Space shuttle columbia lost

[bn880 5]

Approx 3.42X10^10J just to gain altitude.

EDIT: At first glance.

EDIT2: 5.53x10^10J to gain altitude.... at 100,000Kg orbiter weight.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A mixup of those two systems resulted in the crash of the satellite + rover on Mars a couple of years ago.

<span id='postcolor'>

LOL, yeah. JPL did the calculations for the probe in imperial units and when NASA recieved them they assumed that the calculations had been done in metric. Classic cock-up.

As far as I know, Columbia was never intended to dock with the ISS because it was too heavy. Since the orbiters were built years apart, they got lighter with each new model as technology advanced. Columbia was on a pure research mission. It had a 'space hab' in the cargo bay which is basically a pressurised labratory where the crew could perform various experiments.

Space Hab

Also, two of the crew had been trained to do emergency spacewalks if they were needed, so it would be natural to assume that there were two space suits on board.

Some info on Columbia.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What you do is you reorganize the sequence of banking on approach to dissipate more of the energy through the center-right side of the craft. What you do NOT do is pitch left at the worst stress point. <span id='postcolor'>

Don't you think that the NASA engineers would have thought of that? I mean, they are rocket scientists afterall.

Some people think that a piece of foam couldn't do much damage, but you must remember that the surface of the external tank is very cold due to it's contents. Since the foam is pourous, water could have gotten into the foam and formed ice. A piece of ice-filled foam would do more damage to an ascending orbiter.

We must also remember that if a tile in a critical place (leading edges, bottom surfaces) is lost it is possible that the stress of re-entry might cause a 'ripple effect' among the tiles causing more of them to fall off. This is only speculation right now, but it seems more credible when people as far wast as California reported seeing debris coming off the shuttle, they could have been tiles, but who knows?

BTW: I was watching some video footage of the crew on TV tonight, it was sad to see them smiling and toying around in micro gravity to know that those people are now dead, burned up in the orbiter they were filmed in.

Tyler

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Feb. 03 2003,21:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What you do is you reorganize the sequence of banking on approach to dissipate more of the energy through the center-right side of the craft. What you do NOT do is pitch left at the worst stress point. <span id='postcolor'>

Don't you think that the NASA engineers would have thought of that? I mean, they are rocket scientists afterall. <span id='postcolor'>

No I knew they thought of that, because thats basically what their answer was to "had you known the wing could have failed".

The only thing I really had against NASA was their use of the imperial system...

[FSPilot 0]

Maybe you guys should work for NASA.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (nopulse @ Feb. 03 2003,19:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why is that?  That space exploration is our only way for the human race to survive?

Think about it this way.  We just continue to mess up the environment on this planet to the point that is not inhabitable anymore, and then just find the next planet that is habitable only to mess it up as well?  What have we learned if we do this?  Absolutely nothing!  We can't simply go rock jumping from planet to planet ruining the environment and eating up all its resources.

What's wrong with repairing the planet we have now?  I understand that space exploration is needed, but hell we can't even travel outside our own solar system yet.<span id='postcolor'>

Even if we had a perfectly eco-friendly economy down here on Earth (which we cannot ever have as long as we want to produce energy for our use because of heat-pollution), it is almost certain that natural disasters will wipe out the habitability of Earth at some point in the future. We only need to look at the fossil record for proof. Global catastrophes have happened quite regularly before, why would they suddenly stop happening?

We don't need to find another Earth up there, since there are heaps of what we need just in our solar system. Unimaginable amounts of raw materials float around in quite a pure form in the asteroid belt. Coal, hydrogen and oxygen are available here and there for input into the circle of life. Energy is available in almost limitless supply in the form of solar power, which is very efficient if we don't have an atmosphere blocking the rays. We need to set up big space habitats, not find new planets to colonize. Living in the gravity well is a waste of energy anyway. This way we have 5 billion years to figure out how to get to other solar systems.

[red oct 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Energy is available in almost limitless supply in the form of solar power, which is very efficient if we don't have an atmosphere blocking the rays.<span id='postcolor'>

i thought the only way for solar power to become efficient enought to power a city like New York, you would have to have solar panels cover like 13 sq miles. not to mention what happens on cloudy days? or during winter season when its cloudy the most? and maintance costs?

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Red Oct @ Feb. 04 2003,08:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i thought the only way for solar power to become efficient enought to power a city like New York, you would have to have solar panels cover like 13 sq miles.    not to mention what happens on cloudy days? or during winter season when its cloudy the most? and maintance costs?<span id='postcolor'>

Energy is available in almost limitless supply in the form of solar power, which is very efficient if we don't have an atmosphere blocking the rays of the sun. In space we do not have an atmosphere blocking the rays. Neither do we have nasty things as gravity limiting the construction options.

Nuclear power is also very convenient in space, since we can just jettison the nuclear waste to sun or deep space or to Jupiter or to a helicentric orbit and be done with it. Space is what is available in space.

[nopulse 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Feb. 04 2003,08:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Even if we had a perfectly eco-friendly economy down here on Earth (which we cannot ever have as long as we want to produce energy for our use because of heat-pollution), it is almost certain that natural disasters will wipe out the habitability of Earth at some point in the future. We only need to look at the fossil record for proof. Global catastrophes have happened quite regularly before, why would they suddenly stop happening?

We don't need to find another Earth up there, since there are heaps of what we need just in our solar system. Unimaginable amounts of raw materials float around in quite a pure form in the asteroid belt. Coal, hydrogen and oxygen are available here and there for input into the circle of life. Energy is available in almost limitless supply in the form of solar power, which is very efficient if we don't have an atmosphere blocking the rays. We need to set up big space habitats, not find new planets to colonize. Living in the gravity well is a waste of energy anyway. This way we have 5 billion years to figure out how to get to other solar systems.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree with you entirely about how space exploration is vital in the event that natural disaster could wipe out the earth or an astroid.

But we "humans" could very well be the ones that make us exstinct with Nuclear war. That's what I meant that we are not ready for space exploration, we can't even be civilized with other inhabitants on this planet, let alone on another planet!

I'm not saying stop space exploration completely or slow it down. Obviously it will take many years to finally explore outside our own solar system. I just hope that we do achieve the ability to travel outside our own solar system, that we "humans" are more stable and mature. And hopefully wars will be a thing of the past.

I mean if we had the technology now and the way the world is today, it would be like the Cold War era, only difference would be that countries wouldn't be competing over weapons, they would complete over which planets to colonize for themselves!

[Longinius 1]

"I mean if we had the technology now and the way the world is today, it would be like the Cold War era, only difference would be that countries wouldn't be competing over weapons, they would complete over which planets to colonize for themselves!"

Competing is a part of human nature, just like greed, lust, envy, paranoia and fear. I doubt we will ever get rid of that. So, you can bet your hiny that whenever we start to build colonies in space we will be competing about room, resources and who is first.

[nopulse 0]

America will be first, no doubt about that.  Here in Canada we really don't have a huge space program like NASA.  Not sure if Russia still is contributing money towards space travel.

The only other might be China.

Here are some interesting articles about the Columbia disaster

Article 1

Article 2

Article 3

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (nopulse @ Feb. 04 2003,13:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree with you entirely about how space exploration is vital in the event that natural disaster could wipe out the earth or an astroid.

But we "humans" could very well be the ones that make us exstinct with Nuclear war.  That's what I meant that we are not ready for space exploration, we can't even be civilized with other inhabitants on this planet, let alone on another planet!

I'm not saying stop space exploration completely or slow it down.  Obviously it will take many years to finally explore outside our own solar system.  I just hope that we do achieve the ability to travel outside our own solar system, that we "humans" are more stable and mature.  And hopefully wars will be a thing of the past.

I mean if we had the technology now and the way the world is today, it would be like the Cold War era, only difference would be that countries wouldn't be competing over weapons, they would complete over which planets to colonize for themselves!<span id='postcolor'>

I am aware that we humans have a tendency for self-destruction. That makes it even more imperative that we have habitats in space. In case of a nuclear showdown, same rules apply as with natural disasters.

I don't think we can wait for the emergence of Homo Peaceful, before pressing on to space. Not if we want to survive, which is the ultimate duty of all life.

[foxer 0]

Nasa has an budget of 15 billion dollars.Now that an lot of money,i could do soo much that.

[foxer 0]

Nuclear power is also very convenient in space, since we can just jettison the nuclear waste to sun or deep space or to Jupiter or to a helicentric orbit and be done with it. Space is what is available in space.

So we should just dump are trash on other planets ?

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Feb. 04 2003,14:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am aware that we humans have a tendency for self-destruction. That makes it even more imperative that we have habitats in space. In case of a nuclear showdown, same rules apply as with natural disasters.<span id='postcolor'>

Can you imagine any known extraterrestrial environment being more hospitable than ones that could shelter us here on earth at much less cost, even after the worst nuclear holocaust scenario?

On a 'per occupant' basis,

domed surface dwellings would be cheaper than,

subterranean dwellings which would be cheaper than,

subsea dwellings which would be much cheaper than,

orbital dwellings which would be much cheaper than,

lunar dwellings which would be much cheaper than,

etc etc.

And please don't tell me that terrestrial dwellings would be destroyed because building'em off the planet won't save them from attack either.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Feb. 03 2003,19:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">EDIT: At first glance.

EDIT2: 5.53x10^10J to gain altitude.... at 100,000Kg orbiter weight.<span id='postcolor'>

Haha, ok that was right for the orbiter to go from 278Km to 340Km above sea level, but I forgot to take into account the centripetal force generated by traveling at 27869Km/h.

The centripetal force Fc is equal to the force of gravity at orbit Fg(orbit) ... remember, no strings attached.

so mg(orbit) = m(v^2/r)

m is mass of orbiter

g is acceleration of gravity at altitude

v is velocity of orbiter

and r is radius from earths center

EDIT: Excuse the speed vectors pointing the opposite way, makes no difference...

Basically what we are looking at is gravity having virtually no effect in gaining altitude once your orbital velocity manages to offset the gravitational force. Very little energy is needed to increase the orbit size gradually and slow down by about 130Km/h.

Changing the angular velocity to match the space station may take a little to a lot, depending on angle difference. However there is probably a way to go for a much larger orbit first, and on approach back to the space station orbit, match the angular velocity...

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe you guys should work for NASA. <span id='postcolor'>

Maybe I should, infact I would like that. However that is only a dream because to be an engineer at NASA you have to be good at math, which I am not. Being dyslexic doesn't help much either.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Feb. 04 2003,20:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">m is mass of orbiter<span id='postcolor'>

How do you estimate the mass of the vehicle?  It must depend very much on the fuel load, which drops rapidly as it climbs into orbit.

[Guest]

m(t) = m0 - integral(dm/dt0,t)

You just integrate it over time.

[FSPilot 0]

here's my scientific forumula

push throttle forward = up and fast

pull throttle back = down and slow

[PHY_Hawkeye 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 04 2003,20:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">here's my scientific forumula

push throttle forward = up and fast

pull throttle back = down and slow<span id='postcolor'>

Nice one. I might have passed my test after all  

Edit: Cool, 250th post.

[FSPilot 0]

Yeah, I'm an instructor at the flight school that uses cars as training vehicles.

[Renagade 0]

Whats the status of self contained envoiroments.

[Blake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Feb. 04 2003,16:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So we should just dump are trash on other planets ?<span id='postcolor'>

Sun will burn 'em all.

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

What about that power plant in arizona that uses porabila(spelling) mirrors that is made were when the light hits it all the rays go to a certain point, that point is a pipe filled w/ oil and heats the oil up and boils water to spin a turbine. Would that be just as good as a solar plant?

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 04 2003,16:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Can you imagine any known extraterrestrial environment being more hospitable than ones that could shelter us here on earth at much less cost, even after the worst nuclear holocaust scenario?<span id='postcolor'>

A proper nuclear holocaust propels heavily radioactive dirt into the air for tens of years. The dirt blocks the rays of the sun. The surface of the Earth cools, until ice covers the entire globe. What we get is a pitch black artic winter for years and years.

How do you propose we get energy to power our subterranean dwellings? How do we ever reconstruct a civilization on a barren, highly radioactive planet after the ice has gone, if it ever does?