FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-01-2003, 08:34 AM   #21
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 136
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Principia
Now they're talking about the impact on the International Space Station w/o a working shuttle fleet (most of which will probably be grounded while this investigation is going on, anyway). The ripples grow.
It's really unlikely that the space shuttle missions will stop. The ISS needs a crew i don' think that it would be save not to have a crew on the ISS. Plus there are people there now.
seesaw is offline  
Old 02-01-2003, 09:06 AM   #22
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 282
Default

They can't stop...

There are two astronauts manning the ISS right now.

EDIT: Sorry, it's three...
enigma555 is offline  
Old 02-01-2003, 09:42 AM   #23
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,234
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by enigma555
They can't stop...

There are two astronauts manning the ISS right now.
Thank goodness it was a NASA space shuttle, though--otherwise I might care.
Totalitarianist is offline  
Old 02-01-2003, 09:49 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Chicago
Posts: 774
Default

This incident, as tragic as it is, should not be viewed as a reason for abandoning our spaee program. After all, this is only the second major tragedy in the shuttle program's history. NASA has an excellent track record considering how dangerous space travel really is. It might be better to view this incident as a reason always to take our vulnerability into account in our scientific endeavors and not to allow our hubris, in our ability to achieve technological progress without cognizance of the serious risks and problems that can arise along the way, to overtake us.

John Phillip Brooks
jpbrooks is offline  
Old 02-01-2003, 10:43 AM   #25
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: I've left FRDB for good, due to new WI&P policy
Posts: 12,048
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Principia
Damn it. Twice in my lifetime... this is all so wrong.
It's three for my lifetime. Almost four. I was 5 years old when Apollo 1 caught fire on the launchpad. I don't recall that accident, but I do vividly remember watching TV to learn the fate of Apollo 13 in April of 1970. By that time, I was 8 years old, and was very enthusiastic about the space program. I had a Major Matt Mason action figure and his lunar tractor toy.

I was in the USN out at sea when Challenger exploded in 1986. The ship was doing exercises off the coast of Southern California, but the captain brought us close enough to shore to pick up the civilian TV broadcasts about the disaster. I cried then, and I couldn't hold back the tears this time either.

There's an another difficulty with the ISS beyond the fact that there is a crew of three on board. The ISS hasn't yet received its own propulsion unit. It requires periodic visits from the shuttle so the shuttle's engines can be used to boost the orbit of the ISS, or the orbit will decay fairly rapidly.
Autonemesis is offline  
Old 02-01-2003, 10:44 AM   #26
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sundsvall, Sweden
Posts: 3,159
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Totalitarianist
Thank goodness it was a NASA space shuttle, though--otherwise I might care.
Do you realize how insensitive and inappropriate that sort of comment is? Grow up.
Eudaimonist is offline  
Old 02-01-2003, 11:05 AM   #27
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com
Posts: 2,829
Default

Wasn't VP Al Gore pushing very hard for the space plane follow-on to the Shuttle? And didn't Bush cancel the programme soon after taking office?

NASA has a bunch of not very pleasant choices here - either it gives up the manned programme or it bleeds the rest of NASA dry to replace Columbia - and the ISS was already causing a lot of that bleeding as it was.
Albion is offline  
Old 02-01-2003, 11:15 AM   #28
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 2,214
Angry

Quote:
Originally posted by Totalitarianist
Thank goodness it was a NASA space shuttle, though--otherwise I might care.
Not cool, dude.
Abacus is offline  
Old 02-01-2003, 11:17 AM   #29
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 2,214
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Eudaimonist
Do you realize how insensitive and inappropriate that sort of comment is? Grow up.
Yes, I think he knows. That was very deliberate.
Abacus is offline  
Old 02-01-2003, 11:40 AM   #30
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Norfolk, VA, USA
Posts: 219
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Secular Pinoy
I recall that Feynmann was involved with the investigation of the Challenger mission. We could really use his no-nonesense approach right now.
His was the first name that came to mind when they mentioned the investigation. I can imagine that piecing together information to figure out the cause is going to take a lot of time and a lot of talent...if it's even possible at all.
DamagedGoods is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:50 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.