3 replies to this topic

[camay2327]

 (What a tragic accident) Our condolances:


Columbia was at an altitude of 200,700 feet over north-central Texas at a 9 a.m., traveling at 12,500 mph when mission control lost contact and tracking data.

       ACROSS TEXAS and New Mexico, explosions were reported to local law enforcement authorities and news agencies. In Dallas, NBC News’ Jim Cummins reported that a loud explosion was heard at about the same time NASA lost contact with the spacecraft — a time when the shuttle was flying at 200,700 feet, traveling at 12,500 mph.
       Soon after that, witnesses say, what appeared to be a spacecraft plummeted to Earth, disintegrating in flames along the way.
       Janet Smith-Bozart, who was driving near Dallas, saw what is believed to be the shuttle’s descent and described it to MSNBC.
       “I thought at first it might be a meteor coming into the atmosphere and then I realized it was much too big and much too slow for that,” she said. “Essentially the entire thing just broke apart and the whole thing just disappeared. ... Eventually it just sort of faded and there was no more contrail or anything.”
       Explosions were widely reported across Texas.
       “It was like a car hitting the house or an explosion. It shook that much,” John Ferolito, 60, of Carrolton, north of Dallas, told the Associated Press.
       
SUDDEN DISAPPEARANCE
       Columbia had been scheduled to land at 9:16 a.m. It was the 113th flight in the shuttle program’s 22 years and the 28th flight for Columbia, NASA oldest shuttle. In 42 years of human space flight, NASA has never lost a space crew during landing or the ride back to orbit, though in 1986, space shuttle Challenger exploded shortly after liftoff.
       Mission control lost both voice and radar communication with the shuttle several minutes before it’s expected landing time.
       “A contingency for the space shuttle has been declared,” Mission Control declared after attempts to reestablish contact failed. Soon afterward, mission control began warning the public that debris from such a crash could be hazardous.
       NASA also ordered flight controllers to pull out emergency procedures and ordered them to retain all their records, presumably the first step toward securing evidence for a subsequent incident investigation.
       Inside Mission Control, flight controllers hovered in front of their computers, staring at the screens. The wives, husbands and children of the astronauts who had been waiting at the landing strip were gathered together by NASA and taken to separate place.
       
GIRDING FOR THE WORST
       Family members of the shuttle crew, which included the first even Israeli astronaut, were gathered in by NASA officials at the Kennedy Space Center.

Advertisement



       The Pentagon and Joint Chiefs of Staff are convening a “domestic event conference” for any possible response to the Columbia incident, NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski reported. President Bush is spending the weekend at Camp David, Maryland and was expected to speak later Saturday.
       An official of the Department of Homeland Security, speaking on condition of anonymity, told NBC News that there is no indication that terrorism might have been involved.
       Security had been tight for the 16-day scientific research mission because of the presence of Ilan Ramon, the first Israeli astronaut.
       Ramon, a colonel in Israel’s air force and former fighter pilot, became the first man from his country to fly in space, and his presence resulted in an increase in security, not only for Columbia’s launch, but also for its planned landing. Space agency officials feared his presence might make the shuttle more of a terrorist target.
       Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s office said it had no immediate comment.
       Columbia’s crew had completed 80-plus scientific research experiments during their time in orbit.
       Just in the last week, NASA observed the anniversary of its only two other space tragedies, the Challenger explosion, which killed all seven astronauts on board, and Apollo space craft fire that killed three on Jan. 27, 1967.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strictly science

Columbia conducts 24/7 space science and features the first Israeli astronaut. Click to learn about the crew:

Rick Husband has just one other space flight under his belt and already he’s flying as commander. That’s a rarity. "I think a lot of it has to do with being in the right place at the right time, for starters," says Husband, 45, an Air Force colonel from Amarillo, Texas. The former test pilot was selected as an astronaut in 1994 on his fourth try. Space flight has been his lifelong passion, along with singing. Husband, a baritone, has barbershop quartet experience and has been singing in church choirs for years.William McCool says one of the most nerve-racking parts of training was learning to draw blood — from others. Columbia’s two pilots are exempted from invasive medical tests in orbit, like blood draws. That means he and his commander have to draw blood from their crewmates. McCool felt bad practicing on volunteers. "I didn’t want to inflict pain," he recalls. The Navy commander and former test pilot became an astronaut in 1996. This is the first space flight for McCool, 41, who grew up in Lubbock, Texas.Michael Anderson loves flying, both in aircraft and spacecraft, but he dislikes being launched. It’s the risk factor. "There’s always that unknown," he says. Anderson, 43, the son of an Air Force man, grew up on military bases. He was flying for the Air Force when NASA chose him in 1994 as one of only a handful of black astronauts. He traveled to Russia’s Mir space station in 1998. He is now a lieutenant colonel and in charge of Columbia’s dozens of science experiments. His home is Spokane, Wash.Kalpana Chawla wanted to design aircraft when she emigrated to the United States from India in the 1980s. The space program was the furthest thing from her mind. But "one thing led to another," the 41-year-old engineer said, and she was chosen as an astronaut in 1994. On her only other space flight, in 1996, Chawla made mistakes that sent a satellite tumbling out of control, and two spacewalkers had to go out and capture it. She realizes some may see this flight as her chance to redeem herself.David Brown is a Navy novelty: He’s both a jet pilot and a doctor. He’s also probably the only NASA astronaut to have worked as a circus acrobat. (It was a summer job during college.) He says what he learned about "the teamwork and the safety and the staying focused" has carried over to his space job. He joined the Navy after his medical internship, and his current rank is captain. NASA chose him as an astronaut in 1996. This is the 46-year-old Virginia native's first space flight.Laurel Clark, a Navy physician who worked undersea, likens the numerous launch delays to a marathon in which the finish line keeps moving out five miles. "You’ve got to slow back down and maintain a pace," she says. The 41-year-old Clark was a diving medical officer aboard submarines and then a naval flight surgeon. She became an astronaut in 1996. Clark will help with Columbia’s science experiments, which should have flown almost two years ago. Her hometown is Racine, Wis.Ilan Ramon, a colonel in Israel’s air force, is the first Israeli to be launched into space. "It’s a very symbolic mission," he says. His mother and grandmother survived the Auschwitz death camp, and his father was a Zionist who fought for Israel’s statehood. The astronaut also fought for his country, in the Yom Kippur War in 1973 and the Lebanon War in 1982. Ramon, 48, was selected as an astronaut in 1997 and moved to Houston in 1998 to train for a shuttle flight. He calls Tel Aviv home.

Source: The Associated Press
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Printable version
       
       Columbia would be the second shuttle to be lost during a mission. On Jan. 28, 1986, seven crew members, including a New Hampshire schoolteacher, lost their lives in the explosion of the shuttle Challenger just after liftoff.
       The disaster, which nearly ended the shuttle program, occurred seventy-three seconds after the shuttle lifted off. The spacecraft disintegrated in the sky and all crew members, including New Hampshire teacher Christa McAuliffe, were killed while millions watched on live television.
       A series of investigations ultimately determined that a gas leak in the right booster rocket was blamed for the Challenger blast. In the explosion, the crew module separated intact from the fireball, went into a 2½-minute free fall from 50,000 feet and plunged into the sea.
       McAuliffe was selected from among more than 11,000 teachers who applied for the Challenger mission. She was chosen by NASA in 1984 and took a leave of absence that fall to train for the mission.
       NASA put the shuttle program on hold after the Challenger accident until 1988. The agency has put the odds of a catastrophic accident during launch — the most dangerous part of any shuttle mission — at 1 in 438.
       
       
       The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

[john]

terrible news... my heart goes out to their families.

[cybertrano]

It's another sad tragic day for the country and for NASA. Space exploration is a very dangerous business. Astronauts are heroes. They are the best and the brightest.

[cybertrano]

this is from TIME Magazine, and I could not agree more. Good article:



The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped

It's costly, outmoded, impractical and, as we've learned again, deadly


By Gregg Easterbrook


Posted Sunday, February 2, 2002; 10:31 a.m. EST
A spacecraft is a metaphor of national inspiration: majestic, technologically advanced, produced at dear cost and entrusted with precious cargo, rising above the constraints of the earth. The spacecraft carries our secret hope that there is something better out there—a world where we may someday go and leave the sorrows of the past behind. The spacecraft rises toward the heavens exactly as, in our finest moments as a nation, our hearts have risen toward justice and principle. And when, for no clear reason, the vessel crumbles, as it did in 1986 with Challenger and last week with Columbia, we falsely think the promise of America goes with it.

Unfortunately, the core problem that lay at the heart of the Challenger tragedy applies to the Columbia tragedy as well. That core problem is the space shuttle itself. For 20 years, the American space program has been wedded to a space-shuttle system that is too expensive, too risky, too big for most of the ways it is used, with budgets that suck up funds that could be invested in a modern system that would make space flight cheaper and safer. The space shuttle is impressive in technical terms, but in financial terms and safety terms no project has done more harm to space exploration. With hundreds of launches to date, the American and Russian manned space programs have suffered just three fatal losses in flight—and two were space-shuttle calamities. This simply must be the end of the program.

Will the much more expensive effort to build a manned International Space Station end too?

In cost and justification, it's as dubious as the shuttle. The two programs are each other's mirror images. The space station was conceived mainly to give the shuttle a destination, and the shuttle has been kept flying mainly to keep the space station serviced. Three crew members—Expedition Six, in NASA argot—remain aloft on the space station. Probably a Russian rocket will need to go up to bring them home. The wisdom of replacing them seems dubious at best. This second shuttle loss means NASA must be completely restructured—if not abolished and replaced with a new agency with a new mission.

Why did NASA stick with the space shuttle so long?

Though the space shuttle is viewed as futuristic, its design is three decades old. The shuttle's main engines, first tested in the late 1970s, use hundreds more moving parts than do new rocket-motor designs. The fragile heat-dissipating tiles were designed before breakthroughs in materials science. Until recently, the flight-deck computers on the space shuttle used old 8086 chips from the early 1980s, the sort of pre-Pentium electronics no self-respecting teenager would dream of using for a video game.

Most important, the space shuttle was designed under the highly unrealistic assumption that the fleet would fly to space once a week and that each shuttle would need to be big enough to carry 50,000 lbs. of payload. In actual use, the shuttle fleet has averaged five flights a year; this year flights were to be cut back to four. The maximum payload is almost never carried. Yet to accommodate the highly unrealistic initial goals, engineers made the shuttle huge and expensive. The Soviet space program also built a shuttle, called Buran, with almost exactly the same dimensions and capacities as its American counterpart. Buran flew to orbit once and was canceled, as it was ridiculously expensive and impractical.

Capitalism, of course, is supposed to weed out such inefficiencies. But in the American system, the shuttle's expense made the program politically attractive. Originally projected to cost $5 million per flight in today's dollars, each shuttle launch instead runs to around $500 million. Aerospace contractors love the fact that the shuttle launches cost so much.

In two decades of use, shuttles have experienced an array of problems—engine malfunctions, damage to the heat-shielding tiles—that have nearly produced other disasters. Seeing this, some analysts proposed that the shuttle be phased out, that cargo launches be carried aboard by far cheaper, unmanned, throwaway rockets and that NASA build a small "space plane" solely for people, to be used on those occasions when men and women are truly needed in space.

Throwaway rockets can fail too. Last month a French-built Ariane exploded on lift-off. No one cared, except the insurance companies that covered the payload, because there was no crew aboard. NASA's insistence on sending a crew on every shuttle flight means risking precious human life for mindless tasks that automated devices can easily carry out. Did Israeli astronaut Ilan Ramon really have to be there to push a couple of buttons on the Mediterranean Israeli Dust Experiment, the payload package he died to accompany to space?
Switching to unmanned rockets for payload launching and a small space plane for those rare times humans are really needed would cut costs, which is why aerospace contractors have lobbied against such reform. Boeing and Lockheed Martin split roughly half the shuttle business through an Orwellian-named consortium called the United Space Alliance. It's a source of significant profit for both companies; United Space Alliance employs 6,400 contractor personnel for shuttle launches alone. Many other aerospace contractors also benefit from the space-shuttle program.

Any new space system that reduced costs would be, to the contractors, killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Just a few weeks ago, NASA canceled a program called the Space Launch Initiative, whose goal was to design a much cheaper and more reliable replacement for the shuttle. Along with the cancellation, NASA announced that the shuttle fleet would remain in operation until 2020, meaning that Columbia was supposed to continue flying into outer space even when its airframe was more than 40 years old! True, B-52s have flown as long. But they don't endure three times the force of gravity on takeoff and 2000° on re-entry.

A rational person might have laughed out loud at the thought that although school buses are replaced every decade, a spaceship was expected to remain in service for 40 years. Yet the "primes," as NASA's big contractors are known, were overjoyed when the Space Launch Initiative was canceled because it promised them lavish shuttle payments indefinitely. Of course, the contractors also worked hard to make the shuttle safe. But keeping prices up was a higher priority than having a sensible launch system.

Will NASA whitewash problems as it did after Challenger?

The haunting fact of Challenger was that engineers who knew about the booster-joint problem begged NASA not to launch that day and were ignored. Later the Rogers Commission, ordered to get to the bottom of things, essentially recommended that nothing change. No NASA manager was fired; no safety systems were added to the solid rocket boosters whose explosion destroyed Challenger; no escape-capsule system was added to get astronauts out in a calamity, which might have helped Columbia. In return for failure, the shuttle program got a big budget increase. Post-Challenger "reforms" were left up to the very old-boy network that had created the problem in the first place and that benefited from continuing high costs.

Concerned foremost with budget politics, Congress too did its best to whitewash. Large manned-space-flight centers that depend on the shuttle are in Texas, Ohio, Florida and Alabama. Congressional delegations from these states fought frantically against a shuttle replacement. The result was years of generous funding for constituents—and now another tragedy.

The tough questions that have gone unasked about the space shuttle have also gone unasked about the space station, which generates billions in budget allocations for California, Texas, Ohio, Florida and other states. Started in 1984 and originally slated to cost $14 billion in today's dollars, the space station has already cost at least $35 billion—not counting billions more for launch costs—and won't be finished until 2008. The bottled water alone that crews use aboard the space station costs taxpayers almost half a million dollars a day. (No, that is not a misprint.) There are no scientific experiments aboard the space station that could not be done far more cheaply on unmanned probes. The only space-station research that does require crew is "life science," or studying the human body's response to space. Space life science is useful but means astronauts are on the station mainly to take one another's pulse, a pretty marginal goal for such an astronomical price.

What is next for America in space?

An outsider commission is needed to investigate the Columbia accident—and must report to the President, not Congress, since Congress has shown itself unable to think about anything but pork barrel when it comes to space programs.

For 20 years, the cart has been before the horse in U.S. space policy. NASA has been attempting complex missions involving many astronauts without first developing an affordable and dependable means to orbit. The emphasis now must be on designing an all-new system that is lower priced and reliable. And if human space flight stops for a decade while that happens, so be it. Once there is a cheaper and safer way to get people and cargo into orbit, talk of grand goals might become reality. New, less-expensive throwaway rockets would allow NASA to launch more space probes—the one part of the program that is constantly cost-effective. An affordable means to orbit might make possible a return to the moon for establishment of a research base and make possible the long-dreamed-of day when men and women set foot on Mars. But no grand goal is possible while NASA relies on the super-costly, dangerous shuttle.

In 1986 the last words transmitted from Challenger were in the valiant vow: "We are go at throttle up!" This meant the crew was about to apply maximum thrust, which turned out to be a fatal act. In the coming days, we will learn what the last words from Columbia were. Perhaps they too will reflect the valor and optimism shown by astronauts of all nations. It is time NASA and the congressional committees that supervise the agency demonstrated a tiny percentage of the bravery shown by the men and women who fly to space—by canceling the money-driven shuttle program and replacing it with something that makes sense.

Gregg Easterbrook is a senior editor of the New Republic and a visiting fellow of the Brookings Institution. Five years before Challenger, he wrote in the Washington Monthly that the shuttles' solid rocket boosters were not safe.