to reach for greater achievements.

    Does this mean we should stop the space program? No. We should honor the lives of those lost and continue in the path they lead.

    Mark

  45. Toxicity of Shuttle Maneuvering Fuel by fustar · · Score: 2, Informative

    Buzz (Aldrin) says that the hypergolic fuel remaining on the shuttle looks like brown cloud. He says stay away because it will coat the inside of your lungs and asphyxiate you within 48 hrs.

  46. Re:Please by KezMaefele · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Of course we want to know what happened so that we can in the future avoid this catastrophe happening again, and that will provide comfort to the families of astronauts and the nations citizens, but prayer will also provide comfort and peace and understanding to all. Which helps heal more is a matter of debate I suppose, but is merely argumentative and pretty petty.

  47. The first israeli astronaut: Some Details by Neophytus · · Score: 2, Informative

    NAME: Ilan Ramon (Colonel, Israel Air Force) Payload Specialist

    PERSONAL DATA: Born June 20,1954 in Tel Aviv, Israel. Married to Rona. They have four children. He enjoys snow skiing, squash. His parents reside in Beer Sheva, Israel.


    Sounds like a nice guy :-/

  48. NOAA Radar by dorko · · Score: 5, Interesting

    NOAA weather radar / short range reflectivity for Mid-Texas shows a line of high return paralleling and just south of a line between Dallas and Tyler. It's time lapse. Quite a remarkable radar image.

    1. Re:NOAA Radar by TotallyUseless · · Score: 3, Informative

      look at this still shot further along the trajectory..

      --

      Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
  49. linking Columbia and Sadam ? by thamez · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I just can't figure out how some people can be so pathetics.

    "Your're the same group that is defending Sadam".

    It reminds me of Bush saying: "You're with us or against us." There is no word to say how stupid, inconscious it is. In my first year of college, I learned in philosophy that saying such things is ridiculous. Some people would certainly needs more education.

    I even heard that some US medias began to make speculations about terrorism ! It is unbeleivable. All I have to say is: Americans, watch out, medias want you to get affraid of everything !

  50. NOAA Radar by WeenaMercatur · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not exactly something most people probably want to see, but heres the radar track showing the breakup... http://www.srh.noaa.gov/radar/latest/DS.p19r0/si.k shv.shtml

  51. Shuttles. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No. The shuttle is a monstrously complex beast that NASA kept using because it had already sunk so much time and effort in. If technologies like the Rotary Rocket had made space flight simple, reliable and cheap, this wouldn't have happened, and it wouldn't have set the space program back twenty years.

    I now know how everyone felt in 1986, after the Challenger disaster.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:Shuttles. by random_static · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I now know how everyone felt in 1986, after the Challenger disaster.

      if anything, it was a bit worse then. there was a civilian aboard Challenger - Christa McAuliffe, because of whom that liftoff was watched on live TV in a lot of classrooms. the shuttle program was going full-bore then, too; it was a time when the things were supposed to be safe, effective, cheap lift to orbit. regular people didn't expect them to blow up spectacularly and kill all their crew back then, so it was more of a surprise and shock.

      but yeah, just about as bad the second time around too. goddessdammit, i just don't want there to be a third time. woulda, coulda, shoulda had the bloody DC-X by now...

  52. Re:Plutonium on board? by user+no.+590291 · · Score: 2, Informative
    There will never, ever be any radioactive material launched into space, for very good reason.

    Kind of difficult to have nuclear powered satellites without radioactive material, I imagine.

  53. Feynman on reliability of the space shuttle... by Karpe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    can be found here (Google cache)

  54. Shuttle, Gliding, x-plane, and a theory by visionik · · Score: 5, Informative

    Their is a good description of what happens during the shuttles landing at:

    http://www.x-plane.com/orbiter.html

    x-plane is an amazing flight simulator that uses an amazingly realistic flight model - great "physics" in video game software speak - and can simulate shuttle landings. The shuttle is a glider. I'm a glider pilot, but certainly not anything like a shuttle pilot ... however I have flown a shuttle on X-plane for what its worth.

    The shuttle changes its bank during the phase of the landing it was in to reduce speed. It's not banking to try change its course, it banks to increase drag and reduce speed. The shuttle just rotates over oneo its left or right side a bit.

    The shuttle switches back and forth from banking right to banking left to stay on course while performing these drag increasing maneuvers.

    FYI, these maneuvers are also done with the shuttle at a very steep angle of attack - as high as 70 degrees. This angle is also used to increase drag to slow the shuttle down.

    The last confirmed communication happened shortly after the shuttle made its first switch from being banked right to being banked left.

    It is very possible that the switch to being banked left introduced a change in force which led to a structural failure of the wings or control surfaces which are used during the landing. Given the high drag, high angle of attack, banked flight angle the orbiter would be in at the time, the shuttle would almost immediately start spinning end over end at 12,000 mph, disintegrating almost instantly.

    Nasa also reported that one of the last data events they received from the shuttle was a "loss in tire pressure". It's alternatively possible that this could happen after an internal explosion in the shuttle, with part of the explosion debris puncturing the tire.

    Below is a chronology from spaceflightnow.com - Notice the change in bank angle time.

    1401 GMT (9:01 a.m. EST)

    Columbia is out of communications with flight controllers in Houston. Now 15 minutes from landing time.

    1359 GMT (8:59 a.m. EST)

    At an altitude of 40 miles, shuttle Columbia has entered Texas.

    1357 GMT (8:57 a.m. EST)

    The shuttle is now 43 miles over New Mexico. Columbia is now reversing its bank to the left to further reduce speed.

  55. How soon the next shuttle flight? (Space station) by LinuxParanoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My understanding is that the space station requires re-supply by the shuttle. After the Challenger explosion, shuttles didn't fly for another two years. Clearly the people on the space station require at the very least rescue if not re-supply. My question is this: how long can the folks in the space station last without another shuttle flight?

    --LP

  56. Re:Plutonium on board? by mrhartwig · · Score: 2, Informative

    There will never, ever be any radioactive material launched into space, for very good reason.

    Please. Get a clue -- gullible people might actually believe you know what you're talking about, which you obviously don't.

    NASA's been using plutonium as an energy source for decades. Voyager I & II, launched in 1977, used RTGs (radioisotope thermoelectic generators) for power. These use the heat generated by the decay of the plutonium to generate electricity. Now I don't recall off the top of my head if any probes before Voyager used RTGs, but I know other probes since have also used them. Given the low light intensity in the outer solar system, and the weight involved in fuel cells or (laugh) batteries, I suspect RTGs, or something similar, will continue to be used for power.

    And we'll have more idiots protesting the "nuclearization" of space, or something similar, when they think they've discovered something new. See the Cassini launch for an example.

    Now, AFAIK, I can agree with you about no radioactive material on Columbia. So today, anyone concerned with that kind of debris problem probably can go back to sleep.

  57. Just to pre-empt a few arguments before they start by Effugas · · Score: 4, Informative

    OK:

    1) As has been mentioned, there was no missle fired that could hit 200,000 feet. Iraq may have built a "supergun" with the capability to launch objects into space, but a) its firing would have been pretty obvious and b) the odds of it hitting its target are about zero, while the chance of its discovery was absolute. So no -- this wasn't a surface-to-air attack.

    2) Neither was it some kind of EMP pulse. Ignoring the height, this is a ship that needs to be able to survive the extraordinarily hostile EMP environment of space -- that magnetic field that the sun's particles slam into, giving us those nice Auroras, don't exist where the shuttle goes. The ship was built to withstand EMP -- the odds of a remotely invoked meltdown in its electronics are effectively nil.

    3) No, they couldn't have known it was going to fail. Random crap happens all the time, even small tiles of foam coming off. The ships are built to be four-times redundant; you don't want your ship falling apart if a simple tile comes off. I'd be surprised if this had anything to do with the insulation stripping off.

    4) No, the space program is not going to be shut down. To be blunt, China ain't going anywhere but up, and with an entirely fresh, completely modern space program at that. This is a tragedy. This is horrifying. But there will be future missions.

    Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go mourn now.

    Yours Truly,

    Dan Kaminsky
    DoxPara Research
    http://www.doxpara.com

  58. Re:How soon the next shuttle flight? (Space statio by danhoover · · Score: 4, Informative

    CBS is reporting that the Russians sent up an unmanned supply vehicle this morning, and also that there is an escape craft of sorts sufficient to return the ISS crew to Earth without a shuttle flight.

  59. Heaviest shuttle ever upon landing? by Phoenix-kun · · Score: 2, Interesting

    During a pre-launch interview with Payload Commander, Mike Anderson, he said this would be the heaviest shuttle ever upon landing due to the number of science experiments on board. Could they have been pushing the design parameters?

    --
    Phoenix
  60. 6 Americans, 1 Israeli AND 1 Indian by theBrownfury · · Score: 2, Informative

    I understand the tragedy, but it cannot be ignored that there was a seventh astronaut onboard Columbia.
    Her name is Kalpana Chawla. Times of India has the story here.
    Text as follows:

    Kalpana Chawla did India proud

    PTI[ SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 01, 2003 09:25:13 PM ]

    WASHINGTON: Kalpana Chawla, who is feared to have perished in the Columbia space shuttle mishap along with six others, had done India proud when she embarked on her first space mission on November 19, 1997.

    The Karnal-born Chawla, the first Indian American astronaut, began her career at the Ames Research Center at Nasa in 1988.

    A graduate in aeronautical engineering from the Punjab Engineering College she began work at the Ames in the area of fluid dynamics.

    Following her successful tenure at the Ames, Chawla in 1993 joined the Overset Methods Inc in California as vice president and a research scientist in charge of simulating various body functions for future space missions.

    Nasa selected Chawla as an astronaut candidate in 1994 and she joined the 15th group of astronauts in March 1995.

    After an year of training and evaluation, Chawla was assigned as a crew representative to work on technical issues for Nasa's Astronaut Office Extra Vehicular Activities, Robotics, dealing in space walks.

    She was instrumental in the testing space control software in the Shuttle Avionics Integration Laboratory.

    Chawla's received recognition here and was assigned as mission specialist and prime robotic arm operator on the STS-87 and was involved in the manual capture of an orbiting satellite.

    Born in Karnal in Punjab, Chawla did her schooling from the Tagore School in the city and took a degree in aeronautical engineering from the Punjab Engineering College.

    She went on to complete her Masters from the University of Texas in 1984 earned a doctorate from the University of Colorado.

    --

    "Unlike most of you, I am not a nut." - Homer J. Simpson
  61. Fate of All Shuttles by PingPongBoy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The space shuttle is an amazing technology, but all the shuttles are going to fly until they can't.

    This is an acceptable risk, and with the aging shuttle program Columbia is a timely wake-up call.

    It's time to redesign the shuttle
    - why does it have to re-enter so fast? (not to evade terrorist missiles) It should be able to fly itself anywhere after re-entry.
    - crew ejection
    - tiles falling off
    - can lift off and land in poor weather
    - more monitoring to know if something can go wrong (not acceptable to have a tile break off and not know what the consequences are)

    --
    Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  62. Dates in US space tragedy by LinuxParanoid · · Score: 4, Informative

    Jan 27, 1967: Apollo 1 fire
    Jan 28, 1986: Challenger explosion
    Feb 1, 2003 Columbia breakup

    --LP

  63. "High Flight" by two_socks · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "High Flight" 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 wind-swept 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. John Gillespie Magee, Jr.

    --
    I can't help it - I'm a 19D.
  64. 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.

  65. Re:Don't forget about the crew on the Space Statio by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    but, with a crew on the Space Station, a long delay will not be possible this time.

    Do you know anything about the ISS? The reason there's only three crew members? Because the Soyuz "lifeboat" attached to the ISS to be used in case of an emergency can only hold three people.

    So no, there is no rush to get the shuttle back in service to retrieve the ISS crew, the crew can easily return on the Soyuz capsule. However, once the lifeboat is used, they won't leave the station manned without a replacement.

    Considering the financial woes of the Russians, it's likely NASA will shut down the ISS until the shuttle program is back up and running.

    --
    -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
  66. Re:Not meaning to flame... by urbazewski · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It's not about the death of seven people. It's about our collective desire for exploration, for understanding and appreciating the vast vast universe that we inhabit. It's about attempting something that is larger than any one or any seven individuals, and watching as it literally disintegrate. Space travel should and can represent a common aspiration to explore space in peace and for the benefit of humankind. I know that the space program hasn't always fulfilled these aspirations, but it's our best effort so far.

    I, for one, felt a deep heavy sadness when I saw the news this morning, far beyond the deaths of seven human beings. Space flight is dangerous, and astronauts are brave and dedicated --- I think it's reasonable to feel differently about a group of people that die trying to achieve a worthy and inspiring goal than about the same number of people, or even the exact same people, dying accidentally.

    annmariabell.com

    --
    foldplay your photos won't know what hit them.
  67. Re:How soon the next shuttle flight? (Space statio by myrashka · · Score: 2, Informative

    I remember reading that the station has several options that should keep it safe:

    1) Supplies are often shipped via unmanned craft.
    2) A Soyez (sp?) reentry capsule is attached to the space station that's available for evacuation and recovery of all personnel aboard the station.

    The US currently has 3 people there. They were scheduled for replacement in March (along with the first female shuttle commander...another event that may be delayed)....I saw something on CNN saying they'd probably be okay until late spring before any drastic decisions even needed to be considered.

  68. If it was sabotage... by MsGeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...it would probably have happened on the ground as the shuttle was being prepared for launch.

    I am old enough to remember the first flight of the good ship Columbia. Please bear in mind a few facts:

    The Columbia was the first Shuttle to blast off. The Enterprise was basically a glider that was used to test how well a Shuttle could land.

    It's old. 22 years old. It has flown 25+ missions and literally millions of miles.

    When the Columbia first landed in the early 1980s, there was concern for the safety of the Astronauts during re-entry. Nobody was entirely certain about whether or not the ceramic tiles would hold, and it was speculated that if a tile broke loose before or during reentry the entire heat shield would be compromised enough for the ship to break up under the stress of the friction of the atmosphere.

    I am not saying that this was the work of terrorists...there are so many things that can go wrong during reentry that a completely accidental breach of the heat shield is probably the most likely cause of the disaster. However, very simple "monkey-wrenching" of the heat shield could have caused this as well. If an infiltrator broke a tile or two in such a way that it wouldn't be readily apparant to final inspection, or maybe pried one or two loose...

    I have no doubt, however, that either Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or Hesbollah, all three and/or any combination of the three will claim responsibility for this event. I don't think AlQaeda will, because they seem to only take credit for things they actually have a hand in. Also I don't think that you will hear anything from the Palestinian Authority other than conciliatory words.

    Weird coincidence: smack dab in the middle of the debris field is a Texas town called Palestine.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
  69. 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.'

  70. Eerie article in Washington Post by polyiguana · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This was filed on the AP wire (and shown on the Washington Post's web site) just 32 minutes before the shuttle came down. Kind of eerie when you look at what David Brown said. -- Columbia Streaks Toward Florida Landing By Marcia Dunn AP Aerospace Writer Saturday, February 1, 2003; 8:28 AM CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- With security tighter than usual, space shuttle Columbia streaked toward a Florida touchdown Saturday to end a successful 16-day scientific research mission that included the first Israeli astronaut. The early morning fog burned off as the sun rose, and Mission Control gave the seven astronauts the go-ahead to come home on time. "I guess you've been wondering, but you are 'go' for the deorbit burn," Mission Control radioed at practically the last minute. Ilan Ramon, a colonel in Israel's air force and former fighter pilot, became the first man from his country to fly in space, and his presence resulted in an increase in security, not only for Columbia's Jan. 16 launch, but also for its landing. Space agency officials feared his presence might make the shuttle more of a terrorist target. "We've taken all reasonable measures, and all of our landings so far since 9- 11 have gone perfectly," said Lt. Col. Michael Rein, an Air Force spokesman. Columbia's crew - Ramon and six Americans - completed all of their 80-plus experiments in orbit. They studied ant, bee and spider behavior in weightlessness as well as changes in flames and flower scents, and took measurements of atmospheric dust with a pair of Israeli cameras. The 13 lab rats on board - part of a brain and heart study - had to face the guillotine following the flight so researchers could see up-close the effects of so much time in weightlessness. The insects and other animals had a brighter, longer future: the student experimenters were going to get them back and many of the youngsters planned to keep them, almost like pets. All of the scientific objectives were accomplished during the round-the-clock laboratory mission, and some of the work may be continued aboard the international space station, researchers said. The only problem of note was a pair of malfunctioning dehumidifiers, which temporarily raised temperatures inside the laboratory to the low 80s, 10 degrees higher than desired. Some of Columbia's crew members didn't want their time in space to end. "Do we really have to come back?" astronaut David Brown jokingly asked Mission Control before the ride home. NASA's next shuttle flight, a space station construction mission, is scheduled for March. The next time Columbia flies will be in November, when it carries into orbit educator-astronaut Barbara Morgan, who was the backup for Challenger crew member Christa McAuliffe in 1986.

  71. Re:Space Shuttle by Black+Rabbit · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What is it about this time of year for nasty space disasters?

    Jan 27th, 1967, Apollo 1
    Jan 28th, 1986, Challenger

    Now this?

    Withthe exception of Apollo 13, which ended in a successful rescue, all the most serious disasters in the NASA space program, the ones involving deaths of astronauts, have been in the last week of January and now the first week of February.

    Thoughts?

  72. We *WILL* get to Mars by hey · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Of course, this is a tragedy but its not the end of manned spaceflight as some people are saying.
    Perhaps the end of the shuttle but remember all the other NASA disasters we overcame.

    Since today underlines how dangerous launch/reentry is I think it illustrates that we should not be taking such big risks for dinky reward (ie to and from space station) ... lets go to Mars!

  73. Never mind Mars, what about the ISS? by Black+Rabbit · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    For that matter, are/were there any astronauts/cosmonauts aboard Alpha? How are they going to get home now? I don't think there's going to be any shuttle missions for quite a while. Are we going to have to get lifts from the Russians?

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

    1. 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!
  74. Could crew experience be a factor? by AtariDatacenter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    After we grieve, we have to search for answers. One of the things that I saw, going over the crew bios, was that this wasn't one of the more experienced crews. This was the pilot's first flight. It was only the mission commander's second flight.

    I absolutely am not putting this at their feet. However, it obviously will be one of the questions raised during the search for answers.

    MSNBC has the crew profiles embedded in their story.

  75. Re:Very Bizarre by shayne321 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Which means that either the thermal protection system failed or it hit the atmosphere at the wrong angle due to a malfunction causing the pilot to be unable to control the shuttle or (highly unlikely) pilot error.

    I think we can rule out pilot error.. As I understand it, the shuttle is under computer control until final approach, at which point control is handed over to the pilot for final and touchdown. So that leaves thermal protection malfunction (most likely), or if it was at an incorrect angle it would be due to the flight computers being programmed with incorrect data, or a problem with the flight computers and/or hydraulic control systems.

    Shayne

    --
    Today I didn't even have to use my AK; I got to say it was a good day -- Icecube
  76. 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
  77. Re:MOD PARENT UP!! by MullerMn · · Score: 2, Funny

    hear hear. Too bad there isn't a way to disable certain mods for boards like this.

    Yes, it really is a shame that there isn't more censorship in society. If we don't have someone in authority telling us how to act, think and feel, who knows what might happen.

  78. Broadcast.com: NasaTV broadcast for official news by cybrthng · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.broadcast.com/learning_and_education/sc ience/space/nasa/nasa_television/

    Supports 56k and broadband. Official meda channel for NasaTV if you don't have access to satelite.

    More links available on google.

    http://www.unitedspacealliance.com/live/nasatv.h tm

  79. Re: $DEITY rest their souls by Flounder · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I took my kids and tried to explain what happened. All they could keep asking was "What happened? Why did it break?"

    Which is exactly what I was asking myself when the Challenger exploded.

    --

    No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova

  80. 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.

  81. 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."

  82. 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."

  83. Re:Please by rking · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do us all a favor and go kill yourself. I don't fucking care if you are religious or not, you don't have to attack those of us that are.

    Reread his post and then your response and see if you can work out which of you was attacking someone. He very mildly responded to a request that everyone pray. You suggested that he kill himself. I assume that your religion isn't one of the ones that advocates tolerance?

  84. Interesting radar by T5 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just checked the weather radar over the United States and found some interesting results. First, there were three of rapidly-disappearing streaks over the San Joaquin Valley, near Beale AFB, and near Reno, NV, laying parallel to the shuttle's path. Shortly after that, there were two simultaneous streaks north and south of Tuscon, AZ. Shortly thereafter there are also a lot of smaller, very intense echos in the area around Holloman AFB and El Paso, TX. Then a persistent cloud that of the time of this posting is drifting from between Lufkin and Longview, TX toward Alexandria, LA.

    If these streaks and point echoes are what I believe them to be, that is, parts of Columbia, she was in trouble before she made landfall in California or very shortly thereafter. The images we've been seeing on TV are several minutes after the first possible indications of trouble and show Columbia badly damaged.

    May God bless all who are affected by this tragedy.

  85. Re:No doubt! by Enahs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No, the second teacher was supposed to go to the Columbia after landing, to get a good look at it after landing and whatnot. There's all sorts of nice neat tidy coincidences on this flight, and I'm sure the data will be gone over with a fine-toothed comb. It's the week of the Challenger disaster, the Columbia flight right before it took up the second teacher to be green-lighted for a Shuttle mission, and the first Israeli in space was on this flight. I don't think that necessarily means that something evil was afoot, but there are certainly a number of interesting coincidences that make it more probable.

    --
    Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
  86. 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?
  87. bring back the VentureStar by constantnormal · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... there's simply no reason why we should continue using the ancient expensive dangerous shuttle technology, when there's been MUCH better stuff developed.

    Check out the milnet page on VentureStar, which is apparently being funded by black-budget ops (speculation -- but something is happening, the Air Force doesn't warehouse dead NASA projects out of the goodness of its heart). Link here

    Had to pull the page from the Google cache, as much of the X-33/VentureStar info has disappeared from the web. But there's still plenty of stuff from non-governmental sites.

    One of the X-33 design goals was to reduce cost per pound of payload from $20,000 to $2000, but in my mind, the more efficient and reliable engines, lack of strap-on boosters, slower reentry, no ceramic "bricks" for heat protection make good enough reasons to move forward with such a replacement for the shuttle, even if it had zero cost advantage in lifting payload to orbit.

    There's no good reason to continue using the obsolete and dangerous shuttle technology forever.

    1. Re:bring back the VentureStar by cybercuzco · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Venturestar looks great until you actually start running the numbers on it. Any single stage to orbit craft has to have an insanely low structural mass fraction. something like .05-.1 What those numbers mean is that for ever kilogram of payload, structure, engines, people etc, you need 10-20 kg of fuel. Things get better if youre dropping structure and fuel tanks off along the way, like the shuttle. Howevwer, if you had to carry the SRB's and the external tank all the way to orbit, the shuttle would be twice as big as it currently is and still have the same payload capacity. Venturestar tried to get around this with new efficient engine technology and carbon fiber fuel tanks. The Carbon fiber fuel tanks would have significantly reduced the tank weight. Unfortunately, fuel leakd throguh the carbon skin and into the honeycomb underneath. When the tanks emptied the fuel vaporized and popped a hole in the tank. Not very good for reusability. Engine performance can only be tweaked so far. The limits are the chemical energy that is released from a given reation. Ultimately all rockets get killed by the rocket equation. dV=g0*Isp*ln(mf/m0) g0=gravity=9.81 m/s^2 Isp= the specific impulse of the fuel (depends on the fuel) the best we can get is about 450-460 for liquid oxygen-liquid hydrogen ,mf=final mass of your vehicle m0=initial mass of your vehicle. dV= total change in velocity for the vehicle. Orbital velocity is about 7600 m/s plus you need to add on a bit more for drag as you go through the atmosphere, and the energy you need to actually reach altitude. A good number is 10000 m/s Run the numbers yourself and see how much mass you need in fuel to launch a certain mas of craft. Keep in mind that as you increase the amount of fuel you increase the amount of tank mass and other masses like wiring and computers.

      --

  88. Discover the problem, fix it, continue exploring! by bigberk · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is a terrible disaster. Getting out of bed and switching on the CBC (radio) I couldn't believe my ears. Were the explorers themselves OK? Trail of debris? Oh no...

    As a young engineer, I can't help but think of the Challenger disaster. During my engineering education, the disaster was used for illustrative purposes in a number of ways -- it demonstrated pure engineering failure (design failure) certainly, but also demonstrated compromises made in engineering because of political/business pressure, a compromise that can not be tolerated when human safety is at stake. And we learned a lot from it.

    Today's event is truly a disaster. But we must make the most of it. We have to thoroughly investigate, to complete satisfaction, until we learn what caused the accident/failure. Then we fix the problem to the best of our abilities and make sure the same mistake isn't repeated.

    And then, most importantly, we try again. We must continue with scientific exploration of space. The benefits to humanity are many: development of new technologies; new solutions to problems here on earth; and most importantly... exploration and discovery.

    And that's why, in my eyes, the explorers on Columbia deserve our utmost respect and praise. They risked their lives exploring beyond earth for humanity's benefit. It would truly be an insult to these fine people to cut back on space exploration because of this accident.

    Accidents like this one should not make us halt exploration. They should renew our motivation to improve our designs, and then continue upon the original goals with improved technology!

  89. 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.

  90. 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.

  91. It should also be noted... by automandc · · Score: 4, Interesting
    ...that this was Columbia's first flight after being returned to service following extensive upgrades. NASA has been upgrading the avionics and other systems aboard the Shuttle fleet for the last several years, and Columbia was the most recent upgrade. Thus, even though everyone is harping about Columbia being "the oldest" shuttle, it is actually the oldest airframe, many parts of it (including engines and flight control) were actually the newest in the fleet.

    Interesting facts aside, this is a terrible tragedy. After an appropriate period of introspection and mourning, I hope that our government has the foresight to use this as the impetus to rethink the space program from the ground up, and reinvest in the types of endeavors that made the U.S. recognized leaders in the advancement of science and human exploration in the 1960s. It is time for NASA to be completely redesigned, and a new human space initiative begun with the bold, risk-taking nature that Americans have always been known for.

    Unfortunately, our current governemnt is led by what is most likely the most short-sighted administration of the past 100 years. The chances of this President using this tragedy constructively as a catalyst for postive change are about the same as one of the Shuttle astronauts phoning in from a payphone in East Texas.

    --
    I'm a lawyer with excellent karma. Something's gotta be wrong.
  92. Reality check by DragonHawk · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't mean to offend, but you obviously don't know what you are talking about.

    The space shuttle is an amazing technology, but all the shuttles are going to fly until they can't.

    Of course. Why would they stop using them if they were still good? The orbiters were designed to be able to launched at least 100 times. The Columbia, while over twenty years old, was still well within its operational lifetime. There are commercial jetliners twice as old as Columbia still in active service today.

    Furthermore, it isn't like this was some beat-up automobile that someone was still trying to coax a few more miles out of. Each orbiter is subject to a complete inspection after every launch. Systems which can no longer do their job are upgraded or replaced. NASA's shuttle fleet is probably the best maintained equipment in human history.

    "...why does it have to re-enter so fast..."

    Because it is in orbit. An orbit is achieved by traveling fast enough that your rate of fall toward the center of gravity (Earth, in this case) is canceled out. I believe the orbiter travels at a relative ground speed of something like 17,000 miles per hour.

    In order to decelerate from that great velocity, they use the atmospheric breaking. Just as the breaks in your car use friction to slow the car, the orbiter uses atmospheric friction to slow the orbiter.

    It is an inherently dangerous situation (second only to launch in risk), but an unavoidable one.

    ...It should be able to fly itself anywhere after re-entry...

    How?

    It's a reasonable question. There is a good reason every spacecraft ever flown by man has used an unpowered re-entry: Fuel. You would need a lot of fuel to control that kind of velocity. That means added weight, and weight is everything when it comes to launching a vehicle from a gravity well. Every pound of weight on the space shuttle costs approximately five thousand dollars to launch.

    A powered landing would not only be impractically expensive, it would likely be technologically impossible. It makes no sense.

    ...crew ejection...

    Again: How? Velocities of thousands of miles per hour. Altitudes of hundreds of thousands of miles. Temperatures of hundreds of degrees Fahrenheit. It isn't like they can just jump out. To survive, you would basically need to build another spacecraft. See above about weight.

    ...tiles falling off...

    The heat shield is one of the weaker points in the design of most spacecraft. Keep in mind that building a realistic heat shield pushes our materials technology to the edge. While you might think that building a single surface with no seams would be better, but that is not so. It would in fact be considerably harder and more expensive to build. It would also be much harder to maintain. The shuttle's tiles can be easily replaced when they inevitably degrade. Not so with a single surface.

    ...lift off and land in poor weather...

    On one hand, you're suggesting infeasible or impossible improvements. Now you suggest they subject it to unnecessary risk? Why?

    ...more monitoring to know if something can go wrong...

    The space shuttle is already one of the most heavily monitored devices ever built by man. Huge amounts of data are constantly transmitted, recorded, and analyized by computers and people, both onboard the spacecraft and on the ground. What do you suggest they do differently?

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
  93. 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.

  94. Russians in 71 by hughk · · Score: 2, Informative
    Apparently when the Russian capsule separated a ball valve did not close so the air drained out. The astronauts clearly attempted to correct the situation (a hand control had been changed), but they just died of hypoxia within a minute or so.

    This is why wearing space suits was made compulsory during landing (also for NASA, who were briefed on this). At least one of the flight crew would wer the suit in case of problems.

    --
    See my journal, I write things there
  95. 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

  96. Unbelievable by NixterAg · · Score: 5, Informative

    I live in Nacogdoches, Texas, which is near where some of the debris fell. At around 8 this morning, I heard a low rumble, almost like an earthquake or something. Then the house starting shaking off and on for about 20-30 seconds. My first thought was to check the major appliances in the house (heat pump, hot water heater, etc.) simply because we don't get earthquakes in this neck of the woods. My wife also got up and said the house was shaking and it woke her up (and it is no small feat to wake her up early on a Saturday morning).

    I ruled out any problems with the house and went online hoping maybe to find seismic information or news about an explosion or something. Within a few minutes, I saw the alert on CNN.com suggesting they'd lost contact with Columbia. I instantly knew that's what the rumbling was and I started to fear the worst.

    It's not terribly uncommon to hear sonic booms when the shuttle goes over (we seem to be in the path when the shuttles land at Cape Canaveral) but it also isn't uncommon to have low flying B-52s and B-2s. Needless to say, this is a horrible tragedy. Personally though, it's one thing to see it on TV. It's quite another to have it take place in your back yard.

  97. CBS Is reporting possible failure of left wing by nerdherder · · Score: 4, Informative

    CBS is reporting multiple sources in NASA are looking at a possible left wing failure. This is the same wing which was possibly damaged by the foam falling off the fuel tank on launch. CBS was earlier reporting that last communication from the shuttle was relating to a inordinate tire pressure change also (not specific on which wing), could explain heating up of the left wing because of a heat shield failure, leading to heating up of the tire, increase tire pressure, catastrophic wing failure, shuttle gets out of alignment on re-entry, and it tears apart.

    Again, this is only prelim reporting but would make sense in relation to visual reports of spiraling etc. Wing failure, goes into a spin, breaks up.

  98. Ahh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
    One thing that warms my soul about Slashdot's troll community is that, no matter how profound or tragic an event is, they're at the fore keeping it real for the rest of us.

    ---
    Aliens Make First Contact With Mankind
    Posted by CmdrTaco on Friday Aug 13, @4:22PM
    In an amazing turn of events for the hmuan race, a spacecraft landed in the middle of Iowa just over an hour ago. The three intelligent orbs of light aboard the ship have already given the world knowledge of interstellar travel, an understanding of advanced nanotechnology, and peace in the Middle East. They have promised that none shall go hungry again, that an age of plenty will be had by all, and that our only limitations in the future will be our imaginations.

    FP (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 13, @4:23PM (#32174720)
    I wonder if they've ever been inside a black hole.

  99. 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

  100. An Engineer's view on the first flights... by dargaud · · Score: 4, Informative

    This morning when I heard the news, I was just getting started on the chapter "We're on fire!" of the book Flight, My life in mission control by Chris Kraft. This book provides a very interesting alternative viewpoint to the manned spaced program than the usual journalistic lack of information or astronauts famed biographies.
    Here we get plenty of gritty details, in particular all the technical problems that they had during flights, and there were plenty. The well publicised Apolo 13 was only one of them, as virtually every mission was riddled with loss of control, loss of comunication, targetting error, or even worse, like rocket misfire on the pad with astronauts on top ! Just to show how close they were many times from major failure. Today was just one step over the limit.
    A very recommended read for all you engineering types. And the others.

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
  101. Just to add to the speculation... by CommieLib · · Score: 3, Interesting

    DFW's outstanding local coverage of the tragedy (the anchor is a pilot and really knows his shiznit about aviation tech) pointed out what must have been a huge piece breaking off before the contrail begins. I immediately said "bay door". He followed with that a moment later.

    It's obviously way early, but it's possible that the shuttle bay door was not secure, the ram pressure of reentry levered it open, the shuttle tumbled due to new aerodynamic forces, and the rest is, sadly, history.

    --
    If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    1. Re:Just to add to the speculation... by io333 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That is extremely unlikely. Multiple redundant warning systems would have set off a warning in the cockpint of there was locking failure of the bay doors. If one did come off, I would speculate it was due to internal pressure from a different source than failure to lock.

      Even the simplest private planes with folding landing gear have redundant systems to warn of gear lock failure.

  102. Rest in peace STS-107 crew by EEGeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't think I can say anything that hasnt been posted already. I just want to express my deepest condolences to the crew, their families, and to the American people. Being a canadian engineering student, I have always dreamed of working for NASA in the USA, a lifelong dream, that I one day hope to accomplish.. although working for the Canadian Space Agency would also suffice. This is a very sad day on so many levels. On the level of the loss of life, as well as on the engineering side... as the Challenger explosion in 1986 set back the American space program... I can only hope that NASA presses on, and that congress doesn't stifle funding even more. Also a sad day to the American people, as well as here in Canada... astronauts were my childhood heros, and still are. Godspeed STS-107 crew... Godspeed.

  103. 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.

  104. 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.

  105. A sad day .... by raj2569 · · Score: 2

    The day ends here at India with this sad news :(
    Esp since one of the astronauts was from India, My heart goes out for all the brave men and women and their family members!!

    raj

    --
    Sarovar.org Hosting for open source projects in Indi
  106. Mission Control streams by ahaning · · Score: 2, Informative

    28.8K - mms://63.250.199.211/nasa288
    56.6K - mms://63.250.199.213/nasa566
    100K - mms://63.250.208.26/nasa100
    300K - mms://wmevent9.adns.dal.yahoo.com/nasa300k

    --
    Withdrawal before climax is very ineffective and those who try this are usually called "parents."
  107. Some of the last images of the astronauts by Kaz+Riprock · · Score: 4, Interesting


    Space.com has a series of pictures put together with captions that were taken during the past 2 weeks on board the shuttle.

    You can also find a copy of the mission patch and an explanation at spaceflight.nasa.gov (don't remember the direct link, sorry).

    --
    Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
  108. 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.

  109. Support ISS with Russian crafts by Vadim+Makarov · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not a space expert, but the most sensible thing for my country (I'm Russian) would be to fully support ISS operation with its Progress and Soyuz spacecrafts, until the things are sorted out with the Shuttles. Perhaps cough up some extra cash on the Russian side, yes. That would also be a politically correct thing to do.

    This would mean the construction activity is halted (Shuttles were to deliver most/all new modules), but at least the station can be operated in its current configurations for the time being.

    I view the dual delivery systems (STS + Russian crafts) as a partial redundancy built into the ISS program. Don't we now have the exact case when this redundancy should be used?

    Any knowledgeable person to comment?

    --
    17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
  110. Re:Troll: Why is this story on slashdot?? by mrscott · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are frequently posts about happenings in NASA posted on Slashdot - ie - Mars, asteroid sitings, etc. If this story isn't "stuff that matters", I don't know what is.

  111. Iraqis cheering: It's already haappened by Nova+Express · · Score: 2, Informative
    In answer to your first question, Iraqis are already cheering. See: http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=IB UFOPXYHAEJUCRBAE0CFEY?type=worldNews&storyID=21527 84.

    "We are happy that it broke up," government employee Abdul Jabbar al-Quraishi said. "God wants to show that his might is greater than the Americans. They have encroached on our country. God is avenging us," he said."
    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

  112. Survival is possible at Mach 6? not ! by geoswan · · Score: 2, Informative
    As others have pointed out "bailing out" at 200,000 feet is unprecedetned. There have been attempts to use high-altitude balloons to set records for free-fall. IIRC the record was from about 115,000 feet. Roberta Bondar, one of the senior Canadian astronauts, interviewed on Canadian TV this morning, pointed out that the bailout procedure was intended to be used at 40,000 feet, or below, and at subsonic speed. The oxygen tanks attached to those Orange pressure suits held 9 minutes of oxygen, when she had her training in 1992.

    She outlined the bailout procedure.

    [1] Explosive bolts blow out the hatch. The hatch blows out at, IIRC, sixty miles per hour. The shuttle has to be below a certain speed threshold, or the hatch will not clear the shuttles wing.

    [2] Then another explosive charge shoots a pole out the hatch. This pole is intended for the astronauts to hook up to, like a world war two paratrooper. The plan is that this pole may allow the astronauts to slide out of the shuttle's slipstream, and out of danger of striking the shuttle's wing. Note: this requires the shuttle to be flying in a stable orientation, at relatively slow speed.

    [3] The astronauts have to unhook their seatbelts, walk over to that pole, and hook their static lines to the escape pole, and then jump out.

    Bondar estimated it would take at least one minute to complete these steps.

    When you were a kid, did you ever roll down the window of the car, and stick a piece of paper out the window, while mom or dad were driving down the freeway? Did you notice how the turbulence whipped it around? I read a book about the Air-India bombing. The authors described how all the corpses had all their bones broken in multiple places. Even at speeds of only hundreds of miles per hour sticking one's limbs into the slip-stream causes the same kind of whipping motion.

  113. No. We need low orbit ... by fygment · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... flights by humans. Remember: the Hubble repairs and upgrades. Just as we can't perfectly send humans into space, we also can't perfectly send robots or equipment. And as probes get more sophisticated, their size will mandate their construction in orbit. Humans will be needed for that.

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
  114. How many? How safe? by geoswan · · Score: 2, Interesting
    How many shuttles have there been you ask? This was the 107th shuttle launch.

    I strongly recommend looking at Richard Feynman's account of serving on the committee to investigate the Challenger crash.

    He describes being shocked at how the figure one crash in 100,000 launches was floating around, with no justification behind it. When he talked with actual engineers, they had realistic views of the reliability of their particular sub-systems.

    Anyhow, the real figure was expect one disaster every one hundred launches or so.

    So two disasters within the first 107 launches is withing the predicted envelope.

    I feel sure all the astronauts are aware of this figure. If they were doing their homework they would have to have learned this. I feel sorry for their friends and family, but they too should have been aware of the gamble the astronauts were choosing to make.

  115. An eerie warning from a year and half ago by Aexia · · Score: 4, Informative

    Senators Challenge Shuttle Safety Spending

    WASHINGTON -- Raising the specter of another shuttle tragedy, senators and others warned Thursday that NASA's growing budget woes are putting astronauts' lives at risk.

    Pressure to deal with a projected $4.8 billion cost overrun on the International Space Station project and other factors have caused National Aeronautics and Space Administration managers to treat space shuttle safety upgrades as optional, officials said Thursday. Numerous pending safety improvements to the orbiter vehicles and their ground-support infrastructure have been targeted for cancellation or deferral.

    "I fear that if we don't provide the space shuttle program with the resources it needs for safety upgrades, our country is going to pay a price we can't bear," said Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla.

    [...]

    "We're starving NASA's shuttle budget and thus greatly increasing the chance of a catastrophic loss," Nelson said.

    The lone NASA official to testify, William Readdy, deputy associate administrator for the Office of Space Flight, did not dispute Nelson's assessment.

  116. DCT (Dumbest Conspiracy Theory) by Tsar · · Score: 2, Funny

    FCT (First Conspiracy Theory):
    A Mossad space based weapon took them out, so they could blame Arafat as the crew contained the first Israeli in space


    Except for the tidbit that Arafat doesn't have that capability. Even if Israel had that capability, why would they do something totally beyond the ability of their enemy, then hope some idiot (no offense) blamed it on them anyway?

    When my brother was getting potty trained, he would occasionally take a dump in his drawers, then tell Mom that his sister did it. Congratulations, you've taken the DCT award from him.

  117. Re:$DEITY? by Iguanaphobic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    and people seemed to just stop buying stuff

    Sad commentary on society when that's what it takes to get people's attention. When was the last time that this happened??

    --
    Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
  118. Re:Space Shuttle by aschneid · · Score: 2, Informative

    Columbia was only on it's 28th mission. The design specs of the shuttle was for it to complete 100 missions. I don't think this makes it absurdly old, and more than matches the equipment they needed.

    Nobody knows yet what caused the shuttle to disintegrate, but this shuttle was completely overhauled in 1999, and was well below it's intended end of life.

  119. Tile Damage an Old Problem by Gigantic1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    See: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/2121/used_news. htm

    WORKING ON A TILE DAMAGE MYSTERY

    By Greg Katnik
    http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/shuttle/team/kat nik.html

    December 23, l997

    STS-87 rolled to a stop; the mission was complete! That statement is true for the flight of the Columbia, however, a new mission began when the wheels of the Columbia came to a stop: the post flight inspections. My division is responsible for the overall analysis of these inspections and we insure that all changes made, due to these inspections, do not affect other areas that may jeopardize the flight-worthiness of the shuttle. This division does not focus on one specific area, but analyzes all information and ensures that all aspects are kept in balance.

    Immediately after the Columbia rolled to a stop, the inspection crews began the process of the post flight inspection. As soon as the orbiter was approached, light spots in the tiles were observed indicating that there had been significant damage to the tiles. The tiles do a fantastic job of repelling heat, however they are very fragile and susceptible to impact damage. Damage numbering up to forty tiles is considered normal on each mission due to ice dropping off of the external tank (ET) and plume re-circulation causing this debris to impact with the tiles. But the extent of damage at the conclusion of this mission was not "normal". The pattern of hits did not follow aerodynamic expectations and the number, size and severity of hits were abnormal. Three hundred and eight hits were counted during the inspection, one-hundred and thirty two (132) were greater than one inch. Some of the hits measured fifteen (15) inches long with depths measuring up to one and one-half (1 1/2) inches. Considering that the depth of the tile is two (2) inches, a 75% penetration depth had been reached.Over one hundred (100) tiles have been removed from the Columbia because they were irreparable. The inspection revealed the damage, now the "detective process" began.

    During the STS-87 mission, there was a change made on the external tank. Because of NASA's goal to use environmentally friendly products, a new method of "foaming" the external tank had been used for this mission and the STS-86 mission. It is suspected that large amounts of foam separated from the external tank and impacted the orbiter. This caused significant damage to the protective tiles of the orbiter. Foam cause damage to a ceramic tile?! That seems unlikly, however, when that foam is combined with a flight velocity between speeds of MACH two to MACH four, it becomes a projectile with incredible damage potential. The big question? At what phase of the flight did it happen and what changes need to be made to correct this for future missions? I will explain the entire process.

  120. Check out this imagery by n1ywb · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.rap.ucar.edu/cgi-bin/neilley/NIDS_archi ve?Radar=SHV&Composite=NONE&Start_date=20030201&St art_time=13&Duration=240&Frequency=0&Parameter =1

    Here is a 4 hour sequence of high-res Shreveport imagery. Whats amazing is how long the debris trail lingered in the sky, and the way it disappears so suddenly I almost think they may have adjusted the radar's gain to hide it.

    I'd say this is totaly cool, but...

    --
    -73, de n1ywb
    www.n1ywb.com
  121. Per Ardua ad Astra by benito27uk · · Score: 2

    Through Struggles to the Stars... At least they were doing what they have strived for all their lives. Now we must ensure that we contine to ensure their lives were not lost in vein.

  122. 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.

  123. Hrm... by autopr0n · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actualy, unlike what we know so far about this disaster, people did know that something might go wrong with the Challenger. One of the main reasons it was pushed for that day was because Regan wanted to have people up in space while he gave the state of the union address.

    Kind of ironic, I guess.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  124. 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.
  125. Bush's rhetoric: Mr. War goes sentimental by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Well, it is too early to say what went wrong. It's also too early to know if the defunding of NASA -- which has generated warning after warning for years -- is to blame. But it is not to early to observe what is going on in this:
    "The same creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today," Bush said, his eyes glistening. "The crew of the shuttle Columbia did not return safely to Earth but we can pray they are safely home."
    The president whose people generate a plan to lob 400 cruise missiles per day into civilian Iraq is not someone from whom I will buy such opportunistic sentimentality. You can't deal cheaply with human life and expect people to believe you when a speechwriter sticks a few lines worthy of Rod McKuen in your hand.
  126. Engineer who brought that warning was fired by Eric+Green · · Score: 3, Interesting
    For the crime of testifying before Congress that NASA was skimping on safety, she was fired. Here is what she has to say about the situation (forwarded from Politech):

    Two years ago, I was a highly decorated NASA engineer. I was awarded their highest medal, for Exceptional Achievement -- something that is usually reserved for senior managers -- because of my expertise.

    I was a safety engineer.

    I was removed from my GS-13 position, as an internationally-recognized authority on hypergolic propellants and explosives, and forced off the Kennedy Space Center. At gunpoint.

    Their excuse was that I had "abused government equipment." Because I sent a friend an e-mail joke.

    The reality was that I wouldn't play their "political ball."

    I F-ING WARNED THEM.

    I told them that the technicians and engineers were overworked. I told them that there were too many managers and too many meetings and "dog-and-pony" shows. I told them that their senior "face time" play games, while they spent all their time plotting how to give each other pay raises, and left the guys on the floor to struggle day to day with obsolete and overpriced and unqualified equipment, was going to result in another Challenger.

    I was there for Challenger.

    I saw the same exact conditions happening again. Overpaid, lazy, irresponsible managers concerned solely with their climbing up their ladders.

    I told them they were skimping on inspections. I told them that the ground crews were asleep on their feet from exhaustion. I made as much noise as I knew how to make about the top-heavy bureaucracy sitting around in their fancy panelled offices, giving whorish press interviews in their smugness, while they did not have a clue what was going on in the real world where I was working.

    They fired me. They fired a GS-13 civil servant, with an Exceptional Service medal and ten dozen commendations. For sending an e-mail joke.

    In reality, for objecting to political fat-cats sitting on their fat rear ends and failing to do their jobs.

    Like Challenger, those who are most guilty are the ones who will attempt to make the most political capital out of it. But the blame for Columbia lies entirely and totally with the NASA administrators. They should all be investigated for their criminal negligence. They should all serve time in jail.

    I warned them. They did their best to destroy me, because I warned them.

    It's too bad that innocent astronauts paid with their lives for NASA managers greed and political ass-kissing.

    But I am not surprised.

    Two years ago, I warned them.

    Dian Hardison
    Cocoa, FL 32927

    Note: Her NASA biography is still online at a NASA site.

    --
    Send mail here if you want to reach me.
  127. Eerie foreboding from the land of Slashdot by salientpoints · · Score: 2

    from the Ants in Space /. story:


    So... (Score:5, Funny)
    by antaeogo on Sunday January 26, @01:07AM

    If the shuttle crashes during re-entry, they can blame it on a bug in the system?


    They have slipped the surly bonds of earth and touched the face of God.

  128. A Toast to the Crew: by TheCrazyFinn · · Score: 2

    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 the 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 fleecy skies
    And the cool, green hills of Earth.

    -- Robert A. Heinlein
    - Green Hills of Earth
    --

    --
    "You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
  129. human remains found... by C21 · · Score: 2
    http://www.dailysentinel.com/news/newsfd/auto/fe ed/news/2003/02/01/1044141409.01917.7429.8503.html
    I am really sad about this, I have no other words to express myself.
    --
    this is not a sig.
    1. Re:human remains found... by TomParrett · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Today's New York Times calculates the risks: 2 failures in 113 flights, about 98 percent success rate, which is thought by NASA acceptable -- or at any rate realistic -- for space flight. Who would go on a business trip with a 1 and 56 chance of dying? We have come to take astronauts for granted. They are extraordinarily valiant, the bravest of the brave.