If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   NASA reveals that it knew ahead of time that Columbia's re-entry was probably going to end badly   (rawstory.com) divider line 419
    More: Sad, NASA, Space Shuttle Columbia, re-entry, Columbia disaster, flight controls, TPS, Johnson Space Center  
•       •       •

27025 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Feb 2013 at 12:14 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



419 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-02 06:19:50 AM

Rreal: Given the capacity of the human animal for self destructive panic, I would argue that letting them die quickly and ignorant of their fate would be merciful.


Astronauts are chosen for NOT having those qualities.
 
2013-02-02 06:22:37 AM

acanuck: I think NASA didn't want to lose the SHIP and the crew was expendable.


I think you're a farking moron.
 
2013-02-02 06:30:13 AM
I know I'm late to the thread (and perhaps it's been mentioned), but to everyone saying they should have had the opportunity to say goodbye to their family...  I would think that as an astronaut, one would know that all missions are fraught with potential danger and death.  Sure NASA had a decent track record, but I would think that saying goodbye to family/friends, making amends, etc would be SOP before any mission.

Personally I think the psychological trauma of helplessness- knowing I was going to die and there was nothing I could do about it- for a long period of time would be worse than the relatively "speedy" death which they encountered.  But of course I hope that I am never in a position where either option exists.
 
2013-02-02 06:33:48 AM

Gyrfalcon: relcec: Jensaarai: GAT_00: There was nothing they could have done to fix it and telling them would have done nothing.  I don't blame them for that.

Usually, I appreciate your "defense of government" posts on this site, but in this case you need to go fark yourself raw.

There's the standard risk inherent in space travel, then there is "you will probably die shortly, would you like to wait it out, get yourself in order (spiritually) record any last words now that you know it's likely etc.

Even if there's nothing that can be done, you give the heroes the choice. They are trained to handle it. You don't make the choice for them. NASA farked up here, and none of the people who made this choice deserve to hold a government job ever again.

mission control did not KNOW THE SHUTTLE HAD A F*CKING PROBLEM.
they knew there was the potential for one, but they never knew god damit.
they refused an engineer request to get a NSA satellite to take photos of the shuttle because a fatalistic momentum with regard to serious problems developed, BUT STILL THEY DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING WAS WRONG. they knew it was but a possibility.
I'm gonna stay here all night until you f*ckwits get that basic fact into your brains.

Dude, nobody is going to get that into their heads. There have been at least two books written about the subject and still nobody has gotten the basic idea that the engineers had to convince the top brass that there was enough of  a problem to get photos that would have confirmed there was a problem before they could get the photos that would have convinced the brass there was a problem.

Anything after that (i.e. "They could have attempted a rescue") is Tuesday-evening rehashing of Monday-morning quarterbacking at this point, because without those photos, there's no way to know what might have been seen, let alone done.


The problem with the masses, and I included, is we just couldn't seem to grasp that there isn't SOMETHING that they could of done, something that we could accept. This is my generations Challenger, it'll always be a shock to us and we will always try to read something into it and attempt to find some reasoning into this even though it is a risk that these seven astronauts have accepted.

We can't wrap our heads around it, just like 9-11. We just want to believe that there was something that could of been done that would of prevented the tragedies and deaths involved and we're happy to nitpick the details even after the fact going 'what if?'.

I have to admit...I'm happy that even after 10 years, this is something we all still remember and talk about. We haven't forgotten.
 
2013-02-02 06:35:41 AM

Smgth: To the 'we should've let them say goodbye crowd':

One would imagine these astronauts would be prepared, in advance, so that sobbing good byes of 'we're all going to die' are probably unnecessary. Anyone doing something so potentially deadly should get their affairs in order before hand.

Also, I was under the impression, that at the time, there were enough people involved who thought it might be ok anyway.

/Would rather die attempting re-entry then suffocate.
//Would also not want my famiy's last memory of me be my doomed goodbye.
///Those being said, why not give the guys the opportunity to try and make some halfassed attempt at fixing it with chewing gum?


And as I kept reading, looks like SMGTH beat me to it.
 
2013-02-02 06:39:58 AM
At least if they had been told, I'll bet one of the 'right stuff' boys on board woulda clamped a cigar in their teeth, switched to manual override, and cross-controlled that buckin' bronco to protect the hole in the skin, takin' 'er right on down for a dramatic three pointer smack in front of the hangar doors, with melted slag metal dripping off on the tarmac, and the wing finally fallin' off, right as the smokin' wheels stopped rollin'.


(admit I perhaps watched too many WWII movies as a kid)
 
2013-02-02 06:58:33 AM

kev_dog: Smgth: To the 'we should've let them say goodbye crowd':

One would imagine these astronauts would be prepared, in advance, so that sobbing good byes of 'we're all going to die' are probably unnecessary. Anyone doing something so potentially deadly should get their affairs in order before hand.

Also, I was under the impression, that at the time, there were enough people involved who thought it might be ok anyway.

/Would rather die attempting re-entry then suffocate.
//Would also not want my famiy's last memory of me be my doomed goodbye.
///Those being said, why not give the guys the opportunity to try and make some halfassed attempt at fixing it with chewing gum?

And as I kept reading, looks like SMGTH beat me to it.


Lol, it's all good. It's a loooooong thread. I mean, just look how many times someone suggested the ISS! Every couple of posts!

/Although I suspect after awhile a degree of trolling snuck in.
 
2013-02-02 07:00:48 AM

Amos Quito: Yeah, that's sad, but I suppose that sometimes ignorance is bliss - comparitively.

Apparently their fate was sealed, and nothing could have been done to change the probable outcome. Why make them live their last few hours freaking out?

So given their decision in this case, do you suppose NASA would bother to tell us if they spotted a huge, dark space rock on a collision course for Earth, or just let it be a "surprise"?


/Eat, drink, Fark and be merry, folks


oi49.tinypic.com
 
2013-02-02 07:01:09 AM

BullBearMS: Idiots, Take One:  It was impossible to mount a rescue mission no matter what, so it doesn't matter that NASA actively shut down any attempt to see how much damage the shuttle took in the launch.

NASA:  It wasn't impossible to mount a rescue mission.

Idiots, Take Two:  It still doesn't matter that NASA actively shut down any attempt to see how much damage the shuttle took in the launch.


No, the middle part wasn't NASA, it was YOU, [mis]quoting the CAIB report THAT CLEARED THE GROUND CREW OF WRONGDOING.  You seem to say that the CAIB report is a "smoking gun", well, then where's the prosecutions?   Get this: when you say that the CAIB report said that a rescue was possible, you forget that the CAIB took great pains to say "but the rescue was unfeasable for other reasons, thus the decision was right".  Not only that, but the "half-vast conspiracy" side can't even get which door is which right, trying to tell me once that the access/egress door was the one used in space (that door would open ONCE in space, then anyone on the flight deck not in a space suit (and they typically didn't carry enough for the entire crew) would not be needing a rescue any more).  Yeah, can't get the door right, in one case can't even get the SHUTTLE right (Challenger is the one that had an intact crew compartment in '86, at least for a few minutes after it blew up), but CAN know that it HAD to be human error, without actually naming any human (because that would be something provable, and we all know that you can't actually prove wrongdoing, all you can do is prove that you're an ass)
 
2013-02-02 07:02:04 AM

faeriefay: MissFeasance: costermonger: MissFeasance: Yeah, but what I said was have a pod to bring them back, not something to launch.  Still crazy expensive, yeah, but why is there no bailout procedure?  It still wouldn't be a guarantee, but geez.  Given the choice of being in a craft that is probably going to fail and taking my chances with parachutes and possibly landing in the middle of nowhere, I'd take the latter.

All that heat that is generated during re-entry is due to compressive heating - because things in orbit have to go almost nonsensically fast (to us on the ground) to stay in orbit. If you want to jump out an re-enter, your body is going to generate the exact same compression heating as you work your way down. So it's not really 'taking your chances' as much as 'human meteorite'.

Yeah, but if it was a pod sort of thing with the same exterior protection, just... smaller, and that had been protected inside the larger craft?  I'm not saying "hey, jump out with your parachute"

But what about that red bull guy, the one who supposedly jumped from space this summer...
/he lived?



While he did jump from a long way up, and he briefly was able to edge past mach 1, the space shuttle goes up to mach 17 or somesuch during reentry. Very different speeds and problems with a jump from those altitudes.
 
2013-02-02 07:05:42 AM

RacySmurff: faeriefay: MissFeasance: costermonger: MissFeasance: Yeah, but what I said was have a pod to bring them back, not something to launch.  Still crazy expensive, yeah, but why is there no bailout procedure?  It still wouldn't be a guarantee, but geez.  Given the choice of being in a craft that is probably going to fail and taking my chances with parachutes and possibly landing in the middle of nowhere, I'd take the latter.

All that heat that is generated during re-entry is due to compressive heating - because things in orbit have to go almost nonsensically fast (to us on the ground) to stay in orbit. If you want to jump out an re-enter, your body is going to generate the exact same compression heating as you work your way down. So it's not really 'taking your chances' as much as 'human meteorite'.

Yeah, but if it was a pod sort of thing with the same exterior protection, just... smaller, and that had been protected inside the larger craft?  I'm not saying "hey, jump out with your parachute"

But what about that red bull guy, the one who supposedly jumped from space this summer...
/he lived?


While he did jump from a long way up, and he briefly was able to edge past mach 1, the space shuttle goes up to mach 17 or somesuch during reentry. Very different speeds and problems with a jump from those altitudes.


You opened that door....

0.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com
 
2013-02-02 07:11:00 AM

Amos Quito: So given their decision in this case, do you suppose NASA would bother to tell us if they spotted a huge, dark space rock on a collision course for Earth, or just let it be a "surprise"?


NASA isn't really in charge of stuff like that. They are involved, but it's mostly academic observatories and "professional amateurs" that locate and track asteroids.

Even if NASA did spot something, it would not be easily kept a secret.
=Smidge=
 
2013-02-02 07:15:21 AM

g4lt: the CAIB report THAT CLEARED THE GROUND CREW OF WRONGDOING


Holy FSM, tardman!

Where did it clear NASA's leadership of responsibility for their decision to actively shut down any attempt by the ground crew to discover how extensive the damage to the shuttle was?
 
2013-02-02 07:27:58 AM

BullBearMS: g4lt: the CAIB report THAT CLEARED THE GROUND CREW OF WRONGDOING

Holy FSM, tardman!

Where did it clear NASA's leadership of responsibility for their decision to actively shut down any attempt by the ground crew to discover how extensive the damage to the shuttle was?


Nowhere, BECAUSE IT NEVER MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS ANY DECISION TO ACTIVELY SHUT DOWN ANY DAMAGE ASSESSMENT.  It also never mentioned that they didn't ensure that Jack the Ripper wasn't a stowaway, so does the prove that he was one?
 
2013-02-02 07:30:44 AM
The one thing I haven't heard anyone mention is the landing gear...

I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but...

I seem to remember reading that what ultimately caused the breakup was the heating of the main tires. They heated to the point of exploding, and that sheared the wing clean off, causing tumbling and breakup and such... 

I'm wondering if that tire had been deflated, maybe the structure would have held together just long enough to make it through the deceleration and then maybe they could have bailed (I think shuttles had an in-atmosphere escape system) or just landed on deflated gear and hoped for the best.

Of course, this is all hindsight, and deflating the main gear would have been adding tons of danger to what might have been a non-problematic landing... Also, maybe you can't get to the tires in space... Might only open those doors in atmosphere... 

And also maybe you can't deflate them without special tools, and I doubt you're gonna want to just slash them...

Also, maybe the air venting would screw up their attitutude due to venting...

WHO KNOWS! CONSPIRACY~!¿!?!
 "W?
 
2013-02-02 07:35:33 AM

g4lt: BullBearMS: g4lt: the CAIB report THAT CLEARED THE GROUND CREW OF WRONGDOING

Holy FSM, tardman!

Where did it clear NASA's leadership of responsibility for their decision to actively shut down any attempt by the ground crew to discover how extensive the damage to the shuttle was?

Nowhere, BECAUSE IT NEVER MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS ANY DECISION TO ACTIVELY SHUT DOWN ANY DAMAGE ASSESSMENT.


You know how everyone knows you didn't read TFA?
 
2013-02-02 07:36:54 AM
When it became clear that the orbiter was seriously damaged and likely wouldn't survive re-entry, Flight Director Jon Harpold said to Hale and others at the meeting, "You know, there is nothing we can do about damage to the TPS (Thermal Protection System). If it has been damaged it's probably better not to know. I think the crew would rather not know. Don't you think it would be better for them to have a happy successful flight and die unexpectedly during entry than to stay on orbit, knowing that there was nothing to be done, until the air ran out?"

/No asshole, it would have been better for them to get the chance to come to grips with their deaths, say goodbye to their loved ones, and take care of any business they had to take care of before they died. Should have just let them suffocate. Hypoxia is not a bad way to go, you just fall asleep. Then you could launch another shuttle and recover them. But no, better to just let them farking burn up on reentry in terror. farking assholes.
 
2013-02-02 07:37:07 AM

acanuck: "Not enough air"?

Meanwhile, how much H and 02 did they use up for the de-orbital rocket firing?



Zero. The OMS engines burn Monomethylhydrazine and Nitrogen Tetroxide. Venting those into the cabin would, in the words of a character from Space Camp, "dry-clean our lungs."
 
2013-02-02 07:39:47 AM

StoPPeRmobile: DrPainMD: Amos Quito: Yeah, that's sad, but I suppose that sometimes ignorance is bliss - comparitively.

Apparently their fate was sealed, and nothing could have been done to change the probable outcome. Why make them live their last few hours freaking out?

So given their decision in this case, do you suppose NASA would bother to tell us if they spotted a huge, dark space rock on a collision course for Earth, or just let it be a "surprise"?


/Eat, drink, Fark and be merry, folks

I would rather have the opportunity to say good-bye to my family.

You would want your family tormented by worry?


They already were. I'm sure they started worrying as soon as the news of the broken foam hitting the wing made the news.
 
2013-02-02 07:41:20 AM
I call BS.

The ending might have been inevitable but it's in NASA's and America's DNA to go down fighting. There are a slew of things that could have been attempted before just sending them home on schedule.

Guy must be writing a book.
 
2013-02-02 07:44:53 AM

Saturn5: I don't buy it.  There's an escape capsule at the Space Station.  Some could have come back on it while the others either waited for rescue or attempted re-entry.  And if that kind of decision was made, it wouldn't be some big consensus that was discussed amongst a large group - 1 or 2 very high ranking people would have made that call in secret.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 323x416]


It doesn't matter what was available on the international space station.  Columbia was too heavy to reach it, and their orbits were too different for the two to meet, anyway.
 
2013-02-02 08:19:30 AM

BullBearMS: g4lt: BullBearMS: g4lt: the CAIB report THAT CLEARED THE GROUND CREW OF WRONGDOING

Holy FSM, tardman!

Where did it clear NASA's leadership of responsibility for their decision to actively shut down any attempt by the ground crew to discover how extensive the damage to the shuttle was?

Nowhere, BECAUSE IT NEVER MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS ANY DECISION TO ACTIVELY SHUT DOWN ANY DAMAGE ASSESSMENT.

You know how everyone knows you didn't read TFA?


What does TFA have to do with the CAIR?  TFA was written last week, CAIR was written a decade ago.
 
2013-02-02 08:26:42 AM
C is for CHALLENGER
C IS FOR COLUMBINE

U KNOW WHAT ELSE STARTS WITH THE LETTER C!!!!

CCOOOOOKIES!!
 encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-02-02 08:43:53 AM

Amos Quito: So given their decision in this case, do you suppose NASA would bother to tell us if they spotted a huge, dark space rock on a collision course for Earth, or just let it be a "surprise"?


Considering we have the technology both to:

A) Spot them at great distances- years out, in fact- and...
B) Alter their course so they don't hit us?

I'd say they'd let us know.  You may resume eating, drinking and being merry.


And as to the article itself.  Well, in fairness, suffocation isn't a very fun death, if one had a choice of ways to die.
 
2013-02-02 08:51:49 AM
FTFA: Video of Columbia's takeoff showed a briefcase-sized chunk of foam breaking off an engine

I'm not sure how much I trust this article, given that they don't seem to know the difference between the external tank and "an engine"
 
2013-02-02 08:54:57 AM
oi50.tinypic.com
 
2013-02-02 09:22:09 AM

coeyagi: Blah


They'd blame Challenger on him too, you know that.
 
2013-02-02 09:29:42 AM
Major Tom?
 
2013-02-02 09:46:24 AM

Rreal: I've no clue is this bullshiat or not.

Honestly though? think about your neighbors or even your family for a while, think of seven of them locked into something the size of a mobile home.  Now imagine how they'd react if you told them they were going to all die within, say six hours, it was going to be a slow messy death, and there was absolutely nothing they could do about it.

How many of you can honestly say your family would choose to die bravely and nobly, going out in a blaze of glory.   On the other hand, how many would panic, lose their shiat, and try to claw out the throats of everybody else in the place to buy themselves a couple hours of air

Worse, how many would you say would choose to do something Pants on head retarded, and open the door, killing everybody, because damned if -they- were going to go out like a punk.


Given the capacity of the human animal for self destructive panic, I would argue that letting them die quickly and ignorant of their fate would be merciful.


If the mobile home were full of people that volunteered to be strapped to the back of a giant bomb which would propel them into the most dangerous environment man can experience with only the knowledge that the explosion wouldn't blast them so hard they would drift off into space but instead they would eventually plummet back to Earth so fast that the air ignites around them...

Yeah, I kind of doubt that those people are the type prone to panic.
 
2013-02-02 09:50:15 AM

Treygreen13: EngineerAU: Sure, if true, NASA couldn't save the astronauts so why inform them. Well there's a good reason... to not have flaming debris rain down over a populated area. Luckily no one on the ground was killed but it certainly was a possibility. If the shuttle had to come back in, it would be better to let them break up over the Pacific. It'd make recovery of the debris much more difficult but would eliminate most of the possibility of someone elementary school getting creamed by a flaming toilet seat.

That would certainly be an interesting call to make. "Hey guys, try to steer your badly damaged craft over the water so you don't explode over people. Thanks a bunch. Byeeee."


Happens all the time.  Lookup a few airshow crashes, the pilot will often try to guide the aircraft away from crowds homes before ejecting.
 
2013-02-02 09:55:37 AM

kev_dog: I know I'm late to the thread (and perhaps it's been mentioned), but to everyone saying they should have had the opportunity to say goodbye to their family...  I would think that as an astronaut, one would know that all missions are fraught with potential danger and death.  Sure NASA had a decent track record, but I would think that saying goodbye to family/friends, making amends, etc would be SOP before any mission.

Personally I think the psychological trauma of helplessness- knowing I was going to die and there was nothing I could do about it- for a long period of time would be worse than the relatively "speedy" death which they encountered.  But of course I hope that I am never in a position where either option exists.


I used to do flight testing for the Navy.  No way in hell would I not want to be told.  You also don't do 'goodbyes' before every mission.
 
2013-02-02 10:05:27 AM
www.popsci.com
Ice and foam had always been falling off that tank.  They could never figure out how to stop it.  The damage had always been a few tiles here and there.  They examined the launch video and determined that there wasn't damage.   This guy that is blogging is full of crap.  They came to the conclusion that there wasn't any damage.  These guys just hate to admit they were wrong.  By making up this crap he's basically saying 'we knew there was damage'  we weren't wrong.  Notice he says this now,  AFTER his boss died.  Because his boss would have called him on the BS.
 
2013-02-02 10:19:12 AM

First I said this months ago ... I'll not hold my breath for the apology from the tools that said I was wrong.

Second... gat is F.O.S. as usual...

GAT_00

There was nothing they could have done to fix it and telling them would have done nothing. I don't blame them for that.


1) Abort the assent. They saw the impact DURING launch and immediately knew it would was a terminal event.
Yes, launches can be aborted mid flight
Ask an Astronomer at Cornell University
space-shuttle.com
I know some have claimed otherwise. The same liars that will now have to admit they were lying all this time.

2) Resuce was possible.
The Columbia Accident Investigation Board ("the Board") Report Volumes II through VI, containing Appendices D through H, will be made public in the coming weeks. Appendix D.13 in Volume II will contain Board technical documents covering the rescue mission that NASA, completely reversing course, finally admitted was feasible


--and --

Pages 173-176 of Volume I (Section 6.4) summarize the Board's conclusion that an attempt to rescue the Columbia crew by using Atlantis was indeed feasible, contradicting the numerous previous statements by NASA.

Much like previous statement from NASA saying "we didn't know" were a lie.

Sink in yet? Rescue WAS POSSIBLE. NASA decided to murder those 7 instead.

13 parents got to bury their children due to NASA administrators purposeful actions.
If karma exists at all, karma will grant those responsible the same privilege.
 
2013-02-02 10:20:03 AM
...There was another reason that Columbia couldn't make it to the ISS - it was too heavy.   Columbia was the first operational shuttle (Enterprise was strictly an atmospheric test vehicle) and as such was built with materials, equipment, and designs that made her heavier by some distance (something like three or four tons) than the others.  Alone of the shuttles in service when the ISS went up, only Columbia never visited.  There was a plan to give her an airlock that would have enabled her to dock at the ISS but that installation was planned for late '03.  Even if somehow she could have made it to the ISS' orbit, there was no way for Columbia to dock with it - the crew would have had to spacewalked over, and that would have been a problem in and of itself.

My dad had just retired from NASA Lewis-Glenn in September of '02, and he was supposed to have received an award for some experiment support equipment he had designed that was aboard Columbia when she went down - IIRC one of the crew members was to have presented the award.
 
2013-02-02 10:20:32 AM
"There's not any doubt about it all these things contributed to allow these foam pieces to continue to come off the external fuel tanks over the years -- until it finally did catastrophic damage."

-- Air Force Brig. Gen. Duane Deal, a board* member.
*shuttle disaster board

Yay nasa!

/// fark 'em.
 
2013-02-02 10:22:01 AM
I sound fat:
Yeah, but there were seven highly intelligent engineers on board that would be VERY motivated to think of a solution that, perhaps, the ground had overlooked.  This does not seem legit.

/didnt they see apollo 13?


Yeah, even if the solution was someone getting in a space suit and strapping his ass over the hole in the shielding on the outside just for the off hand chance that the rest manage to make it while he's incinerated totally, it would at least be doing something.
 
2013-02-02 10:22:59 AM
zekeburger

Couldn't the shuttle dock at the ISS?

Not on that flight, no. There was no way to make the orbits work out. You have to launch at the right time, etc...
 
2013-02-02 10:24:17 AM

Ishidan: coeyagi: Blah

They'd blame Challenger on him too, you know that.


Too late.  HuffPo is already announcing that George W "Hitler" Bush and Darth Cheney used a secret Halliburton spacecraft, the Koch Brothers I, to shoot down the Challenger and the Columbia and stop their missions of international brotherhood.
 
2013-02-02 10:25:58 AM

OnlyM3: 1) Abort the assent. They saw the impact DURING launch and immediately knew it would was a terminal event.


Don't know if troll, or if you're fuking retarded.

-They didn't detect it realtime.
-Aborting during launch is more dangerous than what they could determine from a quick blurry video of a possible strike in realtime
-They never knew it was terminal, until it was.
 
2013-02-02 10:31:58 AM
ng2810

>>> GAT_00: There was nothing they could have done to fix it and telling them would have done nothing.
>>> I don't blame them for that.


BullshiatYes, gat is Full of B.S.

ng2810
apollo-13.gif
Don't you farking tell me that they would not have at least tried SOMETHING if they knew people were gonna die.

What you claim here is incorrect at that is exactly what happened. They knew these 7 were going to die the second that camera caught the impact and NASA leadership allowed them to carry on.

What you meant to say was "Bullshiat, they could have (as opposed to "would have") at least tried SOMETHING since they knew people were gonna die."
As the accident board clearly shows... they could have done things to save those lives. Instead, NASA chose to deny everything, cover their eyes and do nothing. Fark them, fark their families.
 
2013-02-02 10:34:32 AM

impaler: Don't know if troll, or if you're fuking retarded.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-02 10:41:01 AM

GAT_00: There was nothing they could have done to fix it and telling them would have done nothing.  I don't blame them for that.


Nothing they could've done?  This happened about 5 years ago.  We put a man on the moon 40 years ago.  You're telling me what is supposed to be the greatest nation in the world couldn't scrap something together to save them?
 
2013-02-02 10:43:56 AM
FizixJunkee

The choice between certain death (running out of air) versus the possibility of death upon re-entry. I would have gone with re-entry, too.
It wasn't certain death. The craft was doomed, the people, were not -if not for the NASA murderers err administrators.


Rreal

Honestly though? think about your neighbors or even your family for a while, think of seven of them locked into something the size of a mobile home. Now imagine how they'd react if you told them they were going to all die within, say six hours, it was going to be a slow messy death, and there was absolutely nothing they could do about it.


Well we certainly have folks proving ignorance is bliss this morning.

FizixJunkee

>>>Yeah, the most painless death versus the most painful, I would go with the most painful too.

I would go with whatever is fastest.

To slowly go to sleep from o2 dep. or die "quickly" in a fire. . . Yeah, tough choice, go for the "quick" one! *rolls eyes*


StoPPeRmobile
>>> I would rather have the opportunity to say good-bye to my family.

You would want your family tormented by worry?
Which is why people with terminal diseases never tell their families goodbye. They don't want them to worry. Better to have them stand by the runway waiting for mommy and daddy for an hour after their flight was due as the craft rained down in flaming chunks on populated areas.
 
2013-02-02 10:44:06 AM

Four Horsemen of the Domestic Dispute: [www.popsci.com image 525x394]
Ice and foam had always been falling off that tank.  They could never figure out how to stop it.  The damage had always been a few tiles here and there.  They examined the launch video and determined that there wasn't damage.   This guy that is blogging is full of crap.  They came to the conclusion that there wasn't any damage.  These guys just hate to admit they were wrong.  By making up this crap he's basically saying 'we knew there was damage'  we weren't wrong.  Notice he says this now,  AFTER his boss died.  Because his boss would have called him on the BS.



Wrong.
 
2013-02-02 10:50:41 AM
The Big H

There was no way to rescue the shuttle (not enough fuel or air to get to the ISS or wait for a rescue shuttle), so regardless of how much damage they thought they had, they would have had to try to re-enter, or die when the air ran out.

I'm impressed with how many farkers know better than the disaster board that ruled otherwise. Can you folks start pointing out the flaws in the 9/11 commission report to? Was it bush who flew the planes into the towers, or was it the reptilians?!
 
2013-02-02 10:51:57 AM
This article oversimplifies a complex problem.

It also suffers from a common problem with the media.  Anything that begins "NASA says" should be viewed with a particularly skeptical eye.

NASA is not a thing, it certainly isn't an individual person, NASA is a lot of people.  Some engineers had been concerned about this possibility for years, some did not agree.

They didn't know for sure that this fragile foam was capable of causing so much damage until a sample was launched at a similar leading edge segment of similar material, construction and age.  That segment was borrowed from Enterprise.  Other tests showed each time that a perfect hole would be created.

http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts107/030604foamtest/
 
2013-02-02 11:00:48 AM
rickythepenguin Smartest Funniest
2013-02-02 01:18:10 AM

MissFeasance: till crazy expensive, yeah, but why is there no bailout procedure?


Quit using my tax money for rescue the government, Teabagmittermisstress.

Derp derp derp
Shuttle -with zero rescue options- was put into production by the carter admin
The one and only upgrade project to add astronaut safety/recovery options was passed and implemented during a Republican admin.
 
2013-02-02 11:03:00 AM
costermonger
Like a double-hull dealy? Module within the shuttle? That'd still be weight they didn't want to add to the design, and unless you can somehow eject it to clear the tumbling wreckage, it probably doesn't save you from all the g-forces and such associated with in-flight breakup at those kinds of speeds. Even if it could maintain a livable atmosphere.
Your weight comment is certainly on the money, but you are aware that the Challenger astronauts survived the explosion and decent, right? (It was the impact w/ the Atlantic that killed them all).
 
2013-02-02 11:06:24 AM

Amos Quito: Yeah, that's sad, but I suppose that sometimes ignorance is bliss - comparitively.

Apparently their fate was sealed, and nothing could have been done to change the probable outcome. Why make them live their last few hours freaking out?

So given their decision in this case, do you suppose NASA would bother to tell us if they spotted a huge, dark space rock on a collision course for Earth, or just let it be a "surprise"?


/Eat, drink, Fark and be merry, folks


There's too many other agencies and amateur astronomers for this to go undetected and kept silent.
 
2013-02-02 11:10:26 AM
I have no issue with this decision.
 
Displayed 50 of 419 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report