JGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3474 times:
Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter): A mysterious object caught on videotape has caused NASA to cancel tomorrow's landing of the United States Space Shuttle, Atlantis.
I suspect liberals and atheists
Any poss. of a picture of what was spotted ? Did it look suspiciously like a time-warp round-the-sun episode of Star Trek ?
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 18887 posts, RR: 64 Reply 7, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3435 times:
Oh come on, it's a piece of debris, not Martians or something. Let's be a little less dramatic.
RichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3410 times:
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 7): Oh come on, it's a piece of debris, not Martians or something. Let's be a little less dramatic.
Its dramatic because we dont know what it is. Sure, noone is pretending its aliens, but that doesnt mean it cant be a vital part of the Shuttle itself - thats the worrying part.
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4459 posts, RR: 22 Reply 10, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3407 times:
Nah, the Elektron overheated (what else is new...). A trace amount of KOH was released and there was a burning rubber smell (hot rubber gasket) for awhile but everything's fine.
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 7): Oh come on, it's a piece of debris, not Martians or something. Let's be a little less dramatic.
I'd say they'll be coming home Thursday or Friday. No problem.
Checksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 996 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3370 times:
Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 2): NBC Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklazewski notes a report of unusual heat along a trailing edge of the Atlantis' wings.
Crew may be in danger, says James Oberg.
Return to International Space Station out of the question. Also, ISS experienced fire yesterday.
Live coverage continues.
Its really sad to see comments like yours online. You post it all dramatically then claim your just quoting a news source. Quit copping out...you know exactly what your posts look like to the uninformed. Do some homework next time before you post. Talk about blowing hot air!!
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3335 times:
Quoting Checksixx (Reply 13): Its really sad to see comments like yours online. You post it all dramatically then claim your just quoting a news source. Quit copping out...you know exactly what your posts look like to the uninformed. Do some homework next time before you post. Talk about blowing hot air!!
I'm sorry you feel that way. However, I did, in fact, hear the "fire" comment from a news source. I was merely reporting what I heard. In reporting live events, I try not to censor or inject opinion.
It does appear that the "fire" was merely a scare, although there was smoke and a chemical skill aboard the Station. The report I saw and heard, thus, was wrong to use the word "fire".
Chksix From Sweden, joined Sep 2005, 345 posts, RR: 4 Reply 15, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3324 times:
There was a fire alarm due to the crew pressing a manual call point (fire alarm button) after feeling an odd smell in the air.
The cause was the Electron leaking KOH after being started up. The liquid is irritant but not deadly. An emergency was declared to assure priority on all TDRSS comms channels. (The same is done in aviation and shipping).
You should all watch NASA TV instead of believing uninformed sensationalistic journalists.
Checksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 996 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3317 times:
It was properly reported what the cause was 2 hours after it was first reported yesterday. Thats why I have issues with starting a thread today with bad info. My comments were also in reference to the heat reference and the object comments. It was never reported that it was anything other than either space junk or something that came out/off of the shuttle. The only concern is that it is not off of the heat shield. My main concern with the initial postings were that it seemed that the poster was attempting to over-dramatize the reports, which has no place here. If that was not the intention, then I'm sorry...but that is what it looks like.
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3257 times:
Quoting Checksixx (Reply 16): Thats why I have issues with starting a thread today with bad info. My comments were also in reference to the heat reference and the object comments. It was never reported that it was anything other than either space junk or something that came out/off of the shuttle.
Your concerns are noted. I was simply reporting what I saw and heard, and it is really not my place to say that it was "merely" a piece of junk, or something innocuous or soothing of that nature. It is not correct, from my experience, to say that it was definitively reported as something that was "either space junk or something that came out/off of the shuttle". The object was not known as to its nature or characteristics, other than the fact that it is shadowing the orbiter.
The object remains unidentified and, if it was a heat tile, for example, the discovery of same could be quite significant. NASA is currently working on the problem and it is important to understand that any prejudicial comments that it is "just" anything at all could be misintepreted as much as the overdramatization that your message criticizes.
In setting forth the tenor of reports, I find that it is best to convey the tone of those I experience rather than pretend that I know that all is well and post accordingly.
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 18887 posts, RR: 64 Reply 18, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3226 times:
Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 17): In setting forth the tenor of reports, I find that it is best to convey the tone of those I experience rather than pretend that I know that all is well and post accordingly.
Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 2): Return to International Space Station out of the question.
... makes it sound like Atlantis is in imminent danger, something like Apollo 13, when no systems failures have been reported with Atlantis, and this is a small piece of debris that was found in the same orbit. Serious enough to warrant attention? You bet. Should we be getting over-excited about it? I doubt it. There are thousands of professionals along with the experience of the crew to resolve this.
Cadet985 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 1408 posts, RR: 5 Reply 19, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3201 times:
CNN is reporting that an astronaut has sighted a second piece of debris...
Kukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1122 posts, RR: 5 Reply 20, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3181 times:
Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 17): it is important to understand that any prejudicial comments that it is "just" anything at all could be misintepreted as much as the overdramatization that your message criticizes
Prejudicial to what, exactly? I hardly think that any NASA engineers are searching for the answer to the mystery on this forum.
Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
BHMBAGLOCK From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5 Reply 21, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3110 times:
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 7): Oh come on, it's a piece of debris, not Martians or something. Let's be a little less dramatic.
If it happens to be a chunk of RCC then this would be a very dramatic problem.
Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 10): Incorrect. Re-rendezvous can be accomplished.
I think this is certainly true but not necessarily practical or desirable. Using the propellant required to return could easily leave them without the margin required to de-orbit safely. It's conceivable that a return to the Station would require a rescue mission to bring the crew back from a safety standpoint and also to simply reduce the mass of the shuttle in proportion to remaining propellant. They certainly are not going to attempt to "top it off" in orbit.
Dragon-wings From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3920 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3091 times:
If the piece did come off the shuttle they (NASA) needs to ground all future shuttle launches until they can come up with a new more reliable shuttle.
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3079 times:
I really think this is the "mountain out of a molehill" syndrome. Bits and pieces of things coming out of the Shuttle's payload bay in orbit is far from uncommon, and in fact is blamed for most of the UFOs that those so inclined insist are the flying saucer variety (and if all of those were true, we'd be looking at a scenario straight out of "Earth Versus the Flying Saucers"!)
But since Columbia was lost, NASA is playing it safe and wants to take another look at the critical parts of the heat shield (the chunk of Wing Leading Edge RCC panel that doomed Columbia was seen on radar in orbit but not taken seriously at the time.)
My guess, the objects seen are bits of insulation from the payload bay or ice from the wastewater dump valve. They appeared dark because they were in the Shuttle's shadow, seen against a bright Earth background. That happens because the insulation tends to move around a bit at launch and then is dislodged when the payload (i.e. P3/P4 Truss) is lifted out of the payload bay. The insulation or the ice came loose and floated away when the Atlantis crew did the pre-landing control surface checkout (which shakes the vehicle somewhat.)
NASA is playing it safe and will delay landing to give Atlantis another once-over, just to chase away the demons from Columbia. Since tomorrow's landing opportunity at the Cape was looking pretty hopeless anyway (due to weather), this was a pretty easy decision to make.
The weather forecast for Thursday or Friday landings is good. Atlantis has enough consumables to remain in orbit through Saturday. They can still return to the International Space Station, should this prove to be a more serious problem.
25 Thorny: There are other options, though. ISS and Atlantis are not that far apart. The ISS could actually do the rendezvous if it had to, with Atlantis a pass
26 FlyUSCG: It seems like no one ever points out the fact that there have been over 100 shuttle launches and only one vehicle lost due to something coming off it.
27 ANCFlyer: Oh Man, took away all the fun . . . Along with the other 89,934,994,395,549,193,944,444,294.8 objects flying about in earth orbit . . . NASA will fin
28 BEG2IAH: Both Challenger and Columbia were lost because of the causes not originating from the orbiter itself. Challenger was doomed because of the O-ring pro
29 JBirdAV8r: I'd probably second that guess. Also, you all should see the lists of tools and other such FOD that gets "lost" while working in the Orbiters on the
30 Checksixx: You should realize that foam and ice have shed off of the tank on every flight since the first flight. When you consider it is one of the most comple
31 Chksix: The briefings with Wayne Hale are legendary and in my opinion he talks in a way that makes it possible for children to understand what is going on. If
32 JBirdAV8r: Seems to be a universal thing across the spectrum.
33 TedTAce: Shouldn't we be back in : Offical STS-115 Atlantis Thread (by TPAnx Jul 24 2006 in Military Aviation & Space Flight) ??? Thorny: Where are the links f
34 FlyUSCG: True, I forgot that part. What I meant to say is that stuff has been coming off of the orbiter, fuel tank, and SRB's since day one and only ONCE has
36 Ptrjong: Sure, with two fatal crashes in how many flights - fifty? Peter
37 Thorny: 116. Shuttle flew 88 missions between its two fatal accidents. Soyuz has flown 85 missions since its last fatal accident.
38 Ptrjong: Your knowledge is always impressive, Thorny. FlyUSCG, if you meant space when you said 'out there', you may be right. You said 'aircraft', though.
39 FlyUSCG: You obviously didn't read what I said. There has only been ONE crash as a result of a piece of something falling off and striking the orbiter (the Ch
40 Chksix: Technically the Orbiter is the winged vehicle, the Shuttle is the whole stack during ascent. The foam that fell off the shuttle hit the orbiter. This
41 Ptrjong: Two Orbiters have been lost to whatever technical causes. Even if you want to count only one for some reason, relative to only 116 flights that IS of
42 ANCFlyer: Atlantis is home - flawless landing . . . http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/09/21/space.shuttle.ap/index.html
43 JBirdAV8r: Two manned Soyuzes have been lost as well, with somewhat of a close call on a third just a couple of years ago.
44 AerospaceFan: Congratulations to the crew of Atlantis for a most excellent mission!
46 AerospaceFan: Some describe it as a shim-type thing between the heat tiles that might have shaken loose from the retro-engine firing. There was also mention that it
47 Lehpron: Dude, if you interpret those remarks as sounding like 'imminent danger', they are yours and not his problem. We all come to conclusions based on expe
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Sweden, joined Sep 2005, 345 posts, 
From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1122 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
