Can't say I'm *that* surprised...
Feb. 1st, 2003 11:24 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jay(deep breath)
Looking at the camera footage, there's a disturbance, separation of a large chunk, followed by turbulence and then everything coming apart. The breakup appears to follow a loss of flight controls, presumably due to the initial event. Lots of possibilities for that event. My leading guesses are the failure of a wing or vertical stabilizer due to fatigue (it is 20+ years old, after all... few cycles, but high-stress ones) or overheating (burn-through of the thermal protection tiles or blankets). Another guess would be that residuals in the one of the maneuvering fuel tanks went off and took out part of the skin and the hydraulics. Or, since this was Columbia's second flight since a major overhaul (I saw its 1st flight afterwards, last March) there could have been something unexpected that was related to the upgrades. Probably not software, this time.
I'd shaken hands once with McCool (recalled in part because I thought of "Peanuts" after I saw his name plate), and remember seeing the Indian lady in the halls of Bldg. 4S. Despite the Israeli presence, I *really* doubt terrorism... there were special security and screening measures for this flight, because of that. Timing devices would have been hard to pinpoint, and pressure-triggered devices wouldn't work reliably, either.
It's a terrible tragedy... aswcg said in a comment, a bad day for the good guys. But I would go in a heartbeat, nonetheless, and will resubmit my application at the next call.
My advice to stressed-out folks... turn off the TV. Keep things in perspective... they were volunteers and loved what they were doing. It was a known set of risks. And, as bad at it is... seven lives, compared to hundreds in a commercial airline crash -- which is worse? Really? Shuttles are expensive at $2B/copy, but roughly the same as a B-2 bomber. If a military flight had gone down with its crew, it would be just as tragic for them and their families.
Internal to NASA, there has been a debate over the past several years over the operational lifespan of the current shuttle. They were built in the late 1970s, except for Endeavor. Airliners of the same vintage are being retired now. Over the past two years, I've seen plans calling for shuttle replacement as early as 2007 and as long as 2025. And for the past two or three years, there's been a sense that the law of averages was overdue... over drinks after hours, we'd wonder how much longer we'd go without another major accident. Unofficially, of course... public estimates are of an accident every 80 flights or so. Some argue 1 in 50. In either case, we were over 100 missions with one accident, coming into this one. And operations budgets have been squeezed...
Personally, I've been in favor of proceeding with a next-generation shuttle replacement... but it costs $10B to design a new airliner, double that for a launch vehicle. Space has not been a budget priority, and what there is has gone towards finishing the station. Hence the talk of trying to fly elderly shuttles until 2020. But I think this disaster may force some degree of realism on the folks in DC... the next few months should tell. Sigh.
Looking at the camera footage, there's a disturbance, separation of a large chunk, followed by turbulence and then everything coming apart. The breakup appears to follow a loss of flight controls, presumably due to the initial event. Lots of possibilities for that event. My leading guesses are the failure of a wing or vertical stabilizer due to fatigue (it is 20+ years old, after all... few cycles, but high-stress ones) or overheating (burn-through of the thermal protection tiles or blankets). Another guess would be that residuals in the one of the maneuvering fuel tanks went off and took out part of the skin and the hydraulics. Or, since this was Columbia's second flight since a major overhaul (I saw its 1st flight afterwards, last March) there could have been something unexpected that was related to the upgrades. Probably not software, this time.
I'd shaken hands once with McCool (recalled in part because I thought of "Peanuts" after I saw his name plate), and remember seeing the Indian lady in the halls of Bldg. 4S. Despite the Israeli presence, I *really* doubt terrorism... there were special security and screening measures for this flight, because of that. Timing devices would have been hard to pinpoint, and pressure-triggered devices wouldn't work reliably, either.
It's a terrible tragedy... as
wcg said in a comment, a bad day for the good guys. But I would go in a heartbeat, nonetheless, and will resubmit my application at the next call. My advice to stressed-out folks... turn off the TV. Keep things in perspective... they were volunteers and loved what they were doing. It was a known set of risks. And, as bad at it is... seven lives, compared to hundreds in a commercial airline crash -- which is worse? Really? Shuttles are expensive at $2B/copy, but roughly the same as a B-2 bomber. If a military flight had gone down with its crew, it would be just as tragic for them and their families.
Internal to NASA, there has been a debate over the past several years over the operational lifespan of the current shuttle. They were built in the late 1970s, except for Endeavor. Airliners of the same vintage are being retired now. Over the past two years, I've seen plans calling for shuttle replacement as early as 2007 and as long as 2025. And for the past two or three years, there's been a sense that the law of averages was overdue... over drinks after hours, we'd wonder how much longer we'd go without another major accident. Unofficially, of course... public estimates are of an accident every 80 flights or so. Some argue 1 in 50. In either case, we were over 100 missions with one accident, coming into this one. And operations budgets have been squeezed...
Personally, I've been in favor of proceeding with a next-generation shuttle replacement... but it costs $10B to design a new airliner, double that for a launch vehicle. Space has not been a budget priority, and what there is has gone towards finishing the station. Hence the talk of trying to fly elderly shuttles until 2020. But I think this disaster may force some degree of realism on the folks in DC... the next few months should tell. Sigh.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-02-01 04:49 pm (UTC)And, like you, I'm hoping that this forces a bit more realism on the folks in D.C. to really look at the Shuttle program and cut loose a good deal more money towards research, development and building of the next-gen Shuttle orbiters.
And I devoutly hope that this doesn't cause our Elected Officials to tuck tails between legs and stop space exploration entirely.
A sad day, indeed.
Requiescat im pace, STS-107 crew...and congratulations on a job well-done.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-01 06:20 pm (UTC)And some Congressthings are already saying that NASA shouldn't expect to see significant budget changes, not enough to replace the shuttles. Maybe not even enough to replace Columbia.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-01 06:46 pm (UTC)Goddamnit. :(
no subject
Date: 2003-02-01 10:52 pm (UTC)Seconded, in spades.
Perhaps they think if there was a working space program that they weren't slashing the legs out from under, there might be enough popular support to warrant sending the entire Congress up into space and introducing them to EVA...minus suits.
*shakes head frustratedly*
"Meanwhile, on Earth, another million people were born today..."
One wonders how much longer the Lady's gonna hold up to this sort of stress.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-02 03:15 am (UTC)A simple replacement is not the best thing to do.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-03 11:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-02-02 03:22 am (UTC)The sad thing is that that programme probably cannot be resurrected now, because the engineering team has been dispersed to the four winds.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-03 11:58 pm (UTC)