Space shuttle columbia lost

[FSPilot 0]

Sure hope they make it back OK.

I think events like this make some peoples true colors really stand out.

[Longinius 1]

"Anyone mention that the Russians in the space station will have to get back with a Russian ship now, as it'll be ages before NASA can send up a US vehicle."

Dont you think they would try and get them home, no matter what? I doubt they'd just leave them up there to die.

[Guest]

Does anybody know if the Russians have had any accidents with their Buran shuttles?

[FSPilot 0]

Longingus, the Russians will probably send up a shuttle.

[Harnu 0]

And we have more shuttles aswell we can send up. It shouldn't take that long.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 02 2003,01:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Does anybody know if the Russians have had any accidents with their Buran shuttles?<span id='postcolor'>

They had some a while back during the space race, but I'm not sure of any with the space shuttle. They did have a hangar collapse that killed some people, but that doesn't really count.

Most of them haven't been reported I assume.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Feb. 01 2003,14:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And we have more shuttles aswell we can send up. It shouldn't take that long.<span id='postcolor'>

Ya right! They won't just scuttle another one out until they can find the cause and remedy for this one.

[FSPilot 0]

Yeah they have to play it safe and do lots of investigating before they launch again.

[theavonlady 2]

Then the have to maintain the Space Station. This is not going to be simple. A lot of the tasks might fall on the Russian space program for quite a while.

BTW, my personal awareness of this tragedy came by email thsi evening (21:45 now).

During the Jewish Sabbath, we don't listen to radio or TV. When the Sabbath concluded at around 6PM, I was busy feeding the kids, getting the little ones into PJs, making order in the galley , etc.

At some point I pulled out my notebook and started my email up. I received 2 viruses among the posts and I assumed the one with the subject line "Condolences" was one of them.

It turned out to be someone expressing his sympathies for the loss of our astronaut.

It took me 4-5 seconds till it clicked and sure enough it was on news.yahoo.com. For me, it was that same exact feeling as when the first shuttle tragedy occurred.

We made sure that the older kids didn't tell the little ones about it before they went to bed - especially the almost-8 year old, who has been following this flight for the last 2 weeks, drawing pictures and asking us for an astonaut costume.

We'll have to deal with him tomorrow morning.

[theavonlady 2]

The Russian shuttle is a white elephant. I don't think it ever came near being mission ready.

[KingBeast 0]

I think what makes this particularly saddening (at least to me) is actually seeing those pictures of it happening. When it comes to train crashes and plane crashes, usually you see just the aftermath. But with things like this (same applies to the WTC) you actually see the instant that someone, or a group of people have died. For me, thats when it transcends from being statistics to actual living people.

Reminds me of that Russian sub (kursk i think?) when you heard that there were survivors waiting for rescue, and you can imagine them in their last moments, knowing what was going to happen.

Whether or not the shuttle crew had time to realise that they were about to die I dont know, but it is indeed a tragic accident.

[FSPilot 0]

That's horrible. Hope the little guy's ok.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 01 2003,20:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Russian shuttle is a white elephant. I don't think it ever came near being mission ready.<span id='postcolor'>

There were 5 Buran shuttles made. After the Soviet Union collapsed the program was shut down, but they have reopened it now.

It will be quite interesting seeing it in action again since while very similar to the STS on the outside, it's an actually very different design.

Buran information

The most interesting piece of Russian hardware is the Energia heavy lift vehicle. The STS Space Shuttle can handle a payload of about 20-30 ton. The Energia booster can handle up to 155 tons.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 01 2003,20:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We made sure that the older kids didn't tell the little ones about it before the went to be - especially the almost-8 year old, who has been following this flight for the last 2 weeks, drawing pictures and asking us for an astonaut costume.

We'll have to deal with him tomorrow morning.<span id='postcolor'>

[Bernadotte 0]

NASA tech briefing about to start.

[LT.Schaffer 0]

Sad News Indeed,

My heart goes out to the loved ones

What a Tragedy

[Renagade 0]

Slightly too melodramatic here

7 ppl died which is sad but they knew what they were they were getting into and probably were vapourized not having the guts squished out of them in a wreck of metal or burned alive.

[theavonlady 2]

Looking now on TV at the debris field in populated areas, it's a miracle no one on the ground was hurt.

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ Feb. 01 2003,15:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Slightly too melodramatic here

7 ppl died which is sad but they knew what they were they were getting into and probably were vapourized not having the guts squished out of them in a wreck of metal or burned alive.<span id='postcolor'>

Wrong you are.  There have been reports of remains being found.

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 01 2003,15:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Looking now on TV at the debris field in populated areas, it's a miracle no one on the ground was hurt.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah really. There was a report of a doctor have a chuck of metal about a meter long crash through his ceiling into his office. A narrow miss. He got lucky.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Feb. 01 2003,22:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah really.  There was a report of a doctor have a chuck of metal about a meter long crash through his ceiling into his office.  A narrow miss.  He got lucky.<span id='postcolor'>

Dentist. Looked more like a piece of rubber but it could have been something else just very charred. Saw it on TV. It wasn't anywhere near a meter long.

[VXR 9]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 01 2003,19:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Winters @ Feb. 01 2003,19:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NASA's track record is still better than any airlines. only 3 or 4 fatal accidents in its 30+ years history.<span id='postcolor'>

You have to compare it to the number of flights. There has been 3 fatal accidents in 113 flights. That's a lot.<span id='postcolor'>

crash rate of 1 on 50 flights, sounds pretty special news to me when a space shuttle crashes it doest happen that often than a train that runs of the rail or something.

[Bernadotte 0]

Several sensors monitoring conditions in the left wing stopped functioning or changed dramatically in the final moments.  The crew was aware of the developing problem and their last communication was about the left tire losing pressure.

Insulating foam that fell off the main tank during launch had struck the left wing.  It was not regarded as serious at the time, even though they had no way of actually inspecting the tiles.

It makes me wonder if NASA would ever actually decide to scrap a vehicle in orbit because it got damaged on the way up.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">'Aerodynamics May Explain Space Shuttle Breakup'

TIME science correspondent Jeffrey Kluger examines the possible causes and consequences of the Columbia disaster

Saturday, Feb. 01, 2003

Seven astronauts, including the first Israeli in space, were lost Saturday when the space shuttle Columbia broke apart in the skies of Texas. The incident occurred at an altitude of some 200,000 feet, shortly after reentry and 15 minutes before Columbia had been scheduled to land at Cape Canaveral. TIME science correspondent Jeffrey Kluger explains some of the possible causes and consequences of the accident:

TIME.com: What are the possible scenarios that could have caused this disastrous accident on the shuttle's reentry into the Earth's atmosphere?

Jeffrey Kluger: There are three possible scenarios that explain this event. The first, which I believe is the likeliest explanation, would be an aerodynamic structural breakup of the shuttle caused by it rolling at the wrong angle. Remember, after reentry, the shuttle is descending without power, which means astronauts at the controls can't compensate for a loss of attitude by using the engines, they can only do so using the flaps. And that's extremely hard. Astronauts describe piloting the shuttle on reentry as like trying to fly a brick with wings. It's very difficult to operate, and even more so to correct any problems.

A second explanation might be a loss of tiles leading to a burn-through. (The shuttle is covered with heat-resistant tiles to protect the craft and those inside it from burning up in the scorching temperatures caused by the friction of reentry.) But I think that explanation is unlikely, because the tile-loss would have had to have been quite substantial for that to become possible. You'll hear a lot in the next few days about things falling off the shuttle during liftoff. But it often happens that they lose a few tiles, and I'd be surprised if it happened on a scale that could make an accident of this type possible.

The last option is some kind of engine failure leading to fuel ignition. Although the main tanks are mostly empty, there should still be fuel left in the maneuvering tanks. But probably not enough for an explosion that could have caused this breakup.

And just in case anybody was wondering, you can almost certainly rule out terrorism as a cause. This incident occurred well above the range of shoulder-fired missiles. And it would probably be easier to sneak a bomb onto Air Force One than to get one onto the shuttle.

TIME.com: So is reentry the Achilles heel of the shuttle program?

JK: No, the Achilles heel has always been liftoff, and the dangers posed by massive fuel load involved. Reentry has, of course, always been a difficult part of the space program. But this is, in fact, our first fatal accident on reentry. Apollo 13 is remembered as our most difficult ever reentry, but the ship and crew survived. The Soviets lost a crew on reentry in 1970 after an oxygen leak that caused the cosmonauts to suffocate on the way down. Reentry is a very difficult process, but the Russians mastered it in 1961 and we did the same a few years later.

TIME.com: Are shuttle crews trained to respond to the scenarios you've described?

JK: Yes, they're trained to deal with loss of attitude on reentry, and a range of other emergencies. But astronauts are not trained to deal with situations that result in certain death, because that would be a bit like training for what you might do if your car went over a cliff — in some situations there simply isn't anything you can do. One irony, though, is that NASA hadn't trained astronauts to deal with the sort of quadruple failure that occurred in Apollo 13, because they assumed that such a scenario would result in certain death. But the astronauts survived.

TIME.com: What are the immediate implications for the space program of Saturday's disaster?

JK: Following the precedent of the Challenger disaster in 1986, it's unlikely that NASA will undertake any further shuttle missions or any other manned space flights for the next two years. One immediate problem, though, is the International Space Station, which currently has a crew of three on board. They might consider one further flight to bring that crew home — the other option would be for them to return aboard a Russian Soyuz craft, which isn't the most comfortable or the safest ride. Beyond that, however, the space station is likely to be left unoccupied for a long time. NASA won't want to use the shuttle again until it can establish the cause of today's accident, and fix it. Now that we've lost two shuttles out of a fleet of five, it's even conceivable that the shuttle won't fly again. The shuttle was built as a space truck, and then the International Space Station was built to give it something to do. Both programs are likely to suffer as a result of this disaster.

<span id='postcolor'>

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 01 2003,23:26)</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">'Aerodynamics May Explain Space Shuttle Breakup'<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

Truly all speculation at this point.