Space shuttle Columbia

[Hazelip]

I'm sketchy on the details, but flipping channels this morning over breakfast brought me to NBC's live coverage of a control room. Apparently, Columbia has basically flown apart on re-entry. Anyone have any informative links?

No links, but I'm shocked numb. Near bawling.

[Ove]

Watching CNN now, hate to be negative but they are dead. RIP.:(

[Jedi Knight]

The morale of the country is going to seep to all time lows over this one.

JK

[Hazelip]

I actually have a great fear that the president will attempt to use this as a touchstone for his anti-terror "campaign". An incredibly great fear...

[Pyrrho]

The news commentators at Fox News are morons.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by pyrrho2000
The news commentators at Fox News are morons.

Thank you.

I was getting bothered by the people at CNN so I tried Fox. Man, they are dumb.

"Can you explain what you mean by 'lost contact with the shuttle'?"

At 9:20 EST, 4 minutes after it was scheduled to land, the lady dingbat was still asking if they could still have the possibility of regaining contact.

MSNBC was doing the best job. CNN was the first to get the footage from Dallas, a good 5 minutes before it showed up on Fox. MSNBC had their own footage, about a minute after CNN.

Unfortunately, all we ever heard was that this was footage from their affiliates in Dallas. I wanted someone to start talking about where that debris was landing (the one video had it tracked mostly to the ground).

Recall it was the coverage of the Gulf War that made CNN. The coverage of this event exposes Fox News for what it really is. When it comes to real news, they can't handle it.

[Smalso]

I just happened to be looking at MSNBC when the story broke a minute or so after 9:00 Eastern. The initial report was that NASA had lost communication and radar contact with the shuttle and my first reaction was, "Uh-oh," followed by, "Oh, no, not again." By the time I am writing this, 10:50 AM Eastern, it is certain that the shuttle has been destroyed. There is much speculation about what caused it and a lot of possibilities are being discussed, but the various networks have to have something to talk about and are busting their guts trying to get telephone interviews with experts. (Terrorist attack has been pretty much ruled out at this stage, although some of the anchors keep trying to keep it in as much as they can.) It will be some time before the cause is known; weeks, months or even years if indeed it ever is.

[evildave]

It's a big, complicated machine that's 20 years old. Stuff breaks.

The nice thing about simpler rockets is, they're at least always new.

Now whether the thing suffered a structural failure, or leaked some fuel, or a control system went, we'll probably never know.

The shuttles are getting *old*.

That's my evaluation of the problem.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Smalso
I just happened to be looking at MSNBC when the story broke a minute or so after 9:00 Eastern. The initial report was that NASA had lost communication and radar contact with the shuttle and my first reaction was, "Uh-oh," followed by, "Oh, no, not again." By the time I am writing this, 10:50 AM Eastern, it is certain that the shuttle has been destroyed. There is much speculation about what caused it and a lot of possibilities are being discussed, but the various networks have to have something to talk about and are busting their guts trying to get telephone interviews with experts. (Terrorist attack has been pretty much ruled out at this stage, although some of the anchors keep trying to keep it in as much as they can.) It will be some time before the cause is known; weeks, months or even years if indeed it ever is.

My fear is that we'll be back to the idiotic argument of "Why are we sending men into space?" Just what we need, more damned Luddites.

[evildave]

Of course, this will have far reaching effects on the space program.

Unless the SSTO programs are suddenly further along than they have been, there isn't a replacement for it.

So, add however long it takes to investigate and evaluate and tear down the remaining fleet to look for flaws to practically every timeline.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by evildave
Of course, this will have far reaching effects on the space program.

Unless the SSTO programs are suddenly further along than they have been, there isn't a replacement for it.

So, add however long it takes to investigate and evaluate and tear down the remaining fleet to look for flaws to practically every timeline.

Does anyone know when the first shuttle launch was after Challenger?

[Doctor X]

Oh my. . . .

--J.D.

[evildave]

The next mission was about a year after Challenger.


Now it seems that tire pressure was rising in one wing just prior to the mishap. A tire bursting would certainly rip a wing apart.

Then there's the speculation about "what hit the wing" earlier in the mission.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by evildave
The next mission was about a year after Challenger.


Now it seems that tire pressure was rising in one wing just prior to the mishap. A tire bursting would certainly rip a wing apart.

Then there's the speculation about "what hit the wing" earlier in the mission.

It would seem that even a small tear or dent in a wing or any other part of the fuselage of the shuttle, at Mach 18, would be enough to rip the thing apart.

Space.com reported that cracks had been found on Columbia before, though they are saying that age is not being considered, since the cracks have appeared on newer shuttles as well.

Is anyone else hearing more about this?

[Tmy]

I thought it was strange that they said to stay away from any pieces of debris because the "fuel is dangerous" or somthing to that effect. I dont buy it, they just want to keep people away from the debris of spare parts from our secret orbital alien technology death-ray weather machine!!!

[Reginald]

Its a sensitive way of saying "we dont want you to find something horrific". (show some sensitivity!!)


I'm so sad about this, its a terrible loss to mankind when these things happen. One can only try to sympathise with the relatives, friends and colleagues of these brave people.

[Tmy]

Yes its a sad event, but arent you taking things a little too hard.

A military copter can crash in Afganistan killing 7 soilders and maybe it'll get news covearge for a couple days.

A space shuttle blows killing 7 scientist and its a big national tragety that will get roudn the clock coverage for who knows how long.

Why is that?

[Douglas]

The next mission was about a year after Challenger.

Right, if two+ years is "about a year".
Next time I post something so wrong, yet so fact-checkable give me a slap. I don't want to look like a yappy clown.

Yes its a sad event, but arent you taking things a little too hard.

A military copter can crash in Afganistan killing 7 soilders and maybe it'll get news covearge for a couple days.

A space shuttle blows killing 7 scientist and its a big national tragety that will get roudn the clock coverage for who knows how long.

Why is that?
I'm pissed off, jeez, does that sound stupid.

[Richard G]

How about the poor fellows stranded up on the International Space Station?

[Troll]

We have more helicopters and servicemen than we do space shuttles and astronauts. There's a higher level of frequency of crashes and deaths with helicopters and servicemen than with shuttles. same applies to cars and why you don't hear nationally about a deadly car accident in some rural area. It's not that any particualr death has a higher level of remorse behind it, so much as the scope of the accident itself. The shuttles belong to the US and are part of a national gig.

Not to rain on anyone's period of mourning but I have a burning question in the back of my mind. How long before conspiracy nuts start trying to link it all to the Israeli, Col. Ilan Ramon?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
The morale of the country is going to seep to all time lows over this one.

JK

And I suppose this is all the fault of the liberal media???

Idiot.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Troll
Not to rain on anyone's period of mourning but I have a burning question in the back of my mind. How long before conspiracy nuts start trying to link it all to the Israeli, Col. Ilan Ramon?

Supposedly, he was one of the Israeli pilots that bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor. The conspiracy guys will have a field day with this one...

[shemp]

Originally posted by Richard G
How about the poor fellows stranded up on the International Space Station?

They are not stranded. Even if the shuttle program is put on hold, they can return via Soyuz capsule.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


And I suppose this is all the fault of the liberal media???

Idiot.

Ah, your mommy let you back on her computer, huh.

The liberal media in this case was laughable. MSNBC got a call this morning from a so-called representative of NASA. The chick anchor was all "serious" talking to the guy and then the guy gave a statement for the Howard Stern show lol. That was hilarious and just goes to show how ridiculously pathetic the leftist news media really is. If they can't screen their calls, can any leftist media be trusted?

Appears that you are the idiot, decentralized.

JK

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Ah, your mommy let you back on her computer, huh.

The liberal media in this case was laughable. MSNBC got a call this morning from a so-called representative of NASA. The chick anchor was all "serious" talking to the guy and then the guy gave a statement for the Howard Stern show lol. That was hilarious and just goes to show how ridiculously pathetic the leftist news media really is. If they can't screen their calls, can any leftist media be trusted?



Meanwhile, the "We report you decide fair coverage" channel was falling all over itself to show us how stupid their people really are.

If it wasn't so tragic, it would have been funny.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Ah, your mommy let you back on her computer, huh.

The liberal media in this case was laughable. MSNBC got a call this morning from a so-called representative of NASA. The chick anchor was all "serious" talking to the guy and then the guy gave a statement for the Howard Stern show lol. That was hilarious and just goes to show how ridiculously pathetic the leftist news media really is. If they can't screen their calls, can any leftist media be trusted?

Appears that you are the idiot, decentralized.

JK

And your hero's at Fox reported that a UFO shot the shuttle down. You must be proud.

I continue to smack you around.

[Roadtoad]

On second thought, if I'm going to be subjected to Jedi Knight's wisdom, I think I'd rather listen to the frigging Luddites.

JK, do me a personal favor, would you? SHUT THE F*** UP!

[Roadtoad]

You can thank Hazelip for pointing me in the right direction to find this...

By MARCIA DUNN, AP Aerospace Writer

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - Investigators trying to figure out what destroyed space shuttle Columbia immediately focused on the left wing and the possibility that its thermal tiles were damaged far more seriously than NASA realized by a piece of debris during liftoff.

Just a little over a minute into Columbia's launch Jan. 16, a chunk of insulating foam peeled away from the external fuel tank and smacked into the ship's left wing.

On Saturday, that same wing started exhibiting sensor failures and other problems 23 minutes before Columbia was scheduled to touch down. With just 16 minutes remaining before landing, the shuttle disintegrated over Texas.

Just the day before, on Friday, NASA's lead flight director, Leroy Cain, had declared the launch-day incident to be absolutely no safety threat. And an extensive engineering analysis had concluded that any damage to Columbia's thermal tiles would be minor.

"As we look at that now in hindsight, we can't discount that there might be a connection," shuttle manager Ron Dittemore said on Saturday, hours after the tragedy. "But we have to caution that we can't rush to judgment, because a lot of things in this business that look like the smoking gun but turn out not to be close."

The shuttle's more than 20,000 thermal tiles protect it from the extreme heat of re-entry into the atmosphere.

He said that the disaster could have also been caused by a structural failure of some sort.

As for other possibilities, however, NASA said that until the problems with the wing were noticed, everything else appeared to be working fine.

Dittemore said there was nothing that the astronauts could have done in orbit to fix damaged thermal tiles and nothing that flight controllers could have done to safely bring home a severely scarred shuttle, given the extreme temperatures of re-entry.

The shuttle broke apart while being exposed to the peak temperature of 3,000 degrees on the leading edge of the wings, while traveling at 12,500 mph, or 18 times the speed of sound.

Dittemore said that even if the astronauts had gone out on an emergency spacewalk, there was no way a spacewalker could have safely checked under the wings, which bear the brunt of heat re-entry and have reinforced protection.

Even if they did find damage, there was nothing the crew could have done to fix it, he said.

"There's nothing that we can do about tile damage once we get to orbit," Dittemore said. "We can't minimize the heating to the point that it would somehow not require a tile. So once you get to orbit, you're there and you have your tile insulation and that's all you have for protection on the way home from the extreme thermal heating during re-entry."

The shuttle was not equipped with its 50-foot robot arm because it was not needed during this laboratory research mission, and so the astronauts did not have the option of using the arm's cameras to get a look at the damage.

NASA did not request help in trying to observe the damaged area with ground telescopes or satellites, in part because it did not believe the pictures would be useful, Dittemore.

Long-distance pictures did not help flight controllers when they wanted to see the tail of space shuttle Discovery during John Glenn's flight in 1998; the door for the drag-chute compartment had fallen off seconds after liftoff.

It was the second time in just four months that a piece of fuel-tank foam came off during a shuttle liftoff. In October, Atlantis lost a piece of foam that ended up striking the aft skirt of one of its solid-fuel booster rockets. At the time, the damage was thought to be superficial.

Dittemore said this second occurrence "is certainly a signal to our team that something has changed."

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


And your hero's at Fox reported that a UFO shot the shuttle down. You must be proud.

I continue to smack you around.

The only smacking going on is your lips in the horse manure pile.

I don't even get Fox news where I live so I can't evaluate them. Judging by how much they upset your leftist logic, however, they must be great. ;)

If they mention UFO's they must rule. :D

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
On second thought, if I'm going to be subjected to Jedi Knight's wisdom, I think I'd rather listen to the frigging Luddites.

JK, do me a personal favor, would you? SHUT THE F*** UP!

I have just as much right to speak as you do. I know that you are probably not used to hearing how bad communism and leftism in general is and it hurts your ears, but you will come around eventually.

JK

[Hazelip]

Actually, JK, I just wish you and Central would keep your personal crap out of the thread entirely. It really has no place in this discussion, and you're only hijacking the thread for what appears to be your perverse pleasure in taunting others.

Do you really have to do that?

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
I have just as much right to speak as you do. I know that you are probably not used to hearing how bad communism and leftism in general is and it hurts your ears, but you will come around eventually.

JK

Given that I'm libertarian in my views, the fact that I've many friends who have literally escaped from Communist nations with little more than the clothes on their backs, and the fact that I've spent about seven years of my life in what was once West Germany, (including a trip to East Berlin), I resent your remarks.

Here's a hot flash for you, JK: Those on the left are not always wrong. By the same token: Those on the right are not always right.

Yes, you have as much right to speak as I do. You do NOT have the right to hijack the thread. I repeat my earlier request: SHUT THE F*** UP!

(Edited to fix a Freudian slip...)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Hazelip
Actually, JK, I just wish you and Central would keep your personal crap out of the thread entirely. It really has no place in this discussion, and you're only hijacking the thread for what appears to be your perverse pleasure in taunting others.

Do you really have to do that?

JK hates me because I keep shining the light of truth on his stupidity.

Now back to the discussion....

[Supercharts]

The Columbia disaster now leaves NASA with three orbiters - the Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour.

[corplinx]

We've already seen the left-wing conspiracy theories start popping up on how "Bush will use this against terror". Now all we need is the right wing conspiracy theorists to talk about how the New World Order blew up the plane.


Seriously, the shuttle program has needed an overhaul for a while. We can probably design something better for getting into low earth orbit, space station dockings, and releasing satellites. I'm not sure a space program overhaul is big on the agenda though with all of the hot issues we currently have.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Supercharts
The Columbia disaster now leaves NASA with three orbiters - the Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour.

Are you implying that is too few??? We have gotten so good at space flight, that it has become almost "run of the mill". I didn't even know that the shuttle was up there. How often do they go up? Every couple of months? And how long does it take to turn one around?

One thing I did find interesting - a guy was on the tube today pointing out that the shuttle tchnology is really from the late 60's early 70's. I guess that makes sense, since it probably took 8-10 years from initial design to flight, and when did the first one fly - around 1980-ish??

So, are there new ones on the drawing board?

[corplinx]

I've been watching the news in 5 minutes bits over the day, mostly Fox. Which anchor was it at Fox that was being a "total idiot"? Most of the stuff I have seen was alright considering the subject's horrific nature and the impromptu responses.

Geraldo has been on and been doing a fairly classy job.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by evildave
It's a big, complicated machine that's 20 years old. Stuff breaks.

The nice thing about simpler rockets is, they're at least always new.

Now whether the thing suffered a structural failure, or leaked some fuel, or a control system went, we'll probably never know.

The shuttles are getting *old*.

That's my evaluation of the problem.
A good evaluation, Dave. Living in Houston, I hear a lot of news about NASA. Lately, they've really been strapped for funds. Every time they have a tax cut, NASA is one of the first things that gets hit. After all, it doesn't really "produce" anything and it is horribly expensive. It is no accident that we haven't had any new space shuttles in 20 years. They're not cheap.

I don't want to sound cold-hearted, but as someone pointed out, the loss of seven lives is tragic, but really less tragic than an airline crash, in terms of loss of life. My greatest fear is that this will set back the space program even further and may even lead the bean counters to eliminate it entirely. That would truly be a tragedy.

[Bjorn]

Central Scrutinizer
We have gotten so good at space flight, that it has become almost "run of the mill". Well, although my information might not be totally correct (I've been in a car all day relying on the radio coverage): If one out of a hundred flights or so ends in disaster, as stated, I can't think of any other means of transportation as dangerous.

So, 'good at it'? :(

(But given a chance to go ..... I'd go tomorrow, if my wife would let me.)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Central Scrutinizer
Well, although my information might not be totally correct (I've been in a car all day relying on the radio coverage): If one out of a hundred flights or so ends in disaster, as stated, I can't think of any other means of transportation as dangerous.

So, 'good at it'? :(

(But given a chance to go ..... I'd go tomorrow, if my wife would let me.)

Yes, quite good. Which is why today is such big news. If there were problems with every flight, then the events of today wouldn't be such big news.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Yes, quite good. Which is why today is such big news. If there were problems with every flight, then the events of today wouldn't be such big news. Well, maybe you're right. Maybe travels in space are 'quite good' if 99% of them come back safe and sound, and as I mentioned, I would do it for the pure adrenalin kick - it must be fantastic!

However, even compared to driving a car after drinking (relatively silly if one looks at how people die in the US), being a passenger on the space shuttle must be one of the most dangerous ways of going anywhere, maybe even more dangerous than trying to climb Mount Everest (which I also would give a try if I could afford it).

Fact is, I cannot think of any other occupation/hobby where your chances of a fatal accident is above one in one hundred tries.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Well, maybe you're right. Maybe travels in space are 'quite good' if 99% of them come back safe and sound, and as I mentioned, I would do it for the pure adrenalin kick - it must be fantastic!

However, even compared to driving a car after drinking (relatively silly if one looks at how people die in the US), being a passenger on the space shuttle must be one of the most dangerous ways of going anywhere, maybe even more dangerous than trying to climb Mount Everest (which I also would give a try if I could afford it).

Fact is, I cannot think of any other occupation/hobby where your chances of a fatal accident is above one in one hundred tries.

Agreed. Which is why they are truly brave. A proper use of the word hero.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Hazelip
Actually, JK, I just wish you and Central would keep your personal crap out of the thread entirely. It really has no place in this discussion, and you're only hijacking the thread for what appears to be your perverse pleasure in taunting others.

Do you really have to do that?

Decentralized stepped into the gutter and I added a few layers of trash, so what? If you don't like what I have to say, put me on ignore.

The same goes for toady.

JK

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Decentralized stepped into the gutter and I added a few layers of trash, so what? If you don't like what I have to say, put me on ignore.

The same goes for toady.

JK

And if you don't like what they have to say to you, put them on ignore. Round and Round we go.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Denise


And if you don't like what they have to say to you, put them on ignore. Round and Round we go.

He seems to struggle to figure that out.

[Skeptic]

The real reason COLUMBIA disintegrated (except for the evil illuminati with their death ray lazers, of course) was seen long ago in Feynmann's report on the CHALLANGER disaster. I am summarizing the report below.

Most engineering is "bottom-up". Suppose you want to build a plane. You start by assuring the engine parts work well; then you see if the engine works well when they're put together; then if the wing holds the engine well; then if the plane holds the wing well. One of the major advantages of this method is that you have room for change if you encounter problems: the plane's exact shape, for instance, is not yet determined when you are testing the turbine blades or the engine, say, so it is not critical if it changes a little bit from the original drawing board concept. You have room to work.

The shuttle--for a variety of beurocratic and other reasons, such as trying to save time--was built "top-down": it STARTED with a certain, fixed shape; then the desingers had to "force" the engines (for instance) into the space alloted to them in the overall design; then the engine's components had to fit into the space allotted to the engine, and so on. When problems were encountered (in the O-ring developing cracks, for instance, or engine trouble) it was simply too late to change things without an extensive--and expensive--overhaul of the whole thing.

But there was another "out": convince yourself that things aren't THAT bad, and that it really is safer than it appears. This--Feynmann proves--is what was done. The designers didn't want any "bad news", so the failure tests (for example) were very lax, and the safery margins far lower than originally intended.

To put it simply, the shuttle is a spaceship designed by a committee. The old joke says that a camel is a horse designed by a committee--which shows the relation between the shuttle and what a "real-life" (so to speak) spacecraft, designed in the conventional "bottom-up" manner would have been like.

The result? A space launch vechile which is enormously expensive, scientifically and economically unnecessary--unmanned satellites can do everything the Shuttle does in both regards, and far cheaper (for all the bruhaha about the Hubble "repair mission", for instance, it would probably have cost less to simply launch another, better telescope), and with an about 1-in-50 chance of exploding every mission.

Who NEEDS it?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Denise


And if you don't like what they have to say to you, put them on ignore. Round and Round we go.

and neither puts the other on ignore. Wish I was this sober the past few days when **** like this is what I was trying to talk about. haha

some people just want the battle. Others try to find a justifiable reason to battle. These two want the battle

As I've had time to reflect on the tragedy today a few thoughts come to mind.

People in general (including me) want to find good in the bad. It's probably a fruitless effort, but I spend time thinking of any positive side to this tragedy as if things always happen for some sort of reason, although that is not part of my belief system. I also fail to understand when someone does not feel touched by a tragedy in the same way I do, but obviously, this is a normal thing. I am glad for the people that post on this board so that I can in some small way share my grief with them.

I did not know anyone who was aboard Columbia, nor do I know a friend of a friend. Kevin Bacon? Anyhow, I feel as if a good aquaintance has suffered something terrible in their life. I feel the same sense of helplessness as I do in other situations where I can do nothing but perhaps share in the moment and hope it brings some peace. Trying to find something to do about something that nothing can be done about, wondering about what ifs and why nots and what will happen nows. It seems to be what humans around the world do best.

Part of me feels some sort of elation that at least the astronauts died doing something they valued. At least all of them were able to spend time in space and fulfill their life long dreams before their untimely death. With the Challenger (I skipped school that day to watch it in my Senior year) some were never able to realize their dream, at least in this case, the first time astronauts were able to experience something that most of us can only dream about and whose imagination is most likely unable to be a great enough tool to be able to come close to the reality. Yes, stupid attempt at rationalization number one, but there it is.

I also hope that this tragedy brings the attention of the world to the space program. Not only Americans, but people all over the world. That this tragedy and it's coverage sparks the interest of some small child, who will someday as a famous scientist recall this day as one that started them on the road to discovery. Hope towards continued and expanded funding for the space program, more international funding, more international cooperation. Hope, because I need to feel there is some good in this. It is a weakness of mine, to be sure, but who is not weak like I?

Desire that people will come together and realize that the actions we take now will surely affect future generations. Desire that people realize that the goals truly worth attaining are not always realized immediately, and often not even realized during our lifetime, but again... still worth shooting for. To me that is what the astronauts were attempting to do. They knew that they would not realize all the fruits of their work in their lifetime. They chose to sacrifice for tomorrow and not just for today. I believe this to be true, although I knew none of these men and women.

I cried today, as I cried when the Challenger exploded. And, no, I am not ashamed.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tmy
Yes its a sad event, but arent you taking things a little too hard.

A military copter can crash in Afganistan killing 7 soilders and maybe it'll get news covearge for a couple days.

A space shuttle blows killing 7 scientist and its a big national tragety that will get roudn the clock coverage for who knows how long.

Why is that?

good question, and one that shows that most people are more interested in hope and the future than war and killing. score one for the human race.

[a_unique_person]

I don't get it? Why couldn't they inspect the exterior of the craft. Given that they could not repair any damage, could a new shuttle and soyuz not be sent up to retrieve the crew while they slummed on the space station?

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Decentralized stepped into the gutter and I added a few layers of trash, so what? If you don't like what I have to say, put me on ignore.

The same goes for toady.

JK

My apologies, JK. I did not know that your actions were the fault of someone else. "But, mom! Decentralized made me do it!"

I was also unaware that you were not an adult and incapable of responding to an adult request. In short, I didn't realize you were an *******. My error in judgment, I suppose. :rolleyes:

[Smalso]

I believe that the new coverage went something like this:

If you were watching a network with which you agree, the coverage was fair, competent and unbiased;

If you were watching a network you don't like and with which you don't agree (WHY??) the coverage was incompetent, unfair and biased, even though all of them covered the same event in essentially the same way.

BTW, something's going to have to fly pretty soon. Those folks on the space station only have enough supplies to last until June.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by corplinx
I've been watching the news in 5 minutes bits over the day, mostly Fox. Which anchor was it at Fox that was being a "total idiot"? Most of the stuff I have seen was alright considering the subject's horrific nature and the impromptu responses.


The woman who was the FoxNews anchor between 9 and 10 am EST was totally incompetent to handle anything of this magnitude. I was watching it as it happened. CNN wasn't great, but the woman on Fox was totally clueless about anything.

MSNBC of all places did the best on the live coverage (and were the only ones to comment that there is a period of communication blackout, although they didn't clarify when that should be happening compared to when they actually lost contact).

Of course, then MSNBC fell for a prankster claiming to be a NASA rep, but they cut him off quick.

CNN and MSNBC were the first to pull video footage, and they had different videos. Fox was about 5 minutes behind them in this, and had to describe the footage that they were seeing on other channels.

Fox did an embarassing job dealing with the events as they happened. CNN and MSNBC also had their problems, but they were always one step ahead.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Smalso
I believe that the new coverage went something like this:

If you were watching a network with which you agree, the coverage was fair, competent and unbiased;

If you were watching a network you don't like and with which you don't agree (WHY??) the coverage was incompetent, unfair and biased, even though all of them covered the same event in essentially the same way.


I didn't watch any of the post-event nonsense and story telling. No one knew anything, so I wouldn't pay any attention to any of it.

I am talking about those reporting the news _as it happened_. Not the analysis, but the simple reporting of the events. It's not an issue of being fair or biased. It is an issue of providing relevent information and understanding enough about the events to provide relevent information.

As I said, 4 minutes after the shuttle was scheduled to land, the woman on Fox asked a guest caller about the possibility of still regaining radio contact (and he was clearly annoyed by her question, too).

[evildave]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I don't get it? Why couldn't they inspect the exterior of the craft. Given that they could not repair any damage, could a new shuttle and soyuz not be sent up to retrieve the crew while they slummed on the space station?

A big helping of complacensy on this area is the core answer to the question.

They'd have had to have extra fuel and plans to park the shuttle up there and maneuver to dock with the ISS. Assuming they had this contingency fully set up, then this would have been the safest solution, had they been cautious enough to CHECK to see if tiles are damaged in a threatening mnner EVERY SINGLE TIME, and have backup tiles on-hand.

Tethering an astronaut and having them inspect comes with a certain risk in its self. You could damage more of the tiles you sought to inspect. There isn't much to grab onto under the shuttle. Especially since this mission didn't include a 'robot arm'.

Besides, a fair number of tiles are lost and damaged every single time the shuttle goes up. Probably this time, the odds just caught up, where some tiles were over a critical spot, or left a big enough gap. The shuttle isn't "one tile away" from failure. It's "the right tile" or combination of tiles away from failure. This is the same problem with aerospace in general. You're typically not one valve or wire or bolt away from having an airliner crash. It's the right sequence of errors and failures that causes a disaster.

It all comes into a balance of weight and fuel (and more fuel has more weight) and cost. Remove the robot arm, and you get that much more weight into the box. I wonder what they were hauling on this mission. Many missions, the cargo bay is practically empty. Nothing much has been said about it.

Even with recent upgrades in the NASA budget, there is a signficant lag between increasing funding and that increase having a positive effect. You can't just undo years of ripping the guts out of NASA to fund pet social experiments. Many upgrades were cancelled over the years assuming the shuttle would be replaced "soon". Well it hasn't been.

We still make rockets. It's still far cheaper to launch most payloads with rockets instead of space shuttles. Valves and subsystems in rockets can be made cheaper and simpler if the valves only open once, and don't need to be replacable. The whole thing is cheaper and simpler when you make "single use" assumptions. Significantly cheaper than buying a shuttle, and then almost totally rebuilding it every few missions, and then worrying over the all the irreplacable bits you can't rebuild. And every time we lose a shuttle like we just did, that's another huge cache of unique parts that might have been cannibalised to make another one work.

Develop a new capsule, or re-use an older design while we work on what will eventually replace the shuttle. Just use the shuttles for "special" missions that their big cargo bay and return capabilities are for.

Then again, it might be cheaper to adapt a "workhorse" capsule design each time for the special manned missions the shuttle does.

And yes, every mission should have a contingency plan to use the ISS as a fallback. It's one of the benefits having a manned station "always there" should provide. Perhaps planning to LOOK AT the underside with a high resolution telescope from the ISS when the shuttle comes near (plan to have the shuttle "come near" a few times during its orbit). Maybe include a detachable plastic robot arm that only mounts a camera to do a "health check" on the shuttle when the heavier "real" robot arm isn't needed. If it screws up and won't fold, just toss it overboard.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by pgwenthold

Of course, then MSNBC fell for a prankster claiming to be a NASA rep, but they cut him off quick.


I missed that. What happened??

[zakur]

Originally posted by Smalso
BTW, something's going to have to fly pretty soon. Those folks on the space station only have enough supplies to last until June. There is always a Soyuz capsule docked at the ISS in case of ermergency evacuation. In a worst case scenario, the three crew members can leave in the capsule, effectively abandoning the station.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


I missed that. What happened??

He claimed to be from NASA, but then when he was on the air, he said something about Howard Stern doing it, or something like that. They cut him off pretty quick.

[shemp]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


He claimed to be from NASA, but then when he was on the air, he said something about Howard Stern doing it, or something like that. They cut him off pretty quick.

CBS had a crank caller too. Dan Rather started talking to some guy who claimed debris had fallen in his backyard. The guy then said something I didn't catch, and I heard a voice in the background say "It's a crank." The crank then called Dan an idiot before they cut him off.

[Roadtoad]

On another note, this came down the pike from the AP:

By MATT CRENSON, AP National Writer

NASA (news - web sites) is extremely unlikely to build a new space shuttle to replace Columbia, according to experts, leaving the space agency with the three remaining orbiters as its entire fleet for the foreseeable future.

The next generation of reusable space vehicles is at least 10 to 15 years off, said Donald H. Emero, who served as the shuttle's chief engineer from 1989 to 1993.

"I think the country will not invest in any more shuttles," Emero said Saturday.

Until a few years ago, NASA was exploring several designs for vehicles to replace the space shuttle. But NASA's new administrator, Sean O'Keefe, has shelved those designs and committed to operating the space shuttle for the next 10 to 15 years. The fleet's primary mission during that period will be constructing and servicing the international space station.

Discovery, the oldest of NASA's three remaining shuttles, has been in service for 18 years. Endeavour, built at a cost of about $2 billion to replace the Challenger after that spacecraft exploded shortly after takeoff in 1986, has been flying for a decade. Atlantis, the third remaining shuttle, has been in use for 17 years.

NASA's shuttle fleet was grounded for nearly three years following the Challenger disaster, as investigators struggled first to determine what had caused it to explode with seven astronauts on board and then to fix the problem. In the hours after that accident, few could have guessed that the cause would be a rubber "O-ring" — stiffened and cracked by low temperatures.

At that time, NASA had sufficient spare parts to assemble Endeavour as a replacement for Challenger. But today the space agency does not have that capability.

Emero said the investigation of Saturday's accident could take as long as that inquiry, but doubted it would because Challenger was destroyed by such a minor defect that was difficult to find.

There is no doubt that the remaining space shuttles will be grounded for some time pending NASA's investigation of the Columbia accident.

"Certainly there is a hold on future flights until we get ourselves established and understand how this happened," said space shuttle program manager Ron Dittemore.

The next shuttle mission on NASA's flight schedule is a March 1 trip to the space station by the Atlantis orbiter.

During the 1990s, NASA spent billions of dollars investigating a radical design to replace the space shuttle. The X-33 vehicle would have had a dramatic "lifting body" design propelled by a type of rocket that had never been used in spaceflight. But persistent engineering problems led NASA to abandon the vehicle in 2001.


Idiots!

[technoasis]

I spent yesterday doing what has become the modern routine for handling a tragedy — watching news channels spread a tad of information into hours of analysis, calling family members just to hear their voices and scrolling down discussion board posts to see the world’s reaction.

So many people are grieving because of the Columbia explosion. Friends and family members of the crew have the obvious rights to mourn, but yesterday even people with no connection to the space program cried.

For some, though, the loss was of no more importance than an anonymous car accident on the interstate — something to shake their head over but not to shed a tear on.

“Thirty four people just died in a train wreck in Zimbabwe,” read one post on TLC’s “Trading Spaces” online bulletin board. “Think anyone will notice or care about their deaths, other than their immediate families?”

Any loss of life is a shame. Maybe in this age where so many people could be saved with better food or more widely available medicine, it is selfish to mourn these seven lives.

But these seven lives bore an awesome burden. Kalpana Chawla, Michael Anderson, William McCool, Rick Husband, Laurel Clark, David Brown and Ilan Ramon. On their shoulders they carried the dreams of hundreds of thousands of people. They carried with them the thoughts of little children, who yearn to grow up to be one of the brave few that leave the bounds of the earth and see the magic of space. In their hearts were the secret ambitions of adults who fantasize of being a new breed of pioneers. They transcended national borders. They rested on the foundation of scientific discoveries, sleepless nights of research and years of taxpayer’s money. They were the pinnacle. They were our hopes for the future rolled into seven souls.

I was in sixth grade when Challenger exploded. Like so many of my generation, I participated in the “Teacher in Space” activities and remember everything about that day. As a mother, I’ve often wondered if it is cruel to let children become involved in something as dangerous as space flight. Maybe encouraging them to participate in the program’s science experiments and watching NASA-TV together is just setting them up for an emotional meltdown when tragedy occurs.

Maybe we would be happier if our feelings about the Columbia accident were the same as when we hear about a small plane crash — sadness for the families affected, but distant.

We could do that. We could train our children, maybe even ourselves, not to look up at the night sky and imagine what secrets are hidden there. We could remove all the Heinleins, Asimovs and Clarks from the libraries. We could force our dreams for the future to be firmly attached to the ground.

What a sad future that would be.

I like to think that the hope the crew of Columbia represented didn’t die yesterday. Perhaps it was wounded, shattered even. But I think we will pick up the pieces.

I hope there are other souls, tomorrow and decades from now, who are willing to carry all of our dreams and all of the personal danger.

I hope they lift them higher than I can imagine.

Well said, Technoasis.

[Doctor X]

Indeed!

--J.D.

[Kilted_Canuck]

I was out camping yesterday, and when I found out what happened, I just about fell down from shock.
Challenger exploded just under six months before I was born, and I was raised when the Shuttle program had its new breath of life, and when Canada had first put our own astronauts in space. These were the people I idolized. Hadfield, Bondar, Garneau. Then I started learning more and more about space and exploration; memorized the specifications of the shuttles, dreamed of going up. These brave scientists knew the risks going up, but very few would have ever said 'no' to the chance to experience micro-gravity, and see the world from a different prospective.

When people do dangerous things, no matter what happens, there are bound to be disasters. A combintion of small mistakes can spell disaster. Thats not to say that there isn't human error or incompetence involved in this, just that these things happened.

[arcticpenguin]

Does anyone know, was the Canadarm on board the Columbia?

[a_unique_person]

Nope. It wasn't needed. Also no-one with space walking training, and Columbia couldn't dock with the ISS, as it was the oldest shuttle.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Hazelip


My apologies, JK. I did not know that your actions were the fault of someone else. "But, mom! Decentralized made me do it!"

I was also unaware that you were not an adult and incapable of responding to an adult request. In short, I didn't realize you were an *******. My error in judgment, I suppose. :rolleyes:

Well of course you erred, moron. You couldn't help it.

JK

[Badger]

What I thirst for is more information from people who consistently watch shuttle re-entries. There must be people in Hawaii, and on the western seaboard who watch every chance they get. I understand there is an astronomer in SF who has pictures of this re-entry (san Francisco Chronicle story)

I would like to know if they saw anything different with this one.

I'm sure the people at NASA have thought about this already.

[Douglas]

"What I thirst for is more information from people who consistently watch shuttle re-entries. There must be people in Hawaii, and on the western seaboard who watch every chance they get. I understand there is an astronomer in SF who has pictures of this re-entry (san Francisco Chronicle story)

I would like to know if they saw anything different with this one."

Well, they may have noticed this one broke up into many fiery pieces that fell to Earth.

----
I spend time thinking of any positive side to this tragedy as if things always happen for some sort of reason, although that is not part of my belief system.
----


It sounds like you have faith in NASA, exploration, and in science recovering.


----
I also hope that this tragedy brings the attention of the world to the space program.

....

Hope towards continued and expanded funding for the space program, more international funding, more international cooperation.
----


Or just the opposite perhaps. -hard to say.

I was watching a well known reporter, and at one point he got news from some of the news station reporters in Iraq, who said that some Iraqi's who were interviewed said that they were glad the shuttle blew up, etc.

He just gave a stern look at the camara and said something like 'We'll leave it at that.'

My question is what is the point of that whole segment. Do the news agencies want to increase our feelings FOR the war and AGAINST the Iraqi's? Clearly that was what I got out of it.

Irresponsible news.

[Smalso]

Yes, showing diverse points of view is always very irresponsible.

[Doctor X]

Whoudini:

My question is what is the point of that whole segment. Do the news agencies want to increase our feelings FOR the war and AGAINST the Iraqi's? Clearly that was what I got out of it.

Well, viewers do wonder what citizens in other countries feel about a tragedy.

--J.D.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Tricky
It is no accident that we haven't had any new space shuttles in 20 years. They're not cheap.

Actually, Atlantis was completed in 1985 and Endeavor in 1991.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


So, are there new ones on the drawing board?


Orbital Space Plane to replace Space Shuttle (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=550)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Smalso
BTW, something's going to have to fly pretty soon. Those folks on the space station only have enough supplies to last until June.

An unmanned Russian rocket just launched (yesterday or today) to send supplies to the ISS.

Originally posted by Doctor X
Whoudini:
Well, viewers do wonder what citizens in other countries feel about a tragedy.
--J.D.


And you're telling me it was a coincidence that Iraqi's just happened to be interviewed, and they just happened to say they were glad the shuttle blew up?

Originally posted by Whodini



And you're telling me it was a coincidence that Iraqi's just happened to be interviewed, and they just happened to say they were glad the shuttle blew up?

For once I agree with you.

Tell, me, do you remember what network this was on?

[Roadtoad]

I would wonder why it would matter which network covered it. Many times, I find myself feeling that these reporters simply Xerox one another's stories and pass them around from one to another, usually without adding anything more of substance. I'm waiting for the Weekly World News to come out: at least you know going in what you're getting is crap.

I agree: I suspect this time, any report from Iraq about the loss of the shuttle is almost surely designed to increase American outrage, and provoke a response. The risk is that it could well be the wrong one.

[Q-Source]

Bravo!

Whodini started using the "quotes" mode.

Did You know that it was very difficult to read your posts?

----
Bravo!

Whodini started using the "quotes" mode.

Did You know that it was very difficult to read your posts?
----


Should have brought it up earlier.

[John Harrison]

Posted by Bjorn:
However, even compared to driving a car after drinking (relatively silly if one looks at how people die in the US), being a passenger on the space shuttle must be one of the most dangerous ways of going anywhere, maybe even more dangerous than trying to climb Mount Everest.

Fact is, I cannot think of any other occupation/hobby where your chances of a fatal accident is above one in one hundred tries.

IIRC, the Everest fatality rate is somewhere around 25-30%, and I wouldn't compare going into space with driving cars, airplanes, etc. Getting into orbit and back is really, really dangerous, and the shuttle has only done it around 100 times.

How long have we driven cars and flown planes?

Posted by a_unique_person:
I don't get it? Why couldn't they inspect the exterior of the craft. Given that they could not repair any damage, could a new shuttle and soyuz not be sent up to retrieve the crew while they slummed on the space station?

This may have been answered already, but here goes:

The Columbia was not equipped to dock with the ISS, or even another shuttle, and didn't have enough fuel to reach the ISS orbit even if it could.

[Doctor X]

And you're telling me it was a coincidence that Iraqi's just happened to be interviewed, and they just happened to say they were glad the shuttle blew up?

No need to suppose a synchronicity of sorts.

Iraq issued a statement.

It proved obnoxious.

This maketh news.

It appears that the Iraqi Parliament . . . no snickering! . . . issued a retraction of sorts.

--J.D.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Doctor X


No need to suppose a synchronicity of sorts.

Iraq issued a statement.

It proved obnoxious.

This maketh news.

It appears that the Iraqi Parliament . . . no snickering! . . . issued a retraction of sorts.

--J.D.

I suppose a retraction is better than our reaction, which would result in Saddamn's extraction, (or extermination...)

[Doctor X]

Are you suggesting he should effect a premature withdrawal?

[Stop it!--Ed.]

Yes . . . sorry. . . .

Not to totally be down on [b]Whodini[b]'s point, for the "press" enjoys controversy. It will rerun pictures of protests because it knows it generates viewers.

News and whoring sometimes goes hand-in-hand.

--J.D.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Skeptic


To put it simply, the shuttle is a spaceship designed by a committee. The old joke says that a camel is a horse designed by a committee--which shows the relation between the shuttle and what a "real-life" (so to speak) spacecraft, designed in the conventional "bottom-up" manner would have been like.



When it was first built, I was struck by its remarkable resemblance to the Rockwell logo...

[Smalso]

Finding an Iraqi to say on camera that he was glad the shuttle blew up was probably the right-wing conservative controlled media trying to get people stirred up in favor of war.

See? That **** can work both ways.

[Tmy]

Remember those arrests in England the other week. The people caught with that Sarin poison. I noticed that EVERY news cast on the story would mention that Iraq is believed to have the same poison. That was mentioned every time even though there was no link between the men and Iraq and the poison is fairly common.

[Roadtoad]

You know, one of these days, someone is going to listen to this beat-up trucker whose parents worked in the media for years and who spent a little time behind the mike himself...

People, when are you going to wake up? It is not so much a Liberal media or a Conservative media, but a MERCENARY MEDIA which is not too far removed from the Yellow Journalism of William Randolph Hearst or Joseph Pulitzer. They don't give a $hit about what they stir up, they just want to either sell papers or gather viewers! OF COURSE Iraqis are going to "demonstrate" about the loss of the Columbia! OF COURSE they're going to mention that Iraq has Sarin! OF COURSE they're going to mention that Iraq has the means to produce Ricin! You and I may think of it as information, as news, but Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner think of it as a resource, as a commodity. They see it as MONEY.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
You know, one of these days, someone is going to listen to this beat-up trucker ... Well-said post, Roadtoad.

[Smalso]

Well put, Roadtoad. That's been my view for years. Sometimes propaganda pens are mightier than any others. My point was that I cannot see how reporter would think he could stir up anti-war sentiment by airing a statement like that.

[Kodiak]

MSNBC is reporting that an Air Force tracking camera in New Mexico took photos of Columbia a minute before breakup showing "heavy structural damage" where the front edge of the left wing meets the fuselage.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Whodini
I was watching a well known reporter, and at one point he got news from some of the news station reporters in Iraq, who said that some Iraqi's who were interviewed said that they were glad the shuttle blew up, etc.

He just gave a stern look at the camara and said something like 'We'll leave it at that.'

My question is what is the point of that whole segment. Do the news agencies want to increase our feelings FOR the war and AGAINST the Iraqi's? Clearly that was what I got out of it.

Irresponsible news.

Is it supposed to be a secret that many Iraqi's hate America? Was it irresponsible reporting that pictures of celebrating Palestinians made the news during 9/11??

Perhaps a better question is "when is it reasonable to censor the news?" IMO if it really happens, and is somehow leaked or witnessed then it should be fair game for the free press to present to us.

Of course some things should remain secret for national security reasons...and to protect sources of intel...but if it slips out into the public domain who would you set up to be the arbiter of what is and what is not "responsible news"?? Must there be a point? Isn't it news if it actually happened....and someone thought it of import to air??

Basically,...aren't we...a free people...the best judges of what is news??

-zilla

[Hazelip]

zilla, it's really a question of relevance. I mean, if we all know that Palestinians and Iraqis are predisposed to hate Americans, what's the point of making a display of that hatred immediately following a tragedy such as 9/11 or Columbia if it's not to "rally the troops"? What other reason is there to graphically, and offensively, display what we already know immediately following such a horrible event?

It's not censorship that's at issue here, it's relevance and motivation.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Hazelip
zilla, it's really a question of relevance. I mean, if we all know that Palestinians and Iraqis are predisposed to hate Americans, what's the point of making a display of that hatred immediately following a tragedy such as 9/11 or Columbia if it's not to "rally the troops"? What other reason is there to graphically, and offensively, display what we already know immediately following such a horrible event?

It's not censorship that's at issue here, it's relevance and motivation.

This has been brought up before. The argument then described the media as "liberal"....a monolithic liberal media bias. I rejected that argument then for the reason that the "media" is not a monolith.

Later we heard the media is involved in "The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"....this is even more ludicrous.

Relevance and motivation are beside the point. Should not we as free people get to decide this for ourselves. If not who will you put up as being the arbiter of relevance and motivation?? Wouldn't that be the same thing as a censor?

-zilla

[Hazelip]

zilla, settle down. I never said the media shouldn't do it. I never said they should do it. I only said what I thought needed to be questioned upon seeing them do it.

In other words, a little bit of critical thought...

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Hazelip
zilla, settle down. I never said the media shouldn't do it. I never said they should do it. I only said what I thought needed to be questioned upon seeing them do it.

In other words, a little bit of critical thought...

Hey I'm all simmered down! :D

...and I'm all for questioning just about anything. Critical thought is not a means to itself tho.... Critical thought should take you somewhere. CT without the payoff of finding some hidden truth is kinda like masturbation. ;) Since I don't believe in conspiracies I'd have to say that CT leads me to disregard this question of media manipulation.

Just MHO....but please go ahead and spin your wheels. If you ever have any interesting data please PM me. :D

Thanks,
-me

[Hazelip]

The only conclusion I can draw by thinking critically of the previously mentioned displays of Palestinians after 9/11 or Iraqi auto mechanics post Columbia has nothing to do with a conspiracy theory. Perhaps a conclusion that the station manager, or the news anchor, or the people calling the shots at the station have an axe to grind, but that's about it.

When dealing with the media, it's always wise to "consider the source". Conspiracies are few and far between, but I'll doubt a Weekly World News report faster than I'll doubt an ABC news report. I'll still question both as to why they do the things they do, and how the do them, however.

Oh, to expect CT to always lead to a conclusion is a false premise. A conclusion is not always attainable, but that does not negate the need for CT.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Hazelip
The only conclusion I can draw by thinking critically of the previously mentioned displays of Palestinians after 9/11 or Iraqi auto mechanics post Columbia has nothing to do with a conspiracy theory. Perhaps a conclusion that the station manager, or the news anchor, or the people calling the shots at the station have an axe to grind, but that's about it.

When dealing with the media, it's always wise to "consider the source". Conspiracies are few and far between, but I'll doubt a Weekly World News report faster than I'll doubt an ABC news report. I'll still question both as to why they do the things they do, and how the do them, however.

Oh, to expect CT to always lead to a conclusion is a false premise. A conclusion is not always attainable, but that does not negate the need for CT.

I think we are in agreement. :D ;)

I just hate wasting my time on stuff I think is not much worth thinking about. It opens me to charges of not always considering all data critically.....but then if I start second guessing my own common sense I'll never be self-assured about anything.

:eek:

-zilla

[Tricky]

Resurrecting this thread as a tribute to Jedi Knight. The investigation into the Columbia disaster is still big news in Houston.

For once, we can pretty much be sure that the left wing (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/space/1869628) is responsible.