5 ms·

Of course, hindsight is always 20/20. If we sent a successful rescue mission, we would instead be reading an article entitled. "Columbia Rescue: NASA's finest h

Of course, hindsight is always 20/20. If we sent a successful rescue mission, we would instead be reading an article entitled. "Columbia Rescue: NASA's finest hour or giant waste of taxpayer's dollars?" with a bunch of supporting evidence on why the rescue was unnecessary.

venomsnake 13y ago
Doubtful. Appolo 13 showed that the public really likes bringing the astronauts alive. And even the most fervent republicans will have hard time presenting saving the lives as waste.
- ArcticCelt 13y ago
  OP Is not saying that the media would claim that saving their lives was a waste of money, he is saying that the media would claim that their life were never in danger in the first place.
  - Crito 13y ago
    The unmanned Columbia orbiter would still burn up a few [weeks/months?] later. Of course even an intact unmanned NASA Space Shuttle would burn up... but since we are hypothesising irrational reactions the emotional impact of seeing the unmanned orbiter burn up on TV would have likely stemmed much of the criticism. All NASA would have to do is point to the pictures of a burning up unmanned Columbia and say, "With or without people on it, that was going to happen." Particularly after Challenger, I think it would be pretty easy to dismiss any talking heads that criticised the rescue mission as total asshats.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- blisterpeanuts 13y ago
  >> even the most fervent republicans God, how I despise it when people have to bring their petty partisan politics into every discussion. No sane person in the United States of whatever political party or creed would have said a rescue mission that had a reasonable chance of success was not worth the money and risk. [EDIT] Assuming it was understood that the spacecraft was in mortal danger. According to the article, it would have been highly unlikely that the Atlantis could have rescued the Columbia astronauts. Possible, but just barely. Should they have tried? Maybe. Should they have planned for the contingency? Of course--if they had an extra couple billion dollars budget for such a project. 20-20 hindsight. You can't go to space on the cheap. The old Nasa slogan to promote the Shuttle--faster, better, cheaper--is proven incorrect by historical events. You can have 2 of those, not all 3.
  - shiftpgdn 13y ago
    Clearly you've never listened to conservative talk radio.
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    I meant pundits and politicians not ordinary citizens. I chose republicans because waste is usually one of their favorite talking points. So chances are if a voice arises it will be from their side. My opinion is that it was impossible to pull that thing off. And it showed a cultural problem in NASA. But that is another story.
    - protomyth 13y ago
      "I meant pundits and politicians not ordinary citizens. I chose republicans because waste is usually one of their favorite talking points." No Republican I've met would think doing a rescue mission was wrong or a waste. Using your logic, I could say it would be the Democrats who wouldn't attempt the rescue and point at Benghazi as the modern example. Partisan politics are a remarkably poor way to tell a reaction to this type of situation. It really goes to the life experience and culture someone was brought up in. If they had known and it leaked, and NASA had not moved heaven and earth to try to save the astronauts, then heads would roll. The base culture of the US would allow no other course.
3am 13y ago
Yup, or worse, we could be mourning the loss of two shuttles and their crews.
- firebones 13y ago
  Isn't the shuttle capable of being run autonomously? I know it can be landed without human intervention, but isn't the crew more or less cargo for the whole trip as well (except for tasks such as running experiments)? Not that there wouldn't be volunteers and a reputational benefit to sending a solo or two-man crew up.
  - tanzam75 13y ago
    The American Space Shuttle was intentionally designed to require a human to flip the landing gear switch. The autopilot was capable of doing everything up until that point -- the S curves, the approach, the flare. The Soviet Buran could land autonomously.
    - gizmo686 13y ago
      >The American Space Shuttle was intentionally designed to require a human to flip the landing gear switch. Why?
      - tanzam75 13y ago
        The astronaut corps wanted to say that the Shuttle required a human at the controls. Since STS-121, the second return-to-flight mission, Shuttles have carried a data cable that would allow the landing gear to be lowered by the flight computer. However, this cable is not installed by default, and would be plugged in only if the crew had to leave. In 2003, this capability would not have been available to Columbia. If the crew left, then it would have been the end of Columbia.
protomyth 13y ago
Any public figure who said "giant waste of taxpayer's dollars", would no longer be in office after the next election.
- meepmorp 13y ago
  I'd love for this to be true, but I doubt that would've happened. The public has a short memory for egregious political idiocy
  - protomyth 13y ago
    But the quote would make such a great soundbite by both Liberals and Conservatives in media. The primary challenge would be amazing.
  - marshray 13y ago
    It's hard to imagine an election campaign attack ad better than "Senator Dickensnort used his expense account for lunch 200 times last session... and then he voted against emergency funding for rescuing our stranded Columbia astronauts".

venomsnake 13y ago

Doubtful. Appolo 13 showed that the public really likes bringing the astronauts alive. And even the most fervent republicans will have hard time presenting saving the lives as waste.

ArcticCelt 13y ago
OP Is not saying that the media would claim that saving their lives was a waste of money, he is saying that the media would claim that their life were never in danger in the first place.
- Crito 13y ago
  The unmanned Columbia orbiter would still burn up a few [weeks/months?] later. Of course even an intact unmanned NASA Space Shuttle would burn up... but since we are hypothesising irrational reactions the emotional impact of seeing the unmanned orbiter burn up on TV would have likely stemmed much of the criticism. All NASA would have to do is point to the pictures of a burning up unmanned Columbia and say, "With or without people on it, that was going to happen." Particularly after Challenger, I think it would be pretty easy to dismiss any talking heads that criticised the rescue mission as total asshats.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
blisterpeanuts 13y ago
>> even the most fervent republicans God, how I despise it when people have to bring their petty partisan politics into every discussion. No sane person in the United States of whatever political party or creed would have said a rescue mission that had a reasonable chance of success was not worth the money and risk. [EDIT] Assuming it was understood that the spacecraft was in mortal danger. According to the article, it would have been highly unlikely that the Atlantis could have rescued the Columbia astronauts. Possible, but just barely. Should they have tried? Maybe. Should they have planned for the contingency? Of course--if they had an extra couple billion dollars budget for such a project. 20-20 hindsight. You can't go to space on the cheap. The old Nasa slogan to promote the Shuttle--faster, better, cheaper--is proven incorrect by historical events. You can have 2 of those, not all 3.
- shiftpgdn 13y ago
  Clearly you've never listened to conservative talk radio.
- venomsnake 13y ago
  I meant pundits and politicians not ordinary citizens. I chose republicans because waste is usually one of their favorite talking points. So chances are if a voice arises it will be from their side. My opinion is that it was impossible to pull that thing off. And it showed a cultural problem in NASA. But that is another story.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    "I meant pundits and politicians not ordinary citizens. I chose republicans because waste is usually one of their favorite talking points." No Republican I've met would think doing a rescue mission was wrong or a waste. Using your logic, I could say it would be the Democrats who wouldn't attempt the rescue and point at Benghazi as the modern example. Partisan politics are a remarkably poor way to tell a reaction to this type of situation. It really goes to the life experience and culture someone was brought up in. If they had known and it leaked, and NASA had not moved heaven and earth to try to save the astronauts, then heads would roll. The base culture of the US would allow no other course.

3am 13y ago

Yup, or worse, we could be mourning the loss of two shuttles and their crews.

firebones 13y ago
Isn't the shuttle capable of being run autonomously? I know it can be landed without human intervention, but isn't the crew more or less cargo for the whole trip as well (except for tasks such as running experiments)? Not that there wouldn't be volunteers and a reputational benefit to sending a solo or two-man crew up.
- tanzam75 13y ago
  The American Space Shuttle was intentionally designed to require a human to flip the landing gear switch. The autopilot was capable of doing everything up until that point -- the S curves, the approach, the flare. The Soviet Buran could land autonomously.
  - gizmo686 13y ago
    >The American Space Shuttle was intentionally designed to require a human to flip the landing gear switch. Why?
    - tanzam75 13y ago
      The astronaut corps wanted to say that the Shuttle required a human at the controls. Since STS-121, the second return-to-flight mission, Shuttles have carried a data cable that would allow the landing gear to be lowered by the flight computer. However, this cable is not installed by default, and would be plugged in only if the crew had to leave. In 2003, this capability would not have been available to Columbia. If the crew left, then it would have been the end of Columbia.

protomyth 13y ago

Any public figure who said "giant waste of taxpayer's dollars", would no longer be in office after the next election.

meepmorp 13y ago
I'd love for this to be true, but I doubt that would've happened. The public has a short memory for egregious political idiocy
- protomyth 13y ago
  But the quote would make such a great soundbite by both Liberals and Conservatives in media. The primary challenge would be amazing.
- marshray 13y ago
  It's hard to imagine an election campaign attack ad better than "Senator Dickensnort used his expense account for lunch 200 times last session... and then he voted against emergency funding for rescuing our stranded Columbia astronauts".