<strong>Why didnt the shuttle dock with the space station and then they could potentially repair the shuttle from there? Maybe just get into the space station and then release the shuttle as space junk. The astronauts could have been picked up later on another mission.</strong><hr></blockquote>
nope. i believe that this was the only shuttle wasn't configured not to be able to dock with the space station
Macintosh, I'm sure they could have done *something* like evacuate to the station (even without proper docking equipment) had they known there was any problem at all. The thing is they didn't know so discussing these emergency scenarios is kind of pointless.
Of course...but once the elevator is built, all ships could be assembled in space...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. I'm not against the elevator concept. I think it's a great idea and we certainly need to lower the cost of getting things into orbit. I just know that one thing has to come before the other.
Also that's why we need the space station. That's where our journeys will start. That's where those ships will be built and launched.
As far as why don't we just send robots? Well for one thing robots aren't nearly as capable as a human yet. It's our level of robotic technology at this time. Some insects have more cognitive ability.
Besides we still need that " New Frontier ". Something to inspire humans to think about besides our little petty conflicts down here. Also there is the natural resources that we're using up. There's a lot of minerals to be had elsewhere in the solar system.
You can never tell what kind of new knowlege will come because of our exploration in space. We just know it will because that always happens when you set foot on unfamilure ground. We are forced to invent new things to deal with it. Where do you think that oven safe dinner wear came from? It came from research of materials to resist frictional heating.
This will change a lot of things.
I remember a time ( as a boy ) when there were no satellites. No weather forcasts except by planes and observation. Phone comunication between continents was by under sea cable ( and not very good I might add ). No multi channel TV broadcasts by satellite. Not as good an understanding of our own world because we couldn't observe it from orbit. Not as good an understanding of the universe as a whole because even our best telescopes where hobbled by our own atmosphere.
Another thing is if we ever did have that last big war the human race could still go on elsewhere.
But mostly because it's there. Throughout our history we have always been a race of explorers. I believe if we just stay here ( in the womb so to speak ) we will stagnate and die off as a race.
There will come a time maybe a hundred years or so from now when we won't be able to understand how we got a long without travel in space. For example there are things that you can manufacture in zero g that we can't duplicate here on earth.
We have got to get started and the time is now. Our resources are going away at a fairly rapid pace. Some estimates are that we will seriously be running out of things 150 years from now. That isn't very long. If you look backward that's about the time of the Civil War. If we wait any longer it might be too late. So this is really for our children and their's.
Right now because of the cost and our level of technology robots have their place. However I don't know about anyone else but I'm not comfortable about the human race always exploring by proxy.
<strong>Is it true that they didn' thave the ability to do just one space walk? They must have at least one suit "just in case"?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Even if they did they wouldn't have had the capability to repair those tiles in orbit. This is why we need a new design. They might have been better off if they could have gone to the space station and been picked up later from there. But, they didn't think it was that serious.
<strong>Macintosh, I'm sure they could have done *something* like evacuate to the station (even without proper docking equipment) had they known there was any problem at all. The thing is they didn't know so discussing these emergency scenarios is kind of pointless.
nope. i believe that this was the only shuttle wasn't configured not to be able to dock with the space station
[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: burningwheel ]</strong><hr></blockquote> I just read your post. I wasn't aware of that. Well that explains why they didn't go there. But once again they didn't think it was that serious. But, if they had been able to go to the space station someone might have observed that the damage was worse than they knew.
Has anybody actually died in "space?" I wonder if NASA will count them as lost in space. 39 miles is just above the stratosphere, but well below the exosphere (?)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not ours yet but the russians are still not admitting everything. We do know that they have lost more than we have. I remember one that wasn't a death in space but, it was particularly awful. The same thing happened to this fellow that almost happened to John Glen. His heat sheild failed after he had fired his retro rockets and started his descent. He knew and there was nothing they could do. He had a long time to think about this before he burned up in the atmosphere. I've read a transcript ( a long time ago ) of some of his transmission and it isn't fun.
i think they can at a certain point</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually they can't. Unlike the Apollo or other spacecraft that came before there's no escape tower to pull the part of the ship with the astronauts away from the rest.
In case you don't know in those early ships for take off a tower was mounted on top of the capsule containing rockets that would ignite in an emergency and pull the capsule away. Of course coming back to earth there was nothing. Even on take off we're talking much faster than any jet and eventually much higher . Ejecting at those speeds or that altitude isn't an an option.
Like I said these things were designed in the 70's. We were working on something new but, because of mismangement and cost over runs the project was canceled. It wouldn't have come in time to save these people but how typical. I think I read after the new design was canceled their plan was to use the shuttles another 20 years until they can come up with something new.
Even if they did they wouldn't have had the capability to repair those tiles in orbit. This is why we need a new design. They might have been better off if they could have gone to the space station and been picked up later from there. But, they didn't think it was that serious.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yea but the could have looked at it and said "gosh this doesn't look good. Lets not try reentry". That parts not rocket science. It's common sense.
Yea but the could have looked at it and said "gosh this doesn't look good. Lets not try reentry". That parts not rocket science. It's common sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) There is *no* ejection mechanism in the Shuttle. Period.
2) If there were, ejecting at anything above Mach 2 would rip apart not only a human being, but also the ejection command module proposed after Challenger. (Which speed Challenger had already exceeded when the O-ring failed.)
3) Mach 2 is reached mere seconds after liftoff, and about 140 seconds before landing... in other words, there's almost zero window to use such a mechanism even if we had one.
4) There are approximately 22,000 tiles on the Shuttle... and *no two* are the same. Each one is manufactured for a *specific* point on the Shuttle. That's why each has a unique number on it - it's not a serial #, it's a location.
5) Because of 4, there's no way to carry a serious 'repair kit' for tiles, regardless of space walk ability on board. (A number of possible kits have been proposed, none has proven reliable or effective.)
6) The tiles are part of a redundant system, including a carbon fiber underlayer. Nearly every launch has resulted in the loss of *some* tiles, and it has never caused a major problem.
7) The sensors that they lost prior to the breakup are for post-landing analysis only. They had nothing to do with the flight control. These sensors in the past were used to analyze damage from lost tiles... and it was never a serious problem.
8) *IF* the foam insulation that fell off the external tank caused a loss of tiles, it impacted on the leading edge (front) of the port wing. This has been visually confirmed.
9) The sensors failed from the *trailing* (back) edge, then proceeded forward. The port wing was failing starting from the *back*, not the front, where the foam impacted. (It may be that the foam caused further damage in an area occluded from the cameras. It wouldn't surprise me, but the focus in orbit was on possible leading edge damage.)
10) Speculation at this point is pointless, until a post-crash analysis is performed on the debris.
Some opinions:
Believing we can explore a frontier with zero loss of life is just projecting our own overly comfortable and protected lifestyles on an endeavour that is beyond most people's comprehension... and is therefore ignorant and inane.
We *will* lose people. The astronauts know this. They accept this. They believe the endeavour is worth the risk. It is how they choose to use, and possibly lose, their lives... to push the boundaries for all humanity.
Quitting now would be the greatest insult to their sacrifice. It is as if we as a society decided that fire fighters have too risky a job, and that fire fighting should just be abandoned. They know the risks, yet they perform their task to help us all.
Why mourn 'only' seven people? Because they were performing a dangerous job, of their own volition, that benefits us all, a mission that raises our eyes from the mud to the stars.
Er, I though we had already established that they weren't outfitted for docking with the ISS... were you just planning on letting them starve/dehydrate/suffocate in orbit?
Re-entry is the only way back, and the ISS is the only other place to go.
Er, I though we had already established that they weren't outfitted for docking with the ISS... were you just planning on letting them starve/dehydrate/suffocate in orbit?
Re-entry is the only way back, and the ISS is the only other place to go.</strong><hr></blockquote>
During the Apollo 13 incident the LEM wasn't designed for what was asked of it. They might have figured something out. Nasa can be pretty inventive when their life's on the line. The matter remains however that they didn't think this was a serous problem and now it's starting to look like it was.
Comments
<strong>'eject after launch' ? what ? you can't eject from a space shuttle. you're in a trap.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i think they can at a certain point
<strong>Why didnt the shuttle dock with the space station and then they could potentially repair the shuttle from there? Maybe just get into the space station and then release the shuttle as space junk. The astronauts could have been picked up later on another mission.</strong><hr></blockquote>
nope. i believe that this was the only shuttle wasn't configured not to be able to dock with the space station
[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: burningwheel ]</p>
[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
I think it reflects it very well.
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>39 miles is just above the stratosphere, but well below the exosphere (?)</strong><hr></blockquote>
39 miles equal 62 kilometers, so:
They are were still above the Stratosphere (goes from 17 to 50 km, from 35 km to 50 km on it's the 'warm' stratosphere), in the Mesosphere.
The Mesosphere goes from 50 km to about 80 km. Temperature goes down to minus 90 degree (celsius).
<strong>This was in Florida Today:
[IMG]</strong><hr></blockquote>
the Challenger one was very similar. forget what papers had it. i know it was in theDetroit Free press. i'm not sure of the artist
<strong>
Of course...but once the elevator is built, all ships could be assembled in space...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. I'm not against the elevator concept. I think it's a great idea and we certainly need to lower the cost of getting things into orbit. I just know that one thing has to come before the other.
Also that's why we need the space station. That's where our journeys will start. That's where those ships will be built and launched.
As far as why don't we just send robots? Well for one thing robots aren't nearly as capable as a human yet. It's our level of robotic technology at this time. Some insects have more cognitive ability.
Besides we still need that " New Frontier ". Something to inspire humans to think about besides our little petty conflicts down here. Also there is the natural resources that we're using up. There's a lot of minerals to be had elsewhere in the solar system.
You can never tell what kind of new knowlege will come because of our exploration in space. We just know it will because that always happens when you set foot on unfamilure ground. We are forced to invent new things to deal with it. Where do you think that oven safe dinner wear came from? It came from research of materials to resist frictional heating.
This will change a lot of things.
I remember a time ( as a boy ) when there were no satellites. No weather forcasts except by planes and observation. Phone comunication between continents was by under sea cable ( and not very good I might add ). No multi channel TV broadcasts by satellite. Not as good an understanding of our own world because we couldn't observe it from orbit. Not as good an understanding of the universe as a whole because even our best telescopes where hobbled by our own atmosphere.
Another thing is if we ever did have that last big war the human race could still go on elsewhere.
But mostly because it's there. Throughout our history we have always been a race of explorers. I believe if we just stay here ( in the womb so to speak ) we will stagnate and die off as a race.
There will come a time maybe a hundred years or so from now when we won't be able to understand how we got a long without travel in space. For example there are things that you can manufacture in zero g that we can't duplicate here on earth.
We have got to get started and the time is now. Our resources are going away at a fairly rapid pace. Some estimates are that we will seriously be running out of things 150 years from now. That isn't very long. If you look backward that's about the time of the Civil War. If we wait any longer it might be too late. So this is really for our children and their's.
Right now because of the cost and our level of technology robots have their place. However I don't know about anyone else but I'm not comfortable about the human race always exploring by proxy.
We need to go.
[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
hahahahaahaha
no...
wait...no...
[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: _ alliance _ ]</p>
<strong>Is it true that they didn' thave the ability to do just one space walk? They must have at least one suit "just in case"?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Even if they did they wouldn't have had the capability to repair those tiles in orbit. This is why we need a new design. They might have been better off if they could have gone to the space station and been picked up later from there. But, they didn't think it was that serious.
<strong>Macintosh, I'm sure they could have done *something* like evacuate to the station (even without proper docking equipment) had they known there was any problem at all. The thing is they didn't know so discussing these emergency scenarios is kind of pointless.
[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
this is exactly right. second-guessing NASA in this situation is beyond stupid, especially when people think they can be ejected going mach 18...
<strong>
nope. i believe that this was the only shuttle wasn't configured not to be able to dock with the space station
[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: burningwheel ]</strong><hr></blockquote> I just read your post. I wasn't aware of that. Well that explains why they didn't go there. But once again they didn't think it was that serious. But, if they had been able to go to the space station someone might have observed that the damage was worse than they knew.
<strong>
Has anybody actually died in "space?" I wonder if NASA will count them as lost in space. 39 miles is just above the stratosphere, but well below the exosphere (?)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not ours yet but the russians are still not admitting everything. We do know that they have lost more than we have. I remember one that wasn't a death in space but, it was particularly awful. The same thing happened to this fellow that almost happened to John Glen. His heat sheild failed after he had fired his retro rockets and started his descent. He knew and there was nothing they could do. He had a long time to think about this before he burned up in the atmosphere. I've read a transcript ( a long time ago ) of some of his transmission and it isn't fun.
<strong>
i think they can at a certain point</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually they can't. Unlike the Apollo or other spacecraft that came before there's no escape tower to pull the part of the ship with the astronauts away from the rest.
In case you don't know in those early ships for take off a tower was mounted on top of the capsule containing rockets that would ignite in an emergency and pull the capsule away. Of course coming back to earth there was nothing. Even on take off we're talking much faster than any jet and eventually much higher . Ejecting at those speeds or that altitude isn't an an option.
[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>not sure about the tiles but <a href="http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sts107_delay_020624.html"; target="_blank">cracks in the plumbing of the propulsion</a> issue was known about last june...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like I said these things were designed in the 70's. We were working on something new but, because of mismangement and cost over runs the project was canceled. It wouldn't have come in time to save these people but how typical. I think I read after the new design was canceled their plan was to use the shuttles another 20 years until they can come up with something new.
[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
Even if they did they wouldn't have had the capability to repair those tiles in orbit. This is why we need a new design. They might have been better off if they could have gone to the space station and been picked up later from there. But, they didn't think it was that serious.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yea but the could have looked at it and said "gosh this doesn't look good. Lets not try reentry". That parts not rocket science. It's common sense.
<strong>
Yea but the could have looked at it and said "gosh this doesn't look good. Lets not try reentry". That parts not rocket science. It's common sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree.
1) There is *no* ejection mechanism in the Shuttle. Period.
2) If there were, ejecting at anything above Mach 2 would rip apart not only a human being, but also the ejection command module proposed after Challenger. (Which speed Challenger had already exceeded when the O-ring failed.)
3) Mach 2 is reached mere seconds after liftoff, and about 140 seconds before landing... in other words, there's almost zero window to use such a mechanism even if we had one.
4) There are approximately 22,000 tiles on the Shuttle... and *no two* are the same. Each one is manufactured for a *specific* point on the Shuttle. That's why each has a unique number on it - it's not a serial #, it's a location.
5) Because of 4, there's no way to carry a serious 'repair kit' for tiles, regardless of space walk ability on board. (A number of possible kits have been proposed, none has proven reliable or effective.)
6) The tiles are part of a redundant system, including a carbon fiber underlayer. Nearly every launch has resulted in the loss of *some* tiles, and it has never caused a major problem.
7) The sensors that they lost prior to the breakup are for post-landing analysis only. They had nothing to do with the flight control. These sensors in the past were used to analyze damage from lost tiles... and it was never a serious problem.
8) *IF* the foam insulation that fell off the external tank caused a loss of tiles, it impacted on the leading edge (front) of the port wing. This has been visually confirmed.
9) The sensors failed from the *trailing* (back) edge, then proceeded forward. The port wing was failing starting from the *back*, not the front, where the foam impacted. (It may be that the foam caused further damage in an area occluded from the cameras. It wouldn't surprise me, but the focus in orbit was on possible leading edge damage.)
10) Speculation at this point is pointless, until a post-crash analysis is performed on the debris.
Some opinions:
Believing we can explore a frontier with zero loss of life is just projecting our own overly comfortable and protected lifestyles on an endeavour that is beyond most people's comprehension... and is therefore ignorant and inane.
We *will* lose people. The astronauts know this. They accept this. They believe the endeavour is worth the risk. It is how they choose to use, and possibly lose, their lives... to push the boundaries for all humanity.
Quitting now would be the greatest insult to their sacrifice. It is as if we as a society decided that fire fighters have too risky a job, and that fire fighting should just be abandoned. They know the risks, yet they perform their task to help us all.
Why mourn 'only' seven people? Because they were performing a dangerous job, of their own volition, that benefits us all, a mission that raises our eyes from the mud to the stars.
Because they were human.
[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: Kickaha ]</p>
<strong>
I agree.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Er, I though we had already established that they weren't outfitted for docking with the ISS... were you just planning on letting them starve/dehydrate/suffocate in orbit?
Re-entry is the only way back, and the ISS is the only other place to go.
<strong>
Er, I though we had already established that they weren't outfitted for docking with the ISS... were you just planning on letting them starve/dehydrate/suffocate in orbit?
Re-entry is the only way back, and the ISS is the only other place to go.</strong><hr></blockquote>
During the Apollo 13 incident the LEM wasn't designed for what was asked of it. They might have figured something out. Nasa can be pretty inventive when their life's on the line. The matter remains however that they didn't think this was a serous problem and now it's starting to look like it was.
[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>