I believe its been estimated by NASA that one in a hundred shuttle missions will end in disaster, due to the inherent dangers involved. Tragically this estimate seems to have been correct.
<strong>not the time for critics.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When they're reporting on something important, and screwing it up so badly on simple empirical facts, hell yes criticism is needed. It's their *JOB* to report things accurately, and we *rely* on them to do so in times of crisis... this just shows how poorly they do that job.
Out of respect for the crew and their loved ones though, I'll reserve the vitriol against the idiots reporting this for later. I will continue to correct misinformation as I see/hear it however.
I am deeply saddened by this, as are we all. I watched the Challenger launch live 17 years ago, and this is too similar.
<strong>I believe its been estimated by NASA that one in a hundred shuttle missions will end in disaster, due to the inherent dangers involved. Tragically this estimate seems to have been correct. </strong><hr></blockquote>
NBC just said 1 in 75
sooooo
man......
im sorry, what exactly is the "contrails" made up of?
I've been listening to the radio all morning. This is terrible.
Apparently the shuttle was at a point where the stress was highest, so if there was anything wrong, that would be when it happened.
The shuttle's cabin is fairly self-contained and well-armored, but it doesn't have any provision for ejection, or for softening a landing. It's not an escape pod. They might investigate that, but frankly, I'm not sure if ejecting astronauts - with or without a pod - at 12,500MPH 20 miles over the ground, and in the immediate vicinity of a giant tank of incredibly toxic, volatile fuel, would ameliorate anything. The Space Shuttle is not a jet.
I expect that things will be reexamined and reengineered in detail. I'm not sure how much NASA spending or policy will be reformed, because the central problem is that its budget is set more by politics than by science and engineering, and that's not likely to change.
But NASA is not finished. As one aviation expert was quoted as saying, we are pushing the limits of our expertise, and we are undertaking a high-risk venture. Everyone understands that. The astronauts do what they do knowing full well what the risks are, and it would not honor their memories to stop flying into space.
We should mourn the brave astronauts we have lost today. We should investigate the crash down to the bristles on the toothbrushes to figure out exactly what happened, and what could be done to make it less likely to happen again - with the knowledge that perhaps nothing significant could be done, given the sheer number of variables and the sheer magnitude of the stresses involved. And we should continue.
Assuming that the debri was going 12,500 mph that is about 5588 m/sec.
Using the equation distance = initialvelocity*time + .5*acceleration*time^2
with distance equal to 60,960 m (200,000 ft)
The debri would have fallen for about 11 seconds before hitting the ground.
(This is very inprecise because I assumed that the shuttle was falling at 12,500 mph at the moment of the explosion) If we knew the angle of attack the calculation would be better, since alot of the velocity vector is moving forward not directly down.)
If the debri was motionless at the time of the explosion it would have taken 1.8 minutes. So the real answer is some where inbetween.
But any way this proves that CNN anchors have no knowledge of physics what so ever.
Assuming that the debri was going 12,500 mph that is about 5588 m/sec.
Using the equation distance = initialvelocity*time + .5*acceleration*time^2
with distance equal to 60,960 m (200,000 ft)
The debri would have fallen for about 11 seconds before hitting the ground.
(This is very inprecise because I assumed that the shuttle was falling at 12,500 mph at the moment of the explosion) If we knew the angle of attack the calculation would be better, since alot of the velocity vector is moving forward not directly down.)
If the debri was motionless at the time of the explosion it would have taken 1.8 minutes. So the real answer is some where inbetween.
But any way this proves that CNN anchors have no knowledge of physics what so ever.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Youy have to take into account the resistence of wind and the aerodynamic profile of the debris. And I think it comes in pretty flat, so 1.8 minutes must be in real low end.
What about the information coming out about the foam that came off during lift-off that could have damaged the shuttle? I have heard about this and wondered why the crew aboard didn't go out and investigate this...probably because they weren't equipped for a space walk?
Well, some questions have to be answered here. But still, this is a high-risk operation evertime they go up...
<strong>im sorry, what exactly is the "contrails" made up of?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Water vapor. Cloud.
Any fast moving body through a sufficiently hydrated air space will cause them. You see them behind most jets in the sky, if they're at a high altitude.
A friend within NASA has told me that they believe the vertical stabilizer (tailfin) came off.
<strong>I have heard about this and wondered why the crew aboard didn't go out and investigate this...probably because they weren't equipped for a space walk?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It sounds like they weren't equipped for a space walk, since they didn't have any planned for the mission. They didn't have any robotic arms/cameras to inspect the damage, either.
<strong>What about the information coming out about the foam that came off during lift-off that could have damaged the shuttle? I have heard about this and wondered why the crew aboard didn't go out and investigate this...probably because they weren't equipped for a space walk?
Well, some questions have to be answered here. But still, this is a high-risk operation evertime they go up... </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm wondering that too, and my initial thoughts were that that had something to do with this, perhaps the tiles that insulate the shuttle during reentry became damaged... but apparently there is a more likely explanation according to this article on time.com:
<strong>they still haven't changed the <a href="http://www.apple.com/powermac/"; target="_blank">powermac</a> site nor random images of 20" lcd at Apple...does anybody know how to get in touch with apple?? even if they can't change the image, perhaps a short memorial? g
Comments
<strong>Yeah, those are views of the *contrail* as it drifts over the area, NOT the debris, as the CNN ditz was saying.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oops. I should've realized that.
<strong>not the time for critics.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When they're reporting on something important, and screwing it up so badly on simple empirical facts, hell yes criticism is needed. It's their *JOB* to report things accurately, and we *rely* on them to do so in times of crisis... this just shows how poorly they do that job.
Out of respect for the crew and their loved ones though, I'll reserve the vitriol against the idiots reporting this for later. I will continue to correct misinformation as I see/hear it however.
I am deeply saddened by this, as are we all. I watched the Challenger launch live 17 years ago, and this is too similar.
<strong>I believe its been estimated by NASA that one in a hundred shuttle missions will end in disaster, due to the inherent dangers involved. Tragically this estimate seems to have been correct.
NBC just said 1 in 75
sooooo
man......
im sorry, what exactly is the "contrails" made up of?
Apparently the shuttle was at a point where the stress was highest, so if there was anything wrong, that would be when it happened.
The shuttle's cabin is fairly self-contained and well-armored, but it doesn't have any provision for ejection, or for softening a landing. It's not an escape pod. They might investigate that, but frankly, I'm not sure if ejecting astronauts - with or without a pod - at 12,500MPH 20 miles over the ground, and in the immediate vicinity of a giant tank of incredibly toxic, volatile fuel, would ameliorate anything. The Space Shuttle is not a jet.
I expect that things will be reexamined and reengineered in detail. I'm not sure how much NASA spending or policy will be reformed, because the central problem is that its budget is set more by politics than by science and engineering, and that's not likely to change.
But NASA is not finished. As one aviation expert was quoted as saying, we are pushing the limits of our expertise, and we are undertaking a high-risk venture. Everyone understands that. The astronauts do what they do knowing full well what the risks are, and it would not honor their memories to stop flying into space.
We should mourn the brave astronauts we have lost today. We should investigate the crash down to the bristles on the toothbrushes to figure out exactly what happened, and what could be done to make it less likely to happen again - with the knowledge that perhaps nothing significant could be done, given the sheer number of variables and the sheer magnitude of the stresses involved. And we should continue.
[ 02-01-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
Assuming that the debri was going 12,500 mph that is about 5588 m/sec.
Using the equation distance = initialvelocity*time + .5*acceleration*time^2
with distance equal to 60,960 m (200,000 ft)
The debri would have fallen for about 11 seconds before hitting the ground.
(This is very inprecise because I assumed that the shuttle was falling at 12,500 mph at the moment of the explosion) If we knew the angle of attack the calculation would be better, since alot of the velocity vector is moving forward not directly down.)
If the debri was motionless at the time of the explosion it would have taken 1.8 minutes. So the real answer is some where inbetween.
But any way this proves that CNN anchors have no knowledge of physics what so ever.
<strong>Using some Newtonian Physics:
Assuming that the debri was going 12,500 mph that is about 5588 m/sec.
Using the equation distance = initialvelocity*time + .5*acceleration*time^2
with distance equal to 60,960 m (200,000 ft)
The debri would have fallen for about 11 seconds before hitting the ground.
(This is very inprecise because I assumed that the shuttle was falling at 12,500 mph at the moment of the explosion) If we knew the angle of attack the calculation would be better, since alot of the velocity vector is moving forward not directly down.)
If the debri was motionless at the time of the explosion it would have taken 1.8 minutes. So the real answer is some where inbetween.
But any way this proves that CNN anchors have no knowledge of physics what so ever.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Youy have to take into account the resistence of wind and the aerodynamic profile of the debris. And I think it comes in pretty flat, so 1.8 minutes must be in real low end.
Well, some questions have to be answered here. But still, this is a high-risk operation evertime they go up...
<strong>im sorry, what exactly is the "contrails" made up of?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Water vapor. Cloud.
Any fast moving body through a sufficiently hydrated air space will cause them. You see them behind most jets in the sky, if they're at a high altitude.
A friend within NASA has told me that they believe the vertical stabilizer (tailfin) came off.
[ 02-01-2003: Message edited by: Kickaha ]</p>
<strong>I have heard about this and wondered why the crew aboard didn't go out and investigate this...probably because they weren't equipped for a space walk?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It sounds like they weren't equipped for a space walk, since they didn't have any planned for the mission. They didn't have any robotic arms/cameras to inspect the damage, either.
<strong>What about the information coming out about the foam that came off during lift-off that could have damaged the shuttle? I have heard about this and wondered why the crew aboard didn't go out and investigate this...probably because they weren't equipped for a space walk?
Well, some questions have to be answered here. But still, this is a high-risk operation evertime they go up...
I'm wondering that too, and my initial thoughts were that that had something to do with this, perhaps the tiles that insulate the shuttle during reentry became damaged... but apparently there is a more likely explanation according to this article on time.com:
<a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,418462,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,418462,00.html</a>;
Some sort of "aerodynammic structural breakup"...
[ 02-01-2003: Message edited by: ironchef82 ]</p>
[ 02-01-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
<strong>The space shuttle Columbia is lost with its crew. A very sad news, reminescent of the 1984 tragedy of Challenger.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1986
<strong>they still haven't changed the <a href="http://www.apple.com/powermac/"; target="_blank">powermac</a> site nor random images of 20" lcd at Apple...does anybody know how to get in touch with apple?? even if they can't change the image, perhaps a short memorial? g
edit...gone now
[ 02-01-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
post in the right forum much?
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />