Nasa E-mails prove that Nasa knew - and I told you so - anyone care to apologize?

2/27/03 | Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh

[bvw]

"Get real" is what docs tell patients every day -- "I'm sorry, it's terminal, get real". Fortunately some patients get another doctor or therapy instead and live. You get beyond that "real", I hope, when and if (G-d forbid) your or a loved one get told that hopeless advice.

[bvw]

I said you would DO exactly what you did. I guess I have "the gift", too, eh?

[smokeyjon]

I said you would DO exactly what you did. I guess I have "the gift", too, eh?

This is an AMAZING debate technique! Make a BS statement, predict that your opponent will attempt to refute it, and then claim victory!

I salute you, sir!

[bvw]

Before I read that wonderful compliment, I was going to merely respond that I had nothing more to say to you on this thread. So I guess my "the gift" expired or something.

Anyway thanks! I love honest, merited kudos!

[Joe Hadenuf]

I was flamed over and over again.

Good for you. Some wont ever admit being wrong, even when it is inordinately clear.

Hang in there, as there are many out there with an agenda, that don't want their apple cart tilted.......

[fatima]

Maybe they did say Goodbye and said their final prayers.

[JudyB1938]

Unfortunately, there are several pseudoskeptics in this forum who get their jollies in trying to project their self-created images of grandeur. You met some of them.

However, your being a professional, I don't understand why you feel the need to do a "I told you so" to those jerks. Surely, they weren't a threat to YOUR ego.

I hope that you continue to post. In fact, I'd even like to be on your ping list. It's always refreshing to read something other than about some moose who bit some guy's sister as she was taking a shower after eating some cheese.

[smokeyjon]

Before I read that wonderful compliment, I was going to merely respond that I had nothing more to say to you on this thread. So I guess my "the gift" expired or something.

You're are attempting to refute logistical realities with emotional ideas that have no foundation in science.

Sy Liebergot (Apollo 13 EECOM) said in an interview during the late 90's that "If we had to train and plan for every possible failure [that was seen on 13], we'd still be training today". Spaceflight is a logistical nightmare. There is typically no option for in-flight repair, re-supply, or rescue. This is precisely the case with Columbia. Logistics automatically ruled out any chance of repair, resupply, or rescue. Like I said before, even if NASA did know about it before re-entry, logistics prevented any attempt to do anything. You can NOT prep a shuttle for launch in a week. A normal countdown for launch takes about 90+ hours. There is no other spacecraft capable of carrying more than 3 people. Columbia could not rendezvous with the ISS.

If you have a legtimate, realistic alternative to simply crossing your fingers and attempting re-entry, that does not involve in-flight repair, resupply, or rescue, which were impossible, then please present it. I'm not flaming anyone, I'm not calling anyone a dumdum, and I'm not pretending to be intellectually superior to anyone. I'm pointing out irrefutable facts.

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

Hahaha. This got moved to "chat" forum? How do you find this from the front page of this website?

AKA - Censored.

Nice job Moderators.

[clintonh8r]

Only if Bruce Willis was the commander.

...or a young Harrison Ford.

[aculeus]

I'm proud to be a lawyer - a son of the Constitution.

Merle Haggard is working on the lyrics.

[aculeus]

You be included in number #71.

[general_re]

'Tis better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. Can I just say "welcome" to new freeper "smokeyjon", who is obviously a rational, level-headed fellow, and therefore a much-needed addition to this thread?

[thegreatbeast]

You know, this topic doesn't really grab me but your pitiful cries for validation lead me to think that people were reacting to you personally rather than to what you were saying. You come off like a living lawyer joke, O Great One.
Take up an honest line of work.

[fatima]

AKA-Vanity,There are no lawyers on free republic that post and say they are.You want attention,move on.You want to educate,thank you .

[smokeyjon]

thank you much :)

[general_re]

Thank you. Depending on the topic, you will find that even here the forces of reason are sometimes outnumbered, although never outgunned ;)

[smokeyjon]

4 or 5 days of life support left? How about letting them decide whether to risk death on re-entry, or spend the last 4-5 days of their life preparing to leave their families, and meet their maker.

I missed this one earlier, sorry. I'm assuming that you are suggesting either leaving them in orbit until life support expired, they died, and then attempting re-entry with a dead crew. Or, just extending the mission to the limits of the life support systems expired, and then attempting re-entry. Both of these are purely political questions, and would absolutely never be considered as viable options.

The first option would be as much as, if not more than, a PR nightmare as what actually occurred. The first possibility is that the crew dies from lack of food/water/oxygen, and then Mission Control attempts to bring the shuttle in on auto-pilot. Now you have everyone looking up in the sky, looking for the shuttle full of suffocating people. After the crew is dead, they attempt to bring them home, and the orbiter breaks up upon re-entry. The second possibility is that all of the above happens, except that the shuttle doesn't break up upon re-entry. What a wonderful PR move...starve and suffocate your astronauts on their perfectly good ship.

The second option only increases the chance that something will break, or something that is already broken will break more. Since you can't fix anything, staying up there longer increases the prospects of a failed re-entry.

This entire line of questioning lies outside the technical realm. Like I said before, whether NASA knew of critical damage to the orbiter prior to re-entry is immaterial to the technical aspect of the disaster; nothing could have been done. Questions about informing the crew, informing the public, or anything like that will have to wait for the conclusion of the investigation, and even then still remain political questions that everyone will have a different answer to. NASA's fault in that will be purely subjective...would any given person want to know they might/would die?

I meant to say this in a different response but forgot, so here it is. Understand that when dealing with manned spaceflight, there will be circumstances and emergencies in which there is no possible solution to save a crew. People have, unfortunately, been spoiled by NASA's relatively safe history, but my last statement has always been true. During Apollo, if the ascent stage of the Lunar Module had failed after landing, those two astronauts would have been stranded and dead. If the SPS engine on the Service Module had failed while attempting to leave lunar orbit after landing, all three astronauts would be stranded and dead. If there is a structural failure on a shuttle that is not on an ISS rendezvous mission, those astronauts are dead. Every single astronaut knows this ahead of time, and accepts it when they are strapped in for launch.

[Poohbah]

To quote Star Trek's Q: "If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you had better go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here! It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid."

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

Understand that when dealing with manned spaceflight, there will be circumstances and emergencies in which there is no possible solution to save a crew.




This was not one of those circumstances. NASA killed those 7 heroes, and it did it out of sheer stupidity and bureaucratic idiocy. People are discouraged from raising "red flags" due the NASA's corporate culture. People need to hang, and NASA needs a new game plan.