ENDEAVOR shuttle may be stranded in space

[Darth Rotor]

In space, no one can hear you scream.

Uh, in space, no one can hear you scream "OhGodOhGodDoMeDoMeDoMeHarderHarderOOOOOOHHHHHHBAAAAAAAAABY!!!"

For Katana:

I was being sarcastic. There is a tire repair kit, they can get home, the OP was sensationalizing and misrepresenting the story. Yellow journalism.

DR

 

[Katana]

Uh, in space, no one can hear you scream "OhGodOhGodDoMeDoMeDoMeHarderHarderOOOOOOHHHHHHBAAAAAAAAABY!!!"

For Katana:

I was being sarcastic. There is a tire repair kit, they can get home, the OP was sensationalizing and misrepresenting the story. Yellow journalism.

DR

Sorry. Sometimes I can be a bit obtuse (but just keep that between us ). Thanks.

 

[Darth Rotor]

(but just keep that between us ). Thanks.

Oops, too late. Now we are both exposed!

DR

 

[Katana]

Oops, too late. Now we are both exposed!

DR

Damn.

I'm outta here.

 

[webfusion]

For Katana:
I was being sarcastic. There is a tire repair kit, they can get home, the OP was sensationalizing and misrepresenting the story. Yellow journalism.

Excuse me?

The article quoted clearly states that they'll attempt to fix it, although it is totally possible that the damage is too extensive and the astronauts will be forced to remain in space until October.

You estimation that "they can get home" on the Endeavour is pure speculation, and has no basis in fact. My statements in the OP that the repair may not be successful, and force the crew of astronauts to remain in space until October, is completely, 100%, factual and realistic.

• The cause of the re-entry breakup that killed seven astronauts in the Columbia disaster was traced to an undiscovered hole in the armoring of the left wing caused by a blow from breakaway foam fuel tank insulation during liftoff.

As far as NASA is concerned, the mission is paramount, and they want to minimize attention being focused on this problem of the shielding being compromised. So, their news releases are "rosy-posey" and "all is fine" ---
But, I guarantee you, this is gonna make front pages, should Dave Williams fail to fill the hole with "goop" (or whatever else they have in mind).
http://www.cjad.com/news/14/569135

 

[Gurdur]

If necessary, they will send up a second shuttle to bring the astronauts home, and there is no problem with the astronauts staying on the ISS till picked up by that second shuttle. This is what NASA are themselves saying.

Like DR said, non-story, to the extent of the way in which it was portrayed.

 

[webfusion]

If necessary, they will send up a second shuttle to bring the astronauts home, and there is no problem with the astronauts staying on the ISS till picked up by that second shuttle. This is what NASA are themselves saying.

Like DR said, non-story, to the extent of the way in which it was portrayed.

How was it portrayed, Gurdur?

1. Endeavour has apparent damage...
2. Endeavour may not be fixable...
3. Endeavour would be unable to return...
4. Endeavour's crew could be marooned in space...
5. Endeavour's crew may need to be rescued in several months.


All that seems correct. What am I missing?

 

[fuelair]

That's my shtick.

But won't someone think of the goats!!!?

 

[fuelair]

That's why you need these guys. And they don't work cheap.

But they taste good baked in Allspice!!

 

[webfusion]

I guess web is playing yellow journalist. Not well played.

I'm still a bit steamed at this comment, DR. It was a cheap shot, and I wouldn't mind having you apologize.

The Associated Press, a few hours ago, has issued a new updated story, with the lead:

Top Headline

Shuttle Mission Overshadowed by Gash
AP - Sat, 11 Aug 2007 19:42:58 -0400 (EDT)
By MARCIA DUNN

A routine shuttle mission, highlighted by a teacher's first spaceflight and space station construction, is now overshadowed by a potentially serious gash in Endeavour's thermal shield.

I know that tomorrow (Sunday), the extent of the problem will be further investigated, and it's been reported that next Friday (August 17) Astronaut Dave Williams may be assigned to the task of going out on a special EVA to attempt a repair.



The Associated Press reporter Marcia Dunn is not sensationalizing it.
At no point have I sensationalized any of this.
To be accused of practicing "yellow journalism" here is something I object strongly to, especially.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Shuttle Mission Overshadowed by Gash

Wait! Was there some breaking news about Lisa Nowak that I missed?

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm still a bit steamed at this comment, DR. It was a cheap shot, and I wouldn't mind having you apologize.

The Associated Press, a few hours ago, has issued a new updated story, with the lead:

Top Headline

Shuttle Mission Overshadowed by Gash
AP - Sat, 11 Aug 2007 19:42:58 -0400 (EDT)
By MARCIA DUNN

A routine shuttle mission, highlighted by a teacher's first spaceflight and space station construction, is now overshadowed by a potentially serious gash in Endeavour's thermal shield.

I know that tomorrow (Sunday), the extent of the problem will be further investigated, and it's been reported that next Friday (August 17) Astronaut Dave Williams may be assigned to the task of going out on a special EVA to attempt a repair.



The Associated Press reporter Marcia Dunn is not sensationalizing it.
At no point have I sensationalized any of this.
To be accused of practicing "yellow journalism" here is something I object strongly to, especially.

Steam away. Given the article you linked, and the fact that I read the whole thing, and the observation of there being a repair kit and that they had a plan for a repair, your cherry picking is no better than sensationalized crap.

Now, if they attempt a repair, and the repair is deemed insufficient for re-entry, then there is an issue. But that isn't the story, is it?

No apology offered, since I have little respect for chicken little, sensationalistic garbage. Your OP was one such based on the very article you linked to in the OP.

DR

 

[four elevener]

NASA already had a solution - nanobots that would climb out over the shuttle, form a protective matrix during re-entry and then fall away as they were incinerated.

Unfortunately some fundy Bush appointee demanted they be programmed with Free Will and they'll refuse any suicide missions.

Are you condoning the murder of hundreds of thousands of nanobots?

 

[Katana]

If I can wade back into this, I would first say that my appreciation above for DR's explanation should not be taken as agreement with his position. I appreciated the clarification.

On webfusion's behalf, I think that the label "yellow journalism" may be a bit harsh.

However, I think that the issue that folks are taking with how the story was portrayed in the OP is because it was only in the last sentence of the article that October was mentioned.

In an emergency, Shannon said, Endeavour could remain at the space station for at least two months and a rescue shuttle could be launched as early as October.

After reading up to that point, I didn't pick up on there being cause for concern that they wouldn't be able to return or fix the damage.

The sentences leading up to the last one were: "NASA hopes to keep Endeavour at the space station for at least seven days and quite possibly a record 10 days. The shuttle is equipped with a new system for drawing power from the station, and mission managers are expected to approve the extra docked days on Sunday."

So I think that the only point made in by the final sentence of the article was was that, even though 10 days would be a record and managers would like approve that duration, they COULD stay for at least two months (i.e. far less time than they will be there even though it will be a record amount of time).

It sounds like a separate point from the issue surrounding the damage.

I understand why you read it as you did, webfusion, so, as I said, I think that "over-sensationalizing" or "yellow journalism" is harsh.

 

[Darth Rotor]

If I can wade back into this, I would first say that my appreciation above for DR's explanation should not be taken as agreement with his position. I appreciated the clarification.

On webfusion's behalf, I think that the label "yellow journalism" may be a bit harsh.

Thanks for your opinion. A malfunction is not an emergency. Out of the article's content, the choice web made was to focus on a dire emergency, when the contents of the report do not indicate that being the problem, merely a worst case possibility. Chicken little speaks.

After reading up to that point, I didn't pick up on there being cause for concern that they wouldn't be able to return or fix the damage.

Yes, but the headline writer here on the forum, Webfusion, wrote his headline with that point lead most.

I understand why you read it as you did, webfusion, so, as I said, I think that "over-sensationalizing" or "yellow journalism" is harsh.

A pet peeve of mine, on this forum, is the tendency to use a yellow journalist's style for choosing topic headlines, or thread titles, or points of emphasis in an intellectually dishonest manner. It is bad enough that the news organs do it, why would a skeptics be so intellectually dishonest?

I have given Mehpisto a number of pokes in the eye for doing the very same thing, and feel it fair to call Webfusion on his use of that contemptible tactic when he does it.

DR

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Given that NASA has underestimated these events in the past, putting the focus on that one topic certainly isn't unwarranted, let alone dishonest or contemptible.

 

[Katana]

Thanks for your opinion.

You're welcome. Thanks for yours.

A malfunction is not an emergency. Out of the article's content, the choice web made was to focus on a dire emergency, when the contents of the report do not indicate that being the problem, merely a worst case possibility. Chicken little speaks.


Yes, but the headline writer here on the forum, Webfusion, wrote his headline with that point lead most.

A pet peeve of mine, on this forum, is the tendency to use a yellow journalist's style for choosing topic headlines, or thread titles, or points of emphasis in an intellectually dishonest manner. It is bad enough that the news organs do it, why would a skeptics be so intellectually dishonest?

I have given Mehpisto a number of pokes in the eye for doing the very same thing, and feel it fair to call Webfusion on his use of that contemptible tactic when he does it.

DR

The pet peeve I understand.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Given that NASA has underestimated these events in the past, putting the focus on that one topic certainly isn't unwarranted, let alone dishonest or contemptible.

I note your mistrust of NASA, but do not find that in any way an excuse for misrepresentation of the risks As Reported in the associated link to the OP. Space travel is inherently dangerous, as all participants in it are fully aware. Any mission can end in death, with even most of everything going right. It takes very little going wrong to die. That is a given, not a reason to make a big to do over a malfunction that is not an emergency.

I believe you and I will disagree on the rest, due to taste and possibly viewpoint, and am content to leave it at that.


DR

 

[webfusion]

And the "Chicken-Little Award" goes to --- webfusion

This just in:

"NASA scientists say damage to the outside of the shuttle Endeavour appears to be a minor problem and probably won't need repairing."


Nevermind...

 

[Katana]

This just in:

"NASA scientists say damage to the outside of the shuttle Endeavour appears to be a minor problem and probably won't need repairing."


Nevermind...