Twenty-three years ago, seven astronauts lifted off from Cape Canaveral on the space shuttle Challenger, never to return to Earth.

Checking Slashdot today for something exciting, I managed to find a story about how NASA has determined that small particles that orbit the Earth at high-speed are the most dangerous threat to the space shuttle. You can read the full story with details on Space.com.

I am more interested in the fact that, up until now, they didn't think stray paint flecks, rocks, and other debris were incredibly dangerous to the safety of the shuttle and its crew. From a practical standpoint, I would think it would be as dangerous as the main booster rockets exploding on lift-off. Why? Well, if the shuttle is hit by some object it's likely to do considerable damage. Even if the ship were still manuveurable, the only place they could would attempt to reach would be the International Space Station. It's also likely that this debris, upon hitting something vital, could completely disable the shuttle... sending it and its crew to their doom.

Sure, the main boosters exploding on lift-off is bad, but there is still a chance of escape... even if it is minute. In space, the game is entirely different. The astronauts would have nowhere to go if their shuttle's engine was entirely disabled. They could only wait as it decelerated and fell out of orbit... if they managed to survive re-entry, they might be able to attempt a landing somewhere, but it's important to note that the shuttle needs a two-mile long runway to come to a complete stop.

I wonder how much money NASA spent on that study. Sitting down and writing just some of the nasty things that could happen if the shuttle were hit by debris would be enough to convince me of the risk. I guess maybe I'm a little more cautious than NASA is on the matter...

While this isn't NASA performing the contest, I felt it best fit under this category as opposed to any of the others (I can always go back and change it to something else later). The European Space Agency has been running an international contest named The Clarke-Bradbury International Science Fiction Competition, part of the ITSF Project, as a way to stimulate the imaginations of people around the world.

This year's specific topic is the Space Elevator, and anyone is allowed to enter in the contest. The final submission deadline is February 25^th, so you have about two months to come up with an idea. They are accepting web submissions and e-mail submissions. Definitely be sure to check out their Rules (which are also mentioned in the extended article).

Good luck to all those who participate, I may even get in on the fun and write a story.

Today, July 20th is the 35^th anniversary of Apollo 11 landing on the moon, with Neil Armstrong becoming the first human to step on its surface. Here's the NASA transcript of this landmark occasion, and a shot of the astronauts, stepping down onto the Moon surface. Now, there were some reports about the fact that you can never see the stars in any of these pictures, but if you look very closely on the high-resolution shots, you will see them in a very dim state. I mentioned earlier why this occurs.

President George W. Bush hit off the election year with amazing rumors of plans to return to the moon, and send a manned mission to Mars. This comes up at a time when China has made its first launch into space, and plans for more in the coming years. Being a general skeptic of the Bush administration, I believe this is just a move to pull in votes from people who want more effort and money to be invested into NASA.

Even though the United States went to the moon in the 60's and 70's, it wouldn't change the fact that such an undertaking now would be costly, time consuming and dangerous.

Even if Bush were reeelected under these promises, nothing says that Congress has to accept the notion and foot the bill. Some critics claim that Bush is simply doing this to show the world that our space program isn't a failure, and nothing else. Unfortunately, I'm inclined to agree with that statement, even though I would like to see a permanent base on the moon and Mars in my lifetime. I'm a bit skeptical if it will happen. We shouldn't have dropped that program when we had it running back in the 70's. What were our representatives in Congress and our President thinking?