4 ways Columbia could have been saved. From NASA's Kennedy Space Center Home Page

NASA's Kennedy Space Center Home Page ^ | 04 February 03 | Mitchel Tighe

[ALS]

You'll get over your spanking eventually.

maybe

I'll keep an eye out.

[ALS]

Posting a join date is self serving. Pretending it serves the "common good" is humorous at best.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Spanking? aaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaa.... Get over yourself.

[ALS]

If it's been "repudiated in numerous threads", does that make the repudiaters right and therefore the subject is not allowed to be discussed further, even if the poster believes they have new info?
It's up to the Admin Moderator to decide if a thread is frivolous, not vigilante PC police.

Give it some thought, I'm sure you'll agree.

peace out

[ALS]

To: Chad Fairbanks

knock it off


96 posted on 02/05/2003 0:52 AM CST by Admin Moderator

---

yeah, spanking.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Well, since the AM was NOT speaking to you, STFU and mind yoru own business crybaby...

[I Am Not A Mod]

What was your previous FR sceen name?

[Chad Fairbanks]

And by the way, why don't you stop being a 'thread cop'?? You seem to despise it so much... Hypocrisy, thy name is ALS...

[MississippiMan]

You should respect the poster's serious question.

Agreed. I've never understood the mentality of instantly discounting and jumping on a new poster like a pack of wild dogs as soon as a recent join-date is spotted, posting the "member since" date as if that proves anything. Such silliness.

MM

[ALS]

hahaha

kids

[CARDINALRULES]

Well damn ..left out a word myself.

they were wondering

That will teach me to multi-task too many things at one time. ;-`)

[Chad Fairbanks]

Yawn.

[Richard Kimball]

I've been re-reading The Right Stuff, and noticed that on John Glenn's flight, NASA thought the heat shield might have been damaged, and they went ahead with re-entry, because there wasn't any other option. They also didn't tell him any more than they had to, apparently because they did not want to risk him screwing up because he was nervous. Sounds like they also didn't say a lot to this crew.

Just curious, is this standard policy for NASA?

[Richard Kimball]

If it's been "repudiated in numerous threads", does that make the repudiaters right and therefore the subject is not allowed to be discussed further, even if the poster believes they have new info?

I don't think anyone has a problem with discussing the theories. The problem was that the post was made with an "in your face" attitude. If you accept the premise that NASA did not know the shuttle was damaged until next day frame-by-frame review, the options of abort on launch become pretty pointless, as at the time NASA became aware of the possible problem, abort on launch was simply not an option at all. Now, logically, I think that pretty well refutes his original premise. When you do a post with an "AHA!", implied, as these lines indicate,

I have been pulling my hair out watching both the NASA press conferences and also the stupid reporters questions after the absolute tragedy of the Columbia disaster. They all say there was no way to save the ship... That is Nonsense!!

Remember the Challenger disaster where the launch control director was yelling RTLS RTLS after the explosion at 83 seconds? RTLS stands for Return To Launch Site. If 83 seconds was good enough for Challenger. Why wasn't 80 (or more) seconds good enough for Columbia?

it makes him sound kind of like Gilda Radner's old Emily Lattella character on Saturday Night Live. You and I disagree on a point, and I think we've had a very cordial discussion. This is because you treated me with respect in your post, and I hope you believe I have done the same.

Logically, for his original argument to hold water, he would have had to have been able to formulate some argument that NASA had reason to believe the shuttle was damaged prior to the time when the on launch abort ceased to be an option.

I had some questions about why NASA didn't, as a matter of course, slow shuttles down prior to re-entry. I received a very polite response explaining that the fuel requirements to do this would nearly double the weight of the shuttle, requiring a doubling in size, etc. I didn't get flamed, because I didn't phrase it in an inflammatory way.

Whether we should or shouldn't, I've found that on Freep most people respond to me in the same spirit I respond to them (with a few exceptions).

Take care

[snooker]

Exploring the unknown is a dicey business. When someone is piloting a space vehicle they need to concentrate. I met many of the Appollo crew and they were way overloaded with data -- what to do and how to do it. You thought, 'how could they remember all this under those circumstances'.

I don't know about standard policy, but the astronauts generally have enough to worry about. I think the idea has always been to be aware of the risks, but don't dwell on them. I would say each and every one of them always knew that re-entry was the riskest part of the flight and if it went wrong ...

Appollo 13 was a noteworthy event that showed if the astronauts were doing what was necessary, rather than calculating the odds of dying, things might just work out for the best.

We have just lost touch with what these astronauts are really risking when they hit the go button.

So what could they do about Glenn's heat shield except distract Glenn from performing at peak effeciency. It may sound cruel, but I don't think it was, or is. You do your best, sometime it isn't enough. But other times you succeed with spectacular results. It's called exploring the unknown.

I know when we got the first signals back from our experiment packages on the moon, it was an experience that was hard to describe. Sort of like, we didn't really do this did we ... it's really on the moon, right? We were monitoring the solar wind with the packages we designed. They were carried to the moon aboard Apollo. ALSEP/CPLEE was it's name.

It is my belief that the loss of interest in space has a lot to do with the round dee round type stuff we are now doing. We really are exploring things that don't yeild much wow. If you exclude the hubble. We need to get a base on the moon and go on to Mars, IMHO. Continue with the exploration. Let's leave this planet to the libs. VBG.

snooker

[Richard Kimball]

Good post, and I agree with everything you said. I understand the reason for not giving the astronauts some information, but noted that Glenn, not being exactly a dummy, knew exactly what had happened, when they told him to execute specific procedures inconsistent with what had been planned. I suspect the astronauts piece together a lot from what's not said.

I also think it's sad that with all the crapola that govt spends money on, we can't reasonably and fully fund the space program. NASA has, sadly, primarily become a satellite deployment and repair company. I remember when I was a kid in 69, watching the moon landing. I thought we'd have bases on the moon now, and ships that were designed to function only in space, docking at stations for resupply. I fully believe that when mankind quits exploring, and concentrates on nothing but our safety, we will die as a race.

Unfortunately, it seems that the powers that be don't want lions anymore. They want sheep. They're easier to manage.

[fatima]

Gosh,thought we were having fun to the 4th degree,will email Mitch.



he left out a word or two like "during impeachment" -- big fricking deal--his posts are a lot easier to interpret than yours.

An easy search turned up this MITCH signed up 1998-04-10 -- which could be his old name.

He never said he was banned but that he lost his password to his old account.