NASA: Triumph and Tragedy

[Park Life 71]

Do you seriously think these buffoons can put men on Mars??

 

I think they crashed the first 29 probes or summat....

 

This has been done a million times before Parky. What it boils down to is that if you believe the moon landings were a conspiracy you're basically a retard.

 

Thought we were talking about Mars?

[Park Life 71]

I've never bought this 'it's a waste of money, we could feed the whole world instead' line. They strike me as completely independent things, I don't understand how the very limited resources space travel requires (in a material and global sense) should impact on us doing other stuff. If we have to cut back on something to allow it, let's cut back on defence.

 

Ultimately you'd have to reason that the human race will have to leave the Earth and spread, it's hardwired into us, and the planet has a finite life. We should feel privileged to be part of the first generations who have travelled in space. I'd love it if we reached Mars in my lifetime.

I think we spend too much on defence but unless all the world is suddenly going to change the way in which humans have always behaved it's infinitely more necessary than exploring the planets imo.

 

We ain't going nowhere THEY are coming and will land at the opening ceremony of the Olympic games 2012.

[Happy Face 29]

Looking at the dangers and subsequent tragedies of the Shuttle missions, it makes the Apollo project all the more incredible/unbelievable, given the relative simplicity of orbiting the Earth in comparison to successfully getting a man to the moon and back in the 1960's.

 

We'll be lucky to be back there this century.

Looked great but what a waste of money going back (or indeed trying to get to Mars) would be. They're just lifeless rocks. It's not like the money couldn't be better spent. Just my two Earth cents.

 

I like the space programs. Basically government funded research into products that have applications on earth, that private industry doesn't have the vision or inclination to look into.

[Park Life 71]

Looking at the dangers and subsequent tragedies of the Shuttle missions, it makes the Apollo project all the more incredible/unbelievable, given the relative simplicity of orbiting the Earth in comparison to successfully getting a man to the moon and back in the 1960's.

 

We'll be lucky to be back there this century.

Looked great but what a waste of money going back (or indeed trying to get to Mars) would be. They're just lifeless rocks. It's not like the money couldn't be better spent. Just my two Earth cents.

 

I like the space programs. Basically government funded research into products that have applications on earth, that private industry doesn't have the vision or inclination to look into.

 

Like what?

[Craig 6670]

Sickening that both Challenger and Columbia tragedies can be blamed on poor managerial decisions that were both totally avoidable.

 

I agree Challenger was entirley avoidable but I'm not sure about Colombia, which I think requires a degree of hindsight. Even if they had completed a spacewalk and detected the damage, I am not sure what they could have done about it. Repair was not possible, could they have feasibly launched a rescue ship or docked with the International Space Station? Iirc at the time they were stated as not being options, so the crew were doomed in any case.

 

I read this some time ago.....

 

The Columbia Accident Investigation board (CAIB) determined a rescue mission, though risky, might have been possible provided NASA management took action soon enough. The CAIB determined that had NASA management acted in time, two possible contingency procedures were available: a rescue mission by shuttle Atlantis, and an emergency spacewalk to attempt repairs to the left wing thermal protection.

 

Rescue

Normally a rescue mission is not possible, due to the time required to prepare a shuttle for launch, and the limited consumables (power, water, air) of an orbiting shuttle. However, Atlantis was well along in processing for a March 1 launch, and Columbia carried an unusually large quantity of consumables due to an Extended Duration Orbiter package. The CAIB determined that this would have allowed Columbia to stay in orbit until flight day 30 (February 15). NASA investigators determined that Atlantis processing could have been expedited with no skipped safety checks for a February 10 launch. Hence if nothing went wrong there was a five-day overlap for a possible rescue.

 

Hypothetical rescue scenario with Atlantis below Columbia.

 

Hypothesized rescue EVA

 

Repair

NASA investigators determined on-orbit repair by the shuttle astronauts was possible but risky, primarily due to the uncertain resiliency of the repair using available materials.

 

Columbia did not carry the Canadarm, or Remote Manipulator System, which would normally be used for camera inspection or transporting a spacewalking astronaut to the wing. Therefore an unusual emergency EVA would have been required. While there was no astronaut EVA training for maneuvering to the wing, astronauts are always prepared for a similarly difficult emergency EVA – to close the external tank umbilical doors located on the orbiter underside. During launch these doors are open for the propellant feed lines from the external tank to supply the main engines in the orbiter tail. If they fail to close after jettisoning the external tank, it constitutes a thermal protection breach which could destroy the orbiter upon re-entry, requiring an emergency EVA to close them manually. Similar methods could have reached the shuttle left wing for inspection or repair.

 

For the repair, the CAIB determined the astronauts would have to use tools and small pieces of titanium, or other metal, scavenged from the crew cabin. These metals would help protect the wing structure and would be held in place during re-entry by a water-filled bag that had turned into ice in the cold of space. The ice and metal would help restore wing leading edge geometry, preventing a turbulent airflow over the wing and therefore keeping heating and burn-through levels low enough for the crew to survive re-entry and bail out before landing. Because the NASA team could not verify that the repairs would survive even a modified re-entry, the rescue option had a considerably higher chance of bringing Columbia's crew back alive.

[Renton 20916]

I've never bought this 'it's a waste of money, we could feed the whole world instead' line. They strike me as completely independent things, I don't understand how the very limited resources space travel requires (in a material and global sense) should impact on us doing other stuff. If we have to cut back on something to allow it, let's cut back on defence.

 

Ultimately you'd have to reason that the human race will have to leave the Earth and spread, it's hardwired into us, and the planet has a finite life. We should feel privileged to be part of the first generations who have travelled in space. I'd love it if we reached Mars in my lifetime.

I think we spend too much on defence but unless all the world is suddenly going to change the way in which humans have always behaved it's infinitely more necessary than exploring the planets imo.

 

Well I'm sure space research will have some good spin off applications for the military as well.

 

I'm old skool exploring and learning just for the sake of it, for the same reasons as appreciating the arts. I'm not sure how much practical application the Hubble telescope or CERN have for instance, but to me they are of critical importance in trying to find out what the answers are to the bigger questions. Or something.

[Renton 20916]

Do you seriously think these buffoons can put men on Mars??

 

I think they crashed the first 29 probes or summat....

 

This has been done a million times before Parky. What it boils down to is that if you believe the moon landings were a conspiracy you're basically a retard.

 

Thought we were talking about Mars?

 

Fuck, sorry, must learn to read.

 

But for you Parky, the point stands.

[Guest alex]

Looking at the dangers and subsequent tragedies of the Shuttle missions, it makes the Apollo project all the more incredible/unbelievable, given the relative simplicity of orbiting the Earth in comparison to successfully getting a man to the moon and back in the 1960's.

 

We'll be lucky to be back there this century.

Looked great but what a waste of money going back (or indeed trying to get to Mars) would be. They're just lifeless rocks. It's not like the money couldn't be better spent. Just my two Earth cents.

 

I like the space programs. Basically government funded research into products that have applications on earth, that private industry doesn't have the vision or inclination to look into.

 

Like what?

That pen that can write upside down and underwater.

[Happy Face 29]

Looking at the dangers and subsequent tragedies of the Shuttle missions, it makes the Apollo project all the more incredible/unbelievable, given the relative simplicity of orbiting the Earth in comparison to successfully getting a man to the moon and back in the 1960's.

 

We'll be lucky to be back there this century.

Looked great but what a waste of money going back (or indeed trying to get to Mars) would be. They're just lifeless rocks. It's not like the money couldn't be better spent. Just my two Earth cents.

 

I like the space programs. Basically government funded research into products that have applications on earth, that private industry doesn't have the vision or inclination to look into.

 

Like what?

 

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&r...+uses&meta=

 

The best link being...

 

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

 

BREAST CANCER DETECTION - A solar cell sensor is positioned directly beneath x-ray film, and determines exactly when film has received sufficient radiation and has been exposed to optimum density. Associated electronic equipment then sends a signal to cut off the x-ray source. Reduction of mammography x-ray exposure reduces radiation hazard and doubles the number of patient exams per machine.

 

PROGRAMMABLE PACEMAKER - Incorporating multiple NASA technologies, the system consists of the implant and a physician's computer console containing the programming and a data printer. Communicates through wireless telemetry signals.

 

SOLAR ENERGY - NASA-pioneered photovoltaic power system for spacecraft applications was applied to programs to expand terrestrial applications as a viable alternative energy source in areas where no conventional power source exists.

 

SENSORS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL - NASA development of an instrument for use in space life support research led to commercial development of a system to monitor an industrial process stream to assure that the effluent water's pH level is in compliance with environmental regulations.

 

etc.

Edited July 3, 2009 by Happy Face

[Fop 1]

All it would take is one probe to find oil on Mars, it wouldn't matter that it would be too expensive to use/bring back.

[Renton 20916]

Sickening that both Challenger and Columbia tragedies can be blamed on poor managerial decisions that were both totally avoidable.

 

I agree Challenger was entirley avoidable but I'm not sure about Colombia, which I think requires a degree of hindsight. Even if they had completed a spacewalk and detected the damage, I am not sure what they could have done about it. Repair was not possible, could they have feasibly launched a rescue ship or docked with the International Space Station? Iirc at the time they were stated as not being options, so the crew were doomed in any case.

 

I read this some time ago.....

 

The Columbia Accident Investigation board (CAIB) determined a rescue mission, though risky, might have been possible provided NASA management took action soon enough. The CAIB determined that had NASA management acted in time, two possible contingency procedures were available: a rescue mission by shuttle Atlantis, and an emergency spacewalk to attempt repairs to the left wing thermal protection.

 

Rescue

Normally a rescue mission is not possible, due to the time required to prepare a shuttle for launch, and the limited consumables (power, water, air) of an orbiting shuttle. However, Atlantis was well along in processing for a March 1 launch, and Columbia carried an unusually large quantity of consumables due to an Extended Duration Orbiter package. The CAIB determined that this would have allowed Columbia to stay in orbit until flight day 30 (February 15). NASA investigators determined that Atlantis processing could have been expedited with no skipped safety checks for a February 10 launch. Hence if nothing went wrong there was a five-day overlap for a possible rescue.

 

Hypothetical rescue scenario with Atlantis below Columbia.

 

Hypothesized rescue EVA

 

Repair

NASA investigators determined on-orbit repair by the shuttle astronauts was possible but risky, primarily due to the uncertain resiliency of the repair using available materials.

 

Columbia did not carry the Canadarm, or Remote Manipulator System, which would normally be used for camera inspection or transporting a spacewalking astronaut to the wing. Therefore an unusual emergency EVA would have been required. While there was no astronaut EVA training for maneuvering to the wing, astronauts are always prepared for a similarly difficult emergency EVA – to close the external tank umbilical doors located on the orbiter underside. During launch these doors are open for the propellant feed lines from the external tank to supply the main engines in the orbiter tail. If they fail to close after jettisoning the external tank, it constitutes a thermal protection breach which could destroy the orbiter upon re-entry, requiring an emergency EVA to close them manually. Similar methods could have reached the shuttle left wing for inspection or repair.

 

For the repair, the CAIB determined the astronauts would have to use tools and small pieces of titanium, or other metal, scavenged from the crew cabin. These metals would help protect the wing structure and would be held in place during re-entry by a water-filled bag that had turned into ice in the cold of space. The ice and metal would help restore wing leading edge geometry, preventing a turbulent airflow over the wing and therefore keeping heating and burn-through levels low enough for the crew to survive re-entry and bail out before landing. Because the NASA team could not verify that the repairs would survive even a modified re-entry, the rescue option had a considerably higher chance of bringing Columbia's crew back alive.

 

Interesting. Most cyclists carry round a puncture repair kit, you'd have thought NASA would have thought anout carrying a few spare tiles and superglue on the shuttle.

[Fop 1]

Looking at the dangers and subsequent tragedies of the Shuttle missions, it makes the Apollo project all the more incredible/unbelievable, given the relative simplicity of orbiting the Earth in comparison to successfully getting a man to the moon and back in the 1960's.

 

We'll be lucky to be back there this century.

Looked great but what a waste of money going back (or indeed trying to get to Mars) would be. They're just lifeless rocks. It's not like the money couldn't be better spent. Just my two Earth cents.

 

I like the space programs. Basically government funded research into products that have applications on earth, that private industry doesn't have the vision or inclination to look into.

 

Like what?

That pen that can write upside down and underwater.

Glowy night lights too.

[Guest alex]

I've never bought this 'it's a waste of money, we could feed the whole world instead' line. They strike me as completely independent things, I don't understand how the very limited resources space travel requires (in a material and global sense) should impact on us doing other stuff. If we have to cut back on something to allow it, let's cut back on defence.

 

Ultimately you'd have to reason that the human race will have to leave the Earth and spread, it's hardwired into us, and the planet has a finite life. We should feel privileged to be part of the first generations who have travelled in space. I'd love it if we reached Mars in my lifetime.

I think we spend too much on defence but unless all the world is suddenly going to change the way in which humans have always behaved it's infinitely more necessary than exploring the planets imo.

 

Well I'm sure space research will have some good spin off applications for the military as well.

 

I'm old skool exploring and learning just for the sake of it, for the same reasons as appreciating the arts. I'm not sure how much practical application the Hubble telescope or CERN have for instance, but to me they are of critical importance in trying to find out what the answers are to the bigger questions. Or something.

I'm not against a space programme, I'm more saying the resources involved in sending people to Mars or back to the Moon aren't worth it imo.

[Park Life 71]

Looking at the dangers and subsequent tragedies of the Shuttle missions, it makes the Apollo project all the more incredible/unbelievable, given the relative simplicity of orbiting the Earth in comparison to successfully getting a man to the moon and back in the 1960's.

 

We'll be lucky to be back there this century.

Looked great but what a waste of money going back (or indeed trying to get to Mars) would be. They're just lifeless rocks. It's not like the money couldn't be better spent. Just my two Earth cents.

 

I like the space programs. Basically government funded research into products that have applications on earth, that private industry doesn't have the vision or inclination to look into.

 

Like what?

 

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&r...+uses&meta=

 

I know all about nasa and the military man...That's why they want to privatise it. But what have they done to benefit mankind????

[Park Life 71]

Looking at the dangers and subsequent tragedies of the Shuttle missions, it makes the Apollo project all the more incredible/unbelievable, given the relative simplicity of orbiting the Earth in comparison to successfully getting a man to the moon and back in the 1960's.

 

We'll be lucky to be back there this century.

Looked great but what a waste of money going back (or indeed trying to get to Mars) would be. They're just lifeless rocks. It's not like the money couldn't be better spent. Just my two Earth cents.

 

I like the space programs. Basically government funded research into products that have applications on earth, that private industry doesn't have the vision or inclination to look into.

 

Like what?

That pen that can write upside down and underwater.

Glowy night lights too.

 

I suppose they have showed us how the recycle WW2 tech.

[Fop 1]

I'm not against a space programme, I'm more saying the resources involved in sending people to Mars or back to the Moon aren't worth it imo.

 

It's a domino effect as well though, being on the Moon makes it much easier (and cheaper relatively) to get to Mars.

 

Being permanently in orbit was supposed to make both easier too, but the accountants got hold of the ISS.

[Park Life 71]

Looking at the dangers and subsequent tragedies of the Shuttle missions, it makes the Apollo project all the more incredible/unbelievable, given the relative simplicity of orbiting the Earth in comparison to successfully getting a man to the moon and back in the 1960's.

 

We'll be lucky to be back there this century.

Looked great but what a waste of money going back (or indeed trying to get to Mars) would be. They're just lifeless rocks. It's not like the money couldn't be better spent. Just my two Earth cents.

 

I like the space programs. Basically government funded research into products that have applications on earth, that private industry doesn't have the vision or inclination to look into.

 

Like what?

 

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&r...+uses&meta=

 

The best link being...

 

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

 

BREAST CANCER DETECTION - A solar cell sensor is positioned directly beneath x-ray film, and determines exactly when film has received sufficient radiation and has been exposed to optimum density. Associated electronic equipment then sends a signal to cut off the x-ray source. Reduction of mammography x-ray exposure reduces radiation hazard and doubles the number of patient exams per machine.

 

PROGRAMMABLE PACEMAKER - Incorporating multiple NASA technologies, the system consists of the implant and a physician's computer console containing the programming and a data printer. Communicates through wireless telemetry signals.

 

SOLAR ENERGY - NASA-pioneered photovoltaic power system for spacecraft applications was applied to programs to expand terrestrial applications as a viable alternative energy source in areas where no conventional power source exists.

 

SENSORS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL - NASA development of an instrument for use in space life support research led to commercial development of a system to monitor an industrial process stream to assure that the effluent water's pH level is in compliance with environmental regulations.

 

etc.

 

All rubbish.

[Guest alex]

I'm not against a space programme, I'm more saying the resources involved in sending people to Mars or back to the Moon aren't worth it imo.

 

It's a domino effect as well though, being on the Moon makes it much easier (and cheaper relatively) to get to Mars.

 

Being permanently in orbit was supposed to make both easier too, but the accountants got hold of the ISS.

It's pointless imo. When you look at how far the Space programme has regressed since Apollo I don't see the ultimate aim (if I read you and Renton correctly) of getting the Earth's population to a potentially habitable planet light years away will ever happen.

[Guest alex]

Looking at the dangers and subsequent tragedies of the Shuttle missions, it makes the Apollo project all the more incredible/unbelievable, given the relative simplicity of orbiting the Earth in comparison to successfully getting a man to the moon and back in the 1960's.

 

We'll be lucky to be back there this century.

Looked great but what a waste of money going back (or indeed trying to get to Mars) would be. They're just lifeless rocks. It's not like the money couldn't be better spent. Just my two Earth cents.

 

I like the space programs. Basically government funded research into products that have applications on earth, that private industry doesn't have the vision or inclination to look into.

 

Like what?

 

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&r...+uses&meta=

 

The best link being...

 

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

 

BREAST CANCER DETECTION - A solar cell sensor is positioned directly beneath x-ray film, and determines exactly when film has received sufficient radiation and has been exposed to optimum density. Associated electronic equipment then sends a signal to cut off the x-ray source. Reduction of mammography x-ray exposure reduces radiation hazard and doubles the number of patient exams per machine.

 

PROGRAMMABLE PACEMAKER - Incorporating multiple NASA technologies, the system consists of the implant and a physician's computer console containing the programming and a data printer. Communicates through wireless telemetry signals.

 

SOLAR ENERGY - NASA-pioneered photovoltaic power system for spacecraft applications was applied to programs to expand terrestrial applications as a viable alternative energy source in areas where no conventional power source exists.

 

SENSORS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL - NASA development of an instrument for use in space life support research led to commercial development of a system to monitor an industrial process stream to assure that the effluent water's pH level is in compliance with environmental regulations.

 

etc.

 

All rubbish.

[Park Life 71]

Do you seriously think these buffoons can put men on Mars??

 

I think they crashed the first 29 probes or summat....

 

This has been done a million times before Parky. What it boils down to is that if you believe the moon landings were a conspiracy you're basically a retard.

 

Thought we were talking about Mars?

 

Fuck, sorry, must learn to read.

 

But for you Parky, the point stands.

 

Obsessed.

[Happy Face 29]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&r...+uses&meta=

 

 

I know all about nasa and the military man...That's why they want to privatise it. But what have they done to benefit mankind????

 

 

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

 

BREAST CANCER DETECTION - A solar cell sensor is positioned directly beneath x-ray film, and determines exactly when film has received sufficient radiation and has been exposed to optimum density. Associated electronic equipment then sends a signal to cut off the x-ray source. Reduction of mammography x-ray exposure reduces radiation hazard and doubles the number of patient exams per machine.

 

PROGRAMMABLE PACEMAKER - Incorporating multiple NASA technologies, the system consists of the implant and a physician's computer console containing the programming and a data printer. Communicates through wireless telemetry signals.

 

SOLAR ENERGY - NASA-pioneered photovoltaic power system for spacecraft applications was applied to programs to expand terrestrial applications as a viable alternative energy source in areas where no conventional power source exists.

 

SENSORS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL - NASA development of an instrument for use in space life support research led to commercial development of a system to monitor an industrial process stream to assure that the effluent water's pH level is in compliance with environmental regulations.

 

etc.

 

 

Who knows, the energy source that get's man back from Mars might replace fossil fuel and save the planet.

[Park Life 71]

I'm not against a space programme, I'm more saying the resources involved in sending people to Mars or back to the Moon aren't worth it imo.

 

It's a domino effect as well though, being on the Moon makes it much easier (and cheaper relatively) to get to Mars.

 

Being permanently in orbit was supposed to make both easier too, but the accountants got hold of the ISS.

It's pointless imo. When you look at how far the Space programme has regressed since Apollo I don't see the ultimate aim (if I read you and Renton correctly) of getting the Earth's population to a potentially habitable planet light years away will ever happen.

 

It's tiresome that it's actually called a space agency.

[Park Life 71]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&r...+uses&meta=

 

 

I know all about nasa and the military man...That's why they want to privatise it. But what have they done to benefit mankind????

 

 

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

 

BREAST CANCER DETECTION - A solar cell sensor is positioned directly beneath x-ray film, and determines exactly when film has received sufficient radiation and has been exposed to optimum density. Associated electronic equipment then sends a signal to cut off the x-ray source. Reduction of mammography x-ray exposure reduces radiation hazard and doubles the number of patient exams per machine.

 

PROGRAMMABLE PACEMAKER - Incorporating multiple NASA technologies, the system consists of the implant and a physician's computer console containing the programming and a data printer. Communicates through wireless telemetry signals.

 

SOLAR ENERGY - NASA-pioneered photovoltaic power system for spacecraft applications was applied to programs to expand terrestrial applications as a viable alternative energy source in areas where no conventional power source exists.

 

SENSORS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL - NASA development of an instrument for use in space life support research led to commercial development of a system to monitor an industrial process stream to assure that the effluent water's pH level is in compliance with environmental regulations.

 

etc.

 

 

Who knows, the energy source that get's man back from Mars might replace fossil fuel and save the planet.

 

 

It would be cheaper to make energy from burning gold.

[Renton 20916]

I'm not against a space programme, I'm more saying the resources involved in sending people to Mars or back to the Moon aren't worth it imo.

 

It's a domino effect as well though, being on the Moon makes it much easier (and cheaper relatively) to get to Mars.

 

Being permanently in orbit was supposed to make both easier too, but the accountants got hold of the ISS.

It's pointless imo. When you look at how far the Space programme has regressed since Apollo I don't see the ultimate aim (if I read you and Renton correctly) of getting the Earth's population to a potentially habitable planet light years away will ever happen.

 

Maybe you're right and it will never happen, I still think its reasonable to keep developing the technology though and to do that you need achievable goals. Mars is the next logical step.

 

Incidentally, if you are right, that has quite a big implication on the existence of Parky's aliens.

[Fop 1]

I'm not against a space programme, I'm more saying the resources involved in sending people to Mars or back to the Moon aren't worth it imo.

 

It's a domino effect as well though, being on the Moon makes it much easier (and cheaper relatively) to get to Mars.

 

Being permanently in orbit was supposed to make both easier too, but the accountants got hold of the ISS.

It's pointless imo. When you look at how far the Space programme has regressed since Apollo I don't see the ultimate aim (if I read you and Renton correctly) of getting the Earth's population to a potentially habitable planet light years away will ever happen.

 

It's all steps though, getting to North America on a log was never going to happen, but getting to that island you can just see then refining your design eventually leads to just that.

 

Especially as the biggest hurdle in getting to say Mars is still actually getting out of the Earth's atmosphere and orbit. Being properly permanently in orbit or on the Moon reduces that massively.

 

 

 

 

Actually it may not be oil () that gets us to the Moon or Mars again, but the value of rare earth metals (which just maybe be viable to use/transport).