The Columbia space shuttle disaster.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 03-02-2013 06:04AM #1

I was just reading a piece online about this terrible tragedy, The 10th anniversary was Friday. Apparently they were doomed soon after launch with damage been done to the shuttle in the process. On re entry the crew didn't become aware of the problem until it happened, even if they had copped it there was nothing they could have done.

Do you think that this disaster is the reason the shuttle has now been shelved? What's the future vessel for space exploration?

hefferboi · 03-02-2013 06:07AM

I think they were right not to tell them. If I was one of the astronauts I wouldn't want to know that I would more than likely die in 18(?) days.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 03-02-2013 06:21AM

hefferboi wrote: »

I think they were right not to tell them. If I was one of the astronauts I wouldn't want to know that I would more than likely die in 18(?) days.

Did NASA know something went wrong at the launch though? In the article I was reading the families of the astronauts had gathered to greet their relatives return. After the incident occured they immediately bussed them back to home base.

NIMAN · 03-02-2013 06:21AM

Perhaps they might have wanted to say goodbye to their loved ones?

Then again, perhaps they did and we were never told about it?

lambchops · 03-02-2013 06:52AM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I was just reading a piece online about this terrible tragedy, The 10th anniversary was Friday. Apparently they were doomed soon after launch with damage been done to the shuttle in the process. On re entry the crew didn't become aware of the problem until it happened, even if they had copped it there was nothing they could have done.

Do you think that this disaster is the reason the shuttle has now been shelved? What's the future vessel for space exploration?

They only knew after launch about the damage when it became apparant after post-launch checks. Which was footage from a camera specifically placed to study foam loss from the exterior of the shuttle. To say the crew didn't know about the damage is untrue. They would have been informed of the foam panel being shed and striking the craft during launch but no one knew what effect this would of had. They were aware of similar incidents on previous shuttle missions, all of which went without any problems, so they were'nt too concerned.

Also it has been very well known for some time that the disaster had a direct corrolation to the scrapping of the space shuttle.

There has been many ideas put forward for new oribiters many of which are far from even the prototype phase.

kneemos · 03-02-2013 09:38AM

Wasn't the shuttle originally designed to be smaller and sit on top of a rocket until the military came on board and demanded a bigger shuttle.Apparently the plan was to make space launches cheaper with reuseable craft,don't know if they actually achieved this or not.

Phill Ewinn · 03-02-2013 09:53AM

shuttle will be replaced by cheap sh1t from China. I expect the whole space exploration thing will be held up by the Americans, jealousy is a bitter pill

im invisible · 03-02-2013 10:03AM

What we need is another cold war, we should have men living on mars at this stage

muff03 · 03-02-2013 10:09AM

WW1 = planes
WW2 = nuclear weapons
Cold war = space
WW3 = airborne nukes destroying the world so much we move to space.
Modern evolution.

juan.kerr · 03-02-2013 10:18AM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

shuttle will be replaced by cheap sh1t from China. I expect the whole space exploration thing will be held up by the Americans, jealousy is a bitter pill

What now?

dixiefly · 03-02-2013 10:18AM

hefferboi wrote: »

I think they were right not to tell them. If I was one of the astronauts I wouldn't want to know that I would more than likely die in 18(?) days.

In the case of the Challenger disaster, the astronauts were most likely still alive after the boosters exploded. The module separated and it fell back to earth. They would have probably been alive for circa 90 seconds knowing they were unable to do anything about it.

Great book on the Challenger disaster called Challenger Launch Decision by Diane Vaughan.

the keen edge · 03-02-2013 10:19AM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

shuttle will be replaced by cheap sh1t from China.

Yeah, cheap sh1t from China.

Totally unlike all the other quality products you'll use today that are built in their entirety outside China. :rolleyes:

Grayson · 03-02-2013 10:36AM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

shuttle will be replaced by cheap sh1t from China. I expect the whole space exploration thing will be held up by the Americans, jealousy is a bitter pill

I'll take cheap **** from China over cheap **** from Russia.

It's horrible to think that in 10 years there's a good possibility there will not be a person alive that set foot on the moon.
I mean in the 60's humans managed to get to the moon when technology was reletively speaking, sh1t. Yet now the best we can do is the ISS (Not putting down the ISS, but really we are capable of so much more).

kneemos · 03-02-2013 10:50AM

Grayson wrote: »

I'll take cheap **** from China over cheap **** from Russia.

It's horrible to think that in 10 years there's a good possibility there will not be a person alive that set foot on the moon.
I mean in the 60's humans managed to get to the moon when technology was reletively speaking, sh1t. Yet now the best we can do is the ISS (Not putting down the ISS, but really we are capable of so much more).

What's on the moon?

Grayson · 03-02-2013 10:55AM

kneemos wrote: »

What's on the moon?

Steve.

kneemos · 03-02-2013 11:06AM

Grayson wrote: »

Steve.

STEVE'S ON THE MOON!!!!!!

Grayson · 03-02-2013 01:10PM

kneemos wrote: »

STEVE'S ON THE MOON!!!!!!

I was just there with him.

Knifey Spoony · 03-02-2013 01:56PM

Grayson wrote: »

It's horrible to think that in 10 years there's a good possibility there will not be a person alive that set foot on the moon.
I mean in the 60's humans managed to get to the moon when technology was reletively speaking, sh1t. Yet now the best we can do is the ISS (Not putting down the ISS, but really we are capable of so much more).

Imagine growing up in the 60's and seeing people walking on the surface of something that is not the planet Earth. Imagine the wonder and excitement of that experience coupled with the possibility that this is only the start of something huge, that man can actually leave this planet and explore alien worlds and in the very near future we could be on Mars.

Instead, despite huge advances in technology, we haven't had anyone set foot on another planet or moon in over forty years. We have robots out exploring these places for us instead and while I'm not putting down the knowledge that these robots have gained for us, they are a poor substitute for actually being there. It's just disappointing that over the course of forty years, the idea of sending people into deep space has been forgotten about.

kneemos · 03-02-2013 02:14PM

Knifey Spoony wrote: »

Imagine growing up in the 60's and seeing people walking on the surface of something that is not the planet Earth. Imagine the wonder and excitement of that experience coupled with the possibility that this is only the start of something huge, that man can actually leave this planet and explore alien worlds and in the very near future we could be on Mars.

Instead, despite huge advances in technology, we haven't had anyone set foot on another planet or moon in over forty years. We have robots out exploring these places for us instead and while I'm not putting down the knowledge that these robots have gained for us, they are a poor substitute for actually being there. It's just disappointing that over the course of forty years, the idea of sending people into deep space has been forgotten about.

We can't survive in deep space due to solar radiation.

Pilotdude5 · 03-02-2013 02:15PM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Do you think that this disaster is the reason the shuttle has now been shelved? What's the future vessel for space exploration?

The space shuttle programme while overall not a step backward, was definitely not a step forward. Human space exploration effectively stagnated for 30 years with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program

The replacement Constellation programme was cancelled in 2010 and replaced by the SLS programme. Technologies have of course been updated but it's still pretty much where we were in the early 70's.

The prospect of commercial space companies like SpaceX and Bigelow Aerospace are exciting though.

youreadthat · 03-02-2013 02:24PM

The space shuttle ended up with an awful safety record given how few flights there were really. Losing two of them to totally avoidable accidents is a disgrace by NASA.

03-02-2013 03:05PM

kneemos wrote: »

What's on the moon?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BonF_ntgA7E

I can only imagine what was going through their heads. Imagine seeing that you have no possible chance of ever making it alive, that things can only go wrong, and knowing you can't stop it.

Grayson · 03-02-2013 03:08PM

kneemos wrote: »

We can't survive in deep space due to solar radiation.

We could just, you know, put feck loads of shielding around?

AlekSmart · 03-02-2013 03:48PM

kneemos wrote: »

Wasn't the shuttle originally designed to be smaller and sit on top of a rocket until the military came on board and demanded a bigger shuttle.Apparently the plan was to make space launches cheaper with reuseable craft,don't know if they actually achieved this or not.

A lot of this stuff cross-pollinates,which is something the U.S. Military tend to be good at...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20680253

The X-37 is still very much a live project and one which will continue,albeit secretively.

Wibbs · 03-02-2013 04:54PM

youreadthat wrote: »

The space shuttle ended up with an awful safety record given how few flights there were really. Losing two of them to totally avoidable accidents is a disgrace by NASA.

It's safety record was pretty damned good considering the complexity of the system and the sheer size of the vehicle. It made nearly 150 flights IIRC. Two lost, while a serious tragedy for those involved was pretty good to be fair, but yea NASA dropped the ball in a big way especially with the Challenger loss. There were a couple of very close calls too.

I was watching the Big bang theory where one of them goes into space and his girlfriend doesn't approve, especially when she learns he's not going on the shuttle, but on a Russian Soyuz. Cue "OHMIGAWD" laughs about how dodgy and dangerous a system that is. The audience seemed to buy it, but I was "eh no lovely American folks". Given the choice between going to orbit in a shuttle or a Soyuz, I'll take the Soyuz every single time. Amazing safety record over a lot of flights. No crew losses since 1971. They had a launch failure alright. The rocket went bang, however because the capsule is at the top old stylee, the emergency rocket kicked in and threw the crew to safety, rattled in need of a fag and large shot of vodka, but unharmed. The Saturn V that got man on the moon had a similar system if things went pearshaped.

Grayson wrote: »

We could just, you know, put feck loads of shielding around?

Not really required, or at least not feet of lead as is sometimes suggested. For short term hops to the moon the safety margin is good. Well we know this as 20 odd men made the trip(unless you're a conspiracy nut in which case I'm not ashamed to say I laugh at you). Longer jaunts like to mars would require more protection alright, but there are modern materials that are light(some are even fabrics) that would be pretty good. Living on the moon or mars would require protection alright. Underground living probably the best bet. Mars would have slightly more built in protection, but not by much as it's atmosphere is mad thin. It's so thin it would make walking on the peak of Everest feel like swimming. As the line goes In space no one can hear you scream, well on Mars if you could scream and someone could have a naked ear out, you could scream and they wouldn't hear you ten feet away. Mad or wha?

Oh and the sky is reddish like sunset/dusk and about as bright. Funny actual martian sunsets are blue. Reversoworld.

Grayson · 03-02-2013 05:04PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Not really required, or at least not feet of lead as is sometimes suggested. For short term hops to the moon the safety margin is good. Well we know this as 20 odd men made the trip(unless you're a conspiracy nut in which case I'm not ashamed to say I laugh at you). Longer jaunts like to mars would require more protection alright, but there are modern materials that are light(some are even fabrics) that would be pretty good. Living on the moon or mars would require protection alright. Underground living probably the best bet. Mars would have slightly more built in protection, but not by much as it's atmosphere is mad thin. It's so thin it would make walking on the peak of Everest feel like swimming. As the line goes In space no one can hear you scream, well on Mars if you could scream and someone could have a naked ear out, you could scream and they wouldn't hear you ten feet away. Mad or wha? Oh and the sky is reddish like sunset/dusk and about as bright. Funny actual martian sunsets are blue. Reversoworld.

I assumed it would be something like that. I read about the plans for a martian base and it involves putting a layer of soil over the habitats to help protect them (Plus they don't need to bring the protection there with them).

Lapin · 03-02-2013 05:07PM

muff03 wrote: »

WW1 = planes
WW2 = nuclear weapons
Cold war = space
WW3 = airborne nukes destroying the world so much we move to space.
Modern evolution.

WW4, For those left behind on Earth will be fought with sticks and stones.

JupiterKid · 03-02-2013 08:04PM

I remember both Challenger (back in '86 when I was going on 11) and the Columbia disasters. Both were quite avoidable but lax procedures doomed the missions. The Challenger disaster really affected me as I was very into spaceflight as a kid and the fact that the first civilian and school teacher, Christa McAuliffe was also on board.

In the case of Challenger, it was ice around the O-rings on the solid rocket boosters and in the case of Columbia it was faults in the heat shield ceramic tiling. Ironically, when Columbia returned from its maiden flight in back in 1981 many of these tiles had come off and they were a longstanding concern by NASA engineers.

The Space Shuttle was a beautiful and iconic vehicle but it was also too complex for its time and thus there were too many things that could - and eventually did - go wrong and lead to tragic accidents. It is a rather dangerous spacecraft given that it has had a catastrophic "hull loss" event in 2 out of 150 flights - or 1 in 75. The Soyuz system - whilst not as "sexy" as the shuttle - is much safer.

Hard to believe a decade has passed since the Columbia tragedy. But spaceflight remains risky and all astronauts are aware of these risks.

Doctor Strange · 03-02-2013 08:39PM

Such a tragedy. I sincerely hope that the right people get their asses in gear and get a new space project underway. It's such a disservice to the memories of those who lost their lives for us to just give up.

The Columbia space shuttle disaster.

Comments