Comments on: NASA Details Columbia Crew's Grisly Deaths

Graphic 400-Page Report Explores Five Fatal Possibilities; Exact Causes Of Death Uncertain

[barbaram99]

I was watching it on TV the day was reentering back to earth. I have followed the flights since I was a kid. I knew that something was wrong when the crew failed to answer the hails from mission control after coming out of the blackout period. I knew it. I said Dear God they are dead. I would rather the money be stent on the space programme than warfare as I hate war. I am 54.

[evian_ycnan]

Posted by txgrouch2008 at 09:49 AM : Dec 31, 2008

Define soft. Now, define soft at 16,000 MPH.

[brannigon]

Why bring this up again; why now? Whats the point? Leave it where it belongs; in the past.

[hatesthecolt]

In order to fairly judge the cost/benefit of the space program you cannot just look at the failures. There have been gigantic technological advances driven by having to solve the problems of manned space flight. Are there risks? YES. Have people died? YES (but not as many as die in freeway deaths each hour, sometimes from mechanical failures or bad repairs or whatever and we don''t pound oru chests about those becuase they aren''t as high visibility). Plus, these guys KNOW the risks when they sign up for the program. AND they are probably a heck of a lot safer than they would be in Iraq.

Given what we get out of the program, I think we MUST keep doing it.

[tuppman]

Why in the hell do we need to know the intimate details of how they died?

[evian_ycnan]

The Challenger crew lived until impact when the weight of the helmets and a 250 mph crew cabin speed popped the heads off like champaign corks.

The Columbia crew died when the heat of re-entry and aerodynamic forces tore them apart.

Jack drown in freezing waters and Rose floated away on a door.

In these disasters, the fascination with the last inescapeable seconds really does amaze me.

They died when that piece of foam damaged the heat tile. They died because some at NASA thought it too expensive to plan for the contingency of heat tile damage, even though they knew it probable.

They died because the o-ring froze and the design of the SRB joint was prone to leakage and because some at NASA thought it too expensive to fix.

[rf35]

Let''s face it...a manned Mars mission would be the sexiest thing NASA has done since the moon landings. However, I am beginning to agree that manned missions may not be the best thing for the space program right now. Until there is technology such as FTL propulsion available to explore and colonize beyond this solar system, there is little need for manned missions. And certainly not to Mars. Some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn are much more interesting places to look at and have a better possibility of harboring life than Mars. Robotic orbiters and/or landers are best suited for these missions. I hate to say it; I like the idea of manned space flight. But looking at it from an objective point of view, I have to question it''s benefit.

[downtowner97]

The cost of getting the two Mars rovers onto Mars, building a control center, and employing everyone needed to run the rovers was $820 million. A typical shuttle launch costs $600 million. The urine recycler recently installed on the space station cost $250 million. For the cost of one extremely risky launch and a pee filter, we have gotten to explore Mars almost nonstop for 5 years. The people running the mission get to sleep in their own beds at night.

[mtminds]

NASA knew this shuttle was damaged and kept its engineers from looking at the damage. NASA wanted this shuttle to die. Bush administration wanted to kill reusable spacecraft. Now NASA plans are based on WWII technology for the next generation of spacecraft. Just the sort of thing Bush could understand.

[downtowner97]

JPL built two rovers, and landed them safely on Mars. The hope was that one would survive the landing. Once they survived the landing, it was hoped they would survive for 3 months. In January, they will have been exploring new ground on Mars and taking amazing photos for 5 YEARS!

We need to abandon manned space exploration for one fundamental reason. THERE IS NO MANNED SPACE EXPLORATION. Going around the Earth in the ISS and poooping in a vacuum cleaner is not advancing science. The ISS is the scientific equivalent of camping in the back yard. It''s pointless. Let''s put some more rovers on some more planets and moons!