ivy@aicchi.UUCP (Iverson) (01/28/86)
The television news couldn't possibly be kidding about the detonation of space shuttle Challenger and loss of all 7 aboard ... could they? One solid fueled engine clearly flew on by itself. They filmed that. Two contrails extended from the fireball. Did both boosters fly on? What in the main fuel tank could burn white? Hydrogen burns blue. Did the camara saturate with the brightness? Does anybody on the .net have more information than network television?
jimb@ISM780.UUCP (01/29/86)
I'm still in deep shock, numb. I don't see how anybody who shared the dream cannot be in deep pain. Me? I'm just going ahead and breaking into tears every few hours. But beyond that, this is going to be a hard time for the space program, already under budget pressues as eugene and others have mentioned. If you love the space program, if you want the space program to be a memorial to the CHALLENGER and her crew and not the other way around, do something. Write. Write every goddammed letters-to-the-editor column and political person of import that you can think of. For the pols, write ESPECIALLY if you have no economic interest in the space program. Idealism baffles the pols (I've worked on both Senate and House staffs), but if there's enough of it, they finally shake their heads and conclude that it IS the will of the people. Write in your own words, from both the heart and the mind. Xerox letter campaigns are discounted by both newspapers and politicos. Following is the text of a letter that I sent to a number of places. I've been reading net.space for months and never had anything that I thought worth contributing. My apologies to any who are offended by the length of this posting or the emotional content, but damn it, this is important. ******* When the first lung-fish crawled out of the sea and lay gasping on the land, many died and many returned to the sea. When our first half-human ancestors looked out from the forests and left the safety of the trees for the unknown savannah, there was danger. When ancient mariners first began to sail their fragile ships beyond te sght of shore and into the unknown, there were risks and losses. When mankind began to erect cties that offered greater comfort and security, and when they raised the great cathedrals to celebrate the greater glory of God, lives were lost in the quarrys and on the scaffolds. When scientists such as Walter Reed first began to confront the mysteries and uncertainties of contagious diseases in the search for a cure, many succumbed to the ailments they studied, a price for advancing the knowledge of mankind. In any large-scale human endeavor that has worked to the benefit of mankind, there has been pain and sacrifice and loss. We stand ow at one of the pivotal points in history. We can say "no" to the unknown mysteries of space, turn our backs, and announce our decline as a civilization. Or we can look at the stars, express our grief at the loss of the CHALLENGER and its crew, and then honor their lives by saying, "We shall continue." ******** -- Jim Brunet ihnp4/ima/ism780B
aiz@JPL-VLSI.ARPA (01/29/86)
I can't minimize the sense of loss with respect to the Challenger disaster. It was a tragedy for the people involved, the families, the school children, and the National Space Program. But with respect to the comments on the press, it is interesting to note that most programming was inturrupted for most of the day on the loss of 7 people. Yet when a jumbo jet crashes with the loss of 300, we get a few bulletins and first mention on the 6 o'clock news. It reminds of what Mr. Spock said in one of the Star Trek episodes (to paraphrase): "You humans are strange. You can mourn the loss of a single person, but you cannot feel the death of millions." Art Zygielbaum
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (01/29/86)
"If we die, we want people to accept it. We're in a risky business, and we
hope if anything happens to us, it will not delay the program. The conquest
of space is worth the risk of life."
Virgil I. Grissom
commander, Apollo 1
speaking a few weeks before his
death in the Apollo fire
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henryjohn@gcc-milo.ARPA (John Allred) (01/30/86)
In article <663@aicchi.UUCP> ivy@aicchi.UUCP (Iverson) writes: >One solid fueled engine clearly flew on by itself. They filmed that. >Two contrails extended from the fireball. Did both boosters fly on? Yes, both flew on. Range Safety had to destroy them, since they were headed toward a populated area. This is unfortunate: had the boosters survived, they might have given some clues as to why the orbiter/external tank blew up. -- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-milo!john
dusty@amiga.UUCP (Dusty [snake] Bleher) (01/31/86)
In article <663@aicchi.UUCP> ivy@aicchi.UUCP (Iverson) writes: >The television news couldn't possibly be kidding about the detonation of >space shuttle Challenger and loss of all 7 aboard ... could they? ..regretfully true! > >One solid fueled engine clearly flew on by itself. They filmed that. >Two contrails extended from the fireball. Did both boosters fly on? ..yes, until destroyed by the RSO about 20 seconds later > >What in the main fuel tank could burn white? Hydrogen burns blue. Did >the camara saturate with the brightness? ..Correct, in an "air" environment H2 burns with a nearly colorless flame. However combined with high quantity/quality O2, it releases a great deal of energy, and being a (nearly) "perfect fuel" its only combustion by products are, humble water vapor (2 H + 1 O = H2O). When the effects of decompression cooling, altitude, and a handful of other factors are accounted for, we're left with perhaps...ice crystals. > >Does anybody on the .net have more information than network television? Dusty