Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cosmic 'Bolt from Blue' Probed in Space Shuttle Disaster !
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 2/7/2003 | Sabin Russell

Posted on 02/11/2003 5:20:37 PM PST by ex-Texan

Edited on 04/13/2004 2:41:49 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Federal scientists are looking for evidence that a bolt of electricity in the upper atmosphere might have doomed the space shuttle Columbia as it streaked over California, The Chronicle has learned.

Investigators are combing records from a network of ultra-sensitive instruments that might have detected a faint thunderclap in the upper atmosphere at the same time a photograph taken by a San Francisco astronomer appears to show a purplish bolt of lightning striking the shuttle.


(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: boltfromblue; elves; exoticlightning; gammabursts; jets; spaceshuttle; sprites
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 last
To: snopercod
Thanks for your post. With all the posts from so-called 'experts', 'accident investigators' and over-confident blow-hards, it becomes a bit hard for laymen like me to sift through the debris.
61 posted on 02/12/2003 8:38:02 AM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: All
For anyone who hasn't seen it, this is supposed to be a copy of the picture:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/836319/posts?page=51#79

62 posted on 02/12/2003 8:50:41 AM PST by Lion's Cub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
"It would be hard to believe that a lightning bolt could do structural damage yet not glitch any of the electronics on-board. That's somewhat of a reversal of typical lightning strikes."

Lightening can do some VERY strange stuff--but we don't know that it DIDN'T glitch some of the electronics. It may be that such a glitch is why NASA is focussing in this direction. WAY too early to draw conclusions

63 posted on 02/12/2003 10:31:04 AM PST by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: kwyjibo
your response: ”Nobody's DISMISSING anything. I haven't heard anyone from NASA completely rule out the "impact" to the wing…”

to what I said: “They are dismissing the most obvious suspect out of hand,…”

------------------------------------

I can’t believe I have to go though grammar lessons for you to see the meaning of the word “dismissing”, which I intentionally and carefully selected.

There is only a little difference in the spelling between “dismissing” and “dismissed” but there is a huge difference in meaning.

I didn't use the past tense "dismissed" as you inferred (Neither did I say that anything was “completely” done on the matter of dismissing the foam, or I would have used the word “dismissed”).

“Dismissing” = present participle completing the present progressive verb “are Dismissing”. Present participles complete progressive verbs. The progressive verb in this case is "are dismissing".

The word “dismissing” refers to a present process by NASA. If I intended to say it was "completely ruled out" as you thought I meant, I would have said "dismissed".

--------------------------

Typically, there are a few steps when an attempt is made to execute the unwarranted dismissing process in an accident investigation such as this for the foam.

Step 1) Cast doubts about the subject of foam. (done - February 5th, 2003)

Step 2) Based only on the unwarranted doubts cast by these self-serving "experts", you make heavy cuts into the money and effort earmarked for foam investigation in the failure analysis.

Step 3) With limited funds directed at foam investigation, have low level personnel perform only rudimentary tests, write non-consequential reports, and cite "no-prior evidence" on the subject.

Step 4) In the final report, announce that: “In our investigations on foam, we found no evidence to support the theory that foam was the primary cause of failure."

Step 5) Infer the conclusion: "...therefore NASA management was not in any way responsible for the loss of vehicle."

When I did failure analysis, there were people who would do almost the same thing NASA officials are attempting (the progressive verb) now before they were taken to the mat for substantiation.

64 posted on 02/12/2003 4:29:39 PM PST by HighWheeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Read my post just above about why you don’t understand the present participles “dismissing”, and “throwing”.

jlogajan, since you won't refrain from injecting personal insults or invective hyperbole into an otherwise rational discussion of merit, I am telling you right now to not make any more posts addressed to me, about me, referring to me, or quoting me.

65 posted on 02/12/2003 4:30:09 PM PST by HighWheeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: HighWheeler
since you won't refrain from injecting personal insults or invective hyperbole into an otherwise rational discussion of merit, I am telling you right now to not make any more posts addressed to me, about me, referring to me, or quoting me.

Bawhahaha, get over yourself.

You sir, are a hypocrit. You are calling NASA management both incompetent and involved in a criminal coverup. You have implicated Mr. Dittmore by name -- essentially calling him a liar and a murderer.

Your basis for this is -- nothing at all. Just your paranoid rants. And for some reason we're suppose to give you better treatment than you're giving these other folks?

Dream on, sparky.

66 posted on 02/12/2003 8:25:10 PM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
There is a short indistinct call from the spacecraft and, almost at the same time, Kling says the landing gear tires have lost pressure.
67 posted on 02/12/2003 9:45:24 PM PST by Smokin' Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
I was spending a moment today thinking about our silly little arguments, and after careful thought I decided to perform a failure analysis.

PROBLEM: Failure to Communicate.

SYMPTOMS: misunderstanding the grammar inherent in big words like “dismissing”, still making directed posts after repeated requests not to, not understanding the failure analysis process, confusing word meanings such as incompetent, using hyperbole, and the illogical progression of thought, etc.

Not being satisfied that I had enough data, I also went and read your prior 20 or so posts on FR

After careful consideration of all the evidence, I realized that I, yes ME, was the source of the problem. It was my fault:

ROOT CAUSE OF PROBLEM: I have been writing way above your level of comprehension!

Conclusion: IT’S MY FAULT!! (You should be happy now.)

So in an effort to simplify my words – and making the third attempt here, let’s see if I can make this simple enough for your comprehension.

DON’T POST TO ME OR ABOUT ME.

68 posted on 02/14/2003 9:45:31 AM PST by HighWheeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
I disagree. NASA is grasping for any cause they can to "prove" that the loss of Columbia was not their fault. Case in point: Challenger.

The official final report cited faulty booster rocket O-rings and the media dutifully reported it with no questions asked, which is a total joke. If you operate equipment outside of their design parameters, it isn't the fault of the equipment or the designer when it fails. The real cause of the Challenger accident was gross mismanagement. The NASA brass does not want that to be the cause of Columbia's loss, too. That's why they're trying to find a magic bullet to blame the accident on.

When NASA implies that meteor collisions and sprites are more likely causes than the big piece of insulation that was filmed hitting the wing that failed later, what does that tell you?

69 posted on 02/14/2003 11:08:57 AM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Nobody threw away anything. And you know it.

Yes, they did actually. NASA dismissed the foam hitting the left wing during launch as a cause. They recanted after people started asking questions that NASA couldn't answer.

Maybe you should read this before throwing accusations: NASA Still Considering Foam Launch Damage

70 posted on 02/14/2003 11:23:32 AM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Case in point: Challenger.

Whatever you say Captain Queeg.

71 posted on 02/14/2003 1:47:17 PM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: HighWheeler
DON’T POST TO ME OR ABOUT ME.

Or what, you'll hold your breath and turn blue?

72 posted on 02/14/2003 1:49:12 PM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Do you have a meaningful rebuttal or are we just posting vanities today?
73 posted on 02/14/2003 2:54:37 PM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
The point is that firstly the cause of the Challenger explosion was determined and fixed -- despite the tinfoilers telling us they almost got away with covering it up. Nonsense.

In the movie The Caine Mutiny, Captain Queeg trys to relive his discovery of a duplicate key to the food locker -- which was his high point in life, but obviously, not meaningful to anyone else. Well, the Challenger non-cover up is being replayed in all these new Captain Queegs who think they've found another duplicate key ...

So put down your conspiracy theories and back away...

74 posted on 02/14/2003 7:02:35 PM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Lion's Cub
That picture is NOT the one of the shuttle being struck.

Reasons:

1. The picture shows lightning below the clouds--Columbia was above any possible clouds at this point.

2. The lightning appears to be striking the GROUND--Columbia was at very high altitude.

75 posted on 02/14/2003 7:33:14 PM PST by CurlyDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: HighWheeler
Thanks for the "grammar lesson", chief. Everything's a matter of semantics I suppose. Past tense, present participle, I don't believe the word DISMISS in any form accurately describes how NASA is treating the foam insulation.

For the record, this is the third of three definitions of the word DISMISS as given by Webster's dictionary: (bold print added by me)

3 a : to reject serious consideration of b : to put out of judicial consideration

Maybe DISMISS has a different, specialized meaning in your line of work, but I'd interpret your statement that “They are dismissing the most obvious suspect out of hand,…” to mean exactly the same thing as the phrase "They are not seriously considering the most obvious suspect...".

All I'm saying is that NASA is considering other possibilities along with the foam insulation strike, and that their calculations so far have suggested that the foam insulation could not have caused "loss of vehicle", as NASA describes the event. Eventually, perhaps, NASA will be able to reconcile the chain of events that destroyed the shuttle with a wing strike during launch. But until they can do so, the only responsible course of action is to consider any and all possibilities. You seem to be suggesting that NASA should say "Hey, we have videotape of this foam insulation striking the wing, and despite the fact that we can't predict a damage level remotely close to that required to cause breakup of the shuttle during re-entry, we should just pin the blame on that and move on." I certainly hope that's not standard practice in the failure analysis game.

NASA has nothing to gain by covering up the true cause of the disaster (even if it was the foam insulation) because they will be blamed (wrongly, I might add) by the public regardless of the true cause. Unless and until the space program is given an unlimited budget, there will always be a certain level of risk associated with space exploration, and things like this will unfortunately happen from time to time.

76 posted on 02/14/2003 10:59:25 PM PST by kwyjibo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: HighWheeler
BTW, do you write for the Miami Herald? This paragraph appeared in a Herald article from another thread:

NASA engineers and the independent panel investigating the Columbia accident will run through a range of possible causes, but that 2.6-pound chunk of foam that dislodged from the tank and struck Columbia's left wing 81 seconds into flight remains an obvious suspect. Even if it turns out not to be the "root cause," the accident has already forced NASA managers to reassess the blanket dismissal of insulation as a potential hazard.

Looks like I'm a minority of one regarding the relevance of "dismiss" regarding this investigation, though that article seems to be referring to NASA's opinion of insulation as a general hazard as opposed to a cause of this particular event.

77 posted on 02/14/2003 11:17:35 PM PST by kwyjibo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
The point is that firstly the cause of the Challenger explosion was determined and fixed -- despite the tinfoilers telling us they almost got away with covering it up.

That statement, while technically true, is not an accurate representation of the reality of the Challenger disaster. The company that supplied the O-rings designed them specifically for use within a range of temperatures specified by NASA. Prior to its final launch, Challenger had been sitting on the launch pad at ambient temperatures below the low functional temperature of the O-rings. For whatever reason (launch window closing, bad press, etc.) NASA decided to go ahead and launch despite the objections of the O-ring supplier, who warned of an O-ring failure due to out-of-spec temperatures.

The real cause of the Challenger explosion was NASA ignoring its own temperature guidelines for a shuttle launch.

78 posted on 02/14/2003 11:30:39 PM PST by kwyjibo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: ex-Texan
Scientists Seek Clues in Solar Storm That Enveloped Shuttle
79 posted on 02/17/2003 8:24:30 AM PST by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson