Posted on 12/31/2008 1:34:25 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. — Astronauts on the shuttle Columbia were trying to regain control of their craft before it broke apart in 2003, but there was no chance of surviving the accident, a NASA report said on Tuesday.
From the crew's perspective, the shift from what appeared to be a normal descent on Feb. 1, 2003, into tragedy happened so fast that the astronauts did not even have time to close the visors on their helmets.
Columbia broke apart about 20 kilometres over Texas as it headed for landing at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The cause of the accident was traced to a hole in one of the shuttle's wings, which was hit by a piece of falling foam insulation during launch 16 days earlier.
Seven astronauts were killed when superheated atmospheric gases blasted inside the breach like a blow torch, melting the ship's structure.
(Excerpt) Read more at theglobeandmail.com ...
Yes, because it is in fact ROCKET SCIENCE.
I do not agree with the notion all must be completely safe before a mission goes. The same people who seem to intimate such a thing get in a car and drive down a road every day.
Yeah, I get that a lot when I tell that story. I have watched many, many launches and many, many re-entries ...
They were not designed to be launched in below freezing temperature.
Engineers warned the head of NASA that it was too cold. He said that if they didn't launch, they were all fired.
He had a Doctorate in Education. Did not have any background in technical fields.
He also had the unfettered authority to order a launch.
I don’t think we can ensure complete safety. What frustrates me is having high-level exes ignore repeated warnings from the engineering team(s) who designed and/or built the damn thing.
Could you perhaps plan to maybe check into a hotel under the flight path of Comrade 0bama’s incoming plane to Washington next month? ;)
I got it covered.
LOL, you know we’re not the only two Freepers to have that thought, just the only two daring to post them!
My best to you and yours for a Happy 2009.
MKJ
I can tell you from a lot of experience that if such reports are not made public they get swept under the rug and the status quo is preserved. In fact the first indication of a management that wants to cover their tails rather than fix problems is a management that tries to suppress negative information. Good management requires good communication. Good communication rarely works well in secrecy in a large organization.
IIRC, NASA wanted to use a liquid booster, but the solid boosters were manufactured in Walter Mondale’s district, so that’s what they had to use.
Mondale was from Minnesota. Morton-Thiokol isn’t in that state.
Try again.
I remembered that thread. I was just waking up in California, I’d just made a mug of coffee, walked into the computer room and turned on FR and it had just passed over my location. I was disappointed, because I had meant to go outside and watch it go over.
a shuttle is the most complex system ever developed by man kind. Even cars and mp3 players (see Zune) have glitches. Stuff happens. Of course we want to minimize hazards, but only hindsight is 20/20.
I’d heard rumors that the Challenger bodies were packed into 50 gallon drums then whisked away for discrete autopsies. This was done so NASA could cover their butts saying that the crew “died quicky”, sparing themselves from additional political fallout as well as elevated lawsuit damages for Morton-Thiokol).
Apparently, Some of the crew had activated their emergency life support packs and were essentially alive until impact with the ocean (what a terrible way to go...the descent took several minutes).
In the Columbia incident, even if the crew was fully protected (space suits), the temperatures, pressures and speed would had spelled their doom. In this case, a quick death mercifully spared them from the horror.
One thing I would point out, though, was that the "PR" aspects of the Challenger's fateful last flight were a glaring indication to me that NASA was setting itself up for a disaster.
The whole notion of space travel had turned into little more than a theatrical PR display -- as evidenced by the focus on putting as many women and minorities on these flights as possible (think of the crew members of the Challenger, including two women, a black guy and a Hawaiian guy). It was almost as if NASA -- and this country in general -- didn't consider a shuttle flight any more risky (or noteworthy) than a ride in a Greyhound bus.
Even the Jewish guy?
:-P
I gotta defend NASA on this one. The Russians launched spacecraft in some of the coldest places in the world; NASA launches the space shuttle in Florida.
Nope, you’re absolutely correct. I’m a test engineer and we’ve had briefings and training about how to present test data. The Morton Thiokol engineers weren’t able to get across to the managers that there was going to be a problem. That’s not to blame them, because the managers wanted that shuttle to launch and wouldn’t ask the questions that needed to be asked.
You obviously didn’t read the post. The Russians didn’t use rubber O-rings. That’s why they were able to launch in extremely cold weather. How can you defend NASA for using a substance that’s rated for only certain tempatures and then knowingly violating that restriction? There are pictures of ice on the shuttle, gantry, lines, etc. Launching in Florida didn’t mean that the temps would be consistant. They were BELOW the rating of the O-rings and they KNEW that.
Well, I guess I don’t remember correctly then.
(That’s why I said “IIRC”)
I heard the boom. One minute later my parents called and told me that my dad was outside getting the paper and had seen the falling debris.
The memory still gives me shudders.
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.