| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| PJK |
Posted - 02/01/2003 : 12:42:04 PM
So sad to hear the news of the space shuttle Columbia breaking up over Texas only minutes before landing in Florida. All seven astronauts were killed.
This has become so common place, I for one forgot how dangerous it really is. I know a lot of people don't like the space program but I find it so facinating and enormously valuable from a research point of view.
I just hope Bush values the lives of our soldiers as much as he does those of the astronauts.
 |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| PJK |
Posted - 02/07/2003 : 11:24:02 PM
Well if anyone starts glowing, all I can say is "Houston, we have a problem" |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 02/07/2003 : 07:17:49 AM
Ahhhhh, I'm sure the radiation isn't harmful to the public, what else would they say. HEHE
Top Secret Piece of Shuttle Sought
by Jon Herskovitz & Judith Crosson
NACOGDOCHES, Texas (Feb. 6) - Heavy rain and sleet over East Texas hampered efforts to recover wreckage from the space shuttle Columbia on Thursday, while an amnesty program for those who looted debris resulted in several pieces being turned in to authorities, local sheriffs said.
Hundreds of National Guardsmen, federal agents and state troopers closely searched in and around the tiny Texas town of Bronson, near the Louisiana border, looking for what was believed to be a top-secret device that fell from the shuttle Columbia when the spacecraft broke apart on Saturday, killing all seven on board.
A report in the Houston Chronicle on Thursday said searchers were looking for a communications device that handled encrypted messages between the shuttle and the ground.
Nacogdoches County Sheriff Thomas Kerss said since U.S. attorneys announced the amnesty program for looted shuttle debris a day earlier, 17 people in his county have come forward to turn in 75 pieces of debris, including what appeared to be a piece of fabric sealed in a jar.
Two people were arrested on Wednesday and charged with stealing shuttle debris. If convicted they could each face up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
U.S. attorneys said they are giving others who may have picked up pieces until 6 p.m. EST on Friday to turn them in free of penalty.
"Since these arrests have been made people are voluntarily surrendering those items," Kerss said. He added that after news of the amnesty hit local TV broadcasts, calls about the policy starting coming into his office at a rate of about one a minute.
He said there have been about 100 looting incidents in his county. "I really don't care why they have in their possession as long as they turn it in," Kerss said, adding his office reassured callers they would not be arrested or prosecuted if they turned in debris by the deadline.
Kerss said the rain has made it difficult for heavy equipment and vehicles to cross wooded areas and pasture land to collect debris.
Tens of thousands of pieces of the shuttle rained down on East Texas and Louisiana when the shuttle disintegrated over the Texas skies.
"Each and every part of the shuttle is an important piece in trying to help NASA solve this mystery as to what occurred," Kerss told a news conference.
EXPLOSIVE BOLTS, TOXIC CHEMICALS FOUND
Texas state environment officials said workers had recovered explosive bolts, designed to go off in emergency situations. They have also found a few areas where dangerous chemicals and low-level radioactive material were released.
Dale Vodak of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality said these incidents did not cause a hazard to the public. The chemicals included small amounts of a material that produces nitric acid and alpha emitters, a radioactive material that is used in most home smoke detectors.
The cold, inclement weather has caused horses used in mounted patrols to become fatigued and led to shorter shifts for the hundreds of people in the Texas countryside spotting and removing shuttle debris, Kerss said.
In the small Texas town of Hemphill, near the Louisiana border, search crews were ordered out of wooded areas near where several significant pieces of the shuttle were found including parts of the fuselage, nose cone and computer circuitry, said Marq Webb, a U.S. Forest Service spokesman.
There were also concerns about hypothermia, and with the area so muddy from the rain, footing on rugged terrain would be less secure, he said.
"We can't control the weather. Our job is to work through the weather as it currently exists," Kerss said.
02/06/03 21:17 ET
Copyright 2003 Reuters Limited. |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 02/07/2003 : 04:11:37 AM
Ahhhh, no wonder I can't get a date!! |
| Saint Jude |
Posted - 02/05/2003 : 8:24:57 PM
quote:
As per usual, I guess my LONG post was glanced over as being to long, so I will repost my comments from it here:
heh, see fluffy size does matter.
|
| Fluffy |
Posted - 02/05/2003 : 2:15:27 PM
As per usual, I guess my LONG post was glanced over as being to long, so I will repost my comments from it here:
Here is my 2 cents on the matter. While it is a tradedy that anyone has to die, these men and women know the risk they are taking and I think they gladly take it. No one drafted them into this job. I can't imagine a better way to die than doing what you love. Who are we to take away their opportunity to explore space, if that is what they want to do. I admire them for their dedication and excitement about a job that has inherently high risks. Hell, walking across the street is risky these days. Should we stop doing that? Bottom line is these folks want to go into space and I think we should let them. I think maybe more precautions and better equipment might be the answer to improving their safety. The irony to me is Dubya's words about the tragedy as he embarks on a task of knowingly sending american soldiers into harms way. Does anyone see the IRONY here? I think if you asked him, he would say the same thing about the soldiers that I have said about the astronauts, but to me it is totally different. Anyway, I found the following story which is what finally got me to post on this subject. Looking forward to hearing more thoughts on this subject.
SEE ABOVE FOR FULL STORY |
| victorwootenfan |
Posted - 02/05/2003 : 11:56:06 AM
flamin moe anyone? |
| CPPJames |
Posted - 02/05/2003 : 09:46:08 AM
I agree for the most part, but I wouldn't say it requires the same amount of attention as a head-on collision on the NJ Turnpike. First of all, we funded that shuttle, we deserve to have an explanation as to what went wrong in our "investment". Secondly, I don't necessarily look at someone as a hero simply because they died in a car crash, they very well may have been...but I know a lot of jerks have died in car crashes too.
These people were definitely heroes, they risked their lives to a far greater extent than someone in a car, for the advancement of human society. I believe that's a noble cause. No more than the soldier that gives his life for his country, however. |
| PJK |
Posted - 02/05/2003 : 12:36:47 AM
Dickey 500- Don't know what shit you were expecting but I thought your comments were right on. I guess my thoughts went more to our soldiers than reg. people on our highways, but you are right non the less.
Last week one of our soldiers died and it was barely mentioned in the news. How is America going to feel when hundreds or thousands of our soldiers (not to mention innocent Iraqi citizens) die? How many memorials must we make?
|
| Dickey500 |
Posted - 02/04/2003 : 10:06:32 PM
OK, I'm definitely going to get some shit for what I'm about to say:
First off: yes, this is a horrible tragedy. Space shuttle blows up with some smart people.
Now, the complaint: over the past few days, the astronauts have been called "fallen heroes" and other such nonsense. I haven't heard a damn thing about the other hundreds of "heroes" we send into space on a regular basis. Nor have I heard about the "heroes" who die in car accidents and house fires everyday. Yes, this is sad - but it requires no more attention and money-grubbing (college funds for the children of the astronauts, etc) than a head-on collision on the NJ Turnpike. I'm sick of the media trying to make me feel sad about people I don't know. We wouldn't have heard a damn thing about them had they landed safely. |
| Jay |
Posted - 02/04/2003 : 4:29:26 PM
I'm so sick of how commercail everything is. I will bet you any amount of money that soon there will be a little memorium thing for sale for thirty bucks. The news channels always see a horrible incident as a way to make money. Look at 9/11 for instance. A week afterwards, you get all of these fifty dollar memorial sculptures on sale...Horrible. Death as a means to make money off the fickle minded...I hate this place... |
| victorwootenfan |
Posted - 02/04/2003 : 3:38:00 PM
the only way i can vouch for it is to say my physics teacher has some friends who work at NASA. He said the guys are pretty much working hard to cover their ass. |
| CPPJames |
Posted - 02/04/2003 : 12:01:33 PM
If that is the case (they left tile repair behind) then I think that is indeed a ridiculous human error. I can't vouch for its validity, I haven't heard anything saying that...but that obviously doesn't mean it's not true. I'd really like to have someone from NASA confirm this (like that's gonna happen). |
| victorwootenfan |
Posted - 02/04/2003 : 11:57:56 AM
my physics teacher said it was pretty much a one way
trip after they got out into space with the heat tiles
falling off. the shuttles used to have the repair kit
type of stuff, but they got rid of them cause it took up
too much room. i guess they had to load up all the
equipment to test how eating apples and oranges is
different with gravity and weightlessness. |
| bethany |
Posted - 02/04/2003 : 11:46:59 AM
 Thank you tericee for your kind and understandind words ! HONESTLEY, I did'nt even know what a thread was until I got your note. I know I have alot to learn about computers, ect., It's okay for someone to call me ignorant in this situation but { FUCKING STUPID } Anyway, I did appreciate your responce ! and have learned something new. About the space shuttle : It was a horrible tragedy, I am still watching the news about their lives and the loved ones they left behind. I am just always suspicious about our government and what role they play in any disasters like this. I hope I'm just being paranoid, but I know they can make things happen to take the worlds eyes and ears off of what is really going on. It's a shame either way. ps. I was'nt trying to be funny with my other post, I really wanted to know which one of the guys had a new addition to their family.  Thanks again for your helping me understand how the system works here, I was about to give up before I heard from YOU !!!!!!!!! PEACE TO YOU !!!!! Hey Fluffy, just wondering if you got my e-mail did you see the pics? PEACE ~... bETHANY  |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 02/03/2003 : 7:19:10 PM
Here is my 2 cents on the matter. While it is a tradedy that anyone has to die, these men and women know the risk they are taking and I think they gladly take it. No one drafted them into this job. I can't imagine a better way to die than doing what you love. Who are we to take away their opportunity to explore space, if that is what they want to do. I admire them for their dedication and excitement about a job that has inherently high risks. Hell, walking across the street is risky these days. Should we stop doing that? Bottom line is these folks want to go into space and I think we should let them. I think maybe more precautions and better equipment might be the answer to improving their safety. The irony to me is Dubya's words about the tragedy as he embarks on a task of knowingly sending american soldiers into harms way. Does anyone see the IRONY here? I think if you asked him, he would say the same thing about the soldiers that I have said about the astronauts, but to me it is totally different. Anyway, I found the following story which is what finally got me to post on this subject. Looking forward to hearing more thoughts on this subject.
Manned Space Flights Questioned
Wall Street Journal
(Feb. 3) - Why is America still sending men and women into space?
Long before the shuttle Columbia disintegrated while entering the atmosphere Saturday, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Congress were deadlocked over the future of the 30-year-old shuttle program. Now, though the rhetoric in the wake of the disaster speaks of guts, glory and the manifest destiny of space exploration, the nation inevitably will face this fundamental question.
Initially the shuttle was part of NASA's dream to send people regularly into space and eventually to Mars. For all practical purposes, it has become a vehicle for trips to the not-yet-completed International Space Station and for science experiments in a weightless environment. The nation's only manned space program has shrunk along with NASA's budget, which at about $14 billion is less than 1% of the national budget. That is tiny compared to the Pentagon's $294 billion budget in 2001.
The champions of manned space flight argue that the nation's space program has an acceptable safety record given the risks, and that the human quest to learn compels space exploration. "The human race has been about exploration since it crawled out of the swamps on four legs," said one dejected NASA controller as he walked to his car at the Johnson Space Center in Houston on Saturday. "If you're not exploring, you're dying."
President Bush, delivering the somber confirmation of the seven astronauts' deaths to the nation, promised, "Our journey into space will go on."
First, of course, NASA must sort out why Columbia broke apart, littering Texas and Louisiana with debris. The space agency Sunday named retired Navy Adm. Harold W. Gehnan Jr. to lead the investigation; divers were exploring an east Texas reservoir where an object the size of a small car was reportedly discovered in the vicinity of other floating debris.
The shuttle Columbia's fate might have rested on unseen damage to heat-resistant tiles caused by a chunk of insulating foam that peeled away from the external tank and collided with the ship's left wing on the day it was launched. Engineers at NASA initially concluded that the foam likely didn't cause any serious damage. But on Saturday, before flight controllers lost all contact with Columbia, temperature sensors on that wing began failing. Late Sunday, NASA said it now knows that temperatures on the ship's left side climbed significantly, and that its autopilot began maneuvering to compensate for increased drag.
"We have some confidence that it was a thermal problem rather than a structural failure," shuttle manager Ron Dittemore said during a news briefing on Sunday.
Limits of Manned Missions
Saturday's crash will likely accelerate the move toward more unmanned space exploration. "One way to limit the risk is to only put people in space when you have to have people in space," said Theodore Postol, professor of science, technology and national-security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "To make it a show, like has been done in the past, and to have lots of experiments done by astronauts when they could just as easily be done by robot vehicles, is taking risks that don't need to be taken."
There are only three places in the solar system that astronauts can travel to safely using available technology: the moon, Mars and an asteroid. The other planets and moons would take too long for an astronaut to reach without suffering debilitating effects of weightlessness. Even if astronauts could get to those planets, they would be crushed by phenomenal gravity or seared by baking heat. That's why NASA sends only unmanned probes to Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune.
Since 1986, when the shuttle Challenger exploded, unmanned Atlas and Delta rocket programs, operated by Lockheed Martin Corp. and Boeing Co., respectively, have become the primary launch vehicles for U.S. military and commercial satellites, a task initially envisioned for space shuttles. The shuttle hasn't carried any commercial satellites since the Challenger disaster.
The space-shuttle program also has been used for numerous scientific experiments aimed at everything from understanding how human physiology has been affected by microgravity to growing perfect and pure crystals for use in pharmaceuticals. But critics say scientific advances have been minor relative to their costs.
"Any specific mission you can identify to do in space, you can design and build an unmanned space craft to do it more effectively, more economically and more safely," said Alex Roland, a professor of history at Duke University and for eight years a historian at NASA. Manned space flights are more about capturing the public's imagination than science, he said. "It's circus, it's just pure circus."
Indirectly, NASA and Congress have recognized the limits of manned space exploration by whittling down the budget. NASA's percentage of the federal budget has dropped to 0.76% in 2001 from a high of 4.41% in 1966.
Space exploration has become a far less pressing national priority since the early 1950s, when the technology was new and computers were the size of industrial refrigerators. Then, the reason why manned space exploration was better than unmanned space exploration seemed obvious. Only humans had the adaptability to test the limits of space travel. The Air Force and the nascent NASA both started manned programs -- with the Air Force's aim to build space stations capable of hurtling missiles to earth and spying on enemy nations.
In the early years, the manned space program provided an indirect but important service to the military. By pioneering the peaceful use of space -- and turning astronauts into world heroes -- NASA helped establish the idea that space was the common preserve of humanity. Since then the Air Force dropped its manned program.
But manned space exploration continued to define NASA's mission. President Kennedy gave the program a huge boost when he announced the goal of landing a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s. NASA budgets jumped, and the race to the moon became yet another Cold War competition with the Soviet Union. The program was meant to buck up Americans and to impress developing nations.
Jim Jones, 66, a retired chemist at NASA who worked at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida in the 1960s, remembers that astronauts were treated like movie stars. They drove matching Corvettes, never had to pay for a drink and held legendary parties at motels. Almost everybody in the towns surrounding the space center stopped what they were doing when there was a launch.
"The excitement was really something back then. Even the fruit pickers who worked the orange groves inside the Kennedy Space Center were a big deal," Mr. Jones said Saturday evening, finishing dinner with his wife at Fat Boys Bar-B-Que in Titusville, Fla. A sign outside the restaurant said simply: "God bless them all."
By the time Neil Armstrong took his giant step in 1969, NASA's budget, as a percentage of gross national product, was declining. The country was at war in Vietnam, and people were arguing that federal dollars would be better spent on poverty programs. NASA's ultimate ambition was to go to Mars, but it never again had national backing for its grand plans. The last administration to seriously consider a manned Mars mission was that of the first President Bush -- and the idea was scratched after cost estimates for the mission came in at about $500 billion.
Instead, NASA fought a series of bureaucratic battles to reach that goal in stages. The plan was to build a shuttle, which could service a space station, an orbiting laboratory and logistics center. Then, the idea was to launch probes to the moon and Mars from the station. A much-reduced version of the space station, which NASA started building in 1998, is expected to be completed in about 2006.
Reduced Expectations
The shuttle was built without even a commitment to a space station. That meant NASA had to invent other uses for the vehicle, such as depositing satellites in space and conducting space science.
After the Challenger explosion, it became clear that the shuttle would never be a cost-effective satellite provider and the science that could be conducted on the shuttle wasn't leading-edge. Instead, NASA used unmanned rockets for satellite launches.
The Columbia was one of four shuttles. Of the 11 shuttle flights in 2001 and 2002, 10 were used to build and service the space station. The ill-fated Columbia mission was one of the rare NASA shuttle missions still devoted to science.
The space station is a far-less-ambitious platform than originally envisioned from which to launch America's dreams of space travel. It doesn't have the ability to launch rockets farther into space. Thus, the manned space program has essentially turned into a construction project shuttling between the earth and the space station, which hovers about 220 miles above earth and is designed to do modest space-science experiments. Ironically, after the Cold War space race, the justification for manned space exploration increasingly has become international cooperation, particularly between America and Russia.
The shuttle program has had difficulty attracting funding, particularly for ambitious proposals to upgrade the fleet with new spacecraft. The funding debate is set against the backdrop of an ailing commercial space industry, which has been hard hit since the late 1990s by the failure of several ambitious satellite-based telecommunications schemes and a dearth of demand from other paying users.
NASA officials for years had warned of the need to field a replacement for the aging shuttles. The Columbia, for instance, was first put into service in 1981. But last November, a continuing budget crunch at NASA forced the agency to scale back a project to develop the shuttles' successor. At the time NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe proposed extending use of the current shuttle fleet to 2020. Some estimates peg the cost of fielding a fleet of new-generation, reuseable space vehicles at about $30 billion -- a huge amount of money given that NASA's priority is completing the already over-budget space-station project.
There is little question that without the shuttle, the completion of the International Space Station would have to be abandoned or delayed for years. NASA says that for now, the three people aboard the space station are in little danger. They have enough food, water and oxygen to last through June. Russia Sunday launched a rocket to resupply the three-member crew.
But their space vehicle, a version of the Soyuz capsule used during the space race, is unable to fill the shuttle's role. The Soyuz spacecraft is capable of carrying three people and minimal cargo, compared to the shuttle, which sleeps seven and can carry a bay full of large cargo. Unlike the shuttle, the Soyuz parachutes to earth in an unpopulated area of Kazakhstan. Russia built one space shuttle, but it never flew.
One of the Soyuz capsules is docked as a "life boat" at the space station, but one U.S. astronaut said "it would have to be a pretty bad emergency to make you actually want to climb inside it."
Workhorse
The shuttle program had been seen as a safe and effective workhorse, having suffered only one accident -- the 1986 Challenger disaster -- in 112 missions until the disaster on Saturday. NASA had been instituting what it called a Space Launch Initiative, a five-year, $4.8 billion program to develop next-generation alternatives to the space shuttle. But the General Accounting Office and others criticized the plan as too ambitious and costly. Late last year, NASA scaled back the effort, and told Congress that it would focus on upgrading the current fleet of shuttles and an orbital space plane that Boeing is developing.
In deciding to stretch out the life of the shuttle fleet by investing an additional $1.6 billion over the next few years, Mr. O'Keefe told reporters last November that the reusable space vehicles "are still low-mileage assets." The NASA chief described the shuttles as being "really in great shape, not that old and not that stressed." Overall, NASA projects spending about $3.3 billion a year to cover shuttle operations.
The stop-and-go efforts by NASA to modernize its equipment mirror the agency's own struggle in the last 15 years to redefine its mission. Besides the budget cuts, the public has generally lost interest in the short flights of the shuttle. The agency has been searching for a new mission, one that former and current NASA officials admit still hasn't been found.
In the next five years, about one-quarter of NASA's scientists and engineers are eligible to retire, taking decades of institutional knowledge about space missions with them. The current pool of full-time employees that are 60 or older outnumbers those under 30 at the agency by about 3-to-1. Meanwhile, high-tech firms, not the government, have been attracting the best and brightest engineers from colleges.
"Going to the moon was a national challenge," said Vance Coffman, chief executive of Lockheed Martin Corp., who began his career in the military space business. "That activity drove hundreds of thousands of new people into the industry and now they're of an age where they're going to retire." Defense contractors like Lockheed and Boeing, which are two of the leading contractors to NASA, are seeing a similar falloff in their engineering talent in coming years.
A GAO report in 2001 found that "NASA's shuttle workforce had declined significantly in recent years to the point of reducing NASA's ability to safely support the shuttle program." A new report released by the agency just last week found that while the agency has hired 200 full-time employees to ameliorate that issue, "staffing shortages in many key areas remain a problem."
As the accident Saturday demonstrated, space remains a hugely risky endeavor. The explosion of the Challenger shortly after it lifted off from Cape Canaveral was caused, investigators determined, by cold weather contributing to the failure of a rubber O-ring. That allowed fiery gases to escape from the solid rocket boosters and ignite the huge external fuel tank feeding the shuttle's main engine.
At the time, many people were shocked that such a simple failure could have led to disaster, but the accident underscored the point that every rocket launch could potentially end in an explosion.
"The ascent [and] the recovery are very, very difficult tasks" that leave crews "totally at the mercy of" the shuttle's computerized systems, says Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, a former astronaut. "You are holding your breath and saying a prayer," he adds, because malfunctions are "part of the risk every astronaut accepts."
Copyright © 2003 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
|
| tericee |
Posted - 02/03/2003 : 6:36:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by CPPJames
Also, as far as assuming everything's a terrorist act...I think that's exactly what they didn't do. Granted, they be more inclined to consider that possibility than 5 years ago even, but no one that I heard assumed it was a terrorist attack.
Before the launch of Columbia in January, there was much talk of increased security due to the fact that the first Israeli astronaut was going up on the shuttle. They normally fear terrorism anyway, but having an Israelia aboard made it all the more probable. When I heard CNN saying there was no indication of terrorism, I thought that they were referring back to their earlier stories.
And to Bethany -- I would have thought your comment was pretty funny, except that it was in this thread, which was a serious one. I hope you take PJK's advice. Welcome aBOARD! |
| PJK |
Posted - 02/02/2003 : 2:30:59 PM
Bethany, hey don't get bent out of shape over this. First this isn't a chat room and the subject didn't change. People have little phrases that are their "signature" so to speak and that one was part of therippa's "signature.
Secondly, Erich had no clue you were just ignorant to the way these boards are run. Honestly I had the same feelings as Erich when I saw your post. I thought it was incredibly stupid to say that and probably would have chosen other words, but you have to know Erich doesn't mince words, which is one of the things I like about him.
Sorry it offended you. Obviously it was a huge misunderstanding so don't take it to heart. No harm done. Just file it away under, things to remember when posting.
Hope this clears some of the things up. You have a lot to learn about being a member of a board. Stick around. You'll pick up on things. Believe me, everyone learns from each other here. |
| CPPJames |
Posted - 02/02/2003 : 2:23:13 PM
I'm not going to turn this into a political debate, nor am I a huge Bush supporter by any means...but how did you expect him to react? It was absolutely textbook in terms of the message, he has to show compassion. Not saying he necessarily felt any, but you can't knock him for using some not-so-poetic license. Clinton would have done the same thing, probably more eloquently cause he's a smooth talker, but c'mon. Sometimes I think you try too hard to hate Bush, lol.
Like I said, I'm not a huge Bush fan, I'm about as middle as they come as far as politics go. Everyone knows that the war in Iraq is truly over oil, and if it didn't have any...we wouldn't care nearly as much. At the same time, although motives are unpure...you can't tell me that the possibility of a chemical/germ warfare attack on America doesn't frighten you. If it doesn't, then you are far braver than I.
Also, as far as assuming everything's a terrorist act...I think that's exactly what they didn't do. Granted, they be more inclined to consider that possibility than 5 years ago even, but no one that I heard assumed it was a terrorist attack.
|
| bethany |
Posted - 02/02/2003 : 11:41:03 AM
Hey Erich, This is BETHANY. Not sure if you were speaking of my message post or not. You see, I'm new to computers, never been in a chat room before, and honestley thought that by the signature [ ABOUT TIM OR DAVE being pregnant } of someone else was a change in subject. I can see why you may have been anoid now, but do you really have to say, or call someone { FUCKING STUPID } I don't think that was appropriate. If you were not speaking about me I APPOLOGIZE. If you were, that's a great way to make new people feel welcome !? " There's always a way to say something positivley, without hurting someone elses feelings" You never know who you're speaking to. PEACE !!!!!!!!!!!!! ~...bETHANY |
| Saint Jude |
Posted - 02/01/2003 : 8:26:36 PM
in the excite post this morning about this, one of the first things they said in the article was, "no signs of terrorist works, becuase surfice to air missles wouldnt have reached them" its sad that we automaticly assume something is a terrorist act now. |
| Erich |
Posted - 02/01/2003 : 6:08:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by bethany
Who got pregnant? Tim or Dave?
just wanted to quote this, seeing as its ridiculously out of place and pretty fucking stupid.
anyway, yahoo covered the story, but the woman writing it sucked i thought. Heres the link:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=624&e=1&u=/ap/20030201/ap_on_sc/space_shuttle
"The same creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today," Bush said, his eyes glistening. "The crew of the shuttle Columbia did not return safely to Earth but we can pray they are safely home."
firstly, its a news story, not a documentary. "His eyes glistening" makes it sound like hes about to go into the love scene of a romance novel. Secondly, I know its texas and his home state, I know most of them are christian republicans... but seriously, its in bad taste to assume and start spitting out religious crap durring that time. Whos to say one of them wasnt an athiest?
Television footage showed a bright light followed by white smoke plumes streaking diagonally across the brilliant, blue sky
Note to author: this isnt ET, its a news story. Keep it factual, i dont think the sky's that brilliant.
The loss of seven explorers of space's dark reaches — shuttle commander Rick Husband, Michael Anderson, David Brown, Kalpana Chawla, Laurel Clark, William McCool and Ramon — brought a new round of grief to a nation still in mourning after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SEPTEMBER 11TH!!! Nothing!!! Where do these people pull this shit out of, this idea that anything wrong that happens is all of a sudden salt in the 9/11 wound? what a horrific piece of writing. |
| bethany |
Posted - 02/01/2003 : 5:42:37 PM
Who got pregnant? Tim or Dave? |
| therippa |
Posted - 02/01/2003 : 3:15:26 PM
This is a by-product of the US's cheapness with NASA. There's no reason those astronauts should have been flying such an absurdly old shuttle. They say a tile fell off and hit a wing, the tiles worked well back in the 60s, but there is much better technology nowadays. The space shuttle is essentially a prototype space vehicle and needs to be updated with today's technology. |
| tericee |
Posted - 02/01/2003 : 1:44:53 PM
I have to admit that I was more relieved than sad, which makes me feel a little guilty. The reason for this is my friend Mike Fincke is in the astronaut program and he WASN'T on the flight.
I still feel bad for him and the rest of the NASA family since he was probably very close to the Columbia crew. At least two of the crew members were in the same astronaut class (1996) as he was.
We were talking here at the office how this will be entirely different from the last shuttle tragedy since we can't just put the space program on hold this time. We HAVE to keep sending shuttles up because we have people on the International Space Station at all times. They can't survive w/o supplies...
Expedition Six Current Stats
----------------------------
Launch: 11/23/02
Land: TBA
Crew: Commander Ken Bowersox, Flight Engineer Nikolai Budarin, NASA ISS Science Officer Don Pettit
|
| Jay |
Posted - 02/01/2003 : 1:06:23 PM
it is very sad. Bush'll probably say somehting along the lines of " it is unfortunate that we um...uh...l...los..huh...lost those lives...today. I hope Saddam can see how strong of a nation we are from this." What an asshole. Check out my last post for a unique way of protest. |
|
|
