Talk:Heat protection system on Space Shuttle Atlantis damaged during liftoff

Original?
I just saw a live FOX News alert and the hole is 4 inches long. Not sure if this qualifies as OR or not. DragonFire1024 18:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Adding that info is fine, if you add the reference too. All sources of information used in an article need to be cited. &mdash;BlackTerror 18:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In the case of LIVE news reports from LIVE conferences and such, can be OR as you are observing the conference etc as any other reporter is. DragonFire1024 19:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd count it as OR to be on the safe side - where the info came from can be doccumented here, after all. No big deal, whereas there can be problems if you don't. Of course, cited elsewhere now anyway, just commenting for future occurences. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This site has NASA TV1 and NASA TV 2 under the Information channels. For this it'd qualify as original reporting if you caught it there, or watched the inspection and described that. If you can find out when they're going to do the repair you could do a separate article on that. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, an article on that would be great. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If i understand it correctly, the danger of this damage is exaggerated in the news. According to spaceflightnow.com, this area has a history of minor damage. So, it was damaged on many shuttle flights, yet never turned out to be a problem. Before columbia, they wouldn't have taken it that seriously, but since guidelines are now stricter, they're analyzing it anyways, just to be certain. Also, it appears to be the case that the crew does have the necessary equipment onboard to fix it if necessary. --82.141.50.231 04:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think if there is anyone thats under-exaggerating the situation is NASA. One, the shuttles are supposed to be grounded and not even in flight. Two, this is what caused the Columbia crash. Three, a 4 to 5 inch hole is a big hole. Nothing like this happened after Columbia this extensive. Four, no they cannot fix it and they cannot transport the proper equipment to do so because there is no room. NASA would send the Russian Space crew up to get them as NASA will not send another shuttle to risk the same thing happening. And Russia will help, assuming a new "cold war" does not start between the US and Russia. Five, the heat shield is the most sensitive piece of equipment of the shuttle, when it comes to re-entry. If any of it is as "severely" damaged as a 4 or 5 inch hole, then the shuttle will break apart because if the smallest amount of heat is not blocked/absorbed then the shuttle will crumble in a ball of fire exactly like Columbia. Six, NASA looks at this because of Columbia and because the shuttle is too old and was NEVER meant for what we use it for. It was originally designed to mass transit humans into space. DragonFire1024 06:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Paranoid much? 72.29.211.18 14:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not all damage to the heat protection of the shuttle are equal. In the case of Columbia, the significant damage was dealt to the leading edge of the craft, where the greatest amount of heat and pressure are encounter during re-entry. In the case of Atlantis, the damage is dealt on the topside and towards the rear of the shuttle, where the heat and pressure during re-entry would be significantly less than those encountered at the shuttle's leading edge or underbelly. As for the shuttle being originally designed to mass transit humans into space... Better check your sources there. And Moonraker doesn't count. 72.142.212.33 17:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As for not having enough room to transport the equipment to fix it. After columbia they experimented with sealing material and even tested it during a recent shuttle flight IIRC. This takes up almost no room - its like transporting glue a some small tools. The official comments regarding repairs which i have read seem to indicate that they do have this stuff onboard and are considering to use it if necessary. So, they are not completely helpless. The question is just if the damage is too dangerous to ignore, and if it is, then there is the risk of using technology which has never been tested before "for real". --82.141.52.46 18:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If this were paranoia, then Columbia and Challenger Shuttles would still be here. Point is NASA needs to pay attention to EVERY detail regardless of how small or large it is. Atlantis even had a meteor hit it last time it was in flight. So NASA needs to treat this as if it were a very serious problem, even if it seems its not. DragonFire1024 02:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You are paranoid. The disasters of Columbia and Challenger little to do with the current situation for Atlantis. I'm sure NASA appreciates your concerns that they are not doing enough work to assuage the 24/7 news junkie's fears. 128.62.194.114 14:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? So tell me...how did Clumbia crash? DragonFire1024 20:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)