OK, maybe I'm just the biggest space geek, but come on ...

The BBQ Pit
1

Right off the bat, I’ll admit that this is going to a bit of a lame rant…

I know that not everyone follows the space program the way I do.

I know that not everyone is up on even the basics of orbital mechanics and such.

I know that not everyone cares about what happens even 20 feet above the ground, let alone a few hundred miles above it.

But the sheer ignorance I’ve heard exhibited today by an unbelievable number of people leads me to wonder if ANYONE has been paying ANY attention at all.

I don’t lay claim to any special expertise, believe me. I’ve been following the space program since I was a kid, but I don’t make my self out to be some kind of genius about it or anything. But man, I thought folks were a little more up on the simple stuff at least.

Let’s count 'em up - the basic things that people on TV and in the general public got wrong about the Columbia re-entry breakup (all things I heard from news commentators or from people I talked to today) -

  1. Shot down by terrorists? Please, like the Jihad for the liberation of [insert oppressed group of choice here] has balistic missles that could reach the edge of space.

  2. How do we service the ISS? Ever heard of the Progress modules that go up all the time to provision the thing and take away the trash and dirty laundry?

  3. How does the current ISS crew get home now? Ever heard of the Soyuz module that’s always docked to the station to provide crew return in the even of an emergency?

  4. How come the crew couldn’t parachute out - I thought they fixed that after Challenger? OY! Mach 18 with very hot plasma surrounding the craft and you’re going to parachute out???

  5. If they were in trouble, couldn’t they fire the engine and go back into space? This one floored me because it was asked of me by a good friend whom I thought was more knowledgable about space hardware than I…

  6. Aren’t the tiles supposed to protect the shuttle?

  7. How could it blow up? That can only happen on launch, right?

  8. I think they hit a satellite. (I kid you not - someone actually SAID this today.)

  9. Bin Laden planted a bomb on board - oh boy, we’re back to the terrorism angle again…

  10. Can’t they land slower?

and on and on they went. About the only thing folks I talked to seemed to know was the shuttle’s NAME.

Like I said, lame rant.

Maybe I’m just more upset about this than I thought. I still get twinges in my eyes when I see the Challenger footage.

2

I think you expected too much out of people.

3

So you’re a geek who knows stuff. So most people don’t. Most people are doing well to know that the shuttle is reusable.

I told an otherwise knowledgeable and intelligent person today, “The shuttle exploded”, and he thought I meant the ISS.

4

Some of us understand.

Some of our friends and family don’t quite get it. But, it doesn’t mean they’re stupid. I’m a space nut. They’re not.

FTR, my uncle is an avid roser. I couldn’t care less. He knows a roses real name with nary a second of hesitation.

Ugh… The news just reported someone found a skull, leg bone, and torso… allegedly of one of the 7.

…sigh…

5

You think that’s bad?

One of the news stations I was watching today reported (in large words centered on the bottom of the screen) that the craft was traveling at “Mock 18” when it broke apart. WTF? Mock?

6

[nitpick] This question doesn’t seem stupid to me, but perhaps in its own context it was.[/nitpick]

Yeah, it’d sure be nice if everyone had a solid scientific education. What a different world that would be from this one.

7

i think i heard #8 at least twice on the TV.

8

Well, since this is a space geek congregation…

How is this possible? Wouldn’t the astronauts body parts be turned to ash?

9

If the body was encapsulized, it could have stayed relatively intact until impact or other forces pulverized it. Sorry to be so graphic. If the entire crew compartment opened up, though… I don’t know. (damn, that was hard to say)

10

Yeah, it was just pertending to go that fast.

I heard someone today say that one of the pilots had “over 3,400 miles experience”. I’m pretty sure he meant “hours”. And there have been a few others that I’ve blissfully forgotten.

But you hit the nail partially on the head. Most people haven’t heard of the Progress modules and such. There’s been some sloppy reporting, of course. But the news outlets feel the need to fill lots of time on the story, even as real information comes in at a trickle, there’s not much choice except to go over the basics.

11

The two dumbest questions I heard today were

–(over and over) could there have been any survivors? and

–could we rebuild the shuttle from the debris and figure out what went wrong, as has been done with planes?

I figured the reporters were asking dumb questions for the sake of viewers who knew nothing about the space program (or about what a crash from the edge of the atmosphere would be like), but still.

12

Well, that puts them ahead of a lot of news people I saw today. On NBC and NPR I heard “Challenger” used instead of “Columbia” on several occasions. Understandable, I guess; perhaps their brain puts together “tragic loss,” “Space Shuttle,” “C”, and gets “Challenger.”

13

Although the talking heads are boobs at best, they are trying to relate events that they themselves do not understand to a public who slept through science class.

This won’t be like an airline crash, where the NTSB can reassemble recovered portions the craft, analyze data, and formulate an educated theory as to the cause of the vehicle failure.

The dedicated men and women at NASA are weeks or months away from knowing the cause of this event, assuming that it is to be known.

In the interest of accuracy, I wish the ties and microphones would say nothing, when they have nothing valuable to say.

14

Those questions aren’t dumb at all.

  1. Of course people are going to ask if anyone could survive. Maybe the crew compartment has an escape capsule or something. Not everyone has a blueprint handy, and it’s normal to hope against hope for the survival of our friends.

  2. Boy, aren’t YOU in for a surprise. This is exactly what they’re going to do, as far as possible. It won’t be easy, but they’ll patch together whatever they can.

Jesus, guys, relax. Not everyone is intimately familiar with the technical aspects of space travel, such as whether or not the ISS has an escape capsule. Those are NOT stupid questions at all - they may technically be ignorant, but that’s not “stupid.” If you’d not like to be called stupid for all the fields of endeavor you don’t have detailed knowledge of, don’t throw it at other people.

15

I don’t think those are dumb questions, but I have to agree there have been some stupid questions and comments even this soon afterwards.

I know a lot about the space program also, but I don’t mind if questions are asked for people who don’t. It’s when stuff that is wrong is reported I get annoyed.

Agreed. Perhaps then I could watch the news (which is hard enough) without someone speculating wild possibilities every five minutes.

16

I got yer dumb right here. Seems to me a heard a feller say something about that there space jet a yers hittin’ a passenger plane that done got too close.

That was not a reporter though. Twas merely some rube at ground level.

17

You know, this isn’t really a stupid question. And the answer is that, yes, they could land slower and the would reduce the risk of re-entry and reduce wear and tear, but it would be really expensive and a pain in the butt.

18

Most of these questions seem reasonable. One and two do seem to indicate a certain lack of thought.

3. How does the current ISS crew get home now?

This seems a reasonable question if you haven’t been following the space station closely.

4. How come the crew couldn’t parachute out - I thought they fixed that after Challenger?

I could see a person who wasn’t familiar with the shuttle assuming that some sort of escape pod with a parachute might be possible.

5. If they were in trouble, couldn’t they fire the engine and go back into space?

This one seems downright smart. If you don’t know the shuttle has very little fuel on re-entry, it’s a reasonable thought.

6. Aren’t the tiles supposed to protect the shuttle?

OK, this one is kinda tough to defend.

7. How could it blow up? That can only happen on launch, right?

Once again, a smart question in a sense. Implies that the questioner understood that the shuttle has a shitload of fuel on takeoff and very little on re-entry.

8. I think they hit a satellite.

Um, what’s wrong with this one? They hit a small piece of space junk whose orbit has decayed, and that’s the source of their problems. This would be before the shuttle has properly entered the atmosphere, of course.

9. Bin Laden planted a bomb on board - oh boy, we’re back to the terrorism angle again…

Doesn’t seem entirely outside the range of possibility.

10. Can’t they land slower?

I think the person was probably trying to ask about some kind of backup braking system, but they phrased it badly. Obviously, the shuttle CAN land slower, that’s why it’s intact when it lands.

I agree, lame rant.

19

This question is stupid regardless of education. Yes, the tiles are supposed to protect the shuttle. But the shuttle has become a fireball, so clearly, they did not protect it.

20

CNN, no less! I swear… no sleep leaves a guy in a strange state… so, when I saw that, I pictured 18 astronauts hangin’ their moons out the window as they flew over. “Haha! You guys all suck down there! Nyah-nyah!” You know? Mock 18? :smiley:

Yeah, okay… gallows humor or something. So sue me. :stuck_out_tongue: