posted 07-20-2003 07:23 PM               

Its quite possible that some families may want items displayed (such as Laurel Clark's family, who were reported to have loaned personal items for display at the recently dedicated Clark Auditorium at the Navy Medical Center), while others may not.

As for the vehicle, Columbia represents 28 crews. I think the decision to display needs to be handled by more than just the families of STS-107, which as it seems, NASA is doing.

posted 07-20-2003 08:31 PM               

Ed

posted 07-21-2003 01:02 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
I believe NASA's decision should be based solely on the wishes of the surviving family members.

---

The families of the astronauts ("surviving family members" - where there any family members killed?) do certainly enjoy full rights on the remains of the astronauts they are related to. However, while NASA should certainly listen to them, they dot own the remains of "Columbia", and it remains with NASA to find a wise and respectful solution. Burying the remains in a hidden hangar like "Challenger" is not what I would consider wise and respectful.

A public display of parts of the debris embedded in a decent and well-presented memorial could be a possibility. In one place and location in the US, not dispersed all over the country, with the possible exception of Israel and India.

Selling parts for the benefit of the Astronaut Scholarship Fund should not be considered.

posted 07-21-2003 01:36 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by eurospace:
The families of the astronauts do certainly enjoy full rights on the remains of the astronauts they are related to. However, while NASA should certainly listen to them, they don't own the remains of "Columbia", and it remains with NASA to find a wise and respectful solution.

---

True, Columbia carried many different crews, but only one of those crews perished.

I still say it's the call of the astronauts' families. Can you imagine if they voiced strong objections to the display being discussed here (no matter how tastefully done it might ultimately be), and NASA just decided to go ahead anyway?

Columbia wasn't the property of the families, but what would be the point of exhibiting parts of Columbia if it only brought them more grief?

posted 07-21-2003 02:05 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
Columbia wasn't the property of the families, but what would be the point of exhibiting parts of Columbia if it only brought them more grief?

---

NASA has already opened the debris to exhibit to employees and their families and friends. The results have inspired deep felt essays, prose, and poetry.

posted 07-21-2003 02:18 AM               

Your analogy with Holocaust museums seems to me to be missing the mark. The Holocaust was a monstrous undertaking perpetrated by one group of people against another, so of course much can be learned by making sure the story is told to try to avoid repetition. The Columbia disaster, on the other hand, was an accident. I don't think anyone needs convincing that it was tragic, and that generally we must all strive in our daily lives to try to minimize risk while continuing the pursuit of worthy goals. I just don't see a case for going ahead with any exhibits of Columbia if the families voice strong objections to it. I think their sacrifice and loss makes that decision their due. I respect others' POV however.

posted 07-21-2003 03:29 AM               

As far as the crew of STS-107 goes, there is not much left of these kinds of objects (that I know of) except for the debris.

I think that pieces of the debris could be displayed, but to a limited scale. Perhaps only have memorials containing a piece of debris at KSC or JSC, the NASM, and maybe a small memorial in each of the astronauts hometowns, including Israel and India.

posted 07-21-2003 04:09 AM               

Robert's question is interesting. If there were a "tie" of sorts, I'd have no problem with an "objective" party making the decision whether to display or not.

I know it's certainly a big IF, but should the families feel strongly one way or the other, I'd let that be my guide. After all, we're talking about educated people here, who we can presume shared their loved ones' dreams about the exploration of space. Why shouldn't their collective opinions be what counts most? And lest we forget, they're taxpayers too!

posted 07-21-2003 02:03 PM               

Isn't it possible in some way to brake before re-entry so the shuttle wouldn't have to withstand temperatures in the thousands of degrees? (I understand if it were possible it would've been designed that way, so I guess my question is, what are the aerodynamics that make such braking impossible, or at least impractical?)

posted 07-21-2003 02:09 PM               

quote:

---

Why does the Shuttle have to fly so fast on reentry? Couldn't it use rockets to slow down for a safer reentry?

It takes a lot of energy (fuel) to reach orbital speed (~8km/s). It would take twice as much energy to both accelerate and decelerate from orbit, since rockets have to propel both the vehicle *and* the rest of the propellant the amount of fuel required to reach a specific speed scales *exponentially* with that speed. It is simply not even remotely feasible with current rocket technology to create a launch vehicle which is capable of both accelerating to and decelerating from orbital velocity. This is why all manned spacecraft utilize atmospheric drag to decelerate as they reenter from orbit, otherwise manned spaceflight would simply not be possible.

It would take *four* entire external tanks full of fuel to take only *half* the weight of the Shuttle to orbit and then later decelerate it to a soft non-aerodynamic landing. Additionally, atmospheric braking has been by and large a very safe way to land (even including this one accident), the added difficulty and complexity of making manned spacecraft capable of decelerating to a soft landing would almost certainly lead to more vehicle losses and more crew deaths.

---

posted 07-21-2003 07:36 PM              

I have been an engineer in Refinerys for almost 40 years. This is a very dangerous environment, but like space travel can be done safely developing well thought out proven procedures and by following them.

Human nature being what it is, I believe we get de-senistized to the danger and some times let our guard down and take shortcuts with no malice intended.

It is good to be reminded of the very horrible price of not paying attention and being on top ot situations. I find I have to give horrific examples periodiacally to keep people alert to the consequences.

posted 07-22-2003 07:23 PM               

My first thought, was, no, I don't want to see pieces of STS-107 on display. Call me a whimp, but I still turn away from pictures of Challenger blowing up.

Once I heard someone wonder about where they should bury their dead pet. A veterinarian's reply was "Deep in your heart." That is where I want my memory of STS-107 crew to be....deep in my heart. Not in a display case.

posted 07-22-2003 08:01 PM               

Let's not bury Columbia in a couple of old silos like Challenger or hide it like Apollo 1 to rust away unremembered. Future visitors to the Smithsonian, KSC, JSC, and all the other museums should be reminded of the human costs of space exploration while viewing it's many triumphs.