Astronaut Michael Anderson (Columbia) was a Porsche Owner
02-04-2003, 09:44 PM
#16
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Looking at "Dubbya's" budget, NASA is gonna have to make-do with a pathetic increase. Looks like 1982 all over again...defense, and the ultra-rich benefiting, the rest of us getting screwed!
Damn!
Damn!
02-04-2003, 10:11 PM
#17
Intermediate
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The A of the ABC Islands
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just so you know, the 500 million increase was actually figured in the budget before the lose of Columbia.
Back on topic, I feel for the astronauts but mostly for their families. May the USA continue to use difference and challenges to make the world a better place. The astronauts were heroes to me as well.
Back on topic, I feel for the astronauts but mostly for their families. May the USA continue to use difference and challenges to make the world a better place. The astronauts were heroes to me as well.
02-04-2003, 10:42 PM
#18
Race Director
Actually, microwave ovens were a result of a Raytheon engineer doing some radar (microwaves) work on the bench in the lab and finding that after running his tests his cup of coffee was warmed up.
02-05-2003, 12:03 AM
#20
Nordschleife Master
May the Columbia's astronauts continue their work in the Great Beyond.
My father, who was only one of the engineers involved in designing and building both the Apollos and the Space Shuttles, told me a few very important things people miss:
On the way up, you are sitting on a rocket, with only a joystick to control the inferno; on the way down, you are a brick with wings.
In all seriousness, how can you expect NASA to do much more, with an 80% cut in yearly budgets, since 1970? Today, they only have 1% of the Federal budget; Back then, 5%!
As a matter of fact, the first version of the Space Orbiter was on the drawing boards, in 1961. But after we put the first man on the moon, the budget cuts started rolling in.
The shuttle was suppose to launch in 1971, but was not only crippled by the cuts, but also the need for the microchip, so they could physically put 5 onboard computers into the ship, and graphite epoxy, which is today known as carbon fiber, used to build race car chassis. Lighter than steel, sorely needed to take off weight.
Also, when NASA had to take funding in the early 70's from the military, my father told me the engineers were forced to cut out the safety device, which was setting up the flight deck similar to the capsule of the command module from the Apollos, complete with parachutes.
I am not sure if that could have saved either the Columbia or the Challenger, but the crews never had that option.
I myself worked on the electrical conduit system for the Atlantis, and believe me, we all did the best we could.
My father treated the Apollos and the Shuttles as our siblings, and I do feel that I have lost two mechanical sisters and their human children.
But at least he and the others at Rockwell did save Apollo 13, the only tragedy in the Space Program with a happy ending.
Even with all the danger, I would go up on the Atlantis, just for the chance to feel I could touch the moon and the stars.
Julie
NASA/Rockwell Brat
944, or 944S? That is the question I ask of moi.
My father, who was only one of the engineers involved in designing and building both the Apollos and the Space Shuttles, told me a few very important things people miss:
On the way up, you are sitting on a rocket, with only a joystick to control the inferno; on the way down, you are a brick with wings.
In all seriousness, how can you expect NASA to do much more, with an 80% cut in yearly budgets, since 1970? Today, they only have 1% of the Federal budget; Back then, 5%!
As a matter of fact, the first version of the Space Orbiter was on the drawing boards, in 1961. But after we put the first man on the moon, the budget cuts started rolling in.
The shuttle was suppose to launch in 1971, but was not only crippled by the cuts, but also the need for the microchip, so they could physically put 5 onboard computers into the ship, and graphite epoxy, which is today known as carbon fiber, used to build race car chassis. Lighter than steel, sorely needed to take off weight.
Also, when NASA had to take funding in the early 70's from the military, my father told me the engineers were forced to cut out the safety device, which was setting up the flight deck similar to the capsule of the command module from the Apollos, complete with parachutes.
I am not sure if that could have saved either the Columbia or the Challenger, but the crews never had that option.
I myself worked on the electrical conduit system for the Atlantis, and believe me, we all did the best we could.
My father treated the Apollos and the Shuttles as our siblings, and I do feel that I have lost two mechanical sisters and their human children.
But at least he and the others at Rockwell did save Apollo 13, the only tragedy in the Space Program with a happy ending.
Even with all the danger, I would go up on the Atlantis, just for the chance to feel I could touch the moon and the stars.
Julie
NASA/Rockwell Brat
944, or 944S? That is the question I ask of moi.
02-05-2003, 12:45 AM
#21
Burning Brakes
Interesting replies. The shuttle is a very safe piece of hardware for human to fly into space on, that would be very hard to dispute with all of the rigid guidelines those spacecraft have to conform to. If you really want to get down to heart of the problem, it would the arrogance of NASA. In 1967, three astronauts died because NASA wanted a 100% oxygen atmosphere in the Apollo capsule. I guess they didn't realize how much a fire would like such an oxygen rich atmosphere. In 1986, Morton Thiokol told NASA point blank NOT to launch Challenger the night before liftoff because of the temperature effect on the SRB o-rings. They had been telling NASA of this problem for sometime prior to the Challenger disaster. Did NASA listen? NO. Nasa's schedule and arrogance got in the way and 7 people paid the ultimate price. Now, fast forward to 2003, Nasa's own engineers have been warning their management about the possibility of heat tile damage for years during launches. Did they listen? NO. And 7 more astronauts paid the ultimate price. Totally unacceptable. I think it is time for NASA to have their "elite" status yanked away from them. What would be a cure for this. How about a pool of aerospace experts, not affiliated with NASA, to consult and advise when there may be an obvious, or not so obvious problem. It appears that the insulation coming off of the external fuel tank may have caused more damage than they thought. But it was dismissed because a majority of the supposedly brilliant engineers at NASA thought it wouldn't be a problem. They obviously thought wrong. I think the time has come for NASA to start being questioned and monitored by outside experts that don't have anything to gain by pushing a launch to make a schedule deadline. NO deadline is worth the lives of 7 people. I realize that space travel is dangerous. I also realize that NASA has done some great things for the space program and I would never deny them of that. But the time has come for the reigns to be put on NASA and start putting some common sense into what they do and not reinvent the wheel everytime they do something. I am a great suppoter of NASA, and I will continue to support them. But you do have to admit, they have made some really stupid decisions in their past years that cost the lives of some fine humans. And just in case anyone is wondering, I have been in the aerospace field for the past 15 years, so I do have a pretty good idea of what I am talking about. Don't kill me now, this is just my opinion.
<img border="0" alt="[icon107]" title="" src="graemlins/icon107.gif" />
<img border="0" alt="[icon107]" title="" src="graemlins/icon107.gif" />
02-05-2003, 02:12 AM
#22
Instructor
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think anyone will flame you for that Paul. I wholeheartedly concur. What I can't for the life of me understand is why in hell didn't they take a closer look at the left side of the craft? I would think that they had the ability to send a crew member out to at least do this whether or not repairs could be made.
02-05-2003, 02:37 AM
#23
Nordschleife Master
I'm sick about this also. But let's find out what actually happened before we spout off and see what our fellow Rennlisters that are in the biz can shed some light on.
I'm looking at a check for a wiring kit that came today. It is drawn on "Kennedy Space Center Federal Credit Union".
I'm looking at a check for a wiring kit that came today. It is drawn on "Kennedy Space Center Federal Credit Union".
02-05-2003, 04:49 AM
#25
Nordschleife Master
Paul, you are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that.
I don't put the entire blame on NASA, boys, because of what I said in my previous post.
Facts:
1) The Columbia crew didn't have the arm with them, which they could have lowered a camera with, and looked at the tiles.
2) They didn't have a way of safely tethering a safety line for the two guys who had EVA suits...the line would have done more damage, running around the wing. Plus it would have taken so much time, the astronaut would have run out of oxygen, before he could make it back inside.
3) They could not get aboard the space station safely, they didn't have the coupling.
4) They didn't have enough fuel to make it to the Space Station.
5) To have launched the Atlantis to save the Columbia crew, if they had known there was deadly damage, would of had only a very small window, and may have resulted in the deaths of everyone above...and thrown all safetly protocols out the window on the Atlantis, needless to say.
6) Ronald Reagan ORDERED the liftoff of the Challenger, though one of the Thoikel boosters was at -27 F at it's core., of which they had only made for above freezing., and AGAINST NASA's advice.
7) If any of the engineers had thought that foam hitting at 61 mph had done significant damage, they would have aborted within the first few minutes, and come safely home.
8) NASA wanted to replace the tiles with a better, less fragile metal blend, but the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT wouldn't give them enough MONEY to do it.
9) Going into space, the upper atmosphere, or anywhere, is dangerous, period.
10) NASA IS our space program.
11) Many of the engineers that designed things for NASA are NOT NASA engineers, but subcontracters, like Rockwell - oops! I mean Boeing now (Since they bought Rockwell out).
Unlike the movie, "Apollo 13" it wasn't the NASA engineers that created the filter for oxygen, it was the engineers at Rockwell, such as my Father, that did. I had the privelege of seeing the Command capsule of Apollo 13 (in it's clean room) in Tulsa, OK before it was shipped out, and assembled with the rest of the pieces. I think I know what I am talking about.
Geeeee, both accidents happened, when someone special was aboard, and under Republican Presidents...I am sure someone will come up with a conspiracy theory on that alone!
Oh, and about Apollo 1 (renamed that, originally called the AS-204 mission), that burned up on the pad, they were still in the infant stages of Space Travel, and they all thought pure oxygen was best for the astronauts, and they were just testing that day, not a takeoff. Flashfire inside the capsule took the lives of Lt. Col. Virgil I. Grissom, Lt. Col. Edward H. White, and Roger B. Chaffee.
We have learned from every tragedy, and after Apollo 1 burned up, the results in that investigation led to major design and engineering mods, etc. The safety of the command and service module and the lunar module were increased significantly.
The bigger question, boys, is WHY HAVEN'T WE HAD more accidents? More people are killed in CARS every year, than in the history of the whole space program.
WAIT! I have an idea, lets take cars from people, then they won't die anymore - riiight. That idea sure wouldn't fly, but I hope you get my point.
The engineers that work for NASA are not arrogant, they are human...and only a thorough investigation will tell us if it was the foam hitting the wing, engine failure, or something else altogether.
Remember, they thought it was one of the Challenger's engines that caused it to blow up - if you ever watch the video, even though the computers were ancient, they still blew the front bolt, and tried to seperate the Challenger from the central tank.
Arrogance would be sending a mission to Mars, knowing that we don't have a way of generating at least 12 lbs per sq inch on the human body, to survive. The astronauts would develop severe Osteoperosis, and never be able to leave the ship; walking on Mars or back on Earth would be impossibe today, they would just be jelly.
Any further questions?
Quit ragging on those whom you don't know, guys.
Julie
944, or 944S this year...
California ROCKS! Yeah, and rolls every once in awhile.
I don't put the entire blame on NASA, boys, because of what I said in my previous post.
Facts:
1) The Columbia crew didn't have the arm with them, which they could have lowered a camera with, and looked at the tiles.
2) They didn't have a way of safely tethering a safety line for the two guys who had EVA suits...the line would have done more damage, running around the wing. Plus it would have taken so much time, the astronaut would have run out of oxygen, before he could make it back inside.
3) They could not get aboard the space station safely, they didn't have the coupling.
4) They didn't have enough fuel to make it to the Space Station.
5) To have launched the Atlantis to save the Columbia crew, if they had known there was deadly damage, would of had only a very small window, and may have resulted in the deaths of everyone above...and thrown all safetly protocols out the window on the Atlantis, needless to say.
6) Ronald Reagan ORDERED the liftoff of the Challenger, though one of the Thoikel boosters was at -27 F at it's core., of which they had only made for above freezing., and AGAINST NASA's advice.
7) If any of the engineers had thought that foam hitting at 61 mph had done significant damage, they would have aborted within the first few minutes, and come safely home.
8) NASA wanted to replace the tiles with a better, less fragile metal blend, but the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT wouldn't give them enough MONEY to do it.
9) Going into space, the upper atmosphere, or anywhere, is dangerous, period.
10) NASA IS our space program.
11) Many of the engineers that designed things for NASA are NOT NASA engineers, but subcontracters, like Rockwell - oops! I mean Boeing now (Since they bought Rockwell out).
Unlike the movie, "Apollo 13" it wasn't the NASA engineers that created the filter for oxygen, it was the engineers at Rockwell, such as my Father, that did. I had the privelege of seeing the Command capsule of Apollo 13 (in it's clean room) in Tulsa, OK before it was shipped out, and assembled with the rest of the pieces. I think I know what I am talking about.
Geeeee, both accidents happened, when someone special was aboard, and under Republican Presidents...I am sure someone will come up with a conspiracy theory on that alone!
Oh, and about Apollo 1 (renamed that, originally called the AS-204 mission), that burned up on the pad, they were still in the infant stages of Space Travel, and they all thought pure oxygen was best for the astronauts, and they were just testing that day, not a takeoff. Flashfire inside the capsule took the lives of Lt. Col. Virgil I. Grissom, Lt. Col. Edward H. White, and Roger B. Chaffee.
We have learned from every tragedy, and after Apollo 1 burned up, the results in that investigation led to major design and engineering mods, etc. The safety of the command and service module and the lunar module were increased significantly.
The bigger question, boys, is WHY HAVEN'T WE HAD more accidents? More people are killed in CARS every year, than in the history of the whole space program.
WAIT! I have an idea, lets take cars from people, then they won't die anymore - riiight. That idea sure wouldn't fly, but I hope you get my point.
The engineers that work for NASA are not arrogant, they are human...and only a thorough investigation will tell us if it was the foam hitting the wing, engine failure, or something else altogether.
Remember, they thought it was one of the Challenger's engines that caused it to blow up - if you ever watch the video, even though the computers were ancient, they still blew the front bolt, and tried to seperate the Challenger from the central tank.
Arrogance would be sending a mission to Mars, knowing that we don't have a way of generating at least 12 lbs per sq inch on the human body, to survive. The astronauts would develop severe Osteoperosis, and never be able to leave the ship; walking on Mars or back on Earth would be impossibe today, they would just be jelly.
Any further questions?
Quit ragging on those whom you don't know, guys.
Julie
944, or 944S this year...
California ROCKS! Yeah, and rolls every once in awhile.
02-05-2003, 07:47 AM
#26
Race Director
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by Devia:
<strong>6) Ronald Reagan ORDERED the liftoff of the Challenger....
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I have a very hard time believing the former president ordered the launch of Challenger. This is the first I've heard this in 17 years and Reagan was well known for delegating authority.
I can't say you're wrong, but boy, I'd need some solid proof.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by Devia:
<strong>8) NASA wanted to replace the tiles with a better, less fragile metal blend, but the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT wouldn't give them enough MONEY to do it.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Sorry, but this is a non-starter. NASA gets a budget. If they wanted to do this, they could have chosen to do this instead of spending money elsewhere. They have their budget. They set their priorities for the money. They spent the money elsewhere. Period.
<strong>6) Ronald Reagan ORDERED the liftoff of the Challenger....
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I have a very hard time believing the former president ordered the launch of Challenger. This is the first I've heard this in 17 years and Reagan was well known for delegating authority.
I can't say you're wrong, but boy, I'd need some solid proof.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by Devia:
<strong>8) NASA wanted to replace the tiles with a better, less fragile metal blend, but the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT wouldn't give them enough MONEY to do it.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Sorry, but this is a non-starter. NASA gets a budget. If they wanted to do this, they could have chosen to do this instead of spending money elsewhere. They have their budget. They set their priorities for the money. They spent the money elsewhere. Period.
02-05-2003, 08:08 AM
#27
Pro
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Harrisonburg, VA
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been absent from the boards for awhile (lurking), but thought I'd jump in. Devia, whoever she is, is correct Geo - Space shuttle was ordered up for political reasons, either directly or indirectly from the president, I'm not privvy to.
Devia - Maybe your father and my grandfather have met before. My grandfather was project lead for development of the stage 2 rocket for Apollo missions.
Paul - if you know more "elite" engineers than those who work for NASA (and their contractors, subsidaries and spin off companies) I'd like you to point them out. I do not believe there is a finer group of intellectual talent in the world than those who work at and for NASA.
My family and I feel the loss of the people and the shuttle, and we feel for the loss of the families, and all the people at NASA. The space program has been apart of all of our lives for so long, we just hope to see it continue just as strong.
Devia - Maybe your father and my grandfather have met before. My grandfather was project lead for development of the stage 2 rocket for Apollo missions.
Paul - if you know more "elite" engineers than those who work for NASA (and their contractors, subsidaries and spin off companies) I'd like you to point them out. I do not believe there is a finer group of intellectual talent in the world than those who work at and for NASA.
My family and I feel the loss of the people and the shuttle, and we feel for the loss of the families, and all the people at NASA. The space program has been apart of all of our lives for so long, we just hope to see it continue just as strong.
02-05-2003, 03:10 PM
#28
Instructor
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Devia: I was wondering about the space station before. Lets say theoretically, if they did have the coupling and they did have the fuel, would reaching the space station save them?
Are there enough resources available to sustain 7 people for the amount of time required to launch rescue operations?
If so, then this seems like something which should be part of a contingency plan on future missions. If not, what changes could be made to make it feasible?
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by Devia:
<strong>
3) They could not get aboard the space station safely, they didn't have the coupling.
4) They didn't have enough fuel to make it to the Space Station.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">
Are there enough resources available to sustain 7 people for the amount of time required to launch rescue operations?
If so, then this seems like something which should be part of a contingency plan on future missions. If not, what changes could be made to make it feasible?
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by Devia:
<strong>
3) They could not get aboard the space station safely, they didn't have the coupling.
4) They didn't have enough fuel to make it to the Space Station.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">
02-05-2003, 03:54 PM
#29
Nordschleife Master
Thank you, PrerYDoG, for your support on some of this.
Did your Grandfather ever work in Downey? My Father had worked there, just before being transferred to Tulsa, OK, back in '66.
Now on to a few points others made:
Geo, NASA does have a budget, and they had updated the Columbia alone to the tune of 90 million dollars, in 2001. And NASA stayed to their allotted budget. Hindsight is 20/20, you know. And that Orange booster tank is being phased out; they have one that is updated, and doesn't have the insulation falling off.
waybrig, yes, if in theory, they had the coupling and the fuel, they could have made it to the Space Station...it is something I am sure NASA will consider from now on - one I was saddened by it not being an option.
There are 6 months of supplies for 3 people on the station, so that would have bought us time, plus they could either have come down in the Soyuz ship, that is attached to the station.
Or the Atlantis could've come up in March at her scheduled flight, but with only a two man crew, and rescued them, plus food to replace what was eaten.
Unfortunately, because of the way the tiles are attached, they could not have repaired the Columbia safely for reentry, if it indeed was the damage on the left wing. NASA had come up with a caulking gun idea, but the glue itself couldn't take the heat of reentry, so they tossed it. Part of the process of attaching those tiles includes a heat cycle, here on the ground. I do think this is another idea that needs to be resurrected, and made safe, even if they have to bring a little heater, as part of the repair kit.
Believe me, I would rather them have been on the Space Station, and the Columbia left a relic in space permanently, than this. Almost anything, but not this...
Julie
944, or 944S coming soon.
Did your Grandfather ever work in Downey? My Father had worked there, just before being transferred to Tulsa, OK, back in '66.
Now on to a few points others made:
Geo, NASA does have a budget, and they had updated the Columbia alone to the tune of 90 million dollars, in 2001. And NASA stayed to their allotted budget. Hindsight is 20/20, you know. And that Orange booster tank is being phased out; they have one that is updated, and doesn't have the insulation falling off.
waybrig, yes, if in theory, they had the coupling and the fuel, they could have made it to the Space Station...it is something I am sure NASA will consider from now on - one I was saddened by it not being an option.
There are 6 months of supplies for 3 people on the station, so that would have bought us time, plus they could either have come down in the Soyuz ship, that is attached to the station.
Or the Atlantis could've come up in March at her scheduled flight, but with only a two man crew, and rescued them, plus food to replace what was eaten.
Unfortunately, because of the way the tiles are attached, they could not have repaired the Columbia safely for reentry, if it indeed was the damage on the left wing. NASA had come up with a caulking gun idea, but the glue itself couldn't take the heat of reentry, so they tossed it. Part of the process of attaching those tiles includes a heat cycle, here on the ground. I do think this is another idea that needs to be resurrected, and made safe, even if they have to bring a little heater, as part of the repair kit.
Believe me, I would rather them have been on the Space Station, and the Columbia left a relic in space permanently, than this. Almost anything, but not this...
Julie
944, or 944S coming soon.
02-05-2003, 05:23 PM
#30
Instructor
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Devia,
Thanks for the info, that's very interesting. I wondered what the minimum crew was for the shuttle. Just two crew members would provide quite a bit of free space to bring others down. It seems kind of strange that some sort of contingency plan like this wasn't already in place for all missions. It makes you think the astronaut's lives weren't valued all that much.
Thanks for the info, that's very interesting. I wondered what the minimum crew was for the shuttle. Just two crew members would provide quite a bit of free space to bring others down. It seems kind of strange that some sort of contingency plan like this wasn't already in place for all missions. It makes you think the astronaut's lives weren't valued all that much.