OT: Shuttle Breaks Up During Re-Entry - Page 5

DavidG · #41 February 2nd, 2003, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Arkcon:
Several yrs ago a soyuz landed flawlessly, with a crew of dead cosmonauts -- oxygen leak.

Wasn't that like 30 years ago? And the only failure of Soyuz on reentry? I don't know near enough about the space program to know which is safer. Only that a shuttle launch is not required.

Ruatha · #42 February 2nd, 2003, 09:02 PM

The Last time some one died in the Russian space program was 1971 if my memory is correct.
So I'd trust them anyday to send me up, I'd jump at the chance directly.

tbontob · #43 February 2nd, 2003, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ruatha:
The Last time some one died in the Russian space program was 1971 if my memory is correct.
So I'd trust them anyday to send me up, I'd jump at the chance directly.

I'd jump at any chance to go up.

Including the French new booster that blew up a few months ago. Providing, of course, they had a capsul capable of supporting a human.

And in spite of the catastrophe yesterday, one of the shuttles.

oleg · #44 February 3rd, 2003, 01:15 AM

Yes, the Last time Russian space programm suffered casualty was in 1971 - parashute did not open in time and crew died on impact. I trust Souz spaceship more than any other, especially because my farther works as a fuel engineer other there

The main problem with Souz as a major transport is not safety but its limited capacity - 3 people and no more than 2.5 tons of cargo. Shuttle can carry 7 people and up to 50 tons,IIRC.

Saturn V was not that powerfull, it could carry about 100 tons on low Earth orbit. The Russian rocket Energia, wich was designed for spaceshuttle Buran could carry 150 tons. Too bad the programm was canceled because of money.

Still, it would require several launches to assemble ISS.

David E. Gervais · #45 February 3rd, 2003, 02:07 AM

2nd edit: Mount St. Helens? Where's that, in Canada?

Mt. Saint Helen's is in the US!

..2001, 2002, 2003! I guess I missinterpreted that one!

Shyrka · #46 February 3rd, 2003, 02:26 AM

All newspapers in Spain show the disaster in its 1st page. How sad. Not only for the U.S., but for all the world

DavidG · #47 February 3rd, 2003, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Gervais:
I really don't think that this time arround it will suffer much of a delay, this time there is the space station, and I know that the astronaughts up there will not be abandonned. They will need supplies and can't stay up there for two years waiting for replacements!

However the shuttle is not necessary to bring them home. They have a Soyuz (sp?) to do that. I also heard a theory they may launch one shuttle just to bring them home if they feel it is safer that the Soyuz

Atrocities · #48 February 3rd, 2003, 03:07 PM

Who can't help but feel a loss here? The Columbia was they icon of the space shuttle fleet and NASA.

The seven astronoughts who were lost died doing what they loved, and I can think of no better way to go to the great beyond then doing it doing something that you love.

Taz-in-Space · #49 February 3rd, 2003, 08:30 PM

I heard in the news about the shuttle. Tragic.
I hope this doesn't hold up the space program too much - it is already under-funded IMO.

At least NASA was more forthcoming with info this time. I guess they learned not to withhold
information too long with the Challenger.

By the way, did anyone catch the mis-information
that someone at NASA tried... it was stated that the pieces could be toxic and not to pick up and handle them. Some fable about fuel contamination. Imagine, 3000 or so degree heat on re-entry and some fool says that this fuel may still be there!

geoschmo · #50 February 3rd, 2003, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Taz-in-Space:
By the way, did anyone catch the mis-information
that someone at NASA tried... it was stated that the pieces could be toxic and not to pick up and handle them. Some fable about fuel contamination. Imagine, 3000 or so degree heat on re-entry and some fool says that this fuel may still be there!

Not some fool, a rocket scientist. It's not mis-information, it's a fact.

To burn the fuel you have to mix it with oxygen. It is not extrodinary at all that measurable amounts of fuel would remain unburned when you consider the speed at which the ship fell apart, and the altitude. Very thin atmosphere at that point.

Pieces were getting blown off and flying off due to Ge forces. Once they got away from the oxygen in the fireball they would burn out from lack of oxygen. Explosions can put out fires as well as ignite them. That's why they use dynamite to stop oil well fires.

EDIT: But beyond that, they weren't saying the hydrazine fuel was the only dangerous substance in the debris. Many chemicals that are toxic are not flamable.

Geoschmo

[ February 03, 2003, 19:05: Message edited by: geoschmo ]