Space shuttle test reveals 'smoking gun' in disaster

Washington Post via Austin American Statesman ^ | 7-8-03 | Kathy Sawyer

[thepainster]

Space shuttle test reveals 'smoking gun' in disaster Simulation of Columbia launch mishap puts hole in wing section

By Kathy Sawyer

THE WASHINGTON POST

Tuesday, July 8, 2003

SAN ANTONIO -- With a resounding "thwack," a piece of foam traveling at 500 mph blew a ragged hole the size of a stop sign in a section of a space shuttle wing Monday, effectively shattering any remaining doubts about what destroyed Columbia and its crew Feb. 1.

"We have found the smoking gun," said Scott Hubbard, a member of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board who supervised the test.

Austin American Statesman Link

[dark_lord]

When Columbus and other explorers were exploring, profit was a factor. There was the potential for immediate financial gain. It didn't require Trillions of dollars spent over several years in R & D. Comparing exploration of the Americas to exploration of Mars is like comparing apples and oranges.

I don't agree. There is just as much "potential" for immediate financial gain today as there was then. And it doesn't require "Trillions of dollars spent over several years" today, either -- the key word being require. Consider the dinky boats they launched then, they couldn't haul much cargo back. But they wanted spices or other rare goods of high value. It is perfectly feasible for us to go into space after rare items. But the initial cost is prohibitive for corporations. If you look back in history, private corporations were not funding the initial ventures, and when they got into the game they were given monopolies.

I bet if a corporation was created owned by IBM, Intel, General Motors, Texaco, and Procter & Gamble; and this corporation was then granted complete economic and total economic rights to both the moon and the asteroid belt, and the US government guaranteed to protect that right militarily (think East India Company and Great Britain) that suddenly the economic exploitation of space might get a kick start. The East India Company was very tied to the Empire, and was a major factor in permitting the Empire to exist at all.

[tophat9000]

why should the government be the one to go to mars? why can't private industry do it cheaper, faster and better?

And why did Thomas Jefferson buy Louisiana and commission Lewis & Clark?

Look fokes if I had my druthers there be no government because we need no government if men were perfect… but their not so we do….. government is (per Jefferson) a “necessary evil”

Government has it's uses..... an opening up frontiers and acquiring new territory is something government does ok…. As long as the open it up to the citizens & private industry

Bottom line Jefferson seem to think this was a good thing for government to do and I do to

And if private industry do it cheaper, faster and better... good do it

[Thoro]

You know... I don't really see the purpose in going to Mars. I don't see the benefit. That's why business isn't able to do it. There is no marketable benefit or profit. It satisfies the imagination of some, and that is the extent of the benefit.

I used to be a huge Trekker, and interplanetary space exploration always seemed an imperative destiny to me that had to be reached as soon as possible. Then I was exposed to some facts and began viewing this idea in a more practical matter. Mars doesn't have our gravity. It doesn't have our atmosphere. Then there's the radiation shielding, fuel requirements, and life support systems that not only have to survive Mars, but have to survive the trip. It'll be one thick slow submarine.

But why go anyway?

Mining? We're better off going to the asteroid belt or the moon. Much less fuel is required to ship the mined materials since we don't have to deal with escaping planetary gravity.

Colonization? There's barely an atmosphere and the gravity is not the same. You'll be living in an armored submarine and develop an interesting bone structure to say the least. We're better off going to the asteroid belt or creating orbital space stations. Much less fuel is required, and we could create an artifical gravity in a space station.

If we get to an advanced enough scientific stage where terraforming is a reality, maybe we should rethink a manned Mars trip. We're not at that stage, nor will we be for quite an extended time, at which point the technology would have made a trip safer, more efficient, and faster anyway.

The way we're visiting Mars now, with remote robots, is the best way to explore Mars.

[Cincinatus]

We should never have gone to the moon in the 1960's. We should have spent that time an money to build spacefaring _infrastructure_.

But Apollo served another purpose -- it really had nothing to do with the Moon or even space flight in general. Click HERE.

[RightWhale]

why can't private industry do it cheaper, faster and better?

Space development is too big for anyone acting alone. It must be a group effort. If private industry, if there is such a thing anymore, were able to develop space or just go to Mars, it would have done so by now.

$15 billion a year for 30 years? Where is our moon base? Where is our Mars base? Heads should roll.

[camle]

if you read the projections of the 60's, the moon base would become operational by 1975, the space station a few years earlier. politics and other things got in the way.

[from occupied ga]

The Italians said pretty much the same thing when that nutball Christopher Columbus proposed his western passage to India.

Another horse sh!t analogy. It didn't cost the 1492 equivalent of $200,000,000 to get 40 kilos to India, but here's your chance to prove you're right. Take all of your assets and pool them with other like minded people, go there yourself and, see how much money you make.

[RightWhale]

You'll be living in an armored submarine

Some people wouldn't mind. Some might actually enjoy the lifestyle. Modern nuclear submarines are pretty cool.

[RightWhale]

Zubrin said, in an unusually visionary moment, that a manned Mars expedition could actually win the war on terrorists for us. That would be worth something.

[from occupied ga]

Zubrin said, in an unusually visionary moment, that a manned Mars expedition could actually win the war on terrorists for us.

???? How? Get to those terrorist training camps based on Mars?

[RightWhale]

How?

Somewhat convoluted logic, unusual for Zubrin. The idea is that the youth of Arabia would see that the dreaded infidel West is doing amazing things while the militant mullahs are doing exactly nothing. The youth like to see results, and they will act on what they see. It will take a couple of generations, but the Muslim fanatics will die of old age and ignorance eventually and the Age of Terrorism will expire with them. The War on Terrorists will take a couple of generations in any case, but a Mars expedition would bring the end more certainly and permanently. So goes the idea.

[from occupied ga]

Somewhat convoluted logic...

You can say that again!

[kjam22]

Is there any real evidence that there is any real economic value on the moon or mars? Hard to imagine fossil fuels being there. It costs 300 million to send up a Shuttle. How much do we think it will cost to mine the moon or mars? And at what price would the product have to be worth to make a profit? There are no economics in it.... unless we don't have any of it on this planet. And even then.... the same money spent on synthetics or substitutes makes a lot more sense.

[jpl]

If I were rich to the point where money was no object, I would gladly invest in such a project. Like most people, I'm not rich, so I can't afford to.

As far as taxes go, everybody can think of something that the government spends money on that they consider wasteful. I believe all the money NASA is pouring into researching the theory of anthropogenic global warming is a colossal waste of time and money that would better be spent elsewhere, but alas, the government disagrees with me. Our job is to vote for the people who reflect our priorities.

[kjam22]

It didn't cost the 1492 equivalent of $200,000,000 to get 40 kilos to India, <>p> This is exactly right. There are no foreseeable economics in mining the moon or mars.

[kjam22]

$15 billion a year for 30 years? Where is our moon base? Where is our Mars base? Heads should roll.

Think if we had spent that money on curing cancer....

[ConfusedAndLovingIt]

There are no economics in it.... unless we don't have any of it on this planet. And even then.... the same money spent on synthetics or substitutes makes a lot more sense.

I think someone has already said this here, but one of the great things about the human race is we don't base every decision on economics. Some things are worth doing despite economics because we dream great dreams.

[kjam22]

but one of the great things about the human race is we don't base every decision on economics. Some things are worth doing despite economics because we dream great dreams.

Not a conservative notion... but a statement of belief anyway. I'm all for people chasing their dreams with their money. It helps the economy when people spend :)

[from occupied ga]

If I were rich to the point where money was no object, I would gladly invest in such a project. Like most people, I'm not rich, so I can't afford to

This is the point I was trying to make. You realize that you would not get a decent return on your money (in fact it would be a total waste except for the people you hired to build your mars space ship

As far as taxes go, everybody can think of something that the government spends money on that they consider wasteful.

You are subverting the issue here. It isn't that we consider some of what they do wasteful, it is that all of this stuff is merely wealth transfer from those who worked for it by engaging in mutually satisfactory transactions to those who seized it using the threat of death When this is done on an individual basis it it considered "extortion" or "armed robbery." When it is done by government it is considered "taxes"

. If Mars exploration had any profit to it, you can rest assured that plenty of citizens would cough up the money to form a Mars exploration company. However the only way that the "space scientists" can get the money to continue doing what they do is by extracting it at gunpoint from those who earned it honestly. It is a proven fact that to the recipients of taxpayer funded government largess not a single penny is wasted - after all it goes to them personally. However, to those of us who would rather keep the money in our own accounts and spend it on our own prioities, every single cent is a complete waste. "Taxes are not for the benefit of the taxed." Heinlein

[kjam22]

This is the point I was trying to make. You realize that you would not get a decent return on your money

The only way many rich would spend their money on this type of venture is for profit... or if the government makes it a tax credit.