Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Strictly: Drilling II -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Louis V. Lambrecht who wrote (27253)	2/2/2003 12:09:27 PM
From: 4figureau	Respond to of 36161

Junior List new 52 week highs: 321gold.com

To: Louis V. Lambrecht who wrote (27253)	2/2/2003 1:39:02 PM
From: Steve Lee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36161

Columbia was the only shuttle that didn't have a docking port for the space station, so that wasn't an option. Also, while the shuttle can stay aloft for months (tho maybe only if that length of stay is built into the mission before launch), I doubt it holds enough fuel to change its pre planned orbit to enable it to get to the space station. Maybe another shuttle or Soyuz coulda parked next to it and they could have spacewalked across, but I believe it takes months to prepare a Soyuz or shuttle for launch. What will probly come from this is that the next generation orbiter will feature a crew module that is able to withstand reentry on its own should the wings break off, and parachute down like the rocket capsules do. Such a system would have saved not only this crew, but the Challenger crew as well. Whatever the cause turns out to have been, I am sure much will be learned and the result will be a safer system in the future. The sacrifice will not have been in vain. I can understand why some people think the space program is a waste of money, but you have to remember that these people are volunteers and weigh the risks against the potential for scientific progress and personal ambition fulfillment. From an economic point of view I think the science justifies the cost, especially if the end result is the ability for regular human travel to the moon and Mars and beyond. Don't forget all the money spent on the space program goes somewhere, mostly into the US economy. Also, the scientific and engineering work necessary works its way into benefitting all of us through new technologies and understanding. There is also the defence aspect. Should the US really abandon the space program when the Chinese are committed to a fast track human space flight program. I guess their regard for preservation of human life does not match that of NASA, and thus they have an advantage in terms of the kinds of missions they can attempt. Of course the next shuttle launch should be held until the Columbia problem is identified and mitigated, but I hope that this is not too much of a blow to the space program.