PR. Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 This sound like the source but they don't have the picture :rolleyes: http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?g...id=89&id=117049 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemania Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sts10...ons_030202.html outlines the possible option to columbus. I wonder if the inquiries will recommend that shuttles be fitted with life pods (The new re-entry vehicle to be used with the space station to replace the souyze as the emergency return vehicles). I don't know if it is even possible to fit them in the shuttle and even if they did, the amount of cargo that the shuttle can carry would be significantly reduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redFX Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 Sad to say, but I do believe there was foul play. What I'm saying about foul play is that they knew there was a chance of the thing burning up (very high chance) and still took it. I mean think about. Who has to gain from this disaster? NASA does of caurse. Here comes a new budget to account for a new shuttle. The columbia was designed in the 70's and finished in 79 (and I think the first flight was 81 or was it finished in 81? Bah, forgot ). Sad but I believe it to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 Sad to say, but I do believe there was foul play. What I'm saying about foul play is that they knew there was a chance of the thing burning up (very high chance) and still took it.I mean think about. Who has to gain from this disaster? NASA does of caurse. Here comes a new budget to account for a new shuttle. The columbia was designed in the 70's and finished in 79 (and I think the first flight was 81 or was it finished in 81? Bah, forgot ). Sad but I believe it to be true. Have you read anything in this thread? I'll repeat it for the 51st time: NASA knew something was up when the shuttle was taking off, but they didn't think it would cause this accident The shuttle could not dock with the space station The astronaughts were not trained for a space walk to fix the problem. NASA had NO CHOICE but to try and land and hope for the best. Apparently to NASA, at the time the chance the shuttle wouldn't make it was very minimal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 Sad to say, but I do believe there was foul play. What I'm saying about foul play is that they knew there was a chance of the thing burning up (very high chance) and still took it.I mean think about. Who has to gain from this disaster? NASA does of caurse. Here comes a new budget to account for a new shuttle. The columbia was designed in the 70's and finished in 79 (and I think the first flight was 81 or was it finished in 81? Bah, forgot ). Sad but I believe it to be true. yeah fould play.... NASA probably put a bomb on it too, give me a break :no: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sime27 Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 just to confirm the picture which started this tread is real and as just been shown on a uk new channel (bbc new 24) it clears shows a dent and a crack in the wing plus they just told us the temp in the inner damaged wing which on the last signal b4 loseing contact was over 60 deg C higher than the other wing...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quanta Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 This thread disgusts me. The astronauts' remains haven't even been buried yet, and the conspiracy nuts are already out waving their grainy, photo-chopped photos about. The exploration of space is a risky endeavour, and these heroes had paid the ultimate price for the benefit of mankind. Maybe we have taken space travel for granted, but NASA and its astronauts certainly never do. :angry: The space shuttle has travelled from earth orbit and back for the past 22 years. The spaceframe experiences incredible stresses and heat during liftoff and landing, and sustain 7 people for two weeks in the incredible cold of space. They regularily travel at speeds up to Mach 20, and experience G-forces of up to 8. And they've done it time and time again, 113 times in the past 22 years. Out of 113 flights, there have been two disasters. Statistically, the space shuttle is more reliable and safer than your car. Do you think this is by accident? No. NASA is virtually obsessive compulsive about keeping their "ol' girls" in top shape. Ground control rehearses each flight hundreds of times by computer simulation. The astronauts themselves spend 4-6 years just to have a shot at riding the shuttle. There is one team whose single responsibility is just to make sure there is no ice in the launch area. Yes, NASA detected a foam impact against the underside of the left delta wing and T+83 seconds, but you can't just get the shuttle to turn on dime and come back down. The astronauts cannot even reach the affected area to inspect it using conventional spacesuits. (They may if they had the new SAFER suits). Spouting inane, uneducated theories about this tragedy only demeans the memory of the crew of STS-107. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smitjel Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 "There's always somebody to blame." - I hate that mentality that we have. We're not talking about boarding a 737. This is a ROCKET that was going 18 Mach! Anything can happen when you strap your butt to a rocket going that fast. I still don't see what NASA could've done on the ground to fix this...blame away people! :crazy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john smith 1924 Veteran Posted February 3, 2003 Veteran Share Posted February 3, 2003 An idependent translation from a very very good friend of mine, who i trust implicty, and have done for some time now. "24 hours after the disaster of Colombia questions about what happend just grow. one of the biggest ones is rather the people in huston knew or thought of a problem after the launch and that the ship may not return home and not told the people on the ship about it. the question turned up again and again on every flight specialist in Israel and the US (bad English first paragraph) Everything started in the first seconds of the launch on the 16th of jan. in video the people at NASA saw some piece of foam disconnecting from the left wing of Colombia and hit some of the heating blocks which are supposed to protect the ship from the heat. one of the options is that such blocks did brake and left the ship open for heat which caused it to crash. Ron (something), manager at the Nasa program and Mit said something confirmed that such thing did happen but the weakness did not show up; only after they entered the atmosphere. if such thing did happen Nasa couldn't have done anything. in Newsweek it is reported that Nasa didn't have any effort in checking this with a Telescope or a satellite. but even if such thing would have been found out, nothing could have been done, even an attempt to get to the international base in space was not an option.(mr m says - there was no docking gear on columbia...) Avi Har Even, manager of the Israeli Space Program said that the crew had no idea something was wrong, atleast till the last few minutes before going into the atmosphere. The German Astronaut Orlich Richter which have been on the Colomibia mission before said that Nasa should have told the crew on the ship about the risk and should have atleast sent one of the crew members to check it out and try and fix it. Last Night on Channel 1 (Israeli channel) a picture was shown taken at a press confrence in which Ramon spoke to prime minister Sharon; in the picture you could clearly see a hit mark on the wing and under it something that might look like a scratch. Aharon Lepidot, some professional in the subject said that for sure there is a dent on the wing. and it could be seen with an untrained eye. and for sure thats not the way it [the wing] should look. As for the scratch, it might not be a scratch it could be some sticker or something of that type holding something else. but for sure it's not something that should be there. He also says that there is no doubt that there was something on the left wing but he can not say for 100% that thats what caused it. in any case the left wing fell off which caused the ship to crash." although its not 100% accurate, and the english might be a little dodgy, it certainly gives credit and outline to an intreging story... and has opened my eyes a bit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 "Everything started in the first seconds of the launch on the 16th of jan Um...wrong date. :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrelrider_and_sting Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 The images being posted on the internet depicting an impact area on the left wing of the shuttle are not areas to be concerned with. Those particular areas are white tiled areas and do not experience the significant heating that the UNDERSIDE and LEADING EDGE areas do. The underside and leading edges are surfaced with the black tiles that are more heat resistant. The White tiles that cover the upper areas of the shuttle are primarily for reflective purposes when the shuttle is exposed to the sun in space...like snow...or the fur on a polar bear... the Black tiles are the critical tiles...and definately not the upper surface of the wing David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuregu02 Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 Um...wrong date. :blink: No it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 Um...wrong date. :blink: Op...my bad. I was thinking of the landing date. :blush: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 If that is the LEFT wing, the area photographed must be the control surfaces, so erm where are they...? And wtf is that big black lump. Do you not think that may interfere with the aerodynamics of the wing? Looks very dodgy to me. However, if the shuttle crew did know about this, it puts another light on the comment that was along the lines of "do we have to come home yet?". :cry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PROGAME Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 i wanted to translate it myself the translation Mr magoo posted it correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john smith 1924 Veteran Posted February 3, 2003 Veteran Share Posted February 3, 2003 i wanted to translate it myselfthe translation Mr magoo posted it correct thanks :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quanta Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 In space, objects may appear smaller and larger than reality, because there is no reference point for stereoscopic detail. Those "black things" could be anything: wires, someone's hair in front of the camera, smudges on the window, etc. It may even be a shadow or maybe a scorch mark. The shuttle's ventral surface is white but this object in the picture is yellow...why? Sunlight? Dirt? Just because a newspaper and a TV channel decides to show this picture, it still raises many questions. What is the picture of, exactly? What "camera" do they speak of, where is it inside the shuttle? When was it taken? Why was it taken? The media is currently hunting down every NASA retiree and conspiracy theorist alive; they'll show anything to get ratings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 Those "black things" could be anything: wires, someone's hair in front of the camera, smudges on the window, etc. It may even be a shadow or maybe a scorch mark. Thats basically what I thought, hence asking the questions, re:flight surfaces, maybe its a very high zoom photo, meaning the cracks were stupidly small. That photo makes them look massive, I find that hard to believe given the stresses of the kind of acceleration experienced on launch. I just think it may have been better if the astronauts didn't know about the problem on reentry (something makes me want to delete that line, its not our place to say how they should die) Damit. I think i'll stop reading this thread, its making me all depressed :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratbear Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 y did it take 16days to shaging blow up then? y didnt it blow up in space? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watermoss Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 ITN News said the picture was taken 5 days ago. They showed it a little futher out - then zoomed in - and it was video - you could see the earth moving underneath (or shuttle moving around the earth!) Colin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 y did it take 16days to shaging blow up then? y didnt it blow up in space? You're either plain stupid, or trolling. It didnt blow up in space because there are no significant forces on the wing in space. On reentry the speed was insanely high, and the G forces painfully large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not_A_Virus Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 i'll just copy & paste what i wrote in the thread from yesterday about this: even if they saw the damage theres not much they could do, Colombia was always to heavy to reach the ISS(and was at a totally differnet inclination), and even if it could it didn't have any mechanism to dock with it, a second shuttle was also unlikey since NASA doesn't have the capability to launch a shuttle on a moments notice much less have enough room or weight allowances to bring back an extra 7 crew members in one shuttle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sethrd Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 Everyone in that ship and in the command room knew there would be risks, and they went ahead. I mean, yeah, it's sad they died, but they went ahead. Like so many others before, there was nothing NASA could do but cross their fingers and pray for the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sime27 Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 picture confirmation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarbonKnight Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 Sad to say, but I do believe there was foul play. What I'm saying about foul play is that they knew there was a chance of the thing burning up (very high chance) and still took it.I mean think about. Who has to gain from this disaster? NASA does of caurse. Here comes a new budget to account for a new shuttle. The columbia was designed in the 70's and finished in 79 (and I think the first flight was 81 or was it finished in 81? Bah, forgot ). Sad but I believe it to be true. :angry: Ridiculous, I'm sorry there is no way Nasa would purposely kill their own men, and jeapordize a functioning spacecraft with future payloads. Plus, you honestly think NASA has a budget problem? Their budget is astronomical (no pun intended), and outrageous as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts