Space Shuttle: contact lost

[brian]

Breaking news at the moment - sincerely hope it's nothing to really worry about.

No article on the BBC yet, other than emergency measures taken by NASA.

Let's see if it's nothing more than a radio fault. My heart literally skips at the propsect of another shuttle disaster.

[brian]

BBC has a report now, and it looks worrying - NASA are talking about people avoiding debris.

I can already hear the conspiracy buffs claiming it encountered a UFO.

[brian]

It's over. Space shuttle Columbia is no more, along with her crew.

BBC news

[brian]

The loss of life is always a tragedy, but never should it be forgotten that the pioneers of our human accomplishments are the ones who put themselves most at risk, take a board themselves the difficult and treacherous tasks. The United States of America has been so successful with her space program that she has perhaps almost forgotten the fact that the people of NASA are the pioneers of humanity itself into space – the technicians, the engineers, the controllers...and, of course, the astronauts, who routinely put themselves at the forefront of all dangers by experiencing space itself on behalf of the people of earth.

Many developed countries have some form of participation in a space program – but never can any of their achievements even begin to come close to a mere fraction of those of NASA, on behalf of the United States of America. NASA has given us immense insight into the modern view of the solar system we inhabit. It has shown us the planets like no other organisation ever could, and it has achieved the most remarkable acts of space engineering. The United States of America has made the crossing the frontiers of space an almost routine task. NASA has made the United States the pioneer nation of space itself. The world looks to the United States to continue being that pioneer, for all humanity.

When the International Space Station was begun there were warnings of the statistical inevitability of loss of life. This is simply because that no matter what risk each missions faces, is confronted by, is defeated, there always remains the ever constant threat of tragedy. This will always remain true so long as humanity seeks to embrace space.

Let us not let tragedy defeat us. Let it only make us stronger. Long may NASA lead the exploration of the frontiers of space, for all the peoples of the world.

[nemesis]

Although I can appreciate your sentiment after all it was a tragedy the space program is better viewed with a cynical eye. If you are still reading Baxter you'll read what I mean.

[brian]

Yeah, it's not often I pontificate, but somehow the notion of space exploration seems embodied (whether fairly or properly) in the achievements of NASA.

I think I see something of what you meant by reference to Baxter - there's an interesting character perception about how NASA purposely fixes spaceflight to have extraordinary costs, not least to keep away the spectre of cheap spaceflight that any dictatorship could purchase for themselves - either for a space prgram or for developing long-range missiles.

[Survivor]

Well, some things just can't be done on the cheap, some things could be done on the cheap but aren't for various reasons.

NASA does have a couple of nuclear powered ramjet/rocket hybrid engines sitting on a shelf somewhere. They're actually less dangerous and polluting than the launch systems we currently use, but NASA is not ready for the screams that would greet any announcement they were going to use such a thing.

The Shuttle has become a symbol of technologically advanced spaceflight, despite being completely obsolete. Therefore, NASA cannot move back to multi-stage rockets and reentry capsules, even when they would make more sense. Being able to "fly" the Shuttle back down is too "cool" for them to give it up. From now on, spacecraft gotta have wings and a tail-fin. Even for the Ariel, the big thing about it was that it would be able to boost a shuttle-like manned platform.

And of course, existing contractors have a huge amount of power over future designs because they are "justifiable porkbarrels"--cash cows that clearly serve a national interest. Thus there is real resistance to any move towards radically new technologies, particularly in the launch vehicles.

So it is really too simple to say that NASA is doing it on "purpose" in any meaningful sense. They know as well as I do (better) why they use expensive and obsolete technologies rather than more effective and innovative ideas. They might not admit it to the public, but they do know it. But it really isn't their fault. They're job is to do what the polititians tell them to do. And polititians aren't rocket scientists.

[kablekid12]

you guys make really long posts...

[Kilroy]

NASA needs to step back and take a look at how they can better the space program. I think funding of this should not be given to only a few countries, i think the UN should be involved (then again i think the UN should start acting more like a neutral global government if anything in this world is going to get fixed).
Everyone knows that Space exploration is a dangerous thing. You know this are going to go wrong, there is no way things would go perfectly. I'm not surprised the Space Shuttle was destroyed, it was bound to happen. Those people on the Shuttle knew there was a chance they could die, they knew it could happen but did it anyway. If i was asked to go to Space for our planet, hell yes i'd do it, I'd even be on the next Shuttle they send up. We need to take more risks, calculated risks, but risks none the less. More money is need. The technology is present, we just need to use it all to its potential. Every one is too preoccupied with the greatest safety. No on can go into Space unless we are 99% sure they'll come back alive. I tell you there are tons of people who'd still go if you told them the chance of return was 50%, i'm pretty sure i would.
We need advances into Space, something to unify the globe. Cause we're never gonna get anywhere the way we are, I'd rather live on the Moon (which has been possible for probably 15 years!).
I do not mourn the Columbia Crew, i salute them.

[brian]

I do not mourn the Columbia Crew, i salute them.

Well said, Kilroy.

Btw - the investigation so far is suggesting that the main line of inquiry is a puncture in the protection on the left wing, which allowed superheated plasma to infiltrate the left wheel well - and thus cause the two shuttle tyres there to explode. LAtest article here from the BBC.

If exploding tyres doesn't sound too dangerous, here is a reminder article of the damage that can occur, namely the Concorde crash in Paris, June 2000, when a tyre burst during take-off, sending fragments ripping through the fuel tanks, causing the loss of all 109 lives aboard.

[brian]

Btw - couple of interesting links:

Columbia loss: What happened and when

Astronaut's touching mail

[brian]

Just to keep up to date now the OEX recorder has been analysed:

Shuttle data offers vital clues

[brian]

Radar clues to shuttle accident

[brian]

Well, it seems like the most obvious theory from the very beginning is the one that has won out. Apparently, NASA cannot be 100% certain that the falling foam is what caused the accident - but all the data plainly states that it was the area of the left wing struck that indeed failed.

Consistent story emerges from Columbia data

[brian]

Well, it's finally drawing to a close. After impact and heat tests, not to mention a study of the debris field and sensor reading, NASA have officially declared the area of impact by the foam - on a section referred to as "panel number 8" - as the probably cause of the disaster:

gators pinpoint fatal shuttle impact

And with that, this chapter of shuttle history is likely closed.

Let's see now how the overall story of manned space exploration continues on...