Searching \ for '[OT]: it look like NASA lost the columbia!' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=look+like+nasa+lost
Search entire site for: 'it look like NASA lost the columbia!'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]: it look like NASA lost the columbia!'
2003\02\01@094743 by Tal

flavicon
face
So Sad!

Regards

Tal

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Thomas Edison

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2003\02\01@113114 by Sean H. Breheny

face picon face
Hi Sean,

I haven't seen any mention of them being able to escape this time(I think
they pretty well know by now that they are all dead), but the shuttle does
have an escape system. I think the cockpit is in a separable capsule that
can be ejected, similar to what they do in other aircraft that fly for long
periods at supersonic speeds (F-111 for example). The problem is, of
course, that you do need some warning in order to pull the "eject" lever.

It does strike me as odd that this kind of failure would happen in this
stage of flight: 200k feet altitude simply gliding in. Even though they are
dismissing it, it does bring up thoughts of sabotage.

I,too, hope it does not affect the program (except, perhaps, to make it
safer, although it is very safe considering what they are doing). I'm
praying for the crew and their families.

Sean


At 03:00 AM 2/2/2003 +1100, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2003\02\01@115419 by Sean H. Breheny

face picon face
An update to my previous message. I shouldn't have spoken so soon,
apparently there is no such separable cockpit section. I thought I
remembered that there was from way back when Challenger blew up, but I must
have remembered wrong (I was only 6 years old :-) The following link
describes the escape systems:

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/escape/

They do indeed expect the astronauts to be able to manually bail out of a
jettisonable hatch. This is only for the case where they are unable to
reach a usable runway for some reason.

Sean

At 03:00 AM 2/2/2003 +1100, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2003\02\01@122458 by Sean Alcorn - PIC Stuff

flavicon
face
Hi Sean,

> I haven't seen any mention of them being able to escape this time(I
> think
> they pretty well know by now that they are all dead)

No. Me either. Tal mentioned that there were reports. Perhaps some
wishful thinking in the Israeli media.

> but the shuttle does
> have an escape system. I think the cockpit is in a separable capsule
> that
> can be ejected, similar to what they do in other aircraft that fly for
> long
> periods at supersonic speeds (F-111 for example).

Interesting. I was not aware of this. One capsule for the entire crew?

> The problem is, of
> course, that you do need some warning in order to pull the "eject"
> lever.

Yes. Well there was not a single word it seems.

> It does strike me as odd that this kind of failure would happen in this
> stage of flight: 200k feet altitude simply gliding in.

AFAIK, they are still dusting off a lot of speed in this stage of the
flight aren't they? Some fairly heavy banking is required in order to
slow her down.

> Even though they are
> dismissing it, it does bring up thoughts of sabotage.

Oh, don't say that, please. How could this be achieved? Surely there
must be so many checks and balances - you would think it near
impossible! I surely hope not.

> I,too, hope it does not affect the program (except, perhaps, to make it
> safer, although it is very safe considering what they are doing). I'm
> praying for the crew and their families.

Yes. Well I have already presented my thoughts on NASA's flight safety
record. You only have to consider the amount of computing power they
had on board the Apollo missions. How they managed that program with
that era's technology is truly impressive.

Just "officially" announced the shuttle as "gone" - merely a formality,
I think. I don't think there has been much doubt for the past couple of
hours has there? :-(

Regards,

Sean

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2003\02\01@125027 by Dave Dilatush

picon face
Sean H. Breheny wrote...

>I haven't seen any mention of them being able to escape this time(I think
>they pretty well know by now that they are all dead), but the shuttle does
>have an escape system. I think the cockpit is in a separable capsule that
>can be ejected, similar to what they do in other aircraft that fly for long
>periods at supersonic speeds (F-111 for example). The problem is, of
>course, that you do need some warning in order to pull the "eject" lever.

An escape system was developed which, IIRC, could be deployed
during the last few minutes of descent, after the orbiter had
slowed to a speed which would allow a human to survive.

But Columbia broke up while traveling some 12,500 mph at an
altitude of around 200,000 feet, during the incandescent phase of
its descent. There's no surviving that.

>It does strike me as odd that this kind of failure would happen in this
>stage of flight: 200k feet altitude simply gliding in. Even though they are
>dismissing it, it does bring up thoughts of sabotage.

It's rather more than "simply gliding in".  At those speeds,
there is tremendous stress on the airframe as well as
temperatures in excess of 1,000C in places.  Along with the
launch phase, it's one of the two most dangerous periods in any
mission; almost anything that goes wrong has a high probability
of destroying the orbital with all on board lost.

>I,too, hope it does not affect the program (except, perhaps, to make it
>safer, although it is very safe considering what they are doing). I'm
>praying for the crew and their families.

Rest in peace, o brave ones.  You make it look easy, but we know
it is not.

Dave D.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2003\02\01@153044 by John Ferrell

face picon face
I agree. The Shuttle has been a proven piece of technology that serves the
advancement of of mankind in our quest for knowledge. It is a great loss,
especially the loss of life.  Because a technology is mature does not mean
it is obsolete or flawed.

It should serve to unite us rather than divide us. Aside from the scientific
benefits, the political benefit derived from International participation
helps us to know each other on a first name basis. That team work helps us
avoid political conflict.

Tag changed to OT...

John Ferrell
6241 Phillippi Rd
Julian NC 27283
Phone: (336)685-9606
Dixie Competition Products
NSRCA 479 AMA 4190  W8CCW
"My Competition is Not My Enemy"



----- Original Message -----
From: "Tal" <spam_OUTkooterTakeThisOuTspam012.NET.IL>
To: <.....PICLISTKILLspamspam@spam@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: it look like NASA lost the Columbia!


> Frank
>
> I disagree with you about the shuttle being a piece of junk. even I am not
> familiar with NASA development at all.
> I think (and you can of course correct me if I am wrong) most of the
shuttle
> is *REAL* hi-tech even for the upcoming years.
>
> But again, I'm not an expert in the space/aeronautic field.
> Tal
>
> {Original Message removed}

2003\02\01@172644 by Tal

flavicon
face
Hear! Hear!
Mike. I couldn't write it better my self.

Tal

-----Original Message-----
From: pic microcontroller discussion list [PICLISTspamKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU]On
Behalf Of Mike Morris
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 12:14 AM
To: .....PICLISTKILLspamspam.....MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: it look like NASA lost the columbia!


At 09:55 AM 2/1/2003 -0800, you wrote:

>Well, consider that the shuttles were designed in the 70's
>and NASA has to scrounge/scavenge 8086 286 and 386
>CPU's to keep the shuttles systems going.
>
>The shuttles were high tech 15 years ago. Now they mostly
>consist of junk that most people wouldn't think twice about
>throwing away.

JUNK? Are 8-bit PICs used in high tech applications junk because they don't
come close performance wise to the latest Intel or Motorola processors? Are
they junk in the applications designed to use them because there are newer
processors out there? Systems and subsystems are designed and engineered
based around the capabilities of the individual components. These
components have been evaluated as suitable for the given application. The
fact these components may not be the current state of the art does reduce
their effectiveness in their role. Nor can one conclude that simply
replacing that component with something newer would necessarily improve or
enhance the capabilities of the system it was a part of. The "Junk" you
refer to has performed flawlessly as a system since the first shuttle
flight in 1981. The shuttles have been flying since the early 80s. They are
not new vehicles. They are however, still the most sophisticated vehicle
ever produced by humans, and continues to be the world's one and only
reusable launch vehicle. Most certainly "high tech" in the extreme... 15
years ago.. and 15 minutes ago.

Time will tell what the cause of today's tragedy was, but the STS remains a
time tested and proven system with an amazing safety and performance record
considering the number of flights, and the incredibly hostile environment
it must endure during on each and every mission. It seems particularly
inappropriate to refer to any component used to accomplish such a feat as
"junk".

- Mike

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

2003\02\01@215723 by ?Q?Pavel_Ko=F8ensk=FD?=

flavicon
face
As I already wrote in one other mailing list.

Per aspera ad astra.

Today is a really sad day for all peoples of the Earth. Seven brave
human beings died. I hope that we will never forget, that they died,
because mankind wants to reach out to the stars. God speed to them.

Pavel Korensky

P.S. Excuse-me my english, it is not my native language.

{Original Message removed}

2003\02\02@022611 by Scott Stephens

picon face
From: "Sean Alcorn - PIC Stuff" <EraseMEpicstuffspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTSDALCORN.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT]: it look like NASA lost the columbia!

> > Even though they are
> > dismissing it, it does bring up thoughts of sabotage.
>
> Oh, don't say that, please. How could this be achieved? Surely there
> must be so many checks and balances - you would think it near
> impossible! I surely hope not.

High-power laser, scalar-pulse or kinetic A-sat system could damage a tile.
Something North Korea or China could manage perhaps, but not your friendly
local 'hood Al-Qaeda cell. Or perhaps the flight computer could be hacked
into prior to launch, and the code modified to take the vehicle outside its
envelope.

> > I,too, hope it does not affect the program (except, perhaps, to make it
> > safer, although it is very safe considering what they are doing). I'm
> > praying for the crew and their families.

Yes, also pray that NASA gets some common sense and contrive some sort of
cost-effective safe nuclear propelled system. I would much rather fly near a
small plasma fission/fusion reactor than atop a mountain of high explosives.
IMHO the manned space program half of NASA is nothing more than exorbitant
government PR for trekies. That money would do more good many other places,
not the least of which is to remain in the tax-payers pockets! I think we
get our monies-worth with the space-telescope, voyager, et. but the
manned-space program squanders enormous resources. Does it make any sense to
spend money on chemical rockets and space stations rather than effective
propulsion systems? Isn't that like trying to colonize a new land using row
boats? Like scrubbing a floor with a toothbrush? This is again a problem
that the government steals our money then decides to spend our money in ways
some politicians decide is most popular rather than most effective.

I thought Bush was going to say something about it in his state of the union
speech?
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2684329.stm
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-03c.html

Scott

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\02@075340 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
>get our monies-worth with the space-telescope, voyager, et. but the
>manned-space program squanders enormous resources. Does it make any sense to

Get real!  Where do you think most of the modern life-support systems found
in your local CLINIC (for hospitals, that's too easy) came from?!

The manned system is expensive, but it provides far more impetus to go
where no man has gone before (both literally and figuratively).  How many
remember where they were when the first Luna "landed?"  Unless you were a
Russian trekkie, you didn't even know what Luna was.  But every Russian
knows about when the first MANNED lunar lander touched down.

It's the way were were designed.  So it might not seem to be
cost-effective, but next time you have a heart attack think about the
Apollo astronauts who gave their lives.

Andy

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\02@114835 by Scott Stephens

picon face
From: "Andy Kunz" <montanaspamspam_OUTFAST.NET>
Subject: Re: [OT]: it look like NASA lost the columbia!


> >get our monies-worth with the space-telescope, voyager, et. but the
> >manned-space program squanders enormous resources. Does it make any sense
to

> Get real!  Where do you think most of the modern life-support systems
found
> in your local CLINIC (for hospitals, that's too easy) came from?!

You get real! 700 millions dollars a shuttle launch! That aint chump change.
You could buy a whole friggin hospital or save 10 African villages from aids
for the price of one friggin joy ride with that kind of money (ASSUMING
government pigs wouldn't squander 90% of it!). Lets tell our damn
governments to let us choose to spend or squander our own damn money. They
day has come where even public infrastructure (roads, etc.) could be made
'smart' with computers, and be managed by publicly held private concerns. We
need the government out of schools, out of transport (mail, railroads, et.)
and out of our personal records and lives. When the people are freed from
the chains of excessive regulation and taxation, we can give money OUR money
where OUR hearts are, not where some congressman decides his accomplices
need YOUR money so they kick back bribes (campaign contributions),
revolving-door jobs, speech fees, et.

> The manned system is expensive, but it provides far more impetus to go
> where no man has gone before (both literally and figuratively).  How many
> remember where they were when the first Luna "landed?"  Unless you were a
> Russian trekkie, you didn't even know what Luna was.  But every Russian
> knows about when the first MANNED lunar lander touched down.

We went to the moon, fine. Once or twice was enough to prove it could be
done for symbolic value and national pride. Now we need to build power
sources and engines to free us from dependence on fossil fuel. It is absurd
to be dependent on chemical energy when nuclear energy is available. If we
are too irresponsible to exploit nuclear, we need to fix our moral and
reasoning issues, which the government can encourage the corporate media any
time it chooses. But having a stupid, dumbed down peasantry is in the best
interest of the aristocracy.

Spending $100 million a pop to give an astrounaut a joy ride and some school
kids a topic of fantasy is insane from a technical perspective. There are
many in the science community who know this.

> It's the way were were designed.  So it might not seem to be
> cost-effective, but next time you have a heart attack think about the
> Apollo astronauts who gave their lives.

OK, according to that line of reasoning, lets stop all spending on medical
research and give it all to NASA. They will solve all problems indirectly
through spin-off, right? Why don't you get for real!

Scott

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\02@142220 by John Ferrell

face picon face
No thanks.
If you prefer, you can think of it as geek welfare. Massive social programs
seem to beget bigger social problems. I choose not to wade into the moral
issues of the social programs but I do choose to wade into the benefits I
percieve from the Space program.

We hard core geeks (we were "eggheads" in the 50's) are thrilled when our
children (grandchildren) choose to idolize an astronaut or geek rather than
a ball player or a rock star. When I pay my taxes, I still wince but the
image of the first Shuttle landing is engraved in my mind. Time stood still
for many of us when we watched that event on television.

It keeps us working...,
be glad it does not cost more.


John Ferrell
6241 Phillippi Rd
Julian NC 27283
Phone: (336)685-9606
Dixie Competition Products
NSRCA 479 AMA 4190  W8CCW
"My Competition is Not My Enemy"



{Original Message removed}

2003\02\02@144414 by Barry Michels

flavicon
face
Remember the old SeaQuest DSV show?  They had small pods that would follow the
ship around and act as eyes on the outside of the ship.  Cheap, maneuverable
sensor pods...  Wonder why NASA doesn't do something similar for the shuttle
program...

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\02@145320 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Wonder why NASA doesn't do something similar
> for the shuttle program...

Have you ever done a space project?

I guess NASA would use such pods if they were cheap (and that requires
'cheap to launch' == low weight, and cheap to use == absolute assurance
that they would and actualy add danger, like accidentaly kicking the
shuttle and damaging a tile...).

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\02@150630 by Scott Stephens

picon face
From: "John Ferrell" <@spam@johnferrellKILLspamspamEARTHLINK.NET>
Subject: Re: [OT]: it look like NASA lost the columbia!


> No thanks.
> If you prefer, you can think of it as geek welfare. Massive social
programs
> seem to beget bigger social problems. I choose not to wade into the moral
> issues of the social programs but I do choose to wade into the benefits I
> percieve from the Space program.

And how are you any superior to some granola-intoxicated tree hugger Marxist
that thinks their favorite Boleshevic politician knows better how to spend
your money than you do? We can choose to wade through whatever pleases us,
but having a politician chain us by the wallet and drag us through is
another matter.

NASA's priorities are screwed, just as most other government bureaucracies
are.

> We hard core geeks (we were "eggheads" in the 50's) are thrilled when our
> children (grandchildren) choose to idolize an astronaut or geek rather
than
> a ball player or a rock star.

Perhaps someone else thinks Barbara Striesand or "stand-by-your-rapist-man"
Hillary is a better role model than Kalpana Chawla. They shouldn't spend
your money on who you hate, nor should you be allowed to spend their money
on whom they hate. The government is force, the IRS is armed and can declare
your property guilty and confiscate it, causing you to impoverish yourself
to hire federal lawyers and prove its innocents. There is not a damned thing
fair about damned government force.

> When I pay my taxes, I still wince but the
> image of the first Shuttle landing is engraved in my mind. Time stood
still
> for many of us when we watched that event on television.

There is a lot about big science I like, but its socialism, it is built on
theft.

> It keeps us working...,
> be glad it does not cost more.

I should be greatfull the Peoples Republic of Illinois didn't execute more
innocent prisoners, that more politicians aren't as corrupt. Lets just keep
grinning and bearing it and being greatfull, we are not as bad as China or
North Korea! My we are proud Americans! There are more brutal, vicous and
rapacious governments, so lets be greatfull our pigs don't screw us as bad
as other nations pigs!

Lets crouch down and lick the generous appendages that feeds us and be
greatfull our chains don't rest any heavier on us than they do!

Scott

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\02@151719 by Josh Koffman

flavicon
face
Ok, this conversation has reached the level of a policial rant. If you
wish to continue it, do it in private. You are forcing your views on
those that may not agree with you, and many that likely just don't want
to hear them.

First Warning.

Josh Koffman
PICList Admin #5
--
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools.
       -Douglas Adams

Scott Stephens wrote:
> And how are you any superior to some granola-intoxicated tree hugger Marxist
> that thinks their favorite Boleshevic politician knows better how to spend
> your money than you do? We can choose to wade through whatever pleases us,
> but having a politician chain us by the wallet and drag us through is
> another matter.
>
> NASA's priorities are screwed, just as most other government bureaucracies
> are.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\02@161152 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
   >> NASA admits that it has shoppers on ebay bidding to obtain
   >> out-of-production components to use in the space program.
   >>
   >> Perhaps COTS should be re-evaluated.

Have you ever thought about how fast COTS "components" go out-of-production?
Look at all the people having problems with their PIC programmers/etc
because their new PCs either don't have the necessary parallel or serial
ports, or because the OS running on their PC doesn't allow their sw to
access those ports any more.  And that's over a time period of only 4 or 5
years...  The cost (in time, risk, and dollars) of CHASING COTS technology
is substantial.


   > They are still using 8" floppies for some of their stuff.

Well, 8inch floppys were COTS products back in 1981 when columbia made its
first flight, weren't they?

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\02@161154 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Remember the old SeaQuest DSV show?  They had small pods that would follow
the
> ship around and act as eyes on the outside of the ship.  Cheap,
maneuverable
> sensor pods...  Wonder why NASA doesn't do something similar for the
shuttle
> program...

They have such a unit at present for use INSIDE the shuttle.
As Wouter notes, it would have to be certain that it was incapable of itself
damaging the shuttle.

The present MMU's (manned manoeuvring units) could be modified with relative
ease to work by remote control so that they could be flown from within the
shuttle. There would be a "pilot orientation" aspect to consider. If maximum
thrust and relative allowable velocity were limited to a safe maximum this
could provide a reasonable solution to external inspection. The cost and
weight penalties would be low. The vast majority of training could be
carried out by computer simulator with simulated camera-module as that would
emulate almost exactly what the operator would be required to do and see in
real life (ie no motion feedback and a camera only view).

An extension of this concept would be to provide the "drone" with
manipulator capability. This would be substantially more difficult and
expensive and beyond anything presently done. I have long felt that such a
capability on unmanned deep-space space-craft would be extremely beneficial.
"Unfurl the high gain antenna Halinda".
'I'm sorry Davinda. I can't, its jammed.'
"Maybe if you just wriggled it a little just there ...".
'I'm sorry Davinda, I don't have that capability.'

Note that in the case of Columbia, IF the problem was surface damage due to
the known problem during ascent, a camera bot wouldn't have helped. With
current capabilities, there was nothing that could have been done about it
that wasn't able to be done already.



       Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\02@165133 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
Exactly my point, Bill.

Thanks for expounding upon it.

Andy

At 01:09 PM 2/2/03 -0800, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\02@165337 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
>Note that in the case of Columbia, IF the problem was surface damage due to
>the known problem during ascent, a camera bot wouldn't have helped. With
>current capabilities, there was nothing that could have been done about it
>that wasn't able to be done already.

Yes and no.  Russia was scheduled to launch a supply ship to ISS today, and
that launch COULD have been used to provide some support to the Columbia
crew had they been able to identify the extent of the damage 2 weeks ago,
when first in space.  They could have extended their stay a couple days for
the hope of returning safely.

Andy

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\02@170754 by Peter O

flavicon
face
On Sun, 2003-02-02 at 22:52, Andy Kunz wrote:
> >Note that in the case of Columbia, IF the problem was surface damage due to
> >the known problem during ascent, a camera bot wouldn't have helped. With
> >current capabilities, there was nothing that could have been done about it
> >that wasn't able to be done already.
>
> Yes and no.  Russia was scheduled to launch a supply ship to ISS today, and
> that launch COULD have been used to provide some support to the Columbia
> crew had they been able to identify the extent of the damage 2 weeks ago,
> when first in space.  They could have extended their stay a couple days for
> the hope of returning safely.
>
> Andy

What kind of action would you propose ?
Keep the following in mind

- EVA-suit were not available on this mission
- no robotic arm either
- no docking mechanism (no way they could reach the spacestation)
- incompatible russian and US technology
- rendez-vous takes at least 1 day day, probably more because of the
difference in inclination
- bringing equipment to Russia and placing it on the rocket takes
multiple weeks (and that is a very optimistic estimation)

No the Russians would not have been able to help.
It's hard but it is the truth.

>
>
>
>                                               Peter O

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\02@172013 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
>- EVA-suit were not available on this mission
>- no robotic arm either
>- no docking mechanism (no way they could reach the spacestation)
>- incompatible russian and US technology
>- rendez-vous takes at least 1 day day, probably more because of the
>difference in inclination
>- bringing equipment to Russia and placing it on the rocket takes
>multiple weeks (and that is a very optimistic estimation)
>
>No the Russians would not have been able to help.
>It's hard but it is the truth.

You forgot one - the Columbia was too heavy to attain the ISS altitude.
Only the other 3 shuttles can fly that high.

They would have HAD weeks, two at least, had they known that there was a
serious problem (not saying that it was a tile damage, just supposing it was).

At the very least they would have had an opportunity to say farewell to
their families.

Changing the Russian launch would have been possible with 2 weeks notice.
It would also give the Russians some desperatly needed cash, as we would
have been willing to pay dearly for the safe return of the crew.  And they
would have reaped a LOT of goodwill by attempting to pull it off.

There are lots of what-if's.  We can't worry about those.  But we can learn
from the situation and work to prevent a recurrence.  Perhaps none of us
have a close connection to the shuttle program, but we can at least think
about the possibilities of our actions ahead of time a little more than we
would have otherwise.

Andy

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\02@173047 by Peter O

flavicon
face
One final note :

it as not yet been established that the problem was indeed tile-damage.

But as you said it is vital to figure out what happened.

To bad spacecraft don't fly on goodwill. Nothing does.

Peter


On Sun, 2003-02-02 at 23:17, Andy Kunz wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--
Met vriendelijke groeten,


                                               Peter O

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\02@173249 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
> You get real! 700 millions dollars a shuttle launch! That aint
> chump change.  You could buy a whole friggin hospital or save
> 10 African villages from aids for the price of one friggin joy
> ride with that kind of money

You can find a lot of things that americans spend a lot MORE money on
that are less important, less useful, less GLORIOUS, than the space
program.  And we're not the only ones...

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\02@174509 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 11:07 PM 2/2/2003 +0100, you wrote:


>What kind of action would you propose ?
>Keep the following in mind
>
>- EVA-suit were not available on this mission
>- no robotic arm either
>- no docking mechanism (no way they could reach the spacestation)
>- incompatible russian and US technology
>- rendez-vous takes at least 1 day day, probably more because of the
>difference in inclination
>- bringing equipment to Russia and placing it on the rocket takes
>multiple weeks (and that is a very optimistic estimation)

These things can be expedited, and the Russians have plenty of
equipment. There were 17+ days from the launch if the Russian automated
cargo rocket had been launched on time, longer if they'd delayed it.

The Chinese also have a manned space program BTW- they successfully launched
and recovered a test unmanned Shenzhou IV spacecraft just four weeks ago
from their Jiuquan  spaceport in the Gobi desert, and are planning another
within months.

>No the Russians would not have been able to help.
>It's hard but it is the truth.

Who knows? Maybe they could have simply modified the reentry attitude
roll reversals just enough to save it.

Contrast this with the Apollo 13 recovery where all resources of NASA and
other aerospace centers in the US and Canada were put toward the safe return
of those three men.

This is all so easy with 20:20 hindsight, I'm sure there are some very
unhappy people at NASA, regardless of how it turns out. It's a blow to the
space program and to US national pride, neither of which are good things,
as well as a terrible personal tragedy for the families.

Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
KILLspamspeffKILLspamspaminterlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\02@174512 by michael brown

picon face
On Sunday 02 February 2003 04:31 pm, you wrote:
> > You get real! 700 millions dollars a shuttle launch! That aint
> > chump change.  You could buy a whole friggin hospital or save
> > 10 African villages from aids for the price of one friggin joy
> > ride with that kind of money
>
> You can find a lot of things that americans spend a lot MORE money on
> that are less important, less useful, less GLORIOUS, than the space
> program.  And we're not the only ones...

For example, biggie sizing our fries, bottled water, time lost endlessly rebooting windows,  e-mailing jokes, cleaning viruses, convenience fees for using another banks ATM's, car washes, lawn beautification, and last but not least, protecting our freedom by funding increased govt. intrusion into every aspect of everday American life.  
michael

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\02@203946 by John Ferrell

face picon face
Maybe a soft, tethered hull crawler? With a video camera of course.
It sounds like a worth while & low budget project.

John Ferrell
6241 Phillippi Rd
Julian NC 27283
Phone: (336)685-9606
Dixie Competition Products
NSRCA 479 AMA 4190  W8CCW
"My Competition is Not My Enemy"



{Original Message removed}

2003\02\02@205453 by Bob Ammerman

picon face
Please cut the politcal garbage on this thread! Take it private if you must
continue it.

Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\02@232417 by Scott Stephens

picon face
From: "William Chops Westfield" <RemoveMEbillwTakeThisOuTspamCISCO.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT]: it look like NASA lost the columbia!


> You can find a lot of things that americans spend a lot MORE money on
> that are less important, less useful, less GLORIOUS, than the space
> program.  And we're not the only ones...

Well, I guess you made the case for central planning and 5-year plans. The
Soviets were right I guess. Shame on us for spending billions on cosmetics
and 50 varieties of breakfast cerial. The only thing worse than regulated
economic anarchy (a.k.a. free market) is central planning.

I don't demand perfection, the rigorous adherence to ideals, just that we
head in the right direction. The shuttle promised much and has delivered
very little. It is time to stick the fork in that turkey was long ago, when
it failed its mission of cost effective, reusable space transport. The only
mission it succeeds at is a futuristic joy ride for the astronaut
beauty/popularity contest.

Every cent squandered on the shuttle is a cent that will not go to
developing some form of nuclear propulsion that would:

1. Free us from poluting fossil fuels

2. Create power too cheap to meter

3. Prevent America from becoming the worlds cop by policing the middle east,
being cultural offensive and pissing off the Europeans that are responsible
for provoking us to develop a monsterous military machine because they are
hardly incapable of going a decade with instigating world war and dragging
the peace-loving, isolationist American public into it.

NASA's priorities are screwed. The money would be well spent on R&D in the
private sector. Bush's "economic stimulus" is simple reducing the tax burden
on business, reducing the amount of blood the federal leech sucks from
business, citizens and the economy!

Scott

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\03@055032 by abele

flavicon
face
> Europeans that are responsible
> for provoking us to develop a monsterous military machine because they are
> hardly incapable of going a decade with instigating world war and dragging
> the peace-loving, isolationist American public into it.
>

I think that you have to learn something from the last world political
situation and be honnest wuth yourself about your responsabilities  before
to speak about other people

piclist.com/#topics

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2003\02\03@065021 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Yes. Well I have already presented my thoughts on NASA's flight
>safety record. You only have to consider the amount of computing
>power they had on board the Apollo missions. How they managed
>that program with that era's technology is truly impressive.

IIRC the track to and from the moon was pre-calculated, and they had to make
periodic course corrections to stay inside the "tube" of the pre-calculated
flight path. If they managed to get outside there was no computer fast
enough to calculate the necessary corrections to get them back onto the
correct path. This was not just the machines on Apollo, but the biggest and
best on "mother earth" as well were just not fast enough in processing
power.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2003\02\03@122329 by Charles Anderson

flavicon
face
When your coming in at Mach 25, it's not very feasible.

But even if they found a problem in orbit, almost all of the tiles
are custom cut and fitted.  I don't even know if they carry spares.
I'd also hate to think about trying to glue them in place in space.

-Charlie
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 02:41:10PM -0500, Barry Michels wrote:
> Remember the old SeaQuest DSV show?  They had small pods that would follow the
> ship around and act as eyes on the outside of the ship.  Cheap, maneuverable
> sensor pods...  Wonder why NASA doesn't do something similar for the shuttle
> program...
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
> (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

--
Charles Anderson        spamBeGonecaaspamBeGonespamcolumbus.rr.com

No quote, no nothin'

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2003\02\03@163202 by Dave King

flavicon
face
At 09:21 AM 03/02/03, you wrote:
>When your coming in at Mach 25, it's not very feasible.
>
>But even if they found a problem in orbit, almost all of the tiles
>are custom cut and fitted.  I don't even know if they carry spares.
>I'd also hate to think about trying to glue them in place in space.
>
>-Charlie
>On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 02:41:10PM -0500, Barry Michels wrote:
> > Remember the old SeaQuest DSV show?  They had small pods that would
> follow the
> > ship around and act as eyes on the outside of the ship.  Cheap,
> maneuverable
> > sensor pods...  Wonder why NASA doesn't do something similar for the
> shuttle
> > program...

When they were first working on the program they talked about being able to
replace them
in orbit. It wasn't an exact fit but generic tile covering with an ablative
adhesive underneath
applied  with probably a few thousand dollar caulking gun. I've never heard
of it mentioned
after so it may not have made the grade in testing but they did have a system.

Dave

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2003\02\03@174142 by Tal

flavicon
face
Necessity is the mother of all inventions. They saved Apollo 13 and
potentially they could do the same with the space shuttle.

Remember "Failure is not an option" ?

Tal



> {Original Message removed}

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2003 , 2004 only
- Today
- New search...