Columbia shuttle lost Part II

[Ned]

Originally posted by Azazel

oh gawd. I guess there is your problem.

I don't think they should gamble with people's lives like that.

Yeah, Azazel, this looks just like gamble doesn't it? The very same thing happened with the Challenger. Someone at NASA gambled - and lost.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Asher

Mind telling us what else they can do?

The Columbia can't dock, it has a limited supply of fuel and food and the like...

The only way to get out is to get back down to earth.

Asher, we are going to find out in the next several weeks or months that they probably did have alternatives. I simply do not accept the proposition that they could not have space walked to the ISS if necessary.

[The Mad Monk]

The problem may have been that the shuttle could not have reached the ISS.

[Az]

One of the reasons is science missions just like on this one. You cant make them on an unmanned rocket.

Most of the science done onboard is researching the effects of lack of gravity.

well, it's not like there is no gravity in orbit. There is however, Weightlessness. and that can be simulated on the surface as well.

I think we should decide to make a move towards space exploration. Without that, it's just a waste of money.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Azazel

Most of the science done onboard is researching the effects of lack of gravity.

well, it's not like there is no gravity in orbit. There is however, Weightlessness. and that can be simulated on the surface as well.

I think we should decide to make a move towards space exploration. Without that, it's just a waste of money.

...and the weightlessness can be simulated for how long?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Zylka
...and the astronauts died living their dreams. Those kids died in a confusing, retarded time of life. They didn't marry, nor have children - probably hadn't fallen in love.

Wasn't there another magical 7 death disaster somewhere?

Well The astronauts death was occupational hazard, compared to bunch of kids who died under avalanche (i dont know much about this one, all i know is that they died under avalanche) is completely misfortune.

While soldiers who die during war is more revered and respected than normal civilian death, its expected because its an occupational hazard. But the world doesnt work that way. 7 people dying in a shuttle that goes down like comet crash is more interesting than a boring avalanche. So I guess astronaut one would be more of a shocker.

Is the new quote based on Franz's Metamorphosis? I thoguht he turned into a **** roach or something err... forgot.

EDIT: WTF? I cant type a c0ckroach without being censored by a filter? that blows... what about...

c0cka doo roo doo~
c0cking a gun
c0ck full o' nuts?

[Az]

. I've confused it with something else.

OMG my thoughts are intermingling...

Nevermind...

[Odin]

Originally posted by DanS
I dont think a private company would have a chance in hell to stay in business (as it would be difficult to make money) without massive government subsidies.

No, it's not that. The government intends to continue to be the #1 customer for space launch, and especially human space flight.

I was involved in the early stages of VentureStar, promoting private financing of the next generation shuttle (X-33). The US Government decided to squash plans to partially privately finance the program, because (I'm convinced) they would lose control over space launch and human space flight. It gets into a lot of far out, national security, Buck Rogers stuff.

In their view, it is better to have an incredibly expensive, bloated program that they control.

EXACTLY.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

NASA says that rising temoeratures on the left side of the Columbia caused additional drag which caused the computer to adjust the ailerons to shift Columbia to the right.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/02/02/shuttle.columbia/index.html

[Az]

Mind telling us what else they can do?

The Columbia can't dock, it has a limited supply of fuel and food and the like...

The only way to get out is to get back down to earth.

rrrriiighht, so they cannot just walk from one space craft to the other? true, I am not sure they were trained for that, But it sure beats the hell of trying to enter the atmosphere with a damaged shield.

I'll guess the inquiry's results will show am I right.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I don't think that they 'took a chance' I think that they genuinly believed that nothing was wrong with the Columbia.

[Asher]

Hindsight is 20/20.

The shuttles usually land with damaged and missing tiles, they fall off during liftoff all the time.

Of course it's a possibility that one too many went missing, but it's REALLY hard to accurately guage that kind of thing when they're up in space, and at the time they didn't think it was serious.

Doesn't the ISS also have limited oxygen supplies/generators that can only support X many people? Could the thing support *7* additional people if they somehow spacewalked in? Did the shuttle have nearly enough fuel to manuever to get anywhere near the ISS? It's not space is a small area and they could go next door and hop on the ISS...

We don't know much of anything, I think it's stupid as hell for people who don't know anything to waste their time and bandwidth speculating on what went on, and even preemptively blaming NASA because you know something has gone wrong.

[Andrew1999]

Columbia couldn't get up to the ISS; it was too heavy. That's why there was never a docking attachment installed.

[Az]

that puts things in a different perspective. You know this for a fact, andrew?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

NASA has found the remains of all of the crewmembers. I wonder how they figured that out?