Colombia shuttle

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-02-01 10:52am

Cpt_Frank wrote:
A part fell off the hydrogen fuel tank, I think, and hit the wing during liftoff, damaging it. But they have no idea yet.
That cracked the ceramics on the wing then?

Possibul. But in the 16 day's they where up I'd bet they sent someone out the check it over. CNN mentioned something about a spy satellite once being used to check out the belly of a shuttle. If damaged was inflicted it was likely extremely small or all internal.

Either could be fatal.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-02-01 11:07am

TrailerParkJawa wrote:Damn, I was dreaming the shuttle was lost, and watching it re-enter the atmosphere. I was sad to wake up and realize it was for real, and I was listening to the radio reports on my clock radio. Damn, this is the second loss of a shuttle flight in my life time.

Well, the Mars by 2010 was never gonna happen unless lots of Americans volunteered for a tax hike. With the age of the fleet, the second loss, and a deficit, we are probably looking at the end of the Shuttle program altogether or at least a grounding for a couple of years.

The shuttle program is definitely dead, and probably the ISS, though if we pump money into the Russian Soyuz program we can keep it going.

The Mars by 2010 depends entirely on how the President chooses to protray this. We don't need an orbital base to get to Mars by 2010 - We just need nuclear rocket engines. The orbiter was an outdated dead end, which makes this entire thing more depressing; they should have been retired years ago.

Hopefully the President will give a moving speech memorializing the lost and calling for Mars with nuclear rocketry - and the necessary funding - by 2010, as a tribute for them. It is, I should think, precisely what they'd want us to be doing, after all.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-02-01 11:12am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
The shuttle program is definitely dead, and probably the ISS, though if we pump money into the Russian Soyuz program we can keep it going.

I just did some rudimentary research- Soyuz is chugging along quite nicely- 1,674 launches of all variants- with two new versions on the way. However, one thing i heard was that although Russia is obligated to provide Soyuz capsules for ISS as a life boat till 2006, NASA must purchase them from Russia after this. The problem is that the money to do this has been halted, since Congress doesn't like the Russians supporting Iran with nuclear power plants. This could mean no such funding is possible. But they won't let ISS just die, will they?

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-02-01 11:15am

they can't let it die, billions have already been pumped into it. and besides, what the hell good what that do? why do we assume that it is best just to give up and go home? fuck that...if we do thatm then the crew of the coumbia dies in vain.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-02-01 11:23am

The shuttle program will not be shut down. I'll be surprised if its even grounded.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-02-01 11:23am

It seems hautingly ironic that after such good news just a week ago something as bad as this should happen. Is there a force out there that doesn't want us to leave this damn planet?

How many shuttles are left now, I count the Enterprise, Endeavour and one more I think.

Dammit, we should have new vehicles by now!

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-02-01 11:27am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:How many shuttles are left now, I count the Enterprise, Endeavour and one more I think.

Atlantis.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Dammit, we should have new vehicles by now!

We should, especially given the age and cost of the shuttles. And now this?

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-02-01 11:27am

Falcon wrote:The shuttle program will not be shut down. I'll be surprised if its even grounded.

Four shuttles are required to maintain the shuttle program and to support the ISS. And part of the reason why we got a new shuttle so soon after Challenger was because NASA kept a large store of spare parts that were used in assembling Endeavour.

That store has never been replenished.

We would basically have to build a new assembly line to replace Columbia, and what would be the point of doing that with 70s technology?

It would be better to arrange to send the money currently in the shuttle program to the Russians in exchange for them building and launching enough Soyuzs to keep the ISS running. Considering what the Russians can do with funds we'd consider paltry, that should be more than enough.

In the meantime, we can appropriate new funding for a nuclear rocket mission to Mars, which will be the new object of our manned space program.

Post by **Dalton** » 2003-02-01 11:27am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:It seems hautingly ironic that after such good news just a week ago something as bad as this should happen. Is there a force out there that doesn't want us to leave this damn planet?

How many shuttles are left now, I count the Enterprise, Endeavour and one more I think.

Dammit, we should have new vehicles by now!

Enterprise is a tourist attraction as I recall. The other shuttles are Atlantis, Discovery, and Endeavor.

EDIT: I was wrong about Challenger.

Necro99 · Post by **Necro99** » 2003-02-01 11:28am

Very sad indeed. I agree to say we need new vehicules!!! Like the X-33, the Space shuttle is damn right obsolecsent and isint very reliable...

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-02-01 11:30am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:It seems hautingly ironic that after such good news just a week ago something as bad as this should happen. Is there a force out there that doesn't want us to leave this damn planet?

How many shuttles are left now, I count the Enterprise, Endeavour and one more I think.

Dammit, we should have new vehicles by now!

Endeavour, Atlantis, and Discovery. Enterprise was an atmospheric test vehicle only, and is now a museum display piece. They contemplated rebuilding her for spaceflight after the Challenger disaster, but concluded it would cost more than building an entirely new vehicle. She's much older and been sitting in a museum for more than fifteen years now, so it would be quite impractical to activate her.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-02-01 11:31am

Dalton wrote:Enterprise is a tourist attraction as I recall. The other shuttles are Atlantis, Discovery, Challenger (they built another one) and Endeavor.

Endeavour was Challenger's replacement; there is no Challenger-II.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-02-01 11:32am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:It seems hautingly ironic that after such good news just a week ago something as bad as this should happen. Is there a force out there that doesn't want us to leave this damn planet?

How many shuttles are left now, I count the Enterprise, Endeavour and one more I think.

Dammit, we should have new vehicles by now!
Endeavour, Atlantis, and Discovery. Enterprise was an atmospheric test vehicle only, and is now a museum display piece. They contemplated rebuilding her for spaceflight after the Challenger disaster, but concluded it would cost more than building an entirely new vehicle. She's much older and been sitting in a museum for more than fifteen years now, so it would be quite impractical to activate her.

Damn! Then NASA better make sure those things are flying fit, if this is a problem in the design then they may all have to be grounded like Concorde was, and like Concorde they are one of a kind.

Post by **Dalton** » 2003-02-01 11:33am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Dalton wrote:Enterprise is a tourist attraction as I recall. The other shuttles are Atlantis, Discovery, Challenger (they built another one) and Endeavor.
Endeavour was Challenger's replacement; there is no Challenger-II.

I was too slow

Thanks for correcting me however.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-02-01 11:34am

Dalton wrote:
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Dalton wrote:Enterprise is a tourist attraction as I recall. The other shuttles are Atlantis, Discovery, Challenger (they built another one) and Endeavor.
Endeavour was Challenger's replacement; there is no Challenger-II.
I was too slow Thanks for correcting me however.

In terms of tanks you'd be correct at least.

I still say we need new vehicles, dammit!

Kelly Antilles · Post by **Kelly Antilles** » 2003-02-01 11:40am

Well, concidering all the cutbacks NASA has made, they probably have early specs for a replacement, but it'll take YEARS before they can even think about building one.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-02-01 11:47am

Kelly Antilles wrote:Well, concidering all the cutbacks NASA has made, they probably have early specs for a replacement, but it'll take YEARS before they can even think about building one.

To put it mildly. I wouldn't even bother with one. Straight to Mars on nuclear power; we don't need an Orbiter to help with that. Funding the Russians to keep the ISS up would just be for symbolic and research value, in that order.

Typhonis 1 · Post by **Typhonis 1** » 2003-02-01 11:48am

could this cause the x-33 to be builtsooner?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-02-01 11:54am

Well, they've officially confirmed that the shuttles been lost.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » 2003-02-01 12:02pm

The fact that there was an Israeli onboard is sure to fuel the terrorist theories. The only way I could see that working is some type of bomb smuggled aboard. The chances of that are pratically nil, though.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-02-01 12:06pm

Defiant wrote:The fact that there was an Israeli onboard is sure to fuel the terrorist theories. The only way I could see that working is some type of bomb smuggled aboard. The chances of that are pratically nil, though.

The WCotC can see an upside to this since an Israeli was onboard.

Darth Balls · Post by **Darth Balls** » 2003-02-01 12:14pm

It sucks when people die like this.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-02-01 12:14pm

Defiant wrote:The fact that there was an Israeli onboard is sure to fuel the terrorist theories. The only way I could see that working is some type of bomb smuggled aboard. The chances of that are pratically nil, though.

Fucking around with the computers could also do it. But is also very unlikely.

Darth Balls · Post by **Darth Balls** » 2003-02-01 12:15pm

If it was a terrorist don't you think they would have blown it up during launch or much earlier in the mission to lessen the chance of a bomb being discovered?

This was not terrorists.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-02-01 12:16pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Falcon wrote:The shuttle program will not be shut down. I'll be surprised if its even grounded.
Four shuttles are required to maintain the shuttle program and to support the ISS. And part of the reason why we got a new shuttle so soon after Challenger was because NASA kept a large store of spare parts that were used in assembling Endeavour.

That doesn't mean we'll scrap the whole program though, just means the Russians will have to supplement it.