Slashdot Mirror
Updated Information On Columbia Shuttle Tragedy
Thanks to all the readers who have sent links related to today's shuttle disaster. An Associated Press story carried on Salon says that an independent board (with members from the Air Force, Navy, Transportation Department and other federal agencies) has been appointed to investigate the disaster. CNN is carrying official statement from President Bush. Rediff.com has an article on the life of Indian astronaut Kalpana Chawla. borisonanovitch points to "more info on the science aboard Columbia and links to other NASA research." fabel reminds us "Most of the media is focusing on the slight damage that ocurred at takeoff (that NASA discounted at the time) but STS-107 was *delayed* for 6 months (original launch date 19 Jul 2003) Update: 02/01 23:51 GMT by T : [Note, should read "2002."] because of
cracks in the propellant feed lines to the 3 main engines. A defect that could have caused catastrophic failure. Did the fix work or not?"
May the rest in peace.
NASA probably has a good idea whaat happened, but it's pretty safe to assume that they won't speculate until they know for sure.
Wouldn't they have been vaporized in the atmosphere at that speed ?
You can bet your ass that NASA is not going to say anything until they know for sure what the hell happend. The last thing they want to do at this point is put out something and have it bite them in the ass at this point.
Anything they release from this point forward is going to be beyond reproach because they can afford for something to errode any credibility.
They are going to be very very careful and very clear. It is really the only way to move foreward.
Neck_of_the_Woods
#/usr/local/surf/glassy/overhead
If I'm not mistaken, the 3 main engines are used on launch only. They're useless in space, since they run off of the main fuel tank, which is jettisoned after the boost phase. The only engines of relevance in orbit/reentry are the OMS and RCS engines.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yes, Dr. Chawla was of Indian descent and grew up there, but she is a US citizen. She is an American astronaut, and no doubt proud of her Indian heritage.
There are reports of people in Nacogdoches (where most of the debris appears to have fallen) buying large bags at Walmart in order to scavenge for pieces of the wreckage in violation of federal law and ignoring personal safety concerns.
:(
Pieces of the shuttle are expected to appear on Ebay before too long, I wish I were making this up
Here is a mirror of some pictures from pdrap.org.
OMS does have motors and fuel, but the OMS do not use the same lines and fuel as Main Engines.
"orbital maneuvering system provides the thrust for orbit insertion, orbit circularization, orbit transfer, rendezvous, deorbit, abort to orbit and abort once around and can provide up to 1,000 pounds of propellant to the aft reaction control system. The OMS is housed in two independent pods located on each side of the orbiter's aft fuselage. The pods also house the aft RCS and are referred to as the OMS/RCS pods. Each pod contains one OMS engine and the hardware needed to pressurize, store and distribute the propellants to perform the velocity maneuvers. The two pods provide redundancy for the OMS. The vehicle velocity required for orbital adjustments is approximately 2 feet per second for each nautical mile of altitude change."
"Before the deorbit thrusting period, the flight crew maneuvers the spacecraft to the desired deorbit thrusting attitude using the rotational hand controller and RCS thrusters. Upon completion of the OMS thrusting period, the RCS is used to null any residual velocities, if required. The spacecraft is then maneuvered to the proper entry interface attitude using the RCS. The remaining propellants aboard the forward RCS are dumped by burning the propellants through the forward RCS thrusters before the entry interface if it is necessary to control the orbiter's center of gravity.
The aft RCS plus X jets can be used to complete any planned OMS thrusting period in the event of an OMS engine failure. In this case, the OMS-to-aft-RCS interconnect would feed OMS propellants to the aft RCS.
From entry interface at 400,000 feet, the orbiter is controlled in roll, pitch and yaw with the aft RCS thrusters. The orbiter's ailerons become effective at a dynamic pressure of 10 pounds per square foot, and the aft RCS roll jets are deactivated. At a dynamic pressure of 20 pounds per square foot, the orbiter's elevons become effective, and the aft RCS pitch jets are deactivated. The rudder is activated at Mach 3.5, and the aft RCS yaw jets are deactivated at Mach 1 and approximately 45,000 feet.
The OMS in each pod consists of a high-pressure gaseous helium storage tank, helium isolation valves, dual pressure regulation systems, vapor isolation valves for only the oxidizer regulated helium pressure path, quad check valves, a fuel tank, an oxidizer tank, a propellant distribution system consisting of tank isolation valves, crossfeed valves, and an OMS engine. Each OMS engine also has a gaseous nitrogen storage tank, gaseous nitrogen pressure isolation valve, gaseous nitrogen accumulator, bipropellant solenoid control valves and actuators that control bipropellant ball valves, and purge valves.
In each of the OMS pods, gaseous helium pressure is supplied to helium isolation valves and dual pressure regulators, which supply regulated helium pressure to the fuel and oxidizer tanks. The fuel is monomethyl hydrazine and the oxidizer is nitrogen tetroxide. The propellants are Earth-storable liquids at normal temperatures. They are pressure-fed to the propellant distribution system through tank isolation valves to the OMS engines. The OMS engine propellant ball valves are positioned by the gaseous nitrogen system and control the flow of propellants into the engine. The fuel is directed first through the engine combustion chamber walls and provides regenerative cooling of the chamber walls; it then flows into the engine injector. The oxidizer goes directly to the engine injector. The propellants are sprayed into the combustion chamber, where they atomize and ignite upon contact with each other (hypergolic), producing a hot gas and, thus, thrust."
That is 40% out of 20 years.
And less than 2% out of the total number of launches. And?
The Apollo 1 fire occurred on January 27, 1967, killing three astronauts on the launchpad. The next flight was Apollo 7, which lifted off on October 11, 1968, a delay of one and a half years. Bear in mind that the US space program was under intense pressure to meet a December 31, 1969, deadline to land a man on the moon.
The Challenger disaster (STS-51L) occurred on January 28, 1986, killing seven astronauts shortly after launch. The next mission (Discovery, STS-26) took off on September 29, 1988, a delay of two and a half years.
At the present time there is pressure to continue construction of the International Space Station. Unless the ISS is to be mothballed, this will probably mean that at least one launch will have to happen within a year or so.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Not sure of its been posted by anyone on the two threads, but here's a Radar Image of the debris rain being picked up by weather stations.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Basically it's the same thing you do when you're skiing and want to bleed off speed. It's a pretty common aviation maneuver used to bleed off speed, or in the case of general aviation, to check your blind spots before landing.
Essentially, it's a series of slow, lazy turns from side to side in a sort of half figure eight (resembling and S, ergo: S turns).
-E2
The evil monkey commands you to dance.
If these same seven individuals were coal miners that lost their lives in a coal mine collapse, and the space shuttle was unmanned, and blew up on the same day, which would get more news coverage and why?
Karma: 0 (But I wield a mean +10 Vorpal Apathy)
The Space Shuttle OMS engines provide the thrust to enter and exit low-earth orbit, and allow adjustment of the altitude and minor inclination changes while on orbit. The two major orbital operations, orbit entry and deorbit, are made with the two OMS engines. On-orbit propulsion thrust is also available for rendezvous maneuvers and altitude changes using the OMS engines with attitude control from the RCS thrusters. While attitude control and close-proximity maneuvers are provided principally by the RCS, the OMS can augment these operations with both fuel and thrust since both the OMS and RCS use the same fuel and oxidizer.
The primary OMS/RCS structures are the forward RCS section and the two OBS/RCS pods in the aft section which contain the two OMS engines and RCS thrusters. The two OMS/RCS pods on the aft fuselage contain the OMS engines, RCS thrusters, fuel, pressurization system and associated distribution and control systems.
Well the short answer is that there is no way to know.
If its a design flaw like with Challenger then it could easily be a simlar kind of time scale which will likely have a ripple effect on ISS. Though if Soyuz and progress launches could be stepped up there is no reason to abbandon ISS. However construction efforts would cease as they have been the purview of shuttle and soyuz can't launch the mass. Perhaps some Heavy Delta or Arian launches could be substitued but I would imagine that would take a couple years at the least to set in motion.
On the other hand if its a unique failure related to say the foam break off at launch or to some uncharted space debris on re-entry then they might not even miss the next scheduled launch.
In either event shuttles plate was pretty full with only 4 orbiters. Losing columbia does not effect any of the scheuled ISS missions as it was incapable of making the ISS orbit with enough payload so long as the remaining 3 remained cleared for operations.
So ultimately the quetion is if this is a fundamental problem in shuttles design or if it was a unpredicatable and unavoidable risk which comes with spaceflight operations.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
Shawn Shephard discusses the potential "tire pressure problem". From the video:
If I'm not mistaken, the 3 main engines are used on launch only. They're useless in space, since they run off of the main fuel tank, which is jettisoned after the boost phase. The only engines of relevance in orbit/reentry are the OMS and RCS engines.
;-)
Wow-- someone who knows the STS architecture
I think that there is a likely chance that what occured was that the foam which struck the left wing during launch probably caused enough damage to the ceramic tiles on the left wing to cause substantial structural heating, tire failure, and hydrolic failure. As this continued, the structure would have failed-- remember that aluminum does not survive well when being heated to 3000F.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Here is a link to the last audio received from Columbia: http://www.canada.com/toronto/globaltv/info/video/ 020103audio.ram
First, this is a tragedy for the astronauts and their families. I extend condolances to all who have been affected.
N ews.Rele ases/Previous.News.Releases/97.News.Releases/97-03 .News.Releases/97-03-28.Shuttles.New.ET.Completes. Testss tsstat/ 1998/sep/9-10-98s.htma ce/updates/sto32.htmle dc/newsreleases/1999/99 -041.htm/ releases/2 002/02-234.html
However, this problem is nothing new. The insulation material on the external fuel tanks was changed in 1997 and immediately caused problems. Lockheed-Martin was recently contracted to provide an external camera to monitor insulation loss. I have not found any documentation of the insulation problems from late 1997 until the cameras were installed.
See:
http://spacelink.nasa.gov/NASA.News/NASA.
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/status/
http://ltp.arc.nasa.gov/sp
http://www.arnold.af.mil/a
http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/news
for details about NASA's work on the problem.
This is going to be me, rambling. I'll be accused of being a liberal, tree-hugging, deficit-loving bitch, but it needs to be said.
Bush has, from day one, been all about, or so he says, cutting budgets. Everything but Defense, he says, is spending far too much. Education. Health and Human Services. AIDS research (his "broad" plan announced in the State of the Union address was a joke). NASA.
Time and time again, he has harped on cutting NASA's budget. He has forced the agency to abandon most all other programs, except extending the life of the shuttles.
Democrats and others have pleaded for Bush to reconsider. He hasn't.
One year ago, CNN discussed Bush's plans to dramatically reduce NASA's budget, INCLUDING safety spending, in favour of learning more about nuclear technology in space.
This PDF from the House Democrats makes Bush's cuts clear, in terms of NASA and science in general.
Worse yet, a year and a half ago, people were warning that these cuts were leading to an inevitable disaster in the shuttle program. A freaking year and a half ago.
And through all of this, the best Bush can say is "May God continue to bless America."
Oh, and Saddam is an evil, evil man.
Growl.
jrbd
With public support of NASA and space exploration in general on the deline for decades now I hope this isn't the end of the line for NASA as a useful organization.
Maybe the USAF will get back it's leading role in space as a platform for new weapons. I mean has anyone read Steven Baxter? The Air force has wanted back it's jurisdiction of space back since Eisenhower created NASA and took space away from the USAF. This is the chance they have been waiting for to discredit their viability in the future. Which %&&*@#&s are responsible for a study of nuking the moon, that's a great idea opposed to let's say COLONIZING MARS, which would actually be of any use to humanity. Whose responisble for making sure NASA doesn't suceed imposing so many safety regulations on the new shuttle programs that made them to expensive to fund. And I am talking redundant stuff which they were only doing in petty self interest. I guess the Europeans and the Japanese are now our hope for space expoloration, but I doubt they have the means without the US supporting their programs.
Hope I am wrong in both respects
I was only in 5th grade when the Challenger exploded. I remember thinking that someone would find out what happened and fix it so that it doesn't happen again. But of course, that's a pretty naive thing to think.
Later, when I was older, I read an account of the Challenger investigation in some compilations of interviews with Richard Feynman, the Nobel Laureate physicist. He was made a member of the investigative panel, even though he was strictly a civilian scientist. And in his words, when he was doing his investigation by going through documents and talking to people, it sounded that he felt like he was fighting a gigantic institutional bureaucracy that was being very slow, passive and reluctant to divulge information. On the committee were members of the military, former astronauts, etc, who likely had ties to NASA in some personal way, at least more so than some physicist from Caltech.
I don't know what sort of hard conclusions came out of the investigative committee in the end. Feynman was flamboyant and made a great show of the O-ring problem in front of TV cameras, an unrehearsed and disruptive performance, according to his accounts. But I think this flamboyance and disruptiveness was a good thing, because here was some guy who didn't give a crap about whether or not NASA was going to get its butt kicked for being negligent whatnot, and that's the sort of investigators that will be needed to bring the facts to light.
We will need people who are independently minded, and who are going to dig at the truth even if it might hurt a lot of people at NASA, assuming that the destruction of Columbia had a man-made origin. And even if NASA does become hurt and demolished in the process, that's for the better in the long run, because we will, hopefully, build anew and better, and send our tendrils even more deeply into space with or without the current incarnation of the thing we call NASA.
I grieve along with all the others affected by this disaster. It wasn't only the death of seven people, it was a little bit of death in all of us, of all of our wonder and awe and our eagerness to propel ourselves beyond our planet.
I predict that the problem was in the updated avionics software.
You heard it hear first.
1.) The tire pressure began to clime enormously high.
2.) 10 minutes before lost contact the thermometers that monitor the hydrolics on the left wing went offline.
3.) The fact that the crew just turned on the final phase of the autopilot. This controls the rudders and flies the shuttle like a plane. ( before this the computer just moves the shuttle in a zigzag pattern to slow it down upon re-entry which Columbia just finished doing)
4.) The computer did not report anything unusual besides what I mentioned in steps 1 and 2 above. Even if an explosion were to happen, the computer would send a few packets of temperature abnormalities before going offline according to an engineer.
THe problem could be any one of these 4 things.
My theory is that perhaps the left wing overheated near the thermometers and the extreme heat burned the circuitry so the temperature as well as the pressure sensors went offline. One nasa official said this may be possible. The reason why I theorize this is because the tires started to expand probably because of heat. Maybe a fire broke out or the wing could of just overheated and the heat moved to the landing assembly. Remember that the insulating heat tiles also hold heat in. If the tires exploded then perhaps the assembly would open pre-maturely and blow open a critical amount of heat tiles causing the shuttle to turn into an inferno.
Also an engineer at boeing said a problem with the hydrolics at one of the wings would violently move the shuttle angle and blow open the cabin and short the computer before it could send data. The pressure and enormous and friction would move the shuttle sideways and would brake open due to stress.
This all happened right when the left wing was used so this is what probably happened.
This is the only explanation that would answer the 4 questions.
http://saveie6.com/
The fuel lines which were repaired have nothing whatsoever with the failure today.
The three main engines are fueled by liquid hydrogen, the propellant, and liquid oxygen (LOX), the oxidizer. The propellent and LOX is provided only during the takeoff of the Shuttle. The fuel and LOX is pumped from the large brown-colored external tank attached to the Shuttle. During the ascent to orbit, the external tank is totally exhausted of LOX and fuel, and is jettisoned by firing explosive bolts which hold the external fuel tank to the Shuttle.
The fuel lines which formerly were cracked are not used in any way after the external tank is jettisoned. Those three main engines you mention are not used at all after the external tank is gone. They can't be. The fuel is gone. And the fuel lines which feed those engines are fuelless as well. They cannot explode by leaking, as there is nothing to leak, and nothing to ignite.
You may want to know that there are two much smaller engines (the two shrouded "bumps" on the rear top of the Shuttle on each side of the horizontal stabilier fin) which are not fuelled by liquid hydrogen. These are the orbital maneuvering engines, used for orbital changes, as well as the all-important de-orbiting burn which slows the Shuttle down enought to start falling back to Earth. The engines, it must be stressed, are not fuelled by the fuel lines which feed the three main "ascent" engines I mentioned earlier.
I would assume, but do not state authoritatively, that the two smaller orbital maneuvering engines are purged of fuel and oxidant after the Shuttle begins its descent to Earth. It would be incomprensible if there was any explosive whatsoever in any of the propulsion systems, because after the Shuttle begins the drop out of orbit, the engines are never used again. The fuel would be dead weight, not to mention a hazard which would serve no purpose.
Remember, the Shuttle is a dead stick glider after it enters the atmosphere. No engine power is possible. The engines are shut down, and never used after the de-orbital burn.
Whatever took the Shuttle apart was not explosive. There was no explosive mix on the Shuttle.
Opinion: Something fell off, unbalanced the craft, and pinwheeled it at 12,500 MPH, at which point it simply tore apart.
Speculations:
- A damaged wing tore off?
- The tail tore off?
- Somehow, one or more of the cargo bay doors opened?
- Somehow, a wheel bay door opened, even partially, and at that speed, flipped the craft?
- catastophic skin failure somewhere on the nose or belly of the craft?
- one of the engines came loose? Reaching here.
- one of the tiny attitude control rockets fired, swing the ship out of true, and slamming into a Mach-speed wind? This seems unlikely - I'd think those hypergolic fuel tanks would be purged before reentry.
- control surface(s) on the wing somehow moved, rolling or pitching the Shuttle?
- the rudder somehow moved?
- the parachute system released the chute, causing enough turbulence to flip the shuttle around?
- window failure?
- airlock door failure?
- (sadly) action of a crew member?
We must keep in mind that the Shuttle is the ultimate experimental aircraft. In a sane world, we would have evolved safer and cheaper craft in the last thirty years. But we were cheap, and cut the program to the bone -- down to the marrow.
The Delta Clipper would have been a smaller, cheaper, reusable single-stage-to-orbit wingless space taxi. We could have developed it on the cheap for a few billion over a period of ten years. But we went for the ultrasophisticated and ultimately unbuildable superspaceplane.
Now we have three X-craft that are proven to fail about every decade.
Developing simpler and safer craft is of maximum importance. The shuttle as it flies is too dangerous -- a compromise for the Air Force and the spooks during the early seventies, built to fly giant spy sats instead of the tiny taxi it was supposed to be. The tiles are impractical. The flight surfaces are unstable and parasitical weight.
We need to spend real money, and NOT just to fund Boeing/Lockheed-Martin. We need to build a real fleet of ships that do what we need them to do. Small passenger craft.
We can't keep trying to reach the stars with a budget that can't even pay for a repainting of NASA HQ. You can't cheap out R&D -- it doesn't work. People die. We must spend what the ENGINEERS say they need to build the next gen of craft, and the gen after that, and after that.
We built the equivalent of a biplane, and froze time. We must build the DC-3. The 707. The tech has to evolve naturally, as engineers learn from past flaws. We do not do this. We have insisted that NASA first build a flying boxcar it didn't deem necessary. Then we wanted this experimental craft to last for forty years or more.
The real miracle is that the NASA engineers have kept this sad can flying since the late seventies.
Has anybody explained why they couldn't have done a spacewalk to inspect the damage from the insulation strike?
Yes, they have. It was not possible to inspect the bottom of the shuttle during this flight because (1) the cargo bay was being occupied by the science package and had no remote manipulator, (2) there are no handles or tethers on the bottom of the shuttle, and (3), shuttles are simply not equipped nor is it recommended for spacewalks to occur without tethering or the robotic arm. Thus, no spacewalks to the bottom of the shuttle.
All I've heard is that it wouldn't have made any difference if they had done one, since they weren't equipped to repair it.
I think also that the Columbia is too heavy to make the higher orbit of the ISS, and OMS and RCS thrusters would not have been enough to boost it to that level. The Columbia is heavier because it was overbuilt... the later shuttles are much lighter. This is why the Columbia has *never* gone to the ISS.
Even if they did find the damage, they also have no way to fix it. All of the tens of thousands of tiles on the surface of the shuttle are unique. Each one has different dimensions, and fits in only one place. Obviously, it would be impossible to carry a replacement for every one.
Lastly, if they discovered the problem during reentry maneuvers, it was still too late. The best NASA could have done was say "It was nice knowing you. God be with you." Once the reentry sequence has started, there is no way to abort. Either they make it, or they don't.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Without his intrepid investigations, we probably still wouldn't know what happened (though some NASA engineers might). His investigation was thorough enough to find myriad safe (software) and unsafe (mission cancellation policies) aspects of the shuttle program.
Who will be our Feynman now?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
To be brutally pragmatic, 3,000 people getting killed in the WTC and the Pentagon getting attacked probably has greater relevance for the average American than even 3,000,000 people dieing to famine and intra-tribal warfare off in Africa. My neighbor had 3 former coworkers die on 9/11.
It's not numbness to injustice, although that may be true. It's sheer pragmatism- the enemy of idealism perhaps but not necessarily the enemy of wisdom.
(Plus there is the news-vs-business-as-usual aspect you mention. If you want publications focusing on justice issues, not just "new"s, try donating to various charities dealing with the injustice. I have. Believe me, you'll get more information on such topics than you have time to read._
--LP
P.S. While it is worth remembering that media will most-likely show you what will help their advertisers, it's pretty well documented that various media outlets lost serious money with their 9/11 coverage due to a lack of advertising in the immediate aftermath. I'm sure though that the moneymen viewed it as a necessary investment in 'credibility', ironically viewing it as a 'justice' issue akin to the ones you feel get inadequate coverage.
Watching CNN, you'd think that Ramon' death was a greater loss than that of the other 6. Too much airtime is being dedicated to Ramon and the Israeli reaction to his loss. I don't care about Palestinian reaction either.
To me, Dr. Chawla's story is more interesting. An Indian born female who migrated to the US, obtained a PHD in engineering, and finally became an astronaut is an inspirational story. Especially when you consider that an Indian born male (to my knowledge) has never been in space.
And what about the other non-ethnic Americans who were lost? Nobody willing to come on TV and state how remarkable they were?
"I also read that out of the five shuttles, 2 have gone in the last twnety years. That is 40% out of 20 years. I don't really know what to think about this, but i must say, that this really hurst me, as well as a large number the the /. community."
That's a crappy way to use statistics.
I doubt that this will kill space exploration. If anything, it may boost interest in making sure that these things are made safe. Maybe I'm just an optimist, but there are a number of plans to making new generation reusable oribters drawn up that Nasa could, if funded well enough, build and use. I can see Nasa getting extra funding down the road.
Again, I may just be an optimist. I just don't think the US Gov't would want to let those people die for nothing.
Let me put it another way, I still trust Nasa far more than I trust the airline industry.
Well, they would have been partially protected if the cabin didn't break up... but it's hard to say what happened.
In any case, air resistance isn't what causes the really high temperatures. It's air compression. It's the same thing that allows refridgerators to work. When a gas is compressed it will get hotter, if it is expanded it will get cooler. That's also why spray cans get cold when you use them.
Infact only the computer can land the plan because any angle that is more then a few degree's off what the designed limits are would brake apart the vehicle. The computer probably was confused since it could not recieve a sensor reading on the left wing but decided to go at it anyway which caused the shuttle to spin out, burn and break within seconds.
The astronaughts just sit there untill the final part of the mission near the runway. The computer takes care of everything and a human is not capable of handling the precision.
I just found out about the temperature reaching extreme conditions for a few milliseconds before the shuttle broke. New news. My guess is the cabin leaked and filled with fire when the the seal seperating the cabin air from space broke open bringing in super heated air. The rudder probably flipped voilently upward or downward due to the lack of hydro fluid which probably boiled away if the left wing really did infact overheat.
Even if the astronaughts did not run the program the cabin would turn into a furnace anyway from just the lack of a heat shield where the landing assembly broke as well as the left wing. The layer seperating space from cabin air is as thin as a blanket and can break easily. They did what they had to do and just hope it would work because you really have no options. At least it was quick and painless.
They were not wearing spacesuits so I am sure they did not meet the same fate as was rumoured from Challenger astronaughts. The orange suits only provided oxygen and pressure. No heat insulation.
http://saveie6.com/
~Chris
jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 88 15:45:52 PST
Subject: Shuttle Disaster Premises
Here are the premises of the Shuttle disaster scenarios (my apologies
to those who find all this painfully obvious, but the noise level
around here has made it necessary that I belabor these points):
1 The SSME turbine pump blades have been found to be a weakness
in the SSME design that has yet to be dealt with adequately.
2 The failure of these blades would result in a failure mode that
has not been adequately tested, thus the turbine blade containment
ring may not succeed in fully containing the debris.
3 The 3 APU's have been found to be a weakness in the Shuttle
system design as 2 of the 3 have failed in a single mission
with the 3rd found to be near failure after landing.
4 According to James Fletcher, the NASA Administrator appointed
by President Reagan to reform NASA's Shuttle program after the
Challenger disaster, the Space Transportation System is on
the verge of becoming "economical". (While I may not agree with
this opinion, it is certainly reasonable to assume the statements
of such a person to be "plausible" in these scenarios.)
5 An "economical" launch system is what the military needs to
launch its crushing backlog of spy satellites and Vandenburg
is the only launch site which can make polar orbit without
going over populated areas.
6 The trajectory of a Shuttle launched to the south into a polar
orbit (which is the typical orbit of spy satellites) from Vandeburg
reenters over the major western Soviet cities in the event that
an abort to once around option is attempted and falls short due
to inadequate thrust (such as OMS engine failure secondary to
SSME failure).
7 RTG's are a far less vulnerable power source for spy satellites than
solar cells and the military is increasingly concerned about
solar panel vulnerability.
8 Unavoidable clear air turbulence is common over the Shuttle
landing site at Edwards AFB.
9 The OMS fuel and pressurization lines are in reasonable proximity
to the SSME turbine blades.
10 The Pu239 oxide cannisters have not been adequately tested since
when they were subjected to an explosive test, they did fail and
NASA proceeded to proclaim them flight ready because the explosive
test was "invalid".
11 We have no way of rescuing Shuttle astronauts stranded in orbit.
Some other facts, pointed out to me privately, that could be used for
future Shuttle disaster scenarios:
12 Orbital debris is a significant threat to the Shuttle as we have
already experienced damage during one flight.
13 The SSME bell is not being adequately inspected for hairline cracks
which could fail catastrophically during launch.
There are many classes of plausible disaster scenarios based on these
premises. I've chosen to write on just a few exemplary cases which
are particularly horrific. They are worth contemplating because they
are so horrific.
NASA is intransigent when it comes to pursuing important technical
activities that have little immediate political import. Therefore,
it invested in SRB redesign only AFTER catastrophic SRB failure.
Now that it is "safe", NASA continues to invest more and more money
in SRB research to the exclusion of other areas of far greater
weakness in the Shuttle system. Obviously, it will not invest adequate
money in those areas until they, too, fail catastrophically.
Tom Neff, Bob Pendleton, Jim Merrit, et al, start educating the
net for a change. Maybe you should start by reading some nonfictional
accounts of space technology and history rather than continuing to
worship mythology authored by such great story-tellers as Hans Mark, Gen.
Abramson, Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, Barney Roberts, Jessco Von
Puttkammer, James Fletcher, et al.
PS: If NASA ignores reality in its largest, currently most important
and most immediate program -- the Shuttle program -- how do you think
it is doing on future systems like Shuttle C, NASP, Space Station,
lunar bases, space resource utilization and mars missions?
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 88 18:17:25 PST
From: jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
Subject: Stranded in LEO due to APU failure
In order to prepare for the next Shuttle disaster, we need to examine
the various scenarios that may occur, their likelihood, consequences
and what work should be done, in advance to prepare ourselves, our
space program and our citizenry.
For example, consider what would happen if an orbiter were stranded
in LEO due to total APU failure. The logic of the situation would
unfold in this scenario:
Hundreds of millions of people on Earth would watch every detail
of the dramatic situation unfold over several days (assuming they
have that much life support). During the first few days, there
will be many attempts to repair the problem with ground crews working
round the clock on a simulated orbiter in a similar failure
mode. They will come up with any of a number of futile attempts
to fix the problem which the astronauts will, at first, dutifully
carry out. This work will proceed even though there is little or no
possibility of an actual fix. The public, the astronauts and NASA
personnel will feel hope and dispair in cycles at each attempt,
until, eventually, the charade will wear thin. At that point, the
astronauts, the ones who are facing certain death, will be under
enormous psychological pressure to end the charade.
Such a break-point will carry with it the likelihood of one or more
astronauts venting frustration and hostility -- possibly built up
over many years of disillusionment as part of the crippled US space
effort.
NASA will attempt to blank-out all communications with
the astronauts at or before this point. Some or all astronauts will
not want to cooperate with this black-out and will refuse to allow
the their communications to be encrypted. Ham radio operators and
others around the world will band together to pick up the transmissions
of the doomed astronauts and make them available to the public.
After breaking from the bureaucracy's authority, the astronauts
may become extremely critical of specific individuals in NASA and
its contractors. They will have nothing to lose and will finally
have a chance to right what they perceive as the wrongs in the
space program.
A few weeks after the dying words of the astronauts are heard,
the shuttle will reenter the atmosphere at 5 or 6 miles per second.
It will break up. A few large fragments will scatter widely and
unpredictaby, hitting the ground before total disintigration due
to the ablative coating. The public, ignorant of probability theory,
will be in terror at the thought of the shuttle crashing into their
communities causing mass destruction. The fireball could easily be
visible from large population centers and will most likely be viewed
on television broadcasts around the world.
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 88 21:52:48 PST
From: jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
Subject: Possible consequence of terminal approach APU failure
Another possible Shuttle disaster:
During reentry 2 of the APUs fail and the third has some problems (as
has occured before). But unlike the previous instances, the Shuttle
comes into the terminal area energy management manuver a little bit high
and a little bit fast. It encounters a little clear air turbulence
while in a tight turn to bleed off this excess energy. As the pilot is
lining up on the runway, the third and last APU gives out due to the
buffetting. Unfortunately, the APU failed before he completed the final
turn. The control surfaces go dead. The Space Shuttle, now out of
control, impacts at supersonic speed into the waiting crowd which never
hears it coming. Thousands perish.
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 88 21:17:18 PST
From: jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
Subject: Secret Shuttle Launch Disaster Scenario
Here's another possible Shuttle disaster:
The DoD reopens the Vandenburg Shuttle launch facility. A payload
with a plutonium radioactive thermal generator needs to be placed in
an LEO polar orbit. About 2 minutes after SRB separation, a main
engine pump turbine blade fails causing the turbine to fly apart
at supersonic speed. The containment works pretty well but a few
blades get out. One of them nicks the pressurization system for
the fuel oxydizer tanks in one of the OMS pods. The astronauts sense a
loud THUD and the loss of one of the main engines. They opt to abort
once around using the remaining two main engines. Everything goes
according to the contingency plan. All fuel is consumed from the
main tank. The tank separates. The OMS engines start up. Only
one of them lights. Since this produces an off center thrust, the
RCS consumes excessive amounts of fuel to keep stability. The OMS
system, only capable of using half its fuel, fails to put the Shuttle
into a once around trajectory. It reenters short, somewhere near
the Persian Gulf. In the early phase of reentry, when the aerodynamic
control surfaces are insufficient to orient the spacecraft, the already
overtaxed RCS runs out of fuel. The Shuttle begins tumbling somewhere
over the Caucasus Mountains. By the time the control surfaces could
be used, the Shuttle is in a fatal spin. It breaks up. When it
breaks up, the RTG canister, designed to withstand reentry, is struck
by one of the structural members of the Shuttle. Not being designed
to withstand this, it shatters. 22 kilograms of Pu238-dioxide are
distributed in the atmosphere over Moscow, Kalinin and Lenningrad.
The Soviet ballistic missile warning radars, primarily facing north,
are briefly treated to the spectacle of hundreds of reentering
objects coming down around Moscow and Lenningrad. The two largest,
most economically important and strategically significant cities in
the Soviet Union.
Pu238 is 284 times more radioactive than the fissionable isotope Pu239
due to its relatively short half-life of 86 years. It decays by alpha
emmission of 5.5Mev. While this is somewhat higher than the decay
energy of Pu239, it is far higher than the decay energy of U235 and
not similar to the decay energy of any other common nuclide. Thus
to the relatively unsophisticated instruments initially used to
evaluate the sudden release of radioactive material, it will appear
as though 5.5 metric tons of weapons-grade Pu239 has suddenly reentered
over Moscow.
5.5 metric tons of Pu239 is enough to support on the order of 500
warheads. Areasonable surmize would be that a US secret launch out
of Vandenburg was to illegally emplace a facility containing 500 or
so nuclear warheads into an orbit where it would pass over the
Soviet Union 4 times per day from the south whre their early warning
radars could not detect it until it was far too late.
Vandenburg is a highly secured facility. Due to the local geography,
neither the launch pad nor the assembly building can be viewed from
sites not on the base. The Soviets will have very limited intelligence
about launch preparations and the launch itself. Our belated
protestations that it was merely a routine Shuttle launch will be met
with a great deal of skepticism.
The Soviets, sensitized by the Chernobyl disaster to nuclear
catastrophe, will be react unpredictably.
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 88 08:24:13 PST
From: jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
Subject: Brilliant Soviet Rescue of Astronauts Stranded in LEO
As in the "Stranded in LEO Due to APU Failure" scenario, all 3 APU's fail,
leaving the astronauts helplessly adrift.
The Soviets, hearing Tom Neff's idea of a rescue effort, come up with
a brilliant plan. They launch an unmanned Soyuz from Space City
with the stated intent of making a rendevous with the drifting Shuttle
and rescuing some of the astronauts (the Soyuz wouldn't have capacity
for all of them). Space City, being at a much higher latitude than
KSC, gives the Soyuz craft a much higher inclination orbit than the
Shuttle. The Soyuz, being incapable of correcting its inclination
by the required amount, intersects with the Shuttle's orbit at a few
miles second or so.
Thus the Soyuz saves our brave astronauts from the senseless torture
of a slow death.
Why would the Soviets would go along with such an imbicilic
rescue attempt when it requires the sacrifice of a launched Soyuz
(worth $15 to $20 million)? The Soviets draw attention and blame
for the disaster away from NASA. This allows NASA to contain the
political damage and maintain its appearance of conducting a space
program, leaving the Soviets free to develop space without competition.
---------------
And now for a little space policy...
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 88 21:43:32 PST
From: jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
Subject: Diversity vs Monolithism
Humanity can promote the richness and diversity of life by providing a
greater variety of habitats in space rather than encroaching on existing
terrestrial habitats. We can enhance richness and diversity in systems
at all levels -- technological, economic, governmental, cultural, and
biological. We can bring this gift to our world and, indeed, our
universe, if we adhere to the principle that it is better to
err on the side of diversity than on the side of monolithism.
In a series of seminars with environmental groups over a period of
years, space activists in the San Diego area have succeeded in laying
a foundation of trust with these groups based on the above vision.
This trust is a fragile one, more prone to misunderstandings than
the internal factions of the National Space Society.
As guardians of the biosphere, environmental groups are particularly
sensitive to the issue of diversity and quality of life. The vision
of space habitats usually comes wrapped in conventional aerospace
concepts such as "the space program" and the National Commission on
Space's "50 year plan". Unfortunately, for too many of us, this
wrapping is an accurate reflection of our values. Environmental groups
reject our vision, and rightfully so.
Until we clean up our own act, and recognize that large government
projects are not the way to a diversity of space activities, we will
fail to make inroads with grass-roots America, and our gift will be
rejected by those in the environmental movement who can lend it
deeper ethical and moral credibility.
We are desparate for things to happen in space. We are easy prey for
the agents of monolithic space programs who would use us to
prop up funding for such dubious big projects as Space Shuttle
and now Space Station. These projects do more than waste money, they
sap the will of our people to take responsibility for space activities
into their own hands. Like monocropping, they displace the richness
and diversity of natural selection with the errors of monolithism.
We were willing to wait a decade for NASA to build Shuttle. It failed
miserably to live up to our expecations. Now, 15 years later, NASA is
asking us to, again, wait a decade for Space Station. It will have
been 25 years of waiting from Skylab to a pig-in-the-poke Space Station.
25 years.
Think about it.
The monolithism of our government's "X year plans" is as abhorrent
as the "5 year plans" of totalitarian bureaucracies of communist nations.
Do we really need the government's "help" in the form of "the space program"
in order to realize the potential of space?
No!
"The space program" is merely the decaying carcas of Apollo which
monolithists keep around like a psycho with his long dead mother.
The stench is becoming unbearable.
If we are going to wait 5, 10, 25 or 50 years for something, let it be for
something of real and abiding value. Just as it takes several years
for a dispoiled environment to regain its biodiversity, so it will take our
economy several years to fill the markets dispoiled by government encroachment.
Let us abandon the idea of "the space program" for the atavism it is. Let us
not wait for yet another miracle from Uncle Sam. Instead, let us wait for the
life force, as embodied on our free enterprise economy, to grow and flourish,
filling all the territories that "the space program" has dispoiled by its
decaying presence. Let us no longer accept morsels of opiated carrion from
NASA to satiate our craving for space activity. Let us, instead, get back
in touch with our true needs which are the mother of invention.
Beyond business regulatory functions, let government restrict itself
to the support of basic research through a wide variety of independent
agencies that have their own reasons for being interested in space.
Leave technology development and services exclusively in the hands of
the citizens, buying technology and services on the open market when needed.
When our people see groups of other citizens getting together to do things
in space on their own initiative, without government help or interference,
the life force will speak to them. Then, the National Space Society's
mission will be accomplished and only then will we the people understand
that space is a place to live work, play and grow.
Jim Bowery
PO Box 1981
La Jolla, CA 92038
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com
Seastead this.
Ice hasn't disloged or damaged any tiles for some time now. The ice used to build up on the top of the external tank (ET), and was shed during the liftoff. Nowadays, there is a big cap over the external tank, and dry nitrogen gas is blown down over the ET nose, so no ice forms. On this launch, some of the foam insulation was shed. It isn't hard like ice; it's kind of light and foamy like a dry sponge. It could have done some damage, but not like the ice used to do. The ice used to damage the external tile surfaces of ceramic (white) tiles (not the back carbon/carbon tiles).
In addition, whole tiles used to come off because they weren't glued in place properly. This hasn't happened in the last 75 flights, because of an improved pull test, which yanks off the improperly glued tiles.
The final tile failure mode which has been fixed was this: water intruded into the joints between the tiles while the bird was on the pad (in rainstorms etc). The water flashed to steam during reentry (if memory serves) and that popped the tiles off. Improved seals between the tiles fixed that problem around the same time as the improved "pull test".
In spite of all these improvements, some problem needs to be found and fixed. Given the very low aerodynamic loads when it came over the coast (at 7:43) a chief suspect would be still have to be a failure of the Thermal Protection System (TPS), just as you say.
I don't really think they're "heroes" either (in the same way getting trapped in a mine doesn't make you a hero) but there is something "heroic" about peopel who willingly risk their lives to explore space, etc. Or at least a lot of people feel that way about it.
I had this frined, in a wheelchair. People used to come up to him and tell him how "brave" he was. It really pissed him off. It's really self-serving to tell some poor guy whose legs dont work that he's brave. Even if he is. All it does is make *you* feel good that you have compassion for others. I think it's the same with calling (insert victims of tragedy here) "heroes".
But if you're gonna pick someone in today's world to call "hero", astronaut is probably a pretty good choice. They're very disciplined, highly trained, responsible people. It's really really hard to become an astronaut and they dedicate (sometimes) their whole lives to it.
they were not "heroes" - they knew the risks
Soooo....Understanding the risks of your actions excludes your actions from being considered heroic? Wow, that's truly 'insightful.' And I thought most people would *define* heroism that way.
Yeah, lots of people say they would go, but these people have dedicated their lives to advancing the engineering and life sciences, and they did indeed know the risks that went with this.
*That's* the difference between the family of four that's killed on the way to church by a drunk and this disaster; these people knowlingly took the risk of dying for humanity. And don't give me crap about glory and money -- the Astronaut program pays a salary of approximately $40-$75k, the range of a decent sysadmin. And not everyone makes as much as Glenn on the tour circuit.
And yes, you could then argue that military deaths are equally as notable and noble, and at that point I would agree that the sensationalism of the vehicle and its history come into play. But for Christ's sake, these people were amongst the brightest and highest performing individuals on Earth--many would have articles and books written about them if they'd grown old and died of *natural* causes, let alone a horrific death at 200,000 feet. To say nothing of the loss humanity takes as we take one giant leap backward before crawling back to where we were yesterday.
As for cheap replacements, my dear god you must not be a design engineer. Why don't you go read about some fundamentals of aerospace and CMM level 5 coding practices, and THEN come back and talk with the big boys. This ain't no P2P software or Tivo hardware we're talking about.
Sorry to everyone else for the rant -- but jesus I'm so tired of ignorant people opining on topics of which they are clearly ignorant. 'Insightful' my ass.
I just heard a report on NPR that the most likely cause of the loss of the shuttle was a auxilary power unit exploding and causing a quick loss of control.
The APU's are turbines that use hydrazine fuel. It's highly explosive and there's been talk of finding a safer power source, but the problem is that batteries would be much heavier, and coming up with a lightweight replacement would be a multi billion dollar research project.
Anyway the turbines were due to come on line about the time the shuttle broke apart.
Scientist Michio Kaku said that the explosion was "par for the course" in that "about 1 in 75 space launches explodes" and this was columbia's 102 mission. Which is only to say that rockets are a dangerous form of transportation.
His next point was that this is a reason to think that the nuclear powered rockets that some (who?) are considering are a bad idea.
Rocky J Squirrel
I am not an engineer but I would say no. The tiles probably were damaged on the left wing where the big chunk of ice hit at take off. At 12k miles an hour there is nothing you can do.
It was a piece of insulating foam, not ice, that hit the wing during the shuttle's ascent.
The rudder probably flipped voilently upward or downward due to the lack of hydro fluid which probably boiled away if the left wing really did infact overheat.
Rudders control yaw, not pitch. They move left to right, not up and down.
And this post was modded up? C'mon, people, don't be so quick to believe everything you read on the net.
Hey, I missed the beginning of the second press conference but one of the other Aerospace Students gave me some important information that was released. At the External Tank seperation, the crew takes pictures and observes the event so that engineers can examine it for irregularities. The Crew reported that a chunk of foam broke off and hit the wing of the orbitor. It was NASA's intention to examine these afterwards; obviously this will not happen. At some point prior to landing (I don't know if it was day1, 2, or 15) Tracking and Data as well as the crew lost sensors in the affected wing. They could no longer monitor temperature, tire pressure, and many other systems in that side of the orbitor. Engineers on the ground did not see this as a significant problem and gave a thumbs up for the return home. One thing I overheard on one of the news channels was a possibilty of an APU problem. As I learned during one my last two trips to ASA, the APU functions normally at 8000 RPM; at that speed if something breaks, everything nearby is gonna hit the fan. ON A POSITIVE NOTE: Nasa has still maintained a perfect track record of not losing a life in space. The tally is 3 on the ground, and 14 in flight. If you want to look at historical aspects, this has been a grim week for the space agency. On monday was the Apollo 1 Anniversary, Tuesday was the Challenger Accident's Anniversary, and then there is Columbia today. I always thought Columbia would be the orbitor I'd one day see in the Smithsonian. Colin asked me a few questions this morning: 1) Do I think this was an act of terrorist? No F-ing Way!. My reason is the only thing that could reach that high is an Intercontinental Ballistic Missle (ICBM). And even if it is likely that someone could get ahold of an ICBM, it would be damn difficult to be able to hit a target moving faster than 12,000mph. If a terrorist could get an ICBM, he wouldn't get something nice like the US has with GPS computers to get accuracy of within 100 feet of the target. 2) What was my article for Popular Science (PS) about. A few magazines, in particular PS, have been strongly criticizing the ISS. They claim it has been a waste of money that is generating almost no scientific value. I call BS. The ISS has constantly been performing experiments, and like an assembly line, requires time to gain it's momentum. Two things are keeping the ISS from running at full capacity. 1 is the Crew Return Vehicle (CRV); a project Nasa Administrator Sean O'Keefe canceled for "budget reasons". 2 is the station being completed with all modules, experiment racks, and Personal Satellite Assistants. Lets not forget that more than 2 of the experiment modules have yet to be put in orbit. And as for the cost; Nasa Engineers had to redesign the ISS 6 times (I don't know if this includes Freedom or not), and each time they had to start over at the beginning---because the mission statement changed. W! hy did the mission statement change so many times?--congress. As a friend of my professor put it; "There are three types of space stations. There's a volkswagon, a pickup truck, and a cadilac. What we have is the volkswagon, for the price of the cadilac because we've had to spend so much money redesigning it so many times." Colin if there was another question in there that I missed, let me know and I'll get back to you on that. But today has been a great day to have Nasa TV. The debris hit the left wing. Several problems arrose but the two inparticular listed by nasa was tire pressure started to read off the mark (low) and was over temping. Structure was also over temp. These and several other problems arrose at 9:00 eastern. The tragedy occurred at 9:30, 10 minutes prior to landing at KSC. For the life of me I can't remember how long it takes for re-entry to landing; so I don't know if problems arrose after re-entry of not. If anyone knows, please let me know. Thanks, Mike Hail Columbia!
Thus they probably didn't even bring up EVA suits.
Actually, in the news conference it was noted that they had the ability to EVA, but only in case of a latch problem in shutting the cargo bay doors...they had no way to leave the bay though.
Also, to answer your other question, there was no arm on the Columbia for STS-107.
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
The Challenger disaster O ring problem only came to light several months after the disaster. And it took Dick Feynman's demonstration with the ice water for the theory to be accepted as fact.
The O-ring problem was more insidious and reflected terribly on NASA. The engineers knew about the design defect from actual twisted and scorched O-rings recovered from previous flights. The failure of the O-rings to seat properly on booster ignition was exacerbated not created by cold temperature. The Challenger launch was about 20 below design spec limit of 53F.
NASA repeatedly disregarded the advice of the engineers who designed the system and issued itself waivers to fly well below the design temperature cutoff. The booster design could have been better, and now is, but it is false that the Challenger accident was what brought it to NASA's attention.
Here is a brief account of the history as I have come to believe it occurred. There are many more thorough accounts.
This is not to dismiss Feynmann's role -- his insistence brought O-rings to the fore -- but whistleblower MT engineer Robert Boisjoly was complaining loudly long before the accident.
Why bring this up now? Because we're still hearing the sound bite that Challenger "was due to faulty design" which is true but kind of like saying the drunk died because of his faulty seat belt that didn't save him on hitting his seventh tree.
Challenger was a matter of time. The complex failures of management often set the stage for disaster, and I'm sure Columbia will be far more complex that "act of God."
Reeve is a hero because of the work he's done on behalf of paralyzed people everywhere. He is keenly aware of his own propaganda value (I used to be Superman, now I need my diapers changed) and he has wisely taken advantage of it.
There's always the question of "fairness". What if no celebrity gets the disease YOU have? But Reeve has been piping up and making noise about the religious suppression of medical research, and this helps all sorts of disabled people.
The local news reported on skywatchers in Southern Utah who video taped the Shuttle as it crossed the southern part of the state.
What is interesting (no link yet, I'm surprised that the national news doesn't have a copy yet) is that in a certain place in the video you can see a very slight trail very close to the shuttle. In another video you see a very small blue dot pull off from the shuttle and follow it (after enhancement).
Also very interesting is this report that an eyewitness decribes the shuttle changing color from "orange-yellow" to a "white with a purplish color".
This is speculation, but I think what is being described here is the flight surface being peeled away.
The sensors in the tire compartment that showed heating was probably because it was exposed to the air at mach 18.
By time it reached Texas it was already a fireball.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
One of my earliest memories is seeing the last of the Apollo launches from the beach in Florida. I watched the first launch of the Columbia with my class in school. I got to see it in person, once, when it was being kept briefly at Ft. Campbell, KY, to avoid some hurricane or other.
My ten-year-old doesn't understand why this is a big deal. Space travel, to her, is like CDs and PCs and microwave ovens -- a routine part of the world as it is. She was born after the cold war, after the glory days of the space program. Maybe when she's older, she'll understand that the space program transcended all the petty factional divisions and murderous religious and political ideologies of this sad world and was for a lot of us a shining example of the very best of the human race and a beacon of hope for a better future.
Growing up in the 70's, astronauts were the only people I ever really thought of as heroes. NASA was the only government agency I could admire, whatever its faults, without a trace of cynicism. That hasn't changed.
I wish I could somehow take my daughter back in time to that day on the beach when I looked southward towards the Cape and saw a Saturn V rise from the horizon on a pillar of flame. Maybe then she could understand why her parents were crying in front of the TV today. Instead, the best I could manage to say was, "They were astronauts. Our dreams went with them."
Godspeed, folks. You were the best of the best. You will not be forgotten.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
And that shows you just how risky space flight is, there's a 2% chance that the trip you're about to take will result in your death.
I bet you wouldn't drive your car much if those were the odds, and if you only had a 98% chance of surviving an airplane trip, you wouldn't see nearly as many business trips.
Assuming you'd die every 1 in 50 trips with your car, if you were lucky, you might make it safely through your daily commute for 2-3 months before the odds caught up with you.
I'm wondering if life insurance companies would even write a policy on an Astronaut. I'm betting the answer is no.
Astronauts work their asses off for most of their lives to get one of the hardest and most competitive jobs ever in human history. How many people have gone in to space? 100? That's a pretty elite club, demanding not only technical skills, intelligence, but a tremendous amount of patience and discipline over the course of several years.
In short, they are heroes, they risk their lives on a glorious adventure, and do real science that benefits all of mankind.
The fact that many people would be willing to go to space doesn't diminish the courage of those who do, there's a hell of a lot more to it than just hopping into the rocket, this is something these people have worked towards for decades.
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. --Robert A. Heinlein