Columbia Break-Up
MoveCloseDeleteAdmin

TV ClubHouse: Archives: 2003 February: Columbia Break-Up
 SubtopicMsgs  Last Updated

Ophiliasgrandma

Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 09:53 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Enterprise was one of the first shuttles, but an unmanned version according to NASA info.

Ophiliasgrandma

Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 09:55 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Just typed in search 'Enterprise Shuttle' and came up with good info. It was number O-V 101.

Ryn

Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 10:39 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Enterprise was the "test" shuttle, the one they used to carry on the back of the plane to see how it handled the air. It was never launched, but if I recall it did land a couple times after being piggy-backed into the air onthe back of a jet.

Ryn

Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 10:41 am EditMoveDeleteIP
a bit more info:

Enterprise, the first Space Shuttle Orbiter, was originally to be named Constitution (in honor of the U.S. Constitution's Bicentennial). However, viewers of the popular TV Science Fiction show Star Trek started a write-in campaign urging the White House to select the name Enterprise. Designated, OV-101, the vehicle was rolled out of Rockwell's Air Force Plant 42, Site 1 Palmdale California assembly facility on Sept. 17, 1976. On Jan. 31, 1977, it was transported 36 miles overland from Rockwell's assembly facility to NASA's Dryden Flight Research Facility at Edwards Air Force Base for the approach and landing test program.
The nine-month-long ALT program was conducted from February through November 1977 at the Dryden Flight Research Facility and demonstrated that the orbiter could fly in the atmosphere and land like an airplane, except without power-gliding flight.


link with even more info:

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/resources/orbiters/enterprise.html

Ryn

Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 10:46 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I think it is also sitting at the Kennedy Space center... they have a full sized shuttle at the museum you can walk in to see how one looks.

But it might just be another mock-up as well.

Sadiesmom

Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 10:52 am EditMoveDeleteIP
One of the improvements made after the Challenger acccident was to add an abort procedure during launch. They also strengthened the cabin and produced an eject option.

I never meant to say that it was deliberate. I just feel that with my own systems, they are so grossly underbid, that I am under constant pressure to terminate testing and move things into production with the idea that it is no big deal to fix a problem after it happens. This is the corporate mind set. Nothing is ever deliberate, just squeeze every nickle and lay off as many as you can to make the bottom line look better. The lines between safe and dangerous are being shaved thinner all the time. Some companies are supposed to put a cost ratio in place considering consumer deaths in the equation.

OK, listening to an expert this afternoon driving back from brunch. Heard an expert say it is all NASA's fault for using the shuttle. Calimed that this was much to 'fragile' a technology to be used as a work horse. Claimed they were always pushing for their budget to be higher because they chose this expensive manner of moving into orbit. Claimed we should only consider unmanned missions. He was identified as a NASA Historian, whatever that is. So many experts, so much to say.

See the blame game is in full storm. Who is right, I don't know. I was just upset with this man this morning calling in from NASA with claims on the budget information.

Whoami

Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 11:03 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Thanks for that info on Enterprise OG and Ryn. At least now I can relax that I wasn't dreaming when I thought I remembered pics of a shuttle with the name Enterprise on it!

Maris

Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 11:03 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I saw an interview with Dr. Mae Jamison last night and I thought she said it very well. She compared the shuttle to the Human Body, that it is a resiliant machine. However, It can take one event to occur in a certain way that could result in a catastrophic failure but that doesnt change the fact that it is a wonderful machine. She believed very strongly, as do most of the astronauts that the program should continue and that if it was only robotic flight, the public would lose interest.

The parents of one of the astronauts who died said it very simply, this is a country with a heritage for exploration going back to the beginnings. Exploration involves risk and it takes an accident like this for people to realize that it is a dangerous occupation but one which is worthwhile. It takes a certain type of individual to want to be an astronaut.

Tabbyking

Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 11:25 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Also, we have to get something/someone to the space station by June. They only have enough supplies (food) to last til then. A launch originally scheduled for March 1 would have gone to the space shuttle.

I think, too, it would be wrong to quit space exploration. I always wonder if we will ever know exactly what went wrong. Sometimes, once something goes wrong, other indicators also show problems, etc. Could they have aborted? They would still have had to re-enter from several thousand feet. This could have had the same end results had they not completed 16 wonderful days together in space.

I like the interview Maris spoke of in the above post. I hope there isn't 'blame' put onto one group or builder or pilot, etc. It was just an accident. We have had many flights where things went according to plan.

Karuuna

Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 11:42 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Tabby, Calamity pointed out to me that the space station is equipped with a Soyuz space capsule that can be used to bring the 3 home, if necessary. And supply capsules continue to be sent, as I understand (from Russia). One was scheduled to be launched today, and that was still on, last I heard.

I think we'll end up knowing what went wrong. I am troubled that many people are using blame to further their own agendas. There was testimony in Congress just last month by someone associated with the program that said that he feared that the safety of the shuttle program was at its lowest ever (something like that).

The other issue is that once the shuttle had taken off, it seems that if the tiles had been damaged, there was nothing that could be done. The shuttle was too far away from the space station for the astronauts to get there. But it seems to me that there ought to be some other safety procedure that would prevent astronauts from being stranded.

I can't believe that they would have the astronauts return, if they truly believed there was sufficient damage to compromise safety.

There's still so much we don't know. Mostly likely by the time we do know, there will be much less reporting on the issue.

Tabbyking

Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 12:08 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I am not sure we will know 'exactly' what went wrong. We may be able to narrow it down to 2 or 3 possible scenarios, though. When something as intricate as a shuttle breaks up 200,000 feet above the earth, there are many small things that could have caused it...and it may be hard to know what happened to go wrong first. After that, it would have been a domino effect, with myriad problems, and indicators going off.
Maybe the small piece of insulation was enough to damage the wing because of the high rate of speed, but it seems so strange that something which is akin to a piece of styrofoam could do that much damage. Maybe it loosened tiles which then came off when the shuttle was off it's correct direction due to a small crease in the wing. Once the shuttle ended up 'off course'or not in the position it needed to be, the pressure on the outside of the shuttle would have built up. So many maybes. I only hope we learn more about the 2 or 3 most likely causes so we can improve on their design, not to place blame. So many departments check out the shuttles pre-flight and they all passed it for launch.
Just a terrible tragedy for everyone. I am still happy they had their time in space. The videos of their adventure are wonderful and playful... and that is what I try to think of.
I was so angry at people on eBay listing shuttle debris yesterday I wanted to spit. Luckily eBay stopped all those auctions, and also said several appeared to be 'hoaxes'. They did say they would possibly investigate auctions where the seller did live in the debris pattern area. It makes me sick when people try to capitalize on a tragedy. Remember when that man who owned the crematorium was just discarding bodies in a shed and in the woods near his place? And people were getting fireplace ashes in place of their loved ones' ashes? Some bimbo was selling t-shirts with pictures of urns on them and the statement: "It's the thought that counts." As if what was the harm if you 'thought' you had your loved one's ashes? And other bimbos were buying them.

Hermione69

Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 12:16 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I'm flabbergasted. I can't believe people already had shuttle debris up on eBay. That just makes me speechless.

Ryn

Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 12:19 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Sadie, just an FYI, the "eject" option was discontinued as I think I heard yesterday, it was set up for 2 people, but was deemed too costly or un-doable for a full crew of 7. Not that that option would have been viable yesterday anyways.

Not that its worth a lot but my brother is involved in the space program (he works at JPL) and has had involvement with at least one Shuttle mission that I know of and was involved with the first Mars Rover project and recently completed his part of work on the ones that are going up this summer (2 more). The Rovers are launched via conventional rocket, so I would assume those missions will be un-affected.

Money is always a concern but I can at least say that he was as upset as anyone else over yesterdays incident. Budget cuts hurt, many senior people at JPL left in the 1990's because the money was better in private industry. he himself has expressed concern over his own position potentially being eliminated due to lact of funds. But putting the blame on any one person or organization is impossible.

Sadiesmom

Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 01:21 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
So cool Ryn for your brother to be involved in the mars rover. Even the failures were interesting! YOu must know a lot of amazing things.
One of the complaints I saw today said that for the last 20 years the budget was squeezed tighter and many of the best people were leaving the program.

I only knew one person who was involved, a programmer in the 70's. I always feared anyone who depended on her code, not the brightest bulb in the bunch, I think she might have been fired.

Seamonkey

Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 04:57 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
It has now been reported that remains of all seven astronauts have been found. For the peace of minds of the families, I'm glad it was either all or none.

Karuuna

Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 05:12 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I agree, Seamonkey. It may comfort them to have something to bury, altho a bit morbid to find out what they have left of their family member.

I just pray that all of them can find some consolation in knowing that their family member died achieving their dream. It was so obvious from the videos that each of these astronauts really loved what they were doing.

Maris

Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 05:31 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/02/02/shuttle.childrens.fund.ap/index.html

Seamonkey

Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 05:47 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Unfortunately, Anderson Cooper just reported that NASA has said their representation misspoke and they are only saying remains of "some" of the astronauts have been found.

:(

Karuuna

Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 05:52 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
darn. that's too bad. they still have a large area to search tho.

Spygirl

Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 06:08 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Just returned home to Louisiana today. The Shreveport area stations are broadcasting updates at the bottom of the screen about the debris recovery efforts. They report that much debris is being found all over the Ark-La-Tex.

Bastable

Monday, February 03, 2003 - 08:22 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Isn't anyone else worried about radioactive fallout? Most NASA flights contain radioactive materials as an energy source. We bleeding hearts have been complaining about them for years and years--saying that if there's an accident whole states would be contaminated--but right-wingers always told us we were being worrywarts. Well, this is why people should listen to greenies at least once in a while. Two states are sprinkled with debris that they're being warned not to touch.

I feel sorry for the people who live under this cloud of debris. You're never going to get the truth about what's falling on you.

A story on a similar launch: http://www.projectcensored.org/stories/c1997.htm#1

Hippyt

Monday, February 03, 2003 - 09:26 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Here's what I was thinking this morning. Next time crap starts falling off a shuttle when it takes off,maybe Nasa will pay a little more attention. They say they did an analysis on the vehicle at the space station,and it showed no burn through,but didn't anyone wonder if maybe it was weakened enough not to make it through re-entry? Seems to me,they could have stayed up there longer and should have paid more attention to that.It was insulation that fell off,not quite like losing a license plate on the freeway!
And yes,Bastable,I have thought about that,I'm under that cloud.

Cablejockey

Monday, February 03, 2003 - 10:26 am EditMoveDeleteIP
It occurred to me that it was a fantastic bit of luck for the folks on the ground, because nobody was killed or seriously hurt, by the falling pieces of the shuttle!! When you think of how much damage could have been done....

Calamity

Monday, February 03, 2003 - 10:55 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Despite being an advocate of space exploration, I am terribly aware that there are serious environmental concerns with this technology. Not only is there the matter of "regular" pollution (ozone depleting emissions, spent rocket boosters plunging into the ocean, etc.), there are the added hazards of plutonium and other radioactive materials. I remember a prominent physicist asking the public to protest Project Cassini because of the fears many had about that launch's potential dangers. Really freaked me out. Nevertheless, I guess I still believe that industrial pollution, consumer waste and modern weapons pose far greater threats to life on this planet than infrequent standard rocket launches. But now that other countries are getting into the space race, things will probably get much more complicated and frightening.

My conscience and my logic have developed an uneasy truce over the space program. Most especially I oppose using research animals and the development of offensive space-based weapons. But I also recognize that many of my hopes for a "greener" future are dependent on discoveries and inventions that can only come from NASA and other space agencies' work.

I need to remind myself that despite my fascination with what might be Out There, it is here on our own obscure, small planet that life has flourished.

Twinkie

Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 10:31 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Shuttle

Twinkie

Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 12:28 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I wasn't sure where to post the above picture but I thought some of you might enjoy it.