Pioneers have the most dangerous jobs, but with out them, our society would stagnate. My condolences go out to their families and the lives of the astronauts were not lost in vain.
Well, I don't really think Dan Rather is by any stretch of imagination less-skilled than his cross-network peers. But that's just my opinion. We could agree to disagree and that would be fine.
<strong>there was some footage of a house on fire in Texas that was reported to have been started by falling debris. It was either on NBC or CNN, but they haven't followed up yet.
<strong>Well, isn't there a Soyuz escape pod that they could use? I know that it's case of some sort of catastrophic emergency on the station, but who knows what's going to happen in the aftermath of this. I should know if the ISS has one or not... someone please enlighten me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can't imagine 'ejecting' anyone at mach 18, especially at that altitude. As per the flight data recorder- all data is streamed straight to mission control at all times, though I don't know if data is stored locally if their transmitters go down.
Just a terrible, terrible thing. I feel for the families. My prayers and sympathy go out to them.
I hope this does not end NASA as some of you have speculated. These people knew the risks of their job, and they went ahead because they knew that what they did was important. If we abandon space exploration then their deaths are in vain.
TIME.com: What are the immediate implications for the space program of Saturday's disaster?
JK: Following the precedent of the Challenger disaster in 1986, it's unlikely that NASA will undertake any further shuttle missions or any other manned space flights for the next two years. One immediate problem, though, is the International Space Station, which currently has a crew of three on board. They might consider one further flight to bring that crew home ? the other option would be for them to return aboard a Russian Soyuz craft, which isn't the most comfortable or the safest ride. Beyond that, however, the space station is likely to be left unoccupied for a long time. NASA won't want to use the shuttle again until it can establish the cause of today's accident, and fix it. Now that we've lost two shuttles out of a fleet of five, it's even conceivable that the shuttle won't fly again. The shuttle was built as a space truck, and then the International Space Station was built to give it something to do. Both programs are likely to suffer as a result of this disaster.
<hr></blockquote>
Jeffrey Kruger is Time's science corespondent, not a NASA official. Still, this is troubling.
I feel like such a geek posting this, but I still think this is one of the most eloquent, straight forward, rational reasons for pushing the envelope of space travel, courtesy of all things, Babylon 5.
People argue that we shouldn't be there, that we have better things to spend the money on, that it's just a big flashy waste...
[quote]Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu, Einstein, Morobuto, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes .. and all of this .. all of this was for nothing unless we go to the stars.<hr></blockquote>
NASA isn't a waste... it's the first link in our lifeline. Hopefully one we won't need for a long, long time, but one we will eventually use, provided we survive our own problems.
To the crews of Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia: Thank you. Ad astra.
People argue that we shouldn't be there, that we have better things to spend the money on, that it's just a big flashy waste...
NASA isn't a waste... it's the first link in our lifeline. Hopefully one we won't need for a long, long time, but one we will eventually use, provided we survive our own problems.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps privatized space travel will become more than a fleeting conversation topic after today's events if that's a consolation.
<strong>I feel like such a geek posting this, but I still think this is one of the most eloquent, straight forward, rational reasons for pushing the envelope of space travel, courtesy of all things, Babylon 5.
People argue that we shouldn't be there, that we have better things to spend the money on, that it's just a big flashy waste...
NASA isn't a waste... it's the first link in our lifeline. Hopefully one we won't need for a long, long time, but one we will eventually use, provided we survive our own problems.
To the crews of Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia: Thank you. Ad astra.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is so true. I know WE don't have to worry about it...but I too would hate to think that the human race could stay earthbound and come to naught. For all our faults, I think we have done more good than bad. I'd like to think that someday my great^n grandchildren will wake up to a different sunrise. And be able to see others too.
Definitely and un-American comment. NASA is not finished and it's too bad you have this belief. You should know better, just L@@ok at the precedents.</strong><hr></blockquote>
NASA's not done, but it definitely needs domestic competition and/or help from the private sector.
<strong>NASA isn't a waste... it's the first link in our lifeline. Hopefully one we won't need for a long, long time, but one we will eventually use, provided we survive our own problems.
To the crews of Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia: Thank you. Ad astra.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think it's an exaggeration to say the future of man kind does ultimately depend on space travel. I can think of no better cause worth risking your life for.
I think Bush made it rather clear in his speech this afternoon that we are not losing NASA over this. He persisted that NASA and manned space travel was important.
NASA has had some rough times, and those won't be letting up soon. I think this goes to show the importance of finding a way to replace of supplement the shuttle fleet. It's the most expensive and dangerous vehicle on this planet, and I think it has held back our space efforts to an extent.
But NASA has tried how many times to come up with another launch vehicle? I think a cheaper, safer launch vehicle is required to at least supplement the existing shuttle fleet, not necessarily replace.
We'll learn from this experience, NASA will take every measure to ensure it does not happen again, and the shuttle fleet will continue to fly. NASA isn't finished, and it isn't going anywhere anytime soon despite setbacks.
But NASA has tried how many times to come up with another launch vehicle? I think a cheaper, safer launch vehicle is required to at least supplement the existing shuttle fleet, not necessarily replace.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sure the shuttle SRBs and fuel tanks have gone through exactly those revisions. Even if you ignore the Columbia tragedy today, the shuttle design is 30+ years old on paper. The X-33 may not have been a worthy replacement, but I can bet NASA's drawing board is going to be very busy now...
With only 3 orbiters left, do you think NASA's going to build a new one in the interim?
Of course not, but the privatization argument is not something that requires a PhD to fathom.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is true. I think privatization would be a good thing. That doesn't mean the govt should stop funding space research. But I think private industry should be the one to impliment it. Competition would make for better quality. And presumably less waste of resources. That's hardly unAmerican.
Its so sad what happened today. I think i heard a flash of sound this morning around 8 or so and it woke me up I live in Austin. It was faint and wierd sounding and just a long deep swood sound.
Its too bad what happened, and sometimes I think its a waste of human time and energy and now life to think of leaving earth for any reason. But the promise is too great tho to give up. Losses are a part of getting ahead.
Comments
<strong>there was some footage of a house on fire in Texas that was reported to have been started by falling debris. It was either on NBC or CNN, but they haven't followed up yet.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What an insurance claim.
<strong>Well, isn't there a Soyuz escape pod that they could use? I know that it's case of some sort of catastrophic emergency on the station, but who knows what's going to happen in the aftermath of this. I should know if the ISS has one or not... someone please enlighten me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can't imagine 'ejecting' anyone at mach 18, especially at that altitude. As per the flight data recorder- all data is streamed straight to mission control at all times, though I don't know if data is stored locally if their transmitters go down.
This is a sad day.
Just a terrible, terrible thing. I feel for the families. My prayers and sympathy go out to them.
I hope this does not end NASA as some of you have speculated. These people knew the risks of their job, and they went ahead because they knew that what they did was important. If we abandon space exploration then their deaths are in vain.
TIME.com: What are the immediate implications for the space program of Saturday's disaster?
JK: Following the precedent of the Challenger disaster in 1986, it's unlikely that NASA will undertake any further shuttle missions or any other manned space flights for the next two years. One immediate problem, though, is the International Space Station, which currently has a crew of three on board. They might consider one further flight to bring that crew home ? the other option would be for them to return aboard a Russian Soyuz craft, which isn't the most comfortable or the safest ride. Beyond that, however, the space station is likely to be left unoccupied for a long time. NASA won't want to use the shuttle again until it can establish the cause of today's accident, and fix it. Now that we've lost two shuttles out of a fleet of five, it's even conceivable that the shuttle won't fly again. The shuttle was built as a space truck, and then the International Space Station was built to give it something to do. Both programs are likely to suffer as a result of this disaster.
<hr></blockquote>
Jeffrey Kruger is Time's science corespondent, not a NASA official. Still, this is troubling.
Go to <a href="http://www.apple.com"; target="_blank">www.apple.com</a> right now.
Now go to this archive of what Apple.com looked like prior to this morning...
<a href="http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ceugene/applesite"; target="_blank">http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ceugene/applesite</a>;
EDIT: missed the other post
[ 02-01-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
People argue that we shouldn't be there, that we have better things to spend the money on, that it's just a big flashy waste...
[quote]Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu, Einstein, Morobuto, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes .. and all of this .. all of this was for nothing unless we go to the stars.<hr></blockquote>
NASA isn't a waste... it's the first link in our lifeline. Hopefully one we won't need for a long, long time, but one we will eventually use, provided we survive our own problems.
To the crews of Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia: Thank you. Ad astra.
<strong>
People argue that we shouldn't be there, that we have better things to spend the money on, that it's just a big flashy waste...
NASA isn't a waste... it's the first link in our lifeline. Hopefully one we won't need for a long, long time, but one we will eventually use, provided we survive our own problems.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps privatized space travel will become more than a fleeting conversation topic after today's events if that's a consolation.
<strong>
PS I think this means NASA is finished
[ 02-01-2003: Message edited by: Barto ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Definitely and un-American comment. NASA is not finished and it's too bad you have this belief. You should know better, just L@@ok at the precedents.
This only makes NASA more knowledgeable and aware -allowing them to fine tune and advance their space technology. Americans are not quitters!!
<strong>I feel like such a geek posting this, but I still think this is one of the most eloquent, straight forward, rational reasons for pushing the envelope of space travel, courtesy of all things, Babylon 5.
People argue that we shouldn't be there, that we have better things to spend the money on, that it's just a big flashy waste...
NASA isn't a waste... it's the first link in our lifeline. Hopefully one we won't need for a long, long time, but one we will eventually use, provided we survive our own problems.
To the crews of Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia: Thank you. Ad astra.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is so true. I know WE don't have to worry about it...but I too would hate to think that the human race could stay earthbound and come to naught. For all our faults, I think we have done more good than bad. I'd like to think that someday my great^n grandchildren will wake up to a different sunrise. And be able to see others too.
<strong>
Definitely and un-American comment. NASA is not finished and it's too bad you have this belief. You should know better, just L@@ok at the precedents.</strong><hr></blockquote>
NASA's not done, but it definitely needs domestic competition and/or help from the private sector.
<strong>NASA isn't a waste... it's the first link in our lifeline. Hopefully one we won't need for a long, long time, but one we will eventually use, provided we survive our own problems.
To the crews of Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia: Thank you. Ad astra.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think it's an exaggeration to say the future of man kind does ultimately depend on space travel. I can think of no better cause worth risking your life for.
<strong>
NASA's not done, but it definitely needs domestic competition and/or help from the private sector.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you a NASA expert??
NASA has had some rough times, and those won't be letting up soon. I think this goes to show the importance of finding a way to replace of supplement the shuttle fleet. It's the most expensive and dangerous vehicle on this planet, and I think it has held back our space efforts to an extent.
But NASA has tried how many times to come up with another launch vehicle? I think a cheaper, safer launch vehicle is required to at least supplement the existing shuttle fleet, not necessarily replace.
We'll learn from this experience, NASA will take every measure to ensure it does not happen again, and the shuttle fleet will continue to fly. NASA isn't finished, and it isn't going anywhere anytime soon despite setbacks.
<strong>
Are you a NASA expert??</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course not, but the privatization argument is not something that requires a PhD to fathom.
<strong>
But NASA has tried how many times to come up with another launch vehicle? I think a cheaper, safer launch vehicle is required to at least supplement the existing shuttle fleet, not necessarily replace.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sure the shuttle SRBs and fuel tanks have gone through exactly those revisions. Even if you ignore the Columbia tragedy today, the shuttle design is 30+ years old on paper. The X-33 may not have been a worthy replacement, but I can bet NASA's drawing board is going to be very busy now...
With only 3 orbiters left, do you think NASA's going to build a new one in the interim?
<strong>
Of course not, but the privatization argument is not something that requires a PhD to fathom.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is true. I think privatization would be a good thing. That doesn't mean the govt should stop funding space research. But I think private industry should be the one to impliment it. Competition would make for better quality. And presumably less waste of resources. That's hardly unAmerican.
Its too bad what happened, and sometimes I think its a waste of human time and energy and now life to think of leaving earth for any reason. But the promise is too great tho to give up. Losses are a part of getting ahead.