Space shuttle Columbia crashes
- Thread starter Shadowfax
- Start date
sbcanada
New Member
In my opinion, a closer inspection should have been made to the damage under the left wing. What if they had known the shuttle was fatally damaged before they tried to reenter the atmosphere? Do you think there was nothing that could have been done? I really doubt it. Maybe the shuttle was doomed. But I really think they could have saved the crew. They could have used telescopes, satellites, the ISS cameras (they passed close enough by each other). So there were ways to do it.
Shadowfax
<b>mod cow</b>
what makes you think that a kid like you knows more than a few hundred highly qualified scientists? you know jack shit about the space shuttle systems. i don't know a lot about it, but i know quite a bit more than you i'm sure.
don't make judgements about situations you know nothing about. that just shows a lot of disrespect to the people who work there and have been trying to make space travel safe for god knows how long.
Good idea
Aunty Em
Well-Known Member
The flight plan did not include docking with the ISS which was in a higher orbit than STS-107, which would have made it extremely difficult to reach as they were not carrying enough fuel to do so.
Space walking is extremely hazardous and suicidal without a tether or jet backpack, neither of which they had, plus only 2 of the crew had been trained to space-walk.
If they had known that the damage was more extensive then they would most likely have had to pray that Atlantis could reach them in time as the only really viable solution to the problem.
Anyway, now NASA know that you can't rely on past experience in space.
Space walking is extremely hazardous and suicidal without a tether or jet backpack, neither of which they had, plus only 2 of the crew had been trained to space-walk.
If they had known that the damage was more extensive then they would most likely have had to pray that Atlantis could reach them in time as the only really viable solution to the problem.
Anyway, now NASA know that you can't rely on past experience in space.
Aunty said:
In a nutshell, this is it.
Not likely anybody could have saved them & they didn't have enough fuel to go to the station. Engineers, best guessing, said it's not a problem. Next time they'll know better. They've used long range telescopes, looking for damage, in the past & they proved useless. It's time for self-propelled vehicles that can re-enter the atmoshere under controlled speeds & telemetry.
The othe day I remarked about the descent. Prof called them a flying brick. He's exactly right. Rush Limbaugh talked at length about this on Monday & said the ratio of downfall to forward momentum is 7/1. Meaning this extraordinarily priced multi-use vehicle re-enters the atmosphere at 16000 MPH or so & falls 7 feet for every foot it moves forward. Phenomenal.
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
The Canadarm was not on the Colombia, and the shuttle didn't have enough fuel to make it to the higher orbit of the ISS.sbcanada said:That's pretty crappy if they have no way of remotely viewing parts of the shuttle once it is docked. Should they have remote cameras? What about the Canadarm 2? That was at the space station. Could that have been used to aid the astronaughts in a spacewalk around the shuttle? If not, there's always rope and suction cup things. No need to float away.
That's it, you shall forever be plagued by my wrath.And since you mentioned the American bombing of Canadian soldiers, and yes I did use that as an example of American stupidity. And it turns out, it was the American pilots fault. He was under orders to hold fire, he should have fled the scene. He dropped the bomb and should not have and that makes him a genuine idiot.
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
Perhaps because the insulation has an extremely low modulus, very low density, and almost non-existant kinetic energy - even traveling at the speed of sound? Perhaps because the same insulation has struck the shuttle several times previously without causing damage? Perhaps because there are actually people in this world who can calculate such things (myself included), and you can't?sbcanada said:
Oh, please do tell.
Yeah, that helps the people on the ISS. Unfortunately, it was physically impossible for the fucking Colombia to reach the ISS, you fucking idiot.
Are you such a fucking idiot that you can't even comprehend what you read? "Dittemore acknowledged that NASA might have been wrong" - i.e., there might have actually been damage, and NASA was mistaken to conclude that there probably wasn't. This does not mean that NASA knew there was damage. "Wing damage on launch day..." - i.e., the damage NASA was unaware of (if there even was any such damage), and incorrect in presuming wasn't there, might have played a role in the disaster.
Perhaps the insulation has been redesigned, and is much less likely to come off during takeoff than in the past? Perhaps the current foam, though not perfect, is the best damn stuff on the planet, and you simply can't improve this characteristic any without compromising the performance of the foam or of the shuttle? Perhaps you just don't have a fucking clue what your blabbering about?
Why don't you tell us the reason fusion reactors aren't having any success... you're as likely to be knowledgable on that topic as you are on the subject of rocket science.
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
No, it is painfully obvious that you are blinded by your own ignorance. Something to be proud of, no doubt.sbcanada said:
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
And how the hell were they supposed to do that? Sacrifice a crewman? Use extra-sensory perception? Draw straws? Guess? Maybe one of the astronauts should have emailed you... it's obvious you know everything about the shuttle program, and could have undoubtedly instructed them on how to identify and repair the problem.sbcanada said:
Then they would have known the shuttle was fatally damaged.
You doubt it? And this is based on how much experience in the field? Where did you receive your ph.d.? How many years have you worked in aerospace engineering? How many crayon drawings of airplanes have you made?
The shuttles carry no replacement tiles, nor any other means of reparing such damage, assuming that was even the cause (it could have been a damaged aileron, or numerous other things). The astronauts had no means to even gain access to that part of the shuttle to examine it, let alone attempt repairs. I suppose one of the crew floating to his death could have radioed back information, but staying put and doing anything useful is beyond ludicrous. The ISS carries no such supplies, not that it would have done them any good. Sending material from the ground would most likely have resulted in seven asphixiated astronauts. So, Mr. Armchair Engineer, what would you have done?
How? Wishing it was all better?
Telescopes have been used in the past to attempt to see damage on a shuttle, and the images were all but useless.
Yeah, that's nice in theory, but it's way beyond practical. A shuttle has never been prepped and launched so quickly. Newsflash... the primary reason it takes so long to turn the shuttles around and prepare them for launch is safety. Had the Atlantis been rushed for launch, NASA would have been taking a tremendous risk of making another mistake and losing another two astronauts and another shuttle. Since there was no practical way of knowing if there was any damage to the Colombia, the odds of them coming home safely based on available information were greater than the odds of an incident free "rescue" mission trying to hurry the Atlantis for launch. Hindsight is nice, but reality is what people with intelligence have to live in.
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
I don't think that's true. I think the shuttles' free-air low speed glide profile 1:1, but at 16000 mph things are drastically different. It takes quite a while for the shuttle to scrub enough speed to approach anything like a 1:1 glide/descent ratio.Gonz said:
Just think about where the Colombia broke apart... 200,000 feet up, and ~1500 miles from landing. If it was already at a 1:1 descent, it would have been on the ground in under 40 miles. At a 7:1 ratio, it would have landed short of the debris field!
drkavnger99
Member
Whoa I'll keep my neck out of this one 
I already made some comments on how the US is always being called stupid or combative!
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
PuterTutor said:OSLI, just wondering, have you ever posted a post that wasn't a freaking book?
j/k. Love your style.
lol, not very often. I created a formula once that calculated a "member rating" of a forum's members, which was used at Rage3D for a short time (used by me, not by the site). It took into account how long you had been a member, how many posts you had made, how many posts the average member makes per day, how many characters on average were in your posts, and how many characters per post was the forum average. It attempted to give some numerical value to a member's posting style other than raw number of posts. Simplistically, a higher rating was meant to convey a higher "value" of some sort that member had... in so far as their volume of contribution to the forum. It also attempted to differentiate between "spam" type posting habits, and more meaningful posting. It didn't (couldn't) take into account the content of posts, and its value, naturally.
The formula seemed to produce very insightful results - it boosted a member's "spam rating" if they tended to post very short posts (relative to the forum average), especially if they did that more often than the average member. Also, the longer you had been a member, the lower the impact of such short numerous posts on your "spam rating." If you had only a few long posts, your "spam rating" would be low, but the low total volume of your posts (total characters) kept your "member rating" from being very high. Likewise, a longtime member that posted often, but only had "a few words of wisdom" for each post, he would likely have a higher "spam rating" but also a high "member rating" on account of thier long time status and steady posting.
Interestingly, the formula produced an unexpected result: it singled out the obvious #1 spammer on the board and assigned them a negative rating.
Quirk of the mathematics, I said. And, since it fingered me as one of the top three rated posters (no doubt due to my "wordy" posting style) I can say without a doubt that the forumla is accurate and unbiased. Unfortunately, it was quickly abused. In helping me compile the stats, for what seemed like good fun in the beginning, the site admins added the statistic of average characters per post for all forum members general information. When the "spamming" members found realized that theirs was hilariously low, they began a campaign of "one-upping" each other on how much they could quote in any one post. Therefore, the side affect of shining the light on the spammers posting habits was to actually create more spam posts, in volumes that had never before been seen. The stat was quickly removed, and we all forgot about the forumla.
Your post just reminded me of it again.
Maybe I should dig it out of the file archives? 
