What is Digg?84 Comments
- wonderchemist, on 12/31/2008, -0/+28This was a lethal accident, but in a less serious incident, the recommendations made, may mean the difference between life in death.
The families had input into this report, and the legacy they leave behind is improved safety on future missions. - WordsnCollision, on 12/31/2008, -0/+25How many nice, shiny new shuttles would $700 billion have bought, i wonder?
- Nekura20x6, on 12/31/2008, -1/+24The shuttles have been flying way, way beyond their designed lifespans. We either need to abandon the space truck or immediately build the next generation of them.
- michaelpinto, on 12/31/2008, -4/+26"During re-entry, the hole allowed atmospheric gases to burn the wing and destroy the spacecraft. The oldest orbiter in the fleet, Columbia had just completed a 16-day science mission." = Because of budget cuts at NASA Columbia was never retired when it should have been. By the way I get the feeling the timing of this report (in-between administrations is no mistake) — not that I blame Bush in this case: NASA has been neglected since the first shuttle mess up in the 80s.
- no2gates, on 12/30/2008, -9/+31
OK look, I'm not a rocket scientist, however, what the hell is the difference? You would have extended their life by an additional 3 to 5 seconds? The lethal trauma would be when the crew capsule integrity was compromised killing everyone within a split second from those forces. Why bring this up now, let their families rest. - Shaggy3, on 01/01/2009, -0/+19Would have bought a ***** Moon-town.
- msouthcott, on 01/01/2009, -1/+19To all the people who are questioning why they are investigating this or even why they would bring this up now. Try reading the posted material and if you have even a shred of intelligence you would understand that the investigation was to figure out how to make this problem as survivable as possible. It sighted many short comings in many different systems and hardware involved but also made the point that regardless of if the systems performed adequately or not the crew would not have survived ground impact. This is humans learning from mistakes and trying to improve on a system that has flaws.
Read the report before you blindly comment. - BillDauterive, on 01/01/2009, -1/+14700 Billion Is a fortune compared to the annual budget they get these days.
- Murdats, on 01/01/2009, -0/+13uhh this will help save lives from other unforeseen situations.
unless you feel that is a waste of money stfu - FKnight, on 01/01/2009, -0/+12He doesn't care. He just wanted to bitch about the government.
- FKnight, on 01/01/2009, -0/+12What exactly does the age of Columbia have to do with a big block of insulation falling off of the external tank and hitting the wing?
Do you think that without budget cuts, they would have replaced Columbia with a shuttle equipped with deflector shields? - Alegoo92, on 01/01/2009, -3/+15So, they died from broken helmets, not exploding shuttles?
- fuzzmeister, on 01/01/2009, -0/+10In my opinion, space exploration is the most worthwhile thing man can undertake, as it is our ticket to influence beyond our own planet.
- tjbogart33, on 01/01/2009, -0/+10As is so often the case - the title is quite misleading.
The purpose of the exercise is to see if there was anything that could have been done to enhance crew survivability given the other failures. It is interesting to note that the restraints in place - the shoulder harnesses did not arrest the bodies given the flat spin they went into - and the heads had no support at all. Not very good for the situation where they get some flipping around but then could get stabilized and bail out at 100k feet. Also, the comments about needing manual activation of some of the emergency equipment.
No, probably not some things that would have saved them in this scenario, but well worth looking into for less catastrophic failures.
You take the data you can get and improve overall survivability. - FKnight, on 01/01/2009, -1/+11@logandurand: You're right. We're better off not knowing about hurricanes until they've already destroyed a population center. And GPS? ***** that, we don't need it. Let people in boats and ships get lost or hit icebergs. Let airline pilots use graph paper and a ruler. And we sure as ***** don't need to know when someone launches a nuke at someone.
- Wargala, on 01/01/2009, -2/+11Don't worry, the rest of Digg will find a way to blame Bush
- 12916studios, on 01/01/2009, -0/+9Forty seconds might not seem very long, but when you consider that everything slows down when you are that close to death, when danger is that near, it is a lifetime. Honestly, just sit wherever you are with your eyes closed, imagining yourself in their shoes, and then try count to out forty seconds.
I doubt that you will make it all the way if you truly attempt to immerse yourself in that terror. I know I wouldn't. I won't even try. Because what they went through...what they felt...it's inconceivable where I'm sitting.
May they rest in peace, wherever they are now. - charlietuna, on 01/01/2009, -1/+10Just NASA being thorough. Identify everything that could be improved. It's not news, just GEP (Good Engineering Practice).
- r0g3r, on 01/01/2009, -0/+9Read the report and get back to us.
- triont, on 01/01/2009, -0/+8***** you.
- FKnight, on 01/01/2009, -1/+9They figured out what exactly happened within weeks or months of the accident. This is a more detailed and researched report -- those take time ... unless you want them to be inaccurate and poorly researched.
- Ajajadude, on 01/01/2009, -0/+8More like having those steel toes when a steel beam falls on your head: in the end, your toes would be fine, but you'd be dead.
- FKnight, on 01/01/2009, -0/+8Just because you are either too lazy or too illiterate to read the report doesn't mean it doesn't say anything.
- r0g3r, on 01/01/2009, -0/+8Actually, what the report says is that the initial depressurization of the crew cabin would have rendered them unconscious or dead very quickly. The report characterizes this as a "lethal event"
The further trauma induced by the helmet and restraint failures was done to either the unconscious or dead bodies of the astronauts according to the report. Even had these measures had any effect on crew survivability, exposure to re-entry heat and conditions and crashing into the ground would have killed them.
The purpose of the report is to make all of these systems better for future crews in future spacecraft, not to put the blame on equipment like seat harnesses and helmets. It seems a lot of people commenting on this haven't read it, even the ones writing articles about it in major publications. - RogerStrong, on 01/01/2009, -0/+8On a new Shuttle program, every dollar would get spent here on earth. Almost all of it would go to high-paying, highly taxed jobs. The government would "get back a significant portion" in this case too.
- Richandler, on 01/01/2009, -0/+7Haha, man you're gullible.
- huff51, on 01/01/2009, -2/+9unless you want to see a dick, dont click link
- drewgibs, on 01/01/2009, -1/+7but what about the ozone! ....no seriously? what ever happened to the "hole in the ozone" scare with CFCs?....oh that was so 1990s now we're talking about carbon footprints, thats right
- Ajajadude, on 01/01/2009, -2/+7Apparently, astronauts living a few seconds longer in sheer terror and knowing they will die should always be an option.
- dexter411, on 01/01/2009, -0/+5Without NASA, countless inventions would have never hit the US markets (or would have been developed abroad first). That's real capital that space exploration creates.
- dexter411, on 01/01/2009, -1/+6And who needs long distance telecommunications or cordless tools? Not me!
- r0g3r, on 01/01/2009, -1/+6Right, there are conceivable scenarios where the seat harnesses and helmets could save the astronauts, and rarely are designers given this kind of hard data on how well they work in real crisis situations.
A lot of people completely misunderstand this report's conclusions and purpose, and I suspect it has to do with a lack of reading of the actual materials. - onefix, on 01/01/2009, -0/+5Yea, but I think the fact that NASA has plans to complete the final planned shuttle mission (STS-133) with a commercial launch vehicle if it isn't ready by then and the fact that they have begun the sale of the decommissioned shuttles means they don't plan on running the shuttle past 2010. The airframes of the 3 remaining shuttles might still be flight worthy, but the problem is that many of their other components have not aged well.
Atlantis (the second oldest shuttle of the 3) has helium and nitrogen gas tanks originally designed for 10 years of service that are now 22 years old. NASA is afraid that they could burst at full pressure, so they have decided to keep them at 80% until the last minute before launch. This particular problem is known to exist on Atlantis, but it is entirely likely that it also exists on Discovery (about the same age...actually slightly older).
Another sign that they don't plan to launch the shuttle after STS-133 is that there are now plans to leave the Orbiter Boom Sensor System permanently connected to the space station after STS-133.
For the 4 years between the final shuttle flight and the first flight of the Orion, NASA will use commercial launch vehicles to get cargo into space and we will continue to hitch a ride with the Russians on the Soyuz to get astronauts into space. - Andrewbot, on 01/01/2009, -0/+5That is why they are being retired in 2010, new designs are being drawn up right now iirc.
- daeus, on 01/01/2009, -0/+5so very sad but intriguing data, continue the space race!
- justanotherday, on 01/01/2009, -1/+5Also consider, though, that they were probably trying to save the situation or at least figure out what was happening. Data shows that McCool was flipping switches to restart the APU's to regain hydraulics and that computer inputs were being recorded from the commander's seat. They were obviously "working the problem" in those last seconds unaware that they were losing their left wing and left OMS pod at the time. I think that the time probably zipped by for them as they tried to process the master alarms and stability issues to figure out what was going on.
So, yes, if you sit there silently for forty seconds doing nothing it can seem to take a while. But if you're busy doing things and thinking, and trying to figure something out in goes by really, really fast. In the end, I think they died completely unaware of what had happened. - RogerStrong, on 01/01/2009, -1/+5Thanks for yet another retarded lie from Rush Limbaugh, parroted by Fox News. Give yourself a cookie.
The particular section that broke off had been built using Freon, before NASA stopped using it to make that part of the external tank's insulation
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508090007 - purplesawdust, on 01/01/2009, -0/+4It's like dropping something on your foot, a steel toe shoe would make it painless and a regular shoe would make it hurt. But not as badly as not having shoes on at all.
- Ajajadude, on 01/01/2009, -0/+4Well, even that's in limbo at the moment.
- justanotherday, on 01/01/2009, -0/+4Actually, NASA's original plans for the shuttle foresaw flights on what would amount to a bi-weekly schedule by 1989. The 2010 date is arbitrary, really. Before the "Vision for Space Exploration" program was announced NASA was planning on the shuttle through 2030.
Yes, Columbia was the oldest (22 years in service when it was destroyed) in the fleet but it terms of flight hours it was nowhere near any limits that would make it unreliable or dangerous in the sense of age or wear being any sort of factor.
None of them are beyond their designed lifespans. - FKnight, on 01/01/2009, -0/+4It's the "new media." Knee-jerk commenting on stuff that hasn't even been read.
- justanotherday, on 01/01/2009, -0/+3You're absolutely right. The goal from this is to learn how to make things better for the future. In the end it's probably best that they didn't "close and lock visors" because it probably meant they were already dead before the *really* bad stuff happened. And, as the report takes pains to point out, it was an unsurvivable incident anyway, the equipment "failures" would not have made any real difference anyway. But the data can be applied to future engineering projects meaning the crew did not die in vain.
- tgc1, on 01/01/2009, -1/+3Now you see, if we weren't so busy pissing away billions of dollars on useless wars, we could have spent a small fraction that money on a new shuttle and retired that one when it should have been. Saving 7 very intelligent people their lives. Oh well, I guess i'm too optimistic.
Hell, we could have already had bases on the moon and mars if it weren't for these stupid ***** wars. - digga1301, on 01/02/2009, -0/+2They knowingly choose to work in a very dangerous field in the pursuit of science. No, they never jumped in front of a bullet, but they died for the advancement of the human race.
- dexter411, on 01/01/2009, -0/+2Media Matters has a tendency to be a left-wing mouthpiece... but it looks like it's right in this case. Interesting stuff.
- digga1301, on 01/02/2009, -0/+2Google + Wikipedia
Digg does not exist to do your research for you. - PixelPusher74, on 01/02/2009, -0/+2I'm just saying that dying is tragic rather than heroic. Throwing around the word hero (which you didn't do, but emh924a did) in places where it doesn't fit cheapens the meaning of the word.
- PixelPusher74, on 01/02/2009, -0/+2Research isn't a substitute for dialogue, debate etc. Google and Wiki just won't be able to answer my question: Are the lost lives and money spent worth the gains we've made?
- logandurand, on 01/01/2009, -0/+2My problem is with crap like mars rovers, not satellites. I don't see any return on my investment from these things.
- FlyingCaveman, on 01/04/2009, -0/+2Would people read this article about interstellar distances http://www.popsci.com/node/23475 before they start going on about the virtues of space exploration. You will realize its just not practical. The space shuttle program has become a government subsidized joy-ride. They justify it by flying a kindergarten level science project on each mission. Yes, beans will sprout in zero-gravity. Yeah!
Don't get me wrong, I would go up in the space shuttle in a second. Where do I sign up? -
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is