Shuttle Columbia

[pv=nrt]

pollux- thank you for stereotyping 290 million people.

also the space shuttles are dangerous. they are technology that is on the edge, while at the same time being pushed harder and further than anything. so yes things will fail. your car is far from the edge of tech but it stills fails.

about the scientist
1)scientist are full of shit, engineers know what they are talking about
2)some people who work for NASA and other high risk places will literally on purpose say they shouldnt do it and make a memo on it, just in case something goes wrong.
3)safety is a top priority with nasa. show me proof of the firing for being too safe.

[PolluX]

I am just saying that NASA tried to cover up the high risk involved the colombia.
The scientist (engineers as pv=nrt like to call them) told NASA the Colombia shouldn't fly anymore.
The scrapped left-wing, which NASA think was the cause of this tragedy, is just a fairy-tale to cover up the misjudge.

Originally posted by pv=nrt

3)safety is a top priority with nasa. show me proof of the firing for being too safe.

hehe
safety top priority?
omg NASA are a leet -letting people believe what they want- organisation.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

We should all listen to Pollux and his aerospace engineering degree.

You do have a degree in aerospace engineering, right Pollux?

[Reepicheep]

WOAH THATS FAST!!! A HEE HEE LETS GO TO SEE ALIESN!

[Zerzera]

Funny... it reminds me of someone asking about US bombing some Canadian troops because this was nowhere in the news... but when a spaceshuttle crashes it is still front page news in the Netherlands 3 days later... Wicked!
Like it's normal to bomb allies and a crashing space shuttle would like be the last thing could happen...

[Superted]

Originally posted by Reepicheep

lmao, i wonder if that was an accident or stupidity

[Bioture]

Letsee... the challenger, that thing they sent to mars that fucked up because they forgot to use the metric system, the hubble telescope that needed a contact lens, and now this.

My point being, NASA is incompetent. I would rather see my tax dollars build more missles that will probably never be used.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

And I suppose none of the detractors have never made any mistakes before, right?

Let's put it this way. Even doing something as "simple" as putting a shuttle in orbit is fucking ridiculously complicated. I don't think the people that are ripping on NASA are taking that into account. The are so many systems and subsystems that work in chorus together it would make any normal person's head spin. The space shuttle alone has 2.5 million parts, including about 230 miles of wire, 1,060 plumbing valves and connections, over 1,440 circuit breakers, and more than 27,000 insulating tiles and thermal blankets. How many other countries/private investors do we see with this kind of capability? None? Oh yeah, I forgot.

And let's talk about safety. Since 1992, improvements to the main engines and other systems have reduced the estimated risks during launch by over 80 percent. And the number of all actual problems experienced by the shuttle in flight has decreased by 70 percent. And in 42 years of space flight, there had never been a fatal accident on reentry. But you guys are totally right, they're fucked on safety, and they don't know what they're doing at all.

You're being so fucking jaded on this topic it's not even funny. Most of you probably grew up in the post-Challenger world, where shuttle launches were secondary in the news to accounts of celebrity marriages and government scandal. Sure, you may have heard about something that was done on so-and-so mission, but you probably never gave it too much thought, thinking it as "just one of those things."

Complicated systems fail--it's a fact of life as sure as death and taxes (as our yankee asses will tell you). I deal with it every day, helping run one of the most advanced simulators in the world. It happens. You learn from it and move on. It's tragic when things like this happen, but as any explorer would tell you, exploration isn't (and has never been) an easy venture.

Each and every astronaut that has ever been sent up has broke some sort of new ground, breached some barrier that was "impossible" up until his/her moment. We take it for granted that we're able to witness our generation's Vasco DeGama, Meriwether Lewis, or William Clark. We're sending people into an environment that was never meant to harbor life. That, in itself, is a noble task.

So stop dropping morals and hindsight told-you-so's, because it's fruitless and helps nobody. Either support the train or get your naysaying ass off the fucking track.

[pv=nrt]

wow conc. booya is all i got left.

[Troll King]

I read an interesting article that questioned the purpose of NASA at the current time. While once, the thought of space captivated people with dreams of space exploration, there has been little exploration since the moon landings. The purpose of most shuttle launches right now is either to perform experiments that cannot be performed on Earth and to service space stations where other similar experiments are held. The writer questioned the purpose of these experiments against the risk. And while the following statistic he listed is probably more startling than it should be, he stated that there have been a hundred some-odd shuttle launches and two disasters, making a 1 in 50 failure rate. That's not that assuring a number. The writer questioned whether those odds are worth the risk for the experiments being conducted.

[TelC@t]

Originally posted by ConcreteSchlyrd
The space shuttle alone has 2.5 million parts, including about 230 miles of wire, 1,060 plumbing valves and connections, over 1,440 circuit breakers, and more than 27,000 insulating tiles and thermal blankets. How many other countries/private investors do we see with this kind of capability?

Originally posted by Troll King
And while the following statistic he listed is probably more startling than it should be, he stated that there have been a hundred some-odd shuttle launches and two disasters, making a 1 in 50 failure rate. That's not that assuring a number.

It is not 1/50 failure rate, it is 1/50 fatal failure rate ... there is a difference.

There might be 2.5 million parts in a space shuttle, but not all failures will cause fatal accidents.

This was from CBSnews.com:

"NASA has kept the aging shuttle flying, insisting that safety has never been compromised. Others, however, worry that cuts in the shuttle budget, some 40 percent since 1990, have gone too far. "

"Sam Beddingfield was among the first employees in the Shuttle program. He says the heat absorbing tiles were long viewed as vulnerable, but an alternative metal system proved too expensive"

So who was to blame

[pv=nrt]

truthfully? most likely no single person or decision. it was probably a build up of choices that lead to what we saw. It's the way a lot of technological disasters happen.

[stark]

Yeah, so this thread kinda died, but I was just thinking. A little while ago, on yahoo news it said "Afghanistan: 9 civilians dead in U.S. bombing" or something amongst those lines. And yet, that was there (on the front of Yahoo.com) for less than half a day. These 9, innocent, people did nothing but lived their lives. I mean, anyone who goes into space knows there's a risk in doing so... But just living shouldn't be risky. Hell, there's still shit on the news about Columbia, but no one cares about any innocent people over there, who died not even in an accident, do they?

[Blast]

Originally posted by TelC@t
It is not 1/50 failure rate, it is 1/50 fatal failure rate ... there is a difference.

I still don't understand how anyone can be as stupid as TelCat.

[Playback]

she's chinese