tneff@well.UUCP (System Operator) (04/19/89)
Here's a question I hope isn't too morbid: Where have they put
the remains of Challenger? I imagine there's years worth of
things to study, is there an ongoing program for this or is it
simply mothballed?
--
Tom Neff tneff@well.UUCP
or tneff@dasys1.UUCPc8-1eb@franny.Berkeley.EDU (Rachel David) (04/23/89)
As far as I know, the Challenger debris was sealed in a large hole possibly at KSC. As I recall, there was some dismay over this decision as some people believed that NASA was withholding evidence concerning the disaster.
seldon@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Seldon) (04/23/89)
In article <11360@well.UUCP> tneff@well.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >Here's a question I hope isn't too morbid: Where have they put >the remains of Challenger? I imagine there's years worth of >things to study, is there an ongoing program for this or is it >simply mothballed? >-- >Tom Neff tneff@well.UUCP > or tneff@dasys1.UUCP I believe that all the wreckage was sealed up in an old missle silo... I'm not shure exactly where (out in Wyoming or some other western state where there are a LOT of missle silos) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Walker U.S. Mail: E-Mail: Dartmouth College BITNET:LoneGhost@D1.dartcms1.bitnet H.B. 219, Hanover N.H. 03755 UNIX:Seldon@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (04/23/89)
In article <11360@well.UUCP> tneff@well.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >Here's a question I hope isn't too morbid: Where have they put >the remains of Challenger? I imagine there's years worth of >things to study, is there an ongoing program for this or is it >simply mothballed? The remains, aside from the human remains, are in a couple of disused ICBM silos at the Cape. This was intended essentially as permanent burial in a secure location (to foil souvenir hunters); I don't think there is any intent to dig them out again. They'd got pretty much all the information they expected to get. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) (04/23/89)
In article <13179@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> seldon@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Seldon) writes: > > I believe that all the wreckage was sealed up in an old missle silo... >I'm not shure exactly where (out in Wyoming or some other western state >where there are a LOT of missle silos) I believe the poster who mentioned Kennedy Space Center was correct. As far as I know, the wreckage was sealed in a silo that had been used for missile tests, and this silo is located somewhere on the KSC property. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca : Georgia Institute of Technology : Certainty is the lot of those who ARPA: ccoprmd@hydra.gatech.edu : do not question. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) (04/24/89)
In article <1989Apr23.000034.7797@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >-- >Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology >2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu Mars in 1960's: USA --> Mariner 4 Mars in 1970's: USA --> Viking I, Viking II Jupiter and beyond except Pluto in the 1970's & '80's: USA --> Pioneers and Voyagers and now Galileo not to mention Magellan shortly on the way to Venus. Peter Jarvis..........
csvon@mtsu.UUCP (Von Hall) (04/25/89)
So does that mean that the remains are destroyed or not? I guess what I really what to know is....Could futher studies be done on the stowed wreckage? Von Hall Computer Science MTSU Murfreesboro, Tn. 37132
mrb1@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (maurice.r.baker) (04/25/89)
In article <1989Apr23.000034.7797@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > > > ....... > > > Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology > 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.ed Has anyone heard any info. lately about the University of Tornoto Zoology Dept. probe to Mars? Perhaps they are waiting for an open slot on an Energia launch!
cjl@ecsvax.UUCP (Charles J. Lord) (04/25/89)
You are all somewhat right. The debris was put in an old test ICBM silo at Cape Canaveral AFB and sealed with several feet of concrete. There are reams of documentation on every bit of what was put down there, so "coverup" rumors are rediculous. -- * Charles Lord ..!decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!cjl Usenet (old) * * Cary, NC cjl@ecsvax.UUCP Usenet (new) * * #include <std.disclamers> cjl@ecsvax.BITNET Bitnet * * #include <cutsey.quote> cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu Internet *
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (04/27/89)
In article <256@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> mrb1@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (maurice.r.baker) writes: >> Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology >> 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.ed > >Has anyone heard any info. lately about the University >of Tornoto Zoology Dept. probe to Mars? Perhaps they are waiting for an >open slot on an Energia launch! Couldn't say about the University of Tornoto; never heard of them. :-) The Zoology department *here* isn't going to launch any Mars probes until somebody (i.e. the Soviets) finds life there. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (04/27/89)
In article <2555@phred.UUCP> petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) writes: >Mars in 1960's: USA --> Mariner 4 >Mars in 1970's: USA --> Viking I, Viking II You forgot Mariners 6, 7, and 9, the last of which was particularly important. Ancient history, all of them. >Jupiter and beyond except Pluto in the 1970's & '80's: > > USA --> Pioneers and Voyagers and now Galileo All launched in the 1970s except Galileo, which isn't flying (much less at its destination) yet, and has already narrowly escaped catastrophic in-flight failure twice. All it has to do is slip a few months and it's 1990s. > not to mention Magellan shortly on the way > to Venus. Same comment about slippage, although it doesn't look likely this time. Also same comment about not counting birds before they fly. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
zcnj01@gpb6.uucp (Cecil N. Jones) (04/28/89)
In article <6872@ecsvax.UUCP> cjl@ecsvax.UUCP (Charles J. Lord) writes: > > The debris was put in an old test ICBM silo at Cape Canaveral > AFB and sealed with several feet of concrete. There are reams > of documentation on every bit of what was put down there, .... > > * Charles Lord ..!decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!cjl Usenet (old) * Along these lines, and sorry if everybody else knows this already, but where can you get copies of whatever reports were written on the Challenger disaster, are there photographs of the wreckage, how much of it was actually recovered, etc. Any references will be appreciated. Thanks, Cecil N. Jones Amoco Production Co. Tulsa, OK @apctrc.uucp The opinions expressed are solely my own.
mrb1@homxc.ATT.COM (M.BAKER) (04/30/89)
In article <1989Apr26.232023.2988@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <256@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> mrb1@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (maurice.r.baker) writes: > >> Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology > >> 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.ed > > > >Has anyone heard any info. lately about the University > >of Tornoto Zoology Dept. probe to Mars? Perhaps they are waiting for an > >open slot on an Energia launch! > > Couldn't say about the University of Tornoto; never heard of them. :-) > The Zoology department *here* isn't going to launch any Mars probes until > somebody (i.e. the Soviets) finds life there. > -- > Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology > 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu Thank you, Henry. I appreciate the :-) ! I felt that a smiley was implied in my message. However, I did receive the following email [sender's identity removed to protect his/her privacy]: --------------email message follows-------------- If you are going to read only signatures and not actual articles, could you possibly POST only signatures and not actual articles? Henry makes an excellent point, that the US space program has rested on its laurels while the rest of the world (the Soviet Union, ESA, China, Japan, India, and soon even Australia) has not. Trumpeting about how we HAD the best space program in the world is useless. And before you think to accuse him of being anti-American, he HAS said a number of good things about the American space program (in those articles whose bodies you evidently don't bother to read); in particular, you might grep through /usr/spool/news/sci/space for his recent discussion of Pegasus. But it is an absolutely undeniable fact that it has been 11 years since we last launched ANY interplanetary probe, and there is NO excuse for that. As Henry would be the first to state, the US could and SHOULD have a premier space program -- it has chosen not to. Too many people just haven't chosen to admit that. If it really annoys you that Henry claims that the US hasn't sent anything to Mars in the 1980's, instead of flaming Henry on the net, call up your Congressasshole and demand to know what ITS excuse is for this sorry state. I'm sorry that the tone of this message is probably more obnoxious than is warranted, but I am tired of seeing these ill-thought-out complaints about Henry's signature. -----------------my posting continues-------------- for the record: 1.) I do read the articles....have been reading them since 1986. 2.) When the signature expands beyond name/address type of info., it becomes part of the article. No problem there. It's very distinctive. 3.) Why can't we trumpet about how we had the best space program? How does it hurt anyone? I'm not promoting complacency, mind you, but there is a lot to be proud of (admittedly from a bygone era). 4.) "Congressasshole"? Sounds like you are the anti-American. 5.) "ITS excuse"? For all its faults, and there are many, our system of government does pretty well. Unless you were referring to my Congressman. That kind of slur doesn't even deserve a response. 6.) I sometimes get tired of the NASA-bashing, too --- but free and open debate is healthy. Especially in a light-hearted form like Henry's signature and my response. M. Baker homxc!mrb1
petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) (05/01/89)
In article <1989Apr26.232428.3073@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > >You forgot Mariners 6, 7, and 9, the last of which was particularly important. >Ancient history, all of them. > >All launched in the 1970s except Galileo, which isn't flying (much less at Ancient history? The pictures the Mariners took 25 years ago are just as valuable now as then. Has Mars changed much in the last 25 years, or in the case of the highly successful Viking probes, 13 years? I doubt it. What kind of probe do *you* think we should have sent to Mars in the 1980's? And what would it have gained us? We have already mapped a good portion of the Mars surface in preparation for future landings. We have analyzed some of its soil and atmosphere. We concentrated on the Shuttle program in the 1980's. I suspect we will be going back to Mars again in one form or the other in the 1990's. It's pretty obvious the USA has a remarkable success story going on the exploration of the solar system including a Neptune fly-by this August! As far as I'm concerned, the glass is 3/4 full, *not* 1/2 empty! Peter Jarvis...........
sl@unifax.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) (05/02/89)
In article <256@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> mrb1@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (maurice.r.baker) writes: }Has anyone heard any info. lately about the University }of Tornoto Zoology Dept. probe to Mars? Perhaps they are waiting for an ^^^^^^^ Is that a new car from Ford? -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca uunet!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) 604-939-4768(fax)
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) (05/03/89)
In article <6494@homxc.ATT.COM>, mrb1@homxc.ATT.COM (M.BAKER) writes: > Thank you, Henry. I appreciate the :-) ! I felt that a smiley > was implied in my message. However, I did receive the following > email [sender's identity removed to protect his/her privacy]: > --------------email message [which I've deleted] follows-------------- What the heck, I'll 'fess up; it's mine. Back to M.BAKER: > 3.) Why can't we trumpet about how we had the best space > program? How does it hurt anyone? I'm not promoting > complacency, mind you, but there is a lot to be proud > of (admittedly from a bygone era). Too many people use that trumpeting as a replacement for rational argument arguing that "had" is equivalent to "has". As one who would like a real, live space program, this annoys the hell out of me -- I'd like some FRESH accomplishments to be proud of, too. Remember, Portugal used to be a major world power -- where are they now? ("Just west of Spain." "QUIET!") (And a question: how can one be proud of something that one does not care enough about to maintain? What sort of "pride" is that?) > 4.) "Congressasshole"? Sounds like you are the anti-American. In how many countries do you see bumper stickers that read "Love your country, but never trust its government?" A profound disbelief that the government will automatically do the right thing seems a distinctively (though not uniquely) American touch. > 5.) "ITS excuse"? For all its faults, and there are many, > our system of government does pretty well. Unless > you were referring to my Congressman. That kind of > slur doesn't even deserve a response. ("IT" was a gender-neutral, animism-free pronoun, just in case one of your Representatives happens to be a lump of Silly Putty.) Congress does, or does not, vote money for the space program. Generally, "does not" has been the rule. SPACEPAC publishes something called "The Space Activist's Handbook" which lists Congresscritters' voting records. Or you can write your Congressmen and ask for their voting records; you might also ask for a list of upcoming bills having to do with space and NASA and how they plan to vote on them. Try to raise their conciousness (if any). > 6.) I sometimes get tired of the NASA-bashing, too --- > but free and open debate is healthy. Especially in > a light-hearted form like Henry's signature and my > response. Well, as I said: > > I'm sorry that the tone of this message is probably more obnoxious than is > warranted, but I am tired of seeing these ill-thought-out complaints about > Henry's signature. And since you intended your response to be light-hearted, I guess I owe you an apology. -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (05/04/89)
In article <2562@phred.UUCP> petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) writes: >>You forgot Mariners 6, 7, and 9, the last of which was particularly important. >>Ancient history, all of them. >> >Ancient history? The pictures the Mariners took 25 years ago are just as >valuable now as then. Has Mars changed much in the last 25 years, or in >the case of the highly successful Viking probes, 13 years? I doubt it. Do you *know*? I don't. The surface of Mars does change, in small ways at least. >What kind of probe do *you* think we should have sent to Mars in the 1980's? For starters, we should have followed through on the proposal to fit Viking 3 (now in the Smithsonian) with caterpillar treads rather than footpads and land it near the north polar cap. >And what would it have gained us? We have already mapped a good portion of >the Mars surface in preparation for future landings. We have not mapped it with accuracy sufficient for precision landings or even precision aerobraking, however. We can measure where the probes are *relative to Earth* within meters, but we don't know where Mars is, or where specific Martian features are, to closer than several kilometers. Atmospheric entry magnifies errors considerably. >We have analyzed some of its soil and atmosphere. In two places chosen to be as boring and predictable as possible, in the middle of desert plains. What is the edge of the polar cap like? (There is liquid water there, probably, in spring.) There is at least one area on Mars (Solis Lacus? don't remember) which radar measurements show to have slight surface water at times; what is it like? We don't even know *for sure* whether there is life on Mars or not; all we can say with any assurance is that there probably is no life at the Viking landing sites and there probably wasn't any there recently. >... I suspect we will be going back to Mars again in one form or the >other in the 1990's. Mars Observer looks pretty solid for 1992 (originally 1990, and before that it was 1988 for a little while), but there are no follow-on plans that have been approved. And M.O., while valuable, is hardly what one would call an ambitious mission. >It's pretty obvious the USA has a remarkable success >story going on the exploration of the solar system including a Neptune >fly-by this August! ... The story is not "going on", it is rapidly drawing to a close (or nearly so). The Voyagers were launched in the 70s; we are very lucky that they have survived this long. (The Apollo seismometer network on the Moon didn't last that long -- it was shut down, while still working perfectly, because there wasn't money to keep on receiving the data. There was at least one proposal to do the same to the Voyagers.) Galileo and Magellan, for all their timeliness now, were conceived in the 70s and have simply had extremely protracted gestation periods. Where are the follow-ons? The US currently has *no* plans for Venus after Magellan, and *no* plans for Jupiter after Galileo. Mars Observer is a much more modest bird, and it may be the first and last of the intended series of such birds, at this rate. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
mrb1@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (maurice.r.baker) (05/05/89)
In article <1358@frog.UUCP>, john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) writes: > > .....summary of previous discussion..... > > And since you intended your response to be light-hearted, I guess I owe you > an apology. > -- Apology accepted, and mine tendered for mindlessly posting an e-mail message onto the net. Won't happen again.......now back to the Atlantis flight, and Magellan, and other neat sci.space.shuttle stuff. M. Baker homxc!mrb1
jmsc@inesc.UUCP (Miguel Casteleiro) (05/07/89)
In article <1358@frog.UUCP>, john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) writes: [ stuff deleted about a futil discussion ] > Remember, Portugal used to be > a major world power -- where are they now? ("Just west of Spain." "QUIET!") ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ We're here, alive and kicking... (and making a lot of noise by the way) !!! > (And a question: how can one be proud of something that one does not care > enough about to maintain? What sort of "pride" is that?) You're absolutely wrong about this, one can care a lot about something, but one can not have the means to maintain it. You have the best space program around here, so what are you babbling about? And even more important than that, you (USA) have the means to maintain and expand it. So, keep doing the good job and the whole world will appreciate it. -- __ Miguel Casteleiro at __ /// INESC, Lisboa, Portugal. \\\/// Only UUCP: ...!mcvax!inesc!jmsc "Life is hard and then you die." \XX/ Amiga