Atlantis suffered major MMOD hit

#40 by Chris Bergin on 06 Oct, 2006 15:54
Quote
Paul Howard - 6/10/2006 4:14 PM

It's nice this site didn't change to the NASA photo either as I was expecting the article to change to the NASA.gov photos.

No need to. Robert had the images first. We had the info first.

The synergy on this story is correctly portrayed by the accreditation.
#41 by rdale on 06 Oct, 2006 15:55
Quote
Orion_Guy - 6/10/2006 10:53 AM

I'm guessing that they meant that NASA first reported it on Thursday.

Then why go to the trouble to take references to NSF out? Someone (either FlaTod or AP) did that intentionally for some reason.
#42 by Chris Bergin on 06 Oct, 2006 16:03
Quote
rdale - 6/10/2006 4:38 PM

Quote
Orion_Guy - 6/10/2006 10:53 AM

I'm guessing that they meant that NASA first reported it on Thursday.

Then why go to the trouble to take references to NSF out? Someone (either FlaTod or AP) did that intentionally for some reason.

Looking at the AP Wire, they referenced to NASA.gov's Thursday publication of the images. Wire services would deem it bad business to accredit another media site, as wire services - by their very nature - sell their wire to the mass media as "new news".

Absolutely positive no one "took out" accreditation. I'd only have a problem if AP tagged their report "Exclusive", which they didn't. They appear to simply be saying that NASA went official with it on Thursday, which is correct. We just happened to run it on Wednesday.

Personally, I'm not at all bothered, I'm just happy (because I'm from the old school of media) that there's been some really great accreditation from the big boys like MSNBC and NY Times etc.

My focus is always on the next article - and my concern is only with advancing this site's content.
#43 by MKremer on 06 Oct, 2006 16:16
Quote
51D Mascot - 6/10/2006 10:21 AM

I requested an overview from NASA and got this yesterday (Thursday) which doesn't offer a lot of new detail, but is a handy summation of NASA commentary to this point on this:

Thanks very much for posting that.
#44 by Orion_Guy on 06 Oct, 2006 18:44
I wonder sometimes if the big dogs like CNN get the news just as fast as the specialized space news sites, but do not devote resources to it to get it to print as quickly because the general american public cares more about what happend on lastnight's episode of Lost then they do about a small hole in a radiator panel. I mean, I would think that an organization that has been covering the news for so long, has so much money, so much attention, and so many people would have just as many "inside" contacts.

Then again, since they are more concerned about reporting things like who Paris Hilton got into a fight with, maybe they do not find it important to devote any time to getting quick space news.
#45 by astrobrian on 06 Oct, 2006 21:47
Quote
Chris Bergin - 6/10/2006 7:34 AM
Quote
astrobrian - 6/10/2006 1:06 PM CNNs Miles OBrien Gave this site specific credit for being first with the release of the MMOD picture.
Did he? As in on the TV?

Yup. saw it this morning just before heading to work, around 630am central time
#46 by astrobrian on 06 Oct, 2006 21:49
Quote
collectspace - 6/10/2006 8:32 AM
Quote
astrobrian - 6/10/2006 7:06 AM CNNs Miles OBrien Gave this site specific credit for being first with the release of the MMOD picture.
I didn't see the broadcast myself, but my inbox is full this morning with notes from collectSPACE readers that the photo shown by Miles (and apparently Lou Dobbs last night) carried "Collect Space" as the credit... On edit, I received a call from CNN this morning confirming that they had been using our site as the source. They were however, getting ready to switch to using NASA.
The picture did indeed say collect space in the upper right corner, but this site was mention in the talking going on relating to the story and said we had it first
#47 by Chris Bergin on 06 Oct, 2006 23:54
Quote
astrobrian - 6/10/2006 10:30 PM

Quote
Chris Bergin - 6/10/2006 7:34 AM
Quote
astrobrian - 6/10/2006 1:06 PM CNNs Miles OBrien Gave this site specific credit for being first with the release of the MMOD picture.
Did he? As in on the TV?

Yup. saw it this morning just before heading to work, around 630am central time

Shame no one caught it on video. That'd of been cool to see.
#48 by realtime on 07 Oct, 2006 04:46
Just to get back on topic a bit -- can any information be gleaned about exactly what the MMOD was composed of? Did it come from orbital launch debris or was it from something coming in from space?

Just playing the odds, I'm guessing it's orbital. Also, there are a lot of factors, but it seems like something that big moving at interplanetary speeds would do more damage, maybe punch all the way through.
#49 by pip on 07 Oct, 2006 09:18
Yeah, the MMOD didn't completely penetrate all the way through did it? I haven't read anything along those lines so I'd think there'd be some kind of chance that they could find it. But I haven't heard anything about them doing that either. I understand the physics/statistics of the situation might prevent that. Though something might be said about the orbiter's durability seeing that it didn't pass all the way through.
#50 by Jim on 07 Oct, 2006 13:13
it vaporized
#51 by realtime on 07 Oct, 2006 18:45
Even vaporized, one would expect deposits in the damaged structure to analyze. It could prove useful knowledge.
#52 by Spirit on 07 Oct, 2006 21:21
Sh** just happens. NASA is not supposed to havy armour its ships in order to sustain damage from MMOD, comets, aliens or enemies. Space flight is risky and the people involved in it know it very well.
#53 by Orbiter Obvious on 10 Oct, 2006 03:52
Any updates on repairing the hole?
#54 by Chris Bergin on 11 Oct, 2006 01:47
MacLean says crew lucky after unknown object pierced radiator of shuttle

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=9a425769-5a51-432b-9164-85eb19c7eea3&k=62663&p=1
#55 by Jeff Bingham on 11 Oct, 2006 02:08
Yes, "Lucky" that it didn't hit the freon loop and force an early deorbit...assuming of course, it occurred before most--or even all--of the mission objectives were met. Don't think we have a sense yet of when the impact occurred, do we? Who knows...maybe that's what caused those debris pieces to dislodge that were observed a couple of days before landing?

I also thought it interesting that MacLean says we shouldn't abandon the shuttle in 2010, but keep using it...presumably until we have a replacement for the longer term and for VSE missions beyond LEO. Of course, that would take more money than is currently projected by the Administration, because it is MONEY that is driving the 2010 retirement date and the number of missions beyween now and then.