Jump to content


Photo

Houston, We Have A Problem.

Fuck.

22 replies to this topic

#1 GunnedDown

GunnedDown

    Member

  • Members
  • 355 posts

Posted 01 February 2003 - 10:38 AM

After a 16 day mission in space, the space shuttle Columbia was scheduled to land at Cape Canaveral at approximately 9:16 AM EDT. As the space shuttle descended from space into the atmosphere, at around 9 AM EDT (8 CDT), the shuttle was seen over 200,000 feet in the sky. Spectators in north eastern texas saw the shuttle pass over their heads. Soon, mission control reported that they lost contact with the shuttle and eyewitnesses in northeastern texas claim that they saw debris fly back in the contrail and then fall to earth. The shuttle broke up.

Seven astronauts were on board the twenty four year old shuttle. One of them, the payload specialist, was Ilan Ramon, a young man who was the first Israeli in space. This will hurt public relations, not to mention the space program. We are assured that this was not an act of terror. It was a freaking accident.

They claim that during lift off, a piece of Foam Insulation keeping the liquid hydrogen cool, broke off and hit the wing. Foam Insulation is what we use to make our nerf swords. This is just a lot more government quality stuff though. At the speeds it was traveling, the foam pieces may have done some damage to the Silicon tiles that keep the shuttle from heating up. This has happened in the past, so mission control thought nothing bad of it. Even if so, what could they have done?

:lol: What can we say?
  • 0
"The occasional hell or damn is ok,
but we do sh*t and F---"


~Webbster, Foam Improvement.

"I got four points... I sackled you"

#2 Spark Plug

Spark Plug

    Member

  • Members
  • 47 posts

Posted 01 February 2003 - 09:44 PM

The Foam Instulation has fallen of before 8 times on diffrent space crafts and nothing happened to them. Someone claims to have found a body in the nasa uniform they were in. People have also found hands and arms to people.
  • 0

#3 GunnedDown

GunnedDown

    Member

  • Members
  • 355 posts

Posted 01 February 2003 - 09:58 PM

Whoa that's disgusting. I wouldn't be suprised if the foaming incident has happened before.
  • 0
"The occasional hell or damn is ok,
but we do sh*t and F---"


~Webbster, Foam Improvement.

"I got four points... I sackled you"

#4 Inlitned1

Inlitned1

    Member

  • Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 01 February 2003 - 10:28 PM

Are you honestly trying to atribute this tragity to a terrorist! Even if they could get into the lunch platform, the damage that could be done would have destroyed the shuttel as it exited the atmospher not as it came it. It was an accident.
  • 0
Back from the dead
-Shoot first, count bodys later

#5 Dan Cromer

Dan Cromer

    Member

  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 01 February 2003 - 11:43 PM

The space shuttle was designed over 20 years ago. It's a marvelously well designed piece of machinery, but I've always felt it was outdated. It requires over one million different systems to work in perfect order, and even with two to three safeguards for every single system, things still go wrong. Don't get me wrong, putting something into space over and over again isn't a cakewalk, but I think it's time for change. Hopefully, this incident will prompt an overhaul of our space vehicles.

Hey, guys, I just want you to know that I was inside the twin towers 8 months before they were attacked, and I saw the space shuttle colombia--with my own eyes--sitting on it's landing site, prepared for it's last flight, earlier this month when I was in Florida. I must be bad luck or something...
  • 0

#6 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 02 February 2003 - 12:14 AM

Hey, guys, I just want you to know that I was inside the twin towers 8 months before they were attacked, and I saw the space shuttle colombia--with my own eyes--sitting on it's landing site, prepared for it's last flight, earlier this month when I was in Florida. I must be bad luck or something...

Thats creepy... don't stand near me...
  • 0

#7 Guest_wax4213_*

Guest_wax4213_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 February 2003 - 01:44 AM

Yeah, the Space Shuttle uses old 386 computers. Really, really old. Go figure :mellow:
  • 0

#8 GunnedDown

GunnedDown

    Member

  • Members
  • 355 posts

Posted 02 February 2003 - 03:38 PM

The space shuttle was designed over 20 years ago. It's a marvelously well designed piece of machinery, but I've always felt it was outdated. It requires over one million different systems to work in perfect order, and even with two to three safeguards for every single system, things still go wrong. Don't get me wrong, putting something into space over and over again isn't a cakewalk, but I think it's time for change. Hopefully, this incident will prompt an overhaul of our space vehicles.

Hey, guys, I just want you to know that I was inside the twin towers 8 months before they were attacked, and I saw the space shuttle colombia--with my own eyes--sitting on it's landing site, prepared for it's last flight, earlier this month when I was in Florida. I must be bad luck or something...

It wasn't a freaking computer malfunction, nor was it an act of terror. It was something that we have gambled with in the past and suceeded. It was one of those things we would just brush off.

I have a squished penny from the Twin Towers when I went up there a few years ago. I remember I had this Sbarro pizza for lunch and now I swear I will never eat it again.
  • 0
"The occasional hell or damn is ok,
but we do sh*t and F---"


~Webbster, Foam Improvement.

"I got four points... I sackled you"

#9 Zero Talent

Zero Talent

    Member

  • Contributors
  • 606 posts

Posted 02 February 2003 - 09:36 PM

I remember I had this Sbarro pizza for lunch and now I swear I will never eat it again.

Guys, it was a building, and Gunned Down, it was a pizza. You may as well blame World War II on a taco, eaten two weeks ago by some random tourist in Mexico.

Yeah, sucks... But hey, I'm not a big fan of wasting resources to research the outside when we haven't completed research on the inside.
  • 0
"'Revere me as hot! All others are not! THIS, I COMMAND!'"
- Death

#10 mr box

mr box

    Member

  • Members
  • 100 posts

Posted 03 February 2003 - 01:20 AM

They knew the risks. Sad, but they did.
  • 0
"Oh and Box, you have quoted me incorrectly so fix your sig!"
~Spoon

#11 Inlitned1

Inlitned1

    Member

  • Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 03 February 2003 - 08:30 AM

[QUOTE](Zero Talent @ Feb 3, 2003 06:20 AM)
Yeah, sucks... But hey, I'm not a big fan of wasting resources to research the outside when we haven't completed research on the inside.

Do you understand what an amazing lab setting 0 gravity makes? There has been some amazing stuff coming out of the space program, and most has common applications on earth. If and when they find a cure for cancer, its gonna be done in space.
  • 0
Back from the dead
-Shoot first, count bodys later

#12 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 03 February 2003 - 05:53 PM

Yeah, sucks... But hey, I'm not a big fan of wasting resources to research the outside when we haven't completed research on the inside.

If people took that attitude, we never would have put a man on the moon. We will never complete all the research on the inside, and to say that we shouldn't focus on anything else until we do would stifle progress in many fields.
  • 0

#13 Spark Plug

Spark Plug

    Member

  • Members
  • 47 posts

Posted 03 February 2003 - 05:55 PM

I found out the foam was 20"x16"x6" that hit the left wing of the shuttle.
  • 0

#14 Zero Talent

Zero Talent

    Member

  • Contributors
  • 606 posts

Posted 03 February 2003 - 08:43 PM

If people took that attitude, we never would have put a man on the moon. We will never complete all the research on the inside, and to say that we shouldn't focus on anything else until we do would stifle progress in many fields.

Yeah, my response was a bit of unclear hyperbole. Just a bit bitter about how much attention it has had over other research areas in the past. Right now, it's just another research area, so I guess my comment is out of place. I'm not saying we should stop it completely. Sorry if I was unclear.

As to zero-G environments: I guess there's some things they can research in a low-gravity environment, but I haven't actually heard of any real progress from this research. Please, point some out, because I literally draw a blank here.
  • 0
"'Revere me as hot! All others are not! THIS, I COMMAND!'"
- Death

#15 Inlitned1

Inlitned1

    Member

  • Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 03 February 2003 - 08:57 PM

Bucky balls are the first thing that comes to mind. they are a variant of Carbon which is actual a big deal... it used to be thought that it was only in two forms, and they are used in some tiny robots. Also Nano Tec stuff has been done there. Nano is used in all sorts of things... and will probably help with med stuff.
  • 0
Back from the dead
-Shoot first, count bodys later

#16 Dan Cromer

Dan Cromer

    Member

  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 11:25 PM

If people took that attitude, we never would have put a man on the moon.  We will never complete all the research on the inside, and to say that we shouldn't focus on anything else until we do would stifle progress in many fields.

Yeah, my response was a bit of unclear hyperbole. Just a bit bitter about how much attention it has had over other research areas in the past. Right now, it's just another research area, so I guess my comment is out of place. I'm not saying we should stop it completely. Sorry if I was unclear.

As to zero-G environments: I guess there's some things they can research in a low-gravity environment, but I haven't actually heard of any real progress from this research. Please, point some out, because I literally draw a blank here.

Well, one of the experiments on board the colombia had to deal with sunlight in the absence of earth's atmosphere. Zero G environments seriously are important, since gravity just screws everything up.
  • 0

#17 superadaquabat

superadaquabat

    Member

  • Members
  • 188 posts

Posted 05 February 2003 - 12:03 AM

I remember I had this Sbarro pizza for lunch and now I swear I will never eat it again.

Guys, it was a building, and Gunned Down, it was a pizza. You may as well blame World War II on a taco, eaten two weeks ago by some random tourist in Mexico.

Yeah, sucks... But hey, I'm not a big fan of wasting resources to research the outside when we haven't completed research on the inside.


I agree, theres so much we don't know about the oceans right now and everything. Space travel is important, but perhaps we should not put so much money in it and ignore our own planet.
edit"I'de like to add, today in my science class we watched a video on the deep sea. According to it, more is known about the moon than theabyssal plains (bottom of the ocean), more people have been in space that have goe down to the bottom of the ocean, there is actually life down there as well, unlike space, we find loads of new species of things everytime we dive down there. WE know absoloutley nothing about any of it. I find that a little sad. Here was have this huge enviornment we know nothing about, rich in life and who knows what, [I]on[I] our planet, and we spend all our money on space, wide open nothingness so far. Space is amazing, and important as i said, but this huge ocean should be far more of a priority i believe. [I]Unless[I] going into space of for military pourposes, than yes, its more important than the ocean.
  • 0
Happiness is a foam gun.

#18 Inlitned1

Inlitned1

    Member

  • Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 07 February 2003 - 08:56 AM

Ironicly, the reason we know so little about the ocean, and the very deep sea it the fact that we can not get there. Its safer to go to the moon than atempt the deep dark sea. Although it would be funny if there was a sea lab 2020... and later Sea Lab 2021(funny cartoon). And as to space for the military... Gonna have to disagree with you. Space should be keeped free from weapons/military! Shure its all well and good if the US has an orbiting gun platform... but what are we gonna do if Russa/China/N.Korea/Iran and what not get one? I know for shure that I would not want them floating over our head.
  • 0
Back from the dead
-Shoot first, count bodys later

#19 cxwq

cxwq

    Member

  • Founders
  • 3,634 posts

Posted 07 February 2003 - 12:46 PM

Shure its all well and good if the US has an orbiting gun platform... but what are we gonna do if Russa/China/N.Korea/Iran and what not get one?

Fuck that. The US is much more of an aggressor in today's world than any of those countries. We think we're untouchable or something. I wish someone would start talking about why terrorists target the US in the first place. Now before you jump all over me, I think we have a right to defend ourselves - I just don't think preemptive invasions count as defence.

What exactly would an orbiting gun platform do for us anyway? I mean, we already have enough ground and sub-based nukes to end civilization right? Now if you wanted a real weapons improvement just put a couple of tugs in the asteroid belt. Nothing will ruin your day like someone lobbing a decent sized rock at you.
  • 0

#20 GunnedDown

GunnedDown

    Member

  • Members
  • 355 posts

Posted 07 February 2003 - 01:59 PM

Uh, I think there is a treaty that no one can use outer space to hold weaponry. Same thing with antartica. You know what I mean. If we could, we'd've done so a while ago.
  • 0
"The occasional hell or damn is ok,
but we do sh*t and F---"


~Webbster, Foam Improvement.

"I got four points... I sackled you"

#21 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 07 February 2003 - 10:22 PM

Fuck that. The US is much more of an aggressor in today's world than any of those countries. We think we're untouchable or something. I wish someone would start talking about why terrorists target the US in the first place. Now before you jump all over me, I think we have a right to defend ourselves - I just don't think preemptive invasions count as defence.

What exactly would an orbiting gun platform do for us anyway? I mean, we already have enough ground and sub-based nukes to end civilization right? Now if you wanted a real weapons improvement just put a couple of tugs in the asteroid belt. Nothing will ruin your day like someone lobbing a decent sized rock at you.

Its all in the delivery. An orbiting gun program would provide an untracable launch site, an unstoppable vehicle for the warhead, as well as a consistent first-strike ability. However, none of these are necessary anymore, as any enemy of america these days does not have the capability to detect a nuclear submarine or an ICBM launch. The space-weapons program is an antique from the cold war.

As for the roots of terrorism, it is a problem as complex as any the US has ever faced. Many islamic people in the middle east grow up on the beliefs that the west is the cause of their problems. Targeting terrorism at the root would require active efforts, not just a relax in aggressive actions. Don't get me wrong, I believe that a bloody war in Iraq would be a guaranteed terrorist attack invitation, but I think that it is something so complicated that we would need an equally complicated plan to combat it.
  • 0

#22 cxwq

cxwq

    Member

  • Founders
  • 3,634 posts

Posted 08 February 2003 - 12:31 AM

Targeting terrorism at the root would require active efforts, not just a relax in aggressive actions. Don't get me wrong, I believe that a bloody war in Iraq would be a guaranteed terrorist attack invitation, but I think that it is something so complicated that we would need an equally complicated plan to combat it.

Oh, I absolutely agree. I'm not suggesting that we just sit on our collective ass and wait for the world to get better. I just think that if we put as much money and thought and manpower into the real issue as we do blowing people up, things might actually improve.

Our current plan is unworkable because there is no positive endgame. If we're gonna blow up everyone we're scared of, then we'd better damn well just start taking over the world and institute a police state now because that's the only way we can ever win that scenario.
  • 0
<meta name="cxwq" content="mostly water">

#23 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 08 February 2003 - 02:25 PM

Our current plan is unworkable because there is no positive endgame. If we're gonna blow up everyone we're scared of, then we'd better damn well just start taking over the world and institute a police state now because that's the only way we can ever win that scenario.

That's the reason I'm so interested in modern international relations. The only thing I'd like more than studying it would be to help create policy, and I believe we are at a pivotal point in history. The tactics we use now must be changed if the United States is to survive and succeed in our current world position.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users