Skip to comments.
Columbia's final minutes, in detail
Newday ^
| 1/27/04
| Michael Cabbage and William Harwood
Posted on 01/27/2004 12:33:35 PM PST by Gang of Five
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
Heart-breaking. We stand on the shoulders of giants.
To: Gang of Five
2
posted on
01/27/2004 12:45:03 PM PST
by
NonValueAdded
("America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people." GWB 1/20/04)
To: Gang of Five
This means
Columbia was doomed at liftoff. That week or so they spent in orbit was all for naught. The ending would have been the same no matter what.
I vaguely remember hearing about that foam breaking away after liftoff during the Shuttle flight last year and then the story just died. Does anybody else remember that?
3
posted on
01/27/2004 12:53:38 PM PST
by
SamAdams76
(I got my 401(k) statement - Up 28.02% in 2003 - Thanks to tax cuts and the Bush recovery)
To: Gang of Five
Amen
4
posted on
01/27/2004 12:59:07 PM PST
by
OldFriend
(Always understand, even if you remain among the few)
To: Gang of Five
"The survivability study concluded relatively modest design changes might enable future crews to survive long enough to bail out."
5
posted on
01/27/2004 1:00:11 PM PST
by
BenLurkin
(Socialism is Slavery)
To: Gang of Five
Amen
6
posted on
01/27/2004 1:00:50 PM PST
by
OldFriend
(Always understand, even if you remain among the few)
To: NonValueAdded
There's no registration problems with the Newsday site.
7
posted on
01/27/2004 1:03:54 PM PST
by
JoJo Gunn
(Help control the Leftist population - have them spayed or neutered. ©)
To: Gang of Five; SamAdams76
That's funny - I didn't see it mentioned anywhere that the foam that broke off was the new environmentally friendly stuff that doesn't harm the ozone layer like the foam we used to use.
8
posted on
01/27/2004 1:27:45 PM PST
by
Wumpus Hunter
(<a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com" target="_blank">miserable failure)
To: SamAdams76; Gang of Five
I vaguely remember hearing about that foam breaking away after liftoff during the Shuttle flight last year...I also remember the mention of the foam at the beginning of the mission. I have also heard that the powers that be at NASA had changed the foams composition to a more "Environmentally Friendly" kind. If this is so, I would like to know.
However, one part of the shuttle disaster, that bothers me to this day, is the continued retention of Sean O'Keefe , the head of NASA. He may be a wonderful guy. He may contribute to charity. He may go to church often. But loosing a shuttle on your watch means you resign or you are asked to leave by the President. He can keep his retirement and benefits and have a pleasant post NASA life. But watching this Bozo toast the Mars landings on TV has given me fits that he has not resigned or been fired. He is, to me, the worst example of a government bureaucrat. He can fail at his job, good people die, expensive machinery lost and yet keep his position in spite of his shortcomings. IMHO, Sean O'Keefe is a disgusting human being.
BTW, the article was excellent. Great post. I remember being online on FR, as those who could see the events relayed them to those of us without view.
9
posted on
01/27/2004 1:30:05 PM PST
by
elbucko
(I never go anywhere without my "Lucky Gun".)
To: Wumpus Hunter
Exactly. The foam formula was changed to be eco-friendly and after that NASA began experiencing problems with foam breaking off. This was not the first time - NASA knew there was a problem with the foam. This article avoids the root cause of the disaster because it's not p.c.
10
posted on
01/27/2004 1:43:46 PM PST
by
colorado tanker
("There are but two parties now, Traitors and Patriots")
To: Gang of Five
Columbia BTTT.
11
posted on
01/27/2004 1:57:50 PM PST
by
spodefly
(This is my tagline. There are many like it, but this one is mine.)
To: Gang of Five
That was tough to read. It amazes me how the disaster conditions can be recreated to determine the exact stages of the disintegration.
12
posted on
01/27/2004 2:01:17 PM PST
by
Rebelbase
( <a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com" target="_blank">miserable failure put it in your tagline too!)
To: Rebelbase
Amazing read.
The most enlightening part for me was the analysis of how much the foam slowed down in 0.2 seconds after falling off. In that 0.2 seconds, the speed disparity between the shuttle (accelerating) and the foam (decelerating) amounted to over 500 mph. Wow.
To: colorado tanker
".....NASA knew there was a problem with the foam. This article avoids the root cause of the disaster because it's not p.c."
And because we do this over a BROAD RANGE of subjects--from law enforcement to the Military to the security of our borders etc, is why this Nation is in for some dark days indeed. The only question, really, is WHEN not IF...
14
posted on
01/27/2004 2:07:01 PM PST
by
TalBlack
("Tal, no song means anything without someone else...")
To: Gang of Five
"The most complicated machine ever built " Somehow I doubt that given that it was designed like 30 years ago. Surely the B2 is more complicated.
15
posted on
01/27/2004 2:16:31 PM PST
by
Rodney King
(No, we can't all just get along.)
To: elbucko
Ron Dittemore got the ax. The excuse was that he had planned on resigning after the successful landing of Columbia "to take a job with a civilian company" but "decided to stay on until the resolution of the Columbia disaster."
So I guess Dittemore was the "sacrificial lamb" instead of O'Keefe.
16
posted on
01/27/2004 2:23:07 PM PST
by
El Gran Salseron
(Who? Me? Never! Well, maybe sometimes. Well, yeah. Always! :-))
To: SamAdams76
Does anybody else remember that? Yes, vividly.
17
posted on
01/27/2004 2:27:06 PM PST
by
Bloody Sam Roberts
(If cats and dogs didn't have fur would we still pet them?)
To: Wumpus Hunter
The foam is the problem!
It is directly related to the freon scam, that's why it will be buried.
To shed any light on it will uncover that r-12 products are better and safer than r134 products.
R-12 is still the most modern freon, r134 was developed years before r12 & shelved because it was corrosive and less efficient than r-12.
18
posted on
01/27/2004 2:27:30 PM PST
by
norraad
("What light!">Blues Brothers)
To: Gang of Five
Just: Wow.
19
posted on
01/27/2004 2:37:44 PM PST
by
Lazamataz
(The Republicans have turned into Democrats, and the Democrats have turned into Marxists.)
To: Wumpus Hunter
That's funny - I didn't see it mentioned anywhere that the foam that broke off was the new environmentally friendly stuff that doesn't harm the ozone layer like the foam we used to use. It wasn't widely discussed in the media, but it was discussed on FR. It was also noted that NASA had been granted a waiver about a year or so before the accident, but that no one produced the material any more.
20
posted on
01/27/2004 3:18:32 PM PST
by
lepton
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson