Yes, it's disconcerting and tragic. You guys are younger than I as I'd just graduated from college and started on my master's when Challenger exploded. Right now I just hope that no one on the ground is harmed by the debris, as there would seem to be no hope for the crew.
I guess I have to come out of hiding for a moment. I think I'm the only "Ross" to post, but since my middle name is Dave, I always felt myself to be a member in good standing. Daves of the world unite!
As anyone with a TV on this morning, we were watching the terrible tragedy. It hits me on so many levels, it's hard to sort out.
My father worked for NASA for 25 years in Houston - from the time I was 7 years old. I grew up with and went to school with the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo astronauts' children. Mark Grissom was in my class from 7th grade up (and that was after his father died in the fire on the launch pad). The space program was very big in our country then, but (as I found out as I moved from there) never as big as to us who literally "grew up" with it. I was a first year teacher when the Challenger disaster happened. Amazing to me that my first graders (and most of our elementary school) didn't know there were any other astronauts or shuttles other than the one that blew up. It had become so commonplace that they had not seen other launches, etc. on television. And now ... this morning ... Columbia .. the first of the shuttles to be launched with Young and Crippen (who coincidentally was from the small Texas town where I lived from 1984-1998) ....
We forget they are still pioneers and explorers ...
with godspeed to the astronauts to eternity and sympathy to the families and friends ....
...I can't believe there's been another shuttle incident.
It brings back painful memories of the Challenger. When the shuttle program first started, I used to wake up at 5AM in the morning to watch the lift offs. I had pictures of the shuttle all over my wall. My parents thought I was nuts. Seeing the Challenger disaster was incredibly painful, like some childhood dream being yanked away.
As a NASA employee, this hits me especially hard. It's tough to see any spacecraft or aircraft crash , and even tougher when it's carrying 7 colleagues. Astronauts are extraordinary people, amongst the finest and nicest people I have ever met. They will be missed.
I was busy with my daughter who was up sick all night and didn't hear the news until I was in the car taking her to a doctor sometime close to noon. I couldn't help it - I cried.
As a NASA 'groupie' all my life, it resounds hard. I watched the launch of STS-1 (Young and Crippen), the maiden voyage of Columbia, from the beach South of the Cape early on a Sunday morning in April, 1981. I had been up in a private plane on the Friday before, the day when the first launch attempt was scrubbed. I returned a few months later to see STS-3.
And there was Challenger, my box of audio tapes from the Apollo 11 landing, and even my shock and disappointment when fire took the lives of Grissom/White/Chaffie. Could we still beat the Soviets if we couldn't even keep our men safe on the ground during a prelaunch test? But we overcome, and continue to move forward. Our thanks to all the brave people who continue on this path, and to the thousands of folks who support them.
May G-d bless this country and the families of all those lost yesterday, and in our previous quests.
Go for the Andersons. We re-did our house upstate (after I burned it down ~13 years ago) and we did all the windows in Anderson, except for the sliding doors. Those sliding doors are a PITA compared to the Andersons. You can feel the draft, and they don't slide as nicely as the Andersons. Also in the -5 degree weather this past weekend the andersons were great!
I didn't even know about this one til noonish, cause I was upstate w/o TV. The only thing I could think of was that when they changed over to the "new" cockpit layout somehow it didn't sit well with re-entry? Or perhaps it hit some space "junk" that encircles the earth (old satelite, etc)?
It is ironic cause my buddies and I saw a clip about enhabiting mars on friday, and we were saying if they paid enough, we'd go work on Mars.
and a mistery that might be hard to resolve, as all the pieces are charred and twisted... My thoughts are with astronauts family, especially with their kids...
I was going to freshman orientation with my dad at the University of Maryland when I hard about the first Shuttle on the radio. It's the type of thing where you remember where you were, who you were with.
This time around I was with my little sister at home, she was visiting. Hope there isn't a next time.
But definitely, I'd like to see better funding for NASA. I heard they actually dialed back some of the extra precautions they had added after the first Shuttle was lost. One can only wonder if those would have made a difference this time. They have to quit the "lowest bidder" mentality.
I built a model of the Shuttle when I was a kid. We even hung it up with strings in the garage.
bit: just got the plood dash on Friday. I had planned on doing it Sunday but the wife ran late and I ran out of sunlight. Maybe this weekend, or at the very latest it'll go in on the 17th since that's a holiday.
Our heart-felt thoughts and deepest condolences to everyone who's suffered a loss over the weekend.
Growing up as a member of the "Apollo generation" - I was 8 when we landed on the moon, I have always been fascinated by the space program - something I've now passed on to my 7 year old son.
We took him to the Kennedy Space Center a year ago last Christmas while on vacation in Florida, and regularly follow space exploration activities.
I'm so saddened by this. But I'm gratified to see NASA management really step up and handle this tragedy properly. From the getgo, they've said "we missed something", and have taken responsibility. I'm confident that they will get to the bottom of this, find a way to address the problem, and move forward. It's the most appropriate way to honor our dead.
With Challenger as I understand it, NASA management was a lot less clear at first, and until several whistleblowers stepped forward, the design flaws in the solid rocket boosters and management pressures to launch were not adequately examined.
NASA has come a long way. What they do is intrinsically risky and extraordinairily difficult. The technical complexity and extreme performance requirements of the shuttle are simply mind-boggling - it's a wonder that we can fly at all, much less over and over, year after year.
It's a shame that the country seems to all but ignore the risks NASA's taken and hard-won achievements they've made until tragedy strikes. For all of NASA's faults and failures, they have an astonishing, indeed awe-inspiring, record of success.
I honestly believe that future generations will look back upon NASA as one of those institutions that shaped and transformed the course of human history for the better, despite overwhelming technical odds and lukewarm political and financial support.
One thing often overlooked is the first "A" in NASA, which stands for aeronautics. That is an area where NASA and its predecessor NACA have had (and continue to have) a huge impact. Anytime you fly, tremendous amounts NACA/NASA technology are making it faster, safer, quieter, and more affordable. Billions of people have benefitted from that. I think that alone gives NASA a key place in history.
The space side of NASA represents one of the few areas our country pushes the limits of science and technology in a truly unique, world-class way. Many advancements have come out of space research, just like aeronautics. In fact STS-107 had on board numerous science and medical experiments that were really important. Amongst other things was a medical experiment aimed at helping combat bone disorders like osteoporosis, which would impact millions of aging people. I really hope these experiments can be completed; it would be a fitting tribute to the crew.
Anyway, as someone who works in the aeronautics side, I look at the space stuff in sheer amazement. It's cool and inspirational. NASA has jumped so many technical hurdles it boggles the mind. Shows you what can happen when someone like JFK inspires Americans to do the impossible. All of a sudden, it becomes a reality. That same spirit lives on at NASA today.
I'm working on a project now that aims to fly an unmanned airplane on Mars in 2007 (program called Mars Scout - ARES). With any luck, we will maintain funding for this and it will be a success. I'm excited about it; this is one of the rare projects at NASA that crosses the space/aeronautics boundary, and we have a really diverse team of engineers and scientists. This mission will pave the way for eventual manned missions to Mars in the future.
One final note: turns out that Kalpana Chawla, one of the Columbia astronauts, worked at NASA Ames from 1988-1993 in computational fluid dynamics. That's the same area I work in at NASA Langley. As much as I look up to astronauts, this made me realize tht they are regular people too. They are engineers, scientists, doctors, etc., just like many officemates, neighbors, or friends we all have. Ordinary people doing extraordinary things, and willing to dedicate their lives to doing the work they love. How lucky we are to have people like that.
As someone who chooses to believe that Life arises naturally wherever favorable conditions exist for a long enough (contiguous) period of time, I wish you and your teammates well in your endeavors.
Mars has certainly held no shortage of surprises, hasn't it ?
The latest work that I've read seems to suggest that Mars may not have had a long "wetter, warmer" period afterall, but we won't know until we go there with long-term, low-altitude science packages capable of loitering on-site for extended periods, will we ?
one goal of ARES is to make a "regional scale" survey of Mars, which will give us a real good idea of the climatic history. There are certainly lots of dry riverbeds on the surface....
As a regular reader but seldom poster on this site, I would like to add my condolences to all those touched so drastically by the Columbia tradegy. I woke Saturday AM, checked the TV news and watched (over and over again) the agonizing death throes of the shuttle. Very difficult for the families involved. It did bring back memories of Challenger and I remember that day well. Unfortunately, Saturday only got worse for people living in western Canada. On checking on the internet for more Columbia news, I learned at 1 PM Saturday afternoon that a group of 17 students/teacher guides were caught in another tradegy - a major avalanche in the Selkirk Mountains of B.C. (about 150 miles from here). The group was from an elite private school in Calgary, Alberta on a back-country ski outing. Seven 15 year old students were lost (6 boys and 1 girl). Others injured but lived. These students are among the brightest and best. All were great, all-around kids - tomorrow's leaders. Again, a terrible tradegy to the families and friends. Given the type of school involved, most of those lost come from the homes of professional parents. The one girl lost is the daughter of one of the Calgary partners of the firm I work for. One can only imagine the sense of loss in those homes today. Not to take away anything from either tradegy, it would be of interest to those "numerologists" in the crew, that (apparently) the call letters of Columbia were STS 107 on the side of the shuttle. The school in Calgary is called Strathcona-Tweedsmuir School (know as STS for short)and there were 17 in the ski party, of which 10 escaped and 7 died. Incidentally, about two weeks ago, another 7 people died in another avalanche in the same general area (about 25 miles apart). The snow this year is very sparse and very unstable. Back-country travel carries its share of risks, obviously. Hopefully, we won't be faced with more of this type of news in the days/weeks ahead. Make sure your loved ones know you care!!!
as one of the astronauts (Mike Anderson)called Spokane his home. Graduated from a local high school, graduated from my alma mater, the whole "home town hero" routine.
I watched the Challenger incident live as it happened... one of those days that you'll always remember where you were & what you were doing that time/day.
They'll find the fault, find the fix, and fly on, because that, as Americans, is what we do.
I read somewhere that the odds of losing an aircraft during experimental testing is 1 in 35. The shuttle is really an experimental aircraft due to its complexity and stresses on it. It is not like a commercial jet. .... A portion from an email from my dad who worked at NASA in Houston for 25 years ...
I am also a frequent reader and seldom poster. I was in 5th grade when the Challenger blew up. It hit me in so many ways. The solid rocket booster that failed on that mission was built less than 5 miles from my childhood home, by people I knew. I had just moved to Texas when it happened. This weekend, my husband and I heard the sonic boom(or whatever it was) as the Columbia was coming apart overhead, and when we got up and realized what it was, I felt all those feelings all over again. I feel terrible for the families, friends, and co-workers of the astronauts. The only solace is that they died doing something great that they loved to do.
it is not considered an aircraft since it is not capable of sustained flight. It has no flight-worthy self power; its "airplane" shape and attributes are simply to allow it a one-shot, no-second-chance attempt to glide back to earth. The more salient, but equally sobering number is the (pre-Columbia) chance for catastrophic problems with the shuttle- 1 in 75, or roughly 2x as reliable as previous space vehicles.
I wanted to be an astronaut in grade school. Being from Indiana, Gus Grissom was my hero. (Devastating loss when I was a freshman in HS). Did not go into the military (no way 'Nam was going on) so I did not end up an astronaut. I became an Earth Science teacher instead. I finally got an Astronomy only course for advanced students that began the winter semester of 1986. You guessed it, the first day of the class was Jan. 28, the day challenger exploded. More unpleasant memmories this weekend. I don't think manned exploration should be abandoned but I am beginning to get the feeling that the shuttle is too out of date to continue. I agree with what I have read that cargo should go up to the space station in a cargo rocket and passengers in a smaller shuttle. One critic of NASA says that there are more modern efficient engines, better heat protection systems and of course far better computers.
I hope we can save a few billion by NOT going to war and invest it on exporation.
c_hunter: Dry riverbeds, or dry "CO2 outflow" beds ? We are seeing plenty of water, or to be more precise, bound hydrogen as I understand it. What if all that bound hydrogen turns out to be organics ?
lucien2: The shuttle is obviously a one-of-a-kind creature, but aren't gliders considered "aircraft" ? They're not capable of sustained flight either.
twrx: It's always been about priorities - I share yours on this one. Fewer $ for war, more $ for exploration and basic science. And while we're at it, how about making teaching a prestigious profession that pays really well ? We have millionaire prima donna sports figures and school houses with leaking roofs - what does that say about national priorities ? But I digress...
I hope we can save a few billion by NOT going to war and invest it on exporation.
War is used to maintain our way of life. If you slack off one day you wake up and the enemy is in your backyard and it's too late to say "I think we need to have a war now". I'm all for space exploration, but not at the expense of protecting our way of life.
There are people who are against war of any kind under any circumstances. I sympathize with their point of view, but respectfully disagree.
War as a last resort as a means of self-defense to protect our ability to self-determine our fate as a nation (very different from our "way of life" - which is less defensible, morally IMHO), war as a last resort to prevent totalitarian regimes from overrunning the world (WW II), yes, reluctantly, but yes.
I don't believe that's what our leadership is currently proposing in Iraq, and therein lies the problem for me.
As long as inspectors are on the ground in Iraq, Saddam is contained. The administration has yet to make a compelling case for war - and the costs will be measured not only in immediate human terms, which are bad enough, but for decades to come in lost influence and opportunities for peace in the Middle East.
Winning the war will be comparatively easy. Winning peace is another matter entirely. 'nuff said.
I don't think so, because a glider is still capable of staying aloft and actually piloted around, until ready for landing, whereas the shuttle is on a one way track without the lift in its wings needed for sustained controlled flight. It's a brick basically, with just enough control surfaces to guide it to a runway instead of dropping like a stone. That's just my musing, not a fact.
Interesting point. I'm more inclined to agree with Brian that the shuttle is indeed an aircraft, although as Lucien correctly observes its flying abilities are quite poor. A glider too, cannot sustain flight unless it encounters rising air, otherwise it has to glide to the ground. The shuttle is a very heavy glider, that would require a lot of rising air to stay aloft.
Referring to Webster's, an aircraft is "weight carrying structure for navigation of the air supported by its own bouyancy (hot air balloon?) or by the dynamic action of the air against its surfaces."
With this, I would say that the shuttle is supported by the air against its wings, it does not fall freely to the ground.
I'm picturing Bruce Springstein singing his rendition of "War".
I have a simple solution to World Peace. Give all the weapons to Brazilian politicians. They are so corrupt they could never actually *do* anything with the weapons.
Hey gang, I'm in Colorado right now (near Fort Collins, north of Denver). Brrr, it's cold here!
Anyway, I rented an Outback wagon from Hertz. Got a nice red one with just 4K on the odo. No frills, just a plain Jane OB. I was actually very impressed with the ride. The steering and ride felt very steady and I did notice that the suspension felt a little different from before. Didn't Subaru modify the suspension in the 2003 models?
Anyway, to make a long story short, this almost-new OB makes my trusy 98 Forester seem long in the tooth! If Subaru does come out with a turbo Legacy, it just might prevent me from going to the dark side.
Brian: right, we don't exactly know what those flow patterns on the surface are from, but coupled with some other features, it "could" suggest things like rivers. You can read more about ARES here:
One key piece of info that would differentiate a shuttle from a glider is whether or not the shuttle can generate enough lift (at any reasonable speed) to overcome its weight. I do not know the answer to that, but it ought to be available somewhere. Having seen one land, it looks like, at best, weight and lift are barely balanced out with little or no ability for upwards acceleration. In contrast, a glider can generate several times its weight in lift under ideal conditions.
craig: Point taken. I doubt that the shuttle can generate enough lift at any speed/density altitude combination to actually climb, which does distinguish it from a glider.
In other words, the speeds required at altitudes low enough to provide enough air density fall outside of the shuttle's flight envelope. Where it's really fast, the air's too thin, and where the air gets thicker, it's too slow (although still very fast).
You can definitely tell that the shuttle wings were designed for minimum drag at hypersonic speeds -- they are small, with a very low aspect ratio, and highly swept. Not good for low speed lift at all. I bet they are the minimum wing design required to get it back on the ground safely. Contrast that with a glider -- large, high aspect ratio wings with no sweep (typically). Perfect for generating lift in a breeze.
The shuttle is not the only air vehicle like that. F-15s for instance, have an extremely high landing speed because their wings are designed for supersonic cruise and dash. At low speeds, they're real dogs. At least they have propulsion, however!
I didn't intend to start a debate ... however, my father who worked for NASA for 25 years obviously considered it related to 'aircraft' enough to give it that label .... lol
This may sound 'crass' and I don't really mean it to, but remember also that NASA is a government agency funded by Congress and too often overwhelmed by bureaucracy ..... I'm amazed any of it works ...
You are right to say that. Sometimes, our management is so screwed up that it rivals Dilbert cartoons. One main reason why NASA is successful amidst all of that bureaucracy is due to workers who care and love their jobs. You won't ever get rich working here, but it's a great job and people develop a real passion for what they do. I think the trick is to focus on that, take the management and bureaucracy with a grain of salt, and have a good sense of humor. People who don't usually end up in management!
That is just the point of variable pitch wing aircraft, such as the F-14. At high speeds, the wing is swept back to minimize drag. At low speeds, they move foward, increasing aspect ratio and reduced angle for greater lift. That solves the problem of 175mph to 1500 or so. Obviously, the shuttle encounters a larger operational velocity envelop than that, plus the tremendous thermal and stress forces of re-entry!
I believe the only time the shuttle comes close to generating lift is in the final few feet above the runway when 'ground effects' (suddenly compressed cushion of air) come into play.
Comments
Cheers Pat.
Steve in Minnesota - almost snowless
Time to pass the torch on.
-Dave
:-(
-Dave
Ed
Bob
Ross (Dave)
My father worked for NASA for 25 years in Houston - from the time I was 7 years old. I grew up with and went to school with the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo astronauts' children. Mark Grissom was in my class from 7th grade up (and that was after his father died in the fire on the launch pad). The space program was very big in our country then, but (as I found out as I moved from there) never as big as to us who literally "grew up" with it.
I was a first year teacher when the Challenger disaster happened. Amazing to me that my first graders (and most of our elementary school) didn't know there were any other astronauts or shuttles other than the one that blew up. It had become so commonplace that they had not seen other launches, etc. on television.
And now ... this morning ... Columbia .. the first of the shuttles to be launched with Young and Crippen (who coincidentally was from the small Texas town where I lived from 1984-1998) ....
We forget they are still pioneers and explorers ...
with godspeed to the astronauts to eternity and sympathy to the families and friends ....
May those brave explorers rest in peace. Amen.
Paul
Now if Congress would adequately fund NASA so they could develop new shuttle technologies.
I've got some slides that I took of the moon walks, lo, many years ago. Should scan those in and burn a CD.
Steve in Minnesota
cheers Pat.
It brings back painful memories of the Challenger. When the shuttle program first started, I used to wake up at 5AM in the morning to watch the lift offs. I had pictures of the shuttle all over my wall. My parents thought I was nuts. Seeing the Challenger disaster was incredibly painful, like some childhood dream being yanked away.
What a sad day...
Ken
Craig
As a NASA 'groupie' all my life, it resounds hard. I watched the launch of STS-1 (Young and Crippen), the maiden voyage of Columbia, from the beach South of the Cape early on a Sunday morning in April, 1981. I had been up in a private plane on the Friday before, the day when the first launch attempt was scrubbed. I returned a few months later to see STS-3.
And there was Challenger, my box of audio tapes from the Apollo 11 landing, and even my shock and disappointment when fire took the lives of Grissom/White/Chaffie. Could we still beat the Soviets if we couldn't even keep our men safe on the ground during a prelaunch test? But we overcome, and continue to move forward. Our thanks to all the brave people who continue on this path, and to the thousands of folks who support them.
May G-d bless this country and the families of all those lost yesterday, and in our previous quests.
Steve
-mike
I didn't even know about this one til noonish, cause I was upstate w/o TV. The only thing I could think of was that when they changed over to the "new" cockpit layout somehow it didn't sit well with re-entry? Or perhaps it hit some space "junk" that encircles the earth (old satelite, etc)?
It is ironic cause my buddies and I saw a clip about enhabiting mars on friday, and we were saying if they paid enough, we'd go work on Mars.
-mike
My thoughts are with astronauts family, especially with their kids...
This time around I was with my little sister at home, she was visiting. Hope there isn't a next time.
But definitely, I'd like to see better funding for NASA. I heard they actually dialed back some of the extra precautions they had added after the first Shuttle was lost. One can only wonder if those would have made a difference this time. They have to quit the "lowest bidder" mentality.
I built a model of the Shuttle when I was a kid. We even hung it up with strings in the garage.
bit: just got the plood dash on Friday. I had planned on doing it Sunday but the wife ran late and I ran out of sunlight. Maybe this weekend, or at the very latest it'll go in on the 17th since that's a holiday.
-juice
Growing up as a member of the "Apollo generation" - I was 8 when we landed on the moon, I have always been fascinated by the space program - something I've now passed on to my 7 year old son.
We took him to the Kennedy Space Center a year ago last Christmas while on vacation in Florida, and regularly follow space exploration activities.
I'm so saddened by this. But I'm gratified to see NASA management really step up and handle this tragedy properly. From the getgo, they've said "we missed something", and have taken responsibility. I'm confident that they will get to the bottom of this, find a way to address the problem, and move forward. It's the most appropriate way to honor our dead.
With Challenger as I understand it, NASA management was a lot less clear at first, and until several whistleblowers stepped forward, the design flaws in the solid rocket boosters and management pressures to launch were not adequately examined.
NASA has come a long way. What they do is intrinsically risky and extraordinairily difficult. The technical complexity and extreme performance requirements of the shuttle are simply mind-boggling - it's a wonder that we can fly at all, much less over and over, year after year.
It's a shame that the country seems to all but ignore the risks NASA's taken and hard-won achievements they've made until tragedy strikes. For all of NASA's faults and failures, they have an astonishing, indeed awe-inspiring, record of success.
I honestly believe that future generations will look back upon NASA as one of those institutions that shaped and transformed the course of human history for the better, despite overwhelming technical odds and lukewarm political and financial support.
-brianV
The space side of NASA represents one of the few areas our country pushes the limits of science and technology in a truly unique, world-class way. Many advancements have come out of space research, just like aeronautics. In fact STS-107 had on board numerous science and medical experiments that were really important. Amongst other things was a medical experiment aimed at helping combat bone disorders like osteoporosis, which would impact millions of aging people. I really hope these experiments can be completed; it would be a fitting tribute to the crew.
Anyway, as someone who works in the aeronautics side, I look at the space stuff in sheer amazement. It's cool and inspirational. NASA has jumped so many technical hurdles it boggles the mind. Shows you what can happen when someone like JFK inspires Americans to do the impossible. All of a sudden, it becomes a reality. That same spirit lives on at NASA today.
I'm working on a project now that aims to fly an unmanned airplane on Mars in 2007 (program called Mars Scout - ARES). With any luck, we will maintain funding for this and it will be a success. I'm excited about it; this is one of the rare projects at NASA that crosses the space/aeronautics boundary, and we have a really diverse team of engineers and scientists. This mission will pave the way for eventual manned missions to Mars in the future.
One final note: turns out that Kalpana Chawla, one of the Columbia astronauts, worked at NASA Ames from 1988-1993 in computational fluid dynamics. That's the same area I work in at NASA Langley. As much as I look up to astronauts, this made me realize tht they are regular people too. They are engineers, scientists, doctors, etc., just like many officemates, neighbors, or friends we all have. Ordinary people doing extraordinary things, and willing to dedicate their lives to doing the work they love. How lucky we are to have people like that.
Craig
Mars has certainly held no shortage of surprises, hasn't it ?
The latest work that I've read seems to suggest that Mars may not have had a long "wetter, warmer" period afterall, but we won't know until we go there with long-term, low-altitude science packages capable of loitering on-site for extended periods, will we ?
-brianV
Craig
Not to take away anything from either tradegy, it would be of interest to those "numerologists" in the crew, that (apparently) the call letters of Columbia were STS 107 on the side of the shuttle. The school in Calgary is called Strathcona-Tweedsmuir School (know as STS for short)and there were 17 in the ski party, of which 10 escaped and 7 died. Incidentally, about two weeks ago, another 7 people died in another avalanche in the same general area (about 25 miles apart). The snow this year is very sparse and very unstable. Back-country travel carries its share of risks, obviously.
Hopefully, we won't be faced with more of this type of news in the days/weeks ahead. Make sure your loved ones know you care!!!
I watched the Challenger incident live as it happened... one of those days that you'll always remember where you were & what you were doing that time/day.
They'll find the fault, find the fix, and fly on, because that, as Americans, is what we do.
Paul
-juice
A portion from an email from my dad who worked at NASA in Houston for 25 years ...
I hope we can save a few billion by NOT going to war and invest it on exporation.
TWRX
lucien2: The shuttle is obviously a one-of-a-kind creature, but aren't gliders considered "aircraft" ? They're not capable of sustained flight either.
twrx: It's always been about priorities - I share yours on this one. Fewer $ for war, more $ for exploration and basic science. And while we're at it, how about making teaching a prestigious profession that pays really well ? We have millionaire prima donna sports figures and school houses with leaking roofs - what does that say about national priorities ? But I digress...
War is used to maintain our way of life. If you slack off one day you wake up and the enemy is in your backyard and it's too late to say "I think we need to have a war now". I'm all for space exploration, but not at the expense of protecting our way of life.
-mike
War as a last resort as a means of self-defense to protect our ability to self-determine our fate as a nation (very different from our "way of life" - which is less defensible, morally IMHO), war as a last resort to prevent totalitarian regimes from overrunning the world (WW II), yes, reluctantly, but yes.
I don't believe that's what our leadership is currently proposing in Iraq, and therein lies the problem for me.
As long as inspectors are on the ground in Iraq, Saddam is contained. The administration has yet to make a compelling case for war - and the costs will be measured not only in immediate human terms, which are bad enough, but for decades to come in lost influence and opportunities for peace in the Middle East.
Winning the war will be comparatively easy. Winning peace is another matter entirely.
'nuff said.
Interesting point. I'm more inclined to agree with Brian that the shuttle is indeed an aircraft, although as Lucien correctly observes its flying abilities are quite poor. A glider too, cannot sustain flight unless it encounters rising air, otherwise it has to glide to the ground. The shuttle is a very heavy glider, that would require a lot of rising air to stay aloft.
Referring to Webster's, an aircraft is "weight carrying structure for navigation of the air supported by its own bouyancy (hot air balloon?) or by the dynamic action of the air against its surfaces."
With this, I would say that the shuttle is supported by the air against its wings, it does not fall freely to the ground.
A very remarkable aircraft.
Steve
I have a simple solution to World Peace. Give all the weapons to Brazilian politicians. They are so corrupt they could never actually *do* anything with the weapons.
-juice
Anyway, I rented an Outback wagon from Hertz. Got a nice red one with just 4K on the odo. No frills, just a plain Jane OB. I was actually very impressed with the ride. The steering and ride felt very steady and I did notice that the suspension felt a little different from before. Didn't Subaru modify the suspension in the 2003 models?
Anyway, to make a long story short, this almost-new OB makes my trusy 98 Forester seem long in the tooth! If Subaru does come out with a turbo Legacy, it just might prevent me from going to the dark side.
Ken
Even the base OB has heated seats now, right? I'm jealous!
Patience, young Anakin, your Forester turbo is coming...
-juice
Bob
http://marsairplane.larc.nasa.gov/science.html
Craig
Craig
In other words, the speeds required at altitudes low enough to provide enough air density fall outside of the shuttle's flight envelope. Where it's really fast, the air's too thin, and where the air gets thicker, it's too slow (although still very fast).
-brianV
I'm in Denver, planning on heading a bit south while you're in this neck of the woods ?
-brianV
The shuttle is not the only air vehicle like that. F-15s for instance, have an extremely high landing speed because their wings are designed for supersonic cruise and dash. At low speeds, they're real dogs. At least they have propulsion, however!
Craig
This may sound 'crass' and I don't really mean it to, but remember also that NASA is a government agency funded by Congress and too often overwhelmed by bureaucracy ..... I'm amazed any of it works ...
Craig
I believe the only time the shuttle comes close to generating lift is in the final few feet above the runway when 'ground effects' (suddenly compressed cushion of air) come into play.
Steve