Nasa E-mails prove that Nasa knew - and I told you so

My first post on this forum was in relation to the initial Nasa Press Conference after the horrible disaster. I said that the Director's response to questions asked made me think he was hiding something. I said he was side-stepping the issues asked about. I cited my experience as an attorney and the thousands and thousands of questions/answers I had experience in tense legal situations.

I was flamed over and over again. My registration date was cited to attack my opinion. My profession as a lawyer was cited to attack me personally and my opinion.

The moderator even removed my post. "Comment #129 Removed by Moderator" http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/833981/posts?q=1&&page=101

I wrote "It wouldn't be the first time someone in a government-funded program or agency skirted the truth in order to justify their mistakes, or to avoid negative fallout.

I don't know what he knows or doesn't know. All I know is what I heard in the press conference. And, as someone who has professional experience in Question and Answer sessions dealing with serious or touchy subjects, I'm just trying to offer my reaction to his response.

Noone asked him if tiles could be repaired. All that was asked was if Nasa had considered a spacewalk to investigate the impact that occurred during launch.

His answer was totally defensive. Between several of his responses, the "theme" was "Nothing could have been done to repair tile damage" - I don't believe that for a minute. Regardless, who cares if it couldn't have been repaired? That is NO justification for failing to fully investigate before re-entry.

People like "steveegg" called me a "trial lawyer troll since 2/1/03" etc. Typical Freeper response to a new person who dares to suggest that someone did something wrong. (Unless that someone was a liberal or foreigner or a non-conservative etc)

Well, the emails show that Nasa knew DAYS before the re-entry that there was a problem, that there was potential for a catastrophic left wheel/wing failure. And they didn't do jack squat about it. They let those 7 heroes come back and "crossed their fingers" hoping that the Red-Flag was wrong.

You know what? This isn't the first time that I have been personally attacked and flamed for showing up with an unpopular opinion or forecast.

Remember the Bush-Gore election? I was the first person on this forum, or ANY forum for that matter, who posted a warning that Gore was going to attempt to selectively challenge vote tallies in heavily democratic areas, and that Gore might WIN the election by doing that.

And I got flamed and insulted and called every bad name in the book - until, of course, I was proved right over the next 24-48 hours after that post.

For any of you who would like to apologize for how you flamed me, insulted me, and called me names, attacking me personally for the posts I made calling into question the Nasa director's evasive responses, and my conclusion that they did something wrong and that they KNEW, please feel free.

For those of you who don't feel like it, at least maybe you will commit to thinking before you type next time. Because, I for one, am ashamed of many of the self-described "conservatives" on this website who are so close-minded, so quick to defend ANYTHING that they deem patriotic or conservative, that you end up embarassing yourself, and the true conservative ideology.

May God Bless the 7 heroes who died, and their families, and may we rise to the occasion, and fix what we did wrong, fix the ineptitude and idiocy that led to their senseless and avoidable deaths.

Dearest general_re,

I really do not know what passes for rationality in your worldview, but smokeyjon's statements in reply 68 above are not rational.
Here are his irrational statements "[] that does not involve in-flight repair, resupply, or rescue, which were impossible, [] I'm not pretending to be intellectually superior to anyone. I'm pointing out irrefutable facts"
Why is that irrational? Bcause smokeyjon has confused his opinion of what is possible, so far stretched that opinion to become irrefutable facts -- that any rescue, resupply or repair was impossible, is not a fact, it is an opinion. His own opinion. Which he raises up as fact! Rational people have a much deeper regard for truth and fact, keeping them seperate.
What are the mechanisms for turning opinion into fact -- into irrefutable fact? Many facts are show by clear demonstration to all. One such FACT is that the shuttle was destroyed during re-entry. That is an irrefutable fact, as well.
Another way that facts are decided, is by a fact-finding panel of peers or experts. Such a panel was the Warren Commission. They found as a fact that Kennedy was shot by a lone assasin, Oswald. Now we -- most of us -- no longer take that as an "irrefutable" fact, for many follow-on reserachers have found very plausible discrepancies and alternatives. Yet smokeyjon's opinions not only have become facts in his mind, they have become irrefutable facts.
In other words, he has fallen in the irrational vanity trap of the intellectually arrogant -- and his opinion is hopelessly confused with fact.
Best Regards,
--bvw

Here is MY refutation: something is better than nothing. Smokeyjon speaks for hopelesness, failure and death -- I speak for trying to live. Smokeyjon doesn't know all that was available to rescue, nor do I, nor does ANYONE at NASA. There are resources that would have and should have been made available nationally and globally to do whatever could have been done to rescue the crew -- or at least to identify the danger more fully beforehand.

Just consider that last ... that hundreds of lifes weren't lost on the ground -- that NO lifes were lost is a miracle. The shuttle's descent path brought in over cities and towns. That is irresponsible to do when you know there is a pretty high risk of destruction during re-entry -- there are alternative landing sites that do NOT have that risk to citizens and people on the ground.

There were when the shuttle went up, two craft that could have been readied to effect some rescue or resupply -- the Atlantis, is a rush could have been used, and the Soyuz resupply ship might -- possibbly -- have been adapted to aid the Atlantis in such a mission. That's a CAN-DO attitude to consider those things fully -- to the point you get the Atlantis to the pad and make all afforts to launch -- pending, holding off final decision until the last moment.

What you have taken for rationality is a fine bit of arrogant excuse mogering, deadly in all human endeavors of risk -- as deadly -- more deadly prehaps -- than being foolishly gung-ho and taking too many risks.

Please realize and take to heart who much emotion people have projected into the Shuttle program -- like our home cities football team losing in the playoffs, we all feel a palpable sense of failure and pain when NASA fails. We desperately want them to have been right, that "rational irrefutable facts" were on their side in failing to act to rescue. No, such irrefutable facts were not on their side -- are never on the side of hopelessness and failure to act. Some facts, yes, a lot of facts, maybe. But hope is there -- to be gained by trying, and never by denying.

The reported facts on the situation in NASA to date, seem to be a tale of denial, of excuses, of failure to react boldly. The reports do not provide a strong basis for a presumption that all things were considered fully in this fatal mission.

Why is that irrational? Bcause smokeyjon has confused his opinion of what is possible, so far stretched that opinion to become irrefutable facts -- that any rescue, resupply or repair was impossible, is not a fact, it is an opinion. His own opinion. Which he raises up as fact! Rational people have a much deeper regard for truth and fact, keeping them seperate.

I will ask each of you, one final time, for this: If you claim that I am being irrational, illogical, or am pushing opinion as fact, then prove it. Present a counter argument that lays out your case. Here are facts, core to my argument, that can be obtained by even the most rudimentary search on google:

1. It was 100% impossible for another spacecraft with the capacity to carry to entire Columbia crew to have been prepped and launced before Columbia's life support was exhausted. STS is the only spacecraft in existence that can carry that many people. Shuttles take months of prep before flight; rollout procedures from the VAB to the launch pad take 1 day; a full launch coundown itself is about 4 days. Columbia was at the end of normal mission plan, leaving about 4-5 days of life support. Even IF another could have been made ready, Columbia's docking mechanism was not installed for this mission, so the crew could not have been transferred safely between ships.

2. It was 100% impossible to repair any structural damage to the thermal tiles, or orbiter itself, whether NASA knew about it or not. Both require special tools and spare parts, neither of which are carried on the shuttle. Due to Columbia's science mission, EVA gear necessary for a spacewalk was not on board, and EVAs to the underside of the shuttle have NEVER been possible anyway.

3. It was 100% impossible for the shuttle to rendezvous and dock with the ISS. Columbia's mission placed her in a much, much lower orbit than the ISS, and in a completely DIFFERENT orbit. At no time before, during, or after launch did Columbia ever have enough fuel to make it to the ISS. Again, she also had no docking mechanism installed, as it was removed for this mission to make room for science payloads.

I will not repsond to anything further from either of you that does not scientifically and/or factually address these three items. It's fruitless attempting to debate someone who refuses to accept the basic truths associated with the topic at hand. If you don't believe me, look it up. It's what algore gave us the Internet for.

smokeyjon, your Nasa fanboy response of "There was nothing that could be done so shut up" is really sad. Even NASA head officialls totally disagree with you. The depths to which some people will stoop when they think that anything even remotely Anti-American or Anti-Patriotic is said is really truly sad.

I've said repeatedly that everything that I had to say was "neither a defense nor an indictment of NASA". You apparently have decided to ignore this. Hell, I have never once brought up even what might have happened behind closed doors at NASA. I hadn't realized that pointing out limitations in current technology constituted waving the flag around.

At no point have I claimed to know what the acutal cause of the disaster was, nor have I ever said that NASA didn't make a mistake. I have simply pointed out the realities of the current limits of human spaceflight technology. You apparently have decided that these realities aren't "good enough" for you, and there simply must be another answer that everyone except yourself is too stupid to grasp.

You bitched and moaned about getting flamed, and I think I see why now. You've refused to offer any contradictory statements, links, or evidence to any of my posts; you've just shot back that I'm illogical and attempting to pass off opinion as fact. Well, prove me wrong then. So far, the only thing that you've offered that hasn't been your own opinion is from Sean O'Keefe...a political statement, made by a politician (and if you don't think that the NASA admin is a politician, you're insane. Go ask James Webb). Tell me, how many politicians are going to go on TV and say "Sorry, we couldn't have done anything anyway" about anything?

I wasn't going to respond to anything that did not relate to the three points made in my previous post, but this tripe you have here is so assinine that I couldn't resist. It's interesting to see that you've resorted to name-calling and preaching without even a single attempt to refute anything that I've said.

1. It was 100% impossible for another spacecraft with the capacity to carry to entire Columbia crew to have been prepped and launced before Columbia's life support was exhausted. That is 100% opinion. NASA didn't even bother to study rescue options. There was, in fact, a russian capsul already scheduled for launch. That launch time/trajectory could have been altered to allow the shuttle crew to grab it, and send back at least 3 or 4 of the crew inside. You don't know jack about the actual amount of time left, their rescue options, or anything else because NASA didn't even bother to study those options. STS is the only spacecraft in existence that can carry that many people. Who cares about taking the whole crew on ONE other vessel? So send up 2 or 3. Shuttles take months of prep before flight; No, they don't. A "safe" "by the book" shuttle launch does. NASA could do just about anything it wanted to if sacraficing those safeguards. And they could have done it on a vounteer basis, allowing anyone with the guts to do it to go up. You don't know what you are talking about, pure speculation/assumtion on your part. rollout procedures from the VAB to the launch pad take 1 day; a full launch coundown itself is about 4 days. Columbia was at the end of normal mission plan, leaving about 4-5 days of life support. Again, this is just "by the book" you are talking about. They could have figured something out. They are smart people with a lot of resources. And we aren't the ONLY people with a space program. THe Russians could have sent up more capsules. Even IF another could have been made ready, Columbia's docking mechanism was not installed for this mission, so the crew could not have been transferred safely between ships. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Every one of the crew had a space suit. If your choice was to die, or attempt a risk space walk to get to another capsule or ship, what would you do? 2. It was 100% impossible to repair any structural damage to the thermal tiles, or orbiter itself, whether NASA knew about it or not. Both require special tools and spare parts, neither of which are carried on the shuttle. Rampant speculation on your part. IF another capsule or shuttle had been sent up, with a bunch of tiles (which are all premade and could have been taken from other shuttles or parts warehouses) it could have at least been tried. And they could have even tried other options if they had been studied. Your quickness to discount ANY possible way to fix the problem betrays your real objective. YOu want to find a way to excuse the actions of NASA no matter what the intellectual cost. Due to Columbia's science mission, EVA gear necessary for a spacewalk was not on board, and EVAs to the underside of the shuttle have NEVER been possible anyway. You are 100% completely wrong. You do NOT need EVA gear to spacewalk. You need a spacesuit and a tether. You need EVA gear for the best-possible safest-possible spacewalk. Do you even read your own words? Think about it for a minute. What is a spacewalk? Its a man, in a spacesuit, floating in orbit. Hello? Do you realize how silly it sounds to say that a shuttle crew member could not have put on their space suit, tied a rope to their suit, and crawled over to the wing, looked underneath? Good greif. 3. It was 100% impossible for the shuttle to rendezvous and dock with the ISS. Columbia's mission placed her in a much, much lower orbit than the ISS, and in a completely DIFFERENT orbit. At no time before, during, or after launch did Columbia ever have enough fuel to make it to the ISS. Do you REALLY know this? Quote your source. And, NASA didn't even other to study this option. And what about the other obvious possibility (send up a rescure pod/shuttle/capsule) fit with the option to add fuel or use other means to move the shuttle to an orbit close enough to ISS to do a transfer? Again, she also had no docking mechanism installed, as it was removed for this mission to make room for science payloads. Just because something is in the official procedure book does not mean it's necessary. It means its IDEAL. There's a huge difference. The problem is that NASA didn't even bother to study the options. And when someone like you tries to justify their failure by saying "there was nothing they could do" you just embarass yourself, and shame the memory of those dead heroes.

Ok here's a formatted version LOL. 1. It was 100% impossible for another spacecraft with the capacity to carry to entire Columbia crew to have been prepped and launced before Columbia's life support was exhausted.
That is 100% opinion. NASA didn't even bother to study rescue options. There was, in fact, a russian capsul already scheduled for launch. That launch time/trajectory could have been altered to allow the shuttle crew to grab it, and send back at least 3 or 4 of the crew inside. You don't know jack about the actual amount of time left, their rescue options, or anything else because NASA didn't even bother to study those options.
STS is the only spacecraft in existence that can carry that many people.
Who cares about taking the whole crew on ONE other vessel? So send up 2 or 3. Shuttles take months of prep before flight; No, they don't. A "safe" "by the book" shuttle launch does. NASA could do just about anything it wanted to if sacraficing those safeguards. And they could have done it on a vounteer basis, allowing anyone with the guts to do it to go up. You don't know what you are talking about, pure speculation/assumtion on your part.
rollout procedures from the VAB to the launch pad take 1 day; a full launch coundown itself is about 4 days. Columbia was at the end of normal mission plan, leaving about 4-5 days of life support. Again, this is just "by the book" you are talking about. They could have figured something out. They are smart people with a lot of resources. And we aren't the ONLY people with a space program. THe Russians could have sent up more capsules. Even IF another could have been made ready, Columbia's docking mechanism was not installed for this mission, so the crew could not have been transferred safely between ships. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Every one of the crew had a space suit. If your choice was to die, or attempt a risk space walk to get to another capsule or ship, what would you do? Not to mention, they KNEW about the damage the day after, LONG before they were allegedly down to 4-5 days of life support left.
2. It was 100% impossible to repair any structural damage to the thermal tiles, or orbiter itself, whether NASA knew about it or not. Both require special tools and spare parts, neither of which are carried on the shuttle.
Rampant speculation on your part. IF another capsule or shuttle had been sent up, with a bunch of tiles (which are all premade and could have been taken from other shuttles or parts warehouses) it could have at least been tried. And they could have even tried other options if they had been studied. Your quickness to discount ANY possible way to fix the problem betrays your real objective. YOu want to find a way to excuse the actions of NASA no matter what the intellectual cost. Due to Columbia's science mission, EVA gear necessary for a spacewalk was not on board, and EVAs to the underside of the shuttle have NEVER been possible anyway. You are 100% completely wrong. You do NOT need EVA gear to spacewalk. You need a spacesuit and a tether. You need EVA gear for the best-possible safest-possible spacewalk. Do you even read your own words? Think about it for a minute. What is a spacewalk? Its a man, in a spacesuit, floating in orbit. Hello? Do you realize how silly it sounds to say that a shuttle crew member could not have put on their space suit, tied a rope to their suit, and crawled over to the wing, looked underneath? Good greif.
3. It was 100% impossible for the shuttle to rendezvous and dock with the ISS. Columbia's mission placed her in a much, much lower orbit than the ISS, and in a completely DIFFERENT orbit. At no time before, during, or after launch did Columbia ever have enough fuel to make it to the ISS.
Do you REALLY know this? Quote your source. And, NASA didn't even other to study this option. And what about the other obvious possibility (send up a rescure pod/shuttle/capsule) fit with the option to add fuel or use other means to move the shuttle to an orbit close enough to ISS to do a transfer?
Again, she also had no docking mechanism installed, as it was removed for this mission to make room for science payloads.
Just because something is in the official procedure book does not mean it's necessary. It means its IDEAL. There's a huge difference. The problem is that NASA didn't even bother to study the options. And when someone like you tries to justify their failure by saying "there was nothing they could do" you just embarass yourself, and shame the memory of those dead heroes.

And you accuse ME of spouting opinion and speculation? Your entire post is based upon conjecture and assumption, relying on the existance of things which do not exist. I'm going to condense redundant arguments to single responses.

[Regarding there not being an available "rescue" vehicle]"That is 100% opinion. NASA didn't even bother to study rescue options. There was, in fact, a russian capsul already scheduled for launch. That launch time/trajectory could have been altered to allow the shuttle crew to grab it, and send back at least 3 or 4 of the crew inside. You don't know jack about the actual amount of time left, their rescue options, or anything else because NASA didn't even bother to study those options."

A Russian Progress ship was ready for launch. The only problem is, the Progress is an *automated* ship not designed to ferry passengers. It's a resupply ship for the ISS. Also, Columbia could not have "grabbed" any passing ship. Her robotic arm was NOT installed for this mission, nor did she have a docking mechanism installed. And actually, I know exactly how much time they had left. The shuttle always flies with 5 extra days worth of supplies past the end of the planned mission. Columbia re-entered during the first available window, leaving about 5 days of supplies.

"Who cares about taking the whole crew on ONE other vessel? So send up 2 or 3."

Where are you going to get those ships? Russia can BARELY produce the 2 Soyuz ships per year it is obligated to for the ISS. These can carry 3 people max. They currently won't have one ready for launch until April. The next one is still being assembled in the factory. STS is the only space vehicle the US has right now. China has yet to launch a manned Shenzhou mission, and the Shenzhou is just a knock-off of a Soyuz anyway, 3 people max.

[Regarding the time to prep and launch a shuttle]"No, they don't. A "safe" "by the book" shuttle launch does. NASA could do just about anything it wanted to if sacraficing those safeguards. And they could have done it on a vounteer basis, allowing anyone with the guts to do it to go up. You don't know what you are talking about, pure speculation/assumtion on your part." [All other comments under this topic snipped.]

Yes, they do. "Safe" "by the book" shuttle launches are the only shuttle launches that will ever be conducted. Sacrificing even a single step can result in a catastrophic failure. The rollout takes a day because the crawler has a top speed of about one mile per hour. The countdown takes over 90 hours because of fueling, systems checkout, crew suitup and transfer, and repair of anything found wrong after the umbilicals are connected to the stack. And something is found that needs to be fixed on the launchpad EVERY mission.

[Regarding EVA suits]"Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Every one of the crew had a space suit. If your choice was to die, or attempt a risk space walk to get to another capsule or ship, what would you do?"

Actually, I know exactly what I'm talking about. Apparently you are confusing the crew's takeoff and landing pressure suits with actual "spacesuits". Those orange suits you see the crew in are not designed, rated, or capable of working as an EVA suit. You'd be as safe outside in one of those as you would in a regular Air Force pressure suit. In actuality, Columbia had only TWO EVA suits aboard, designed for work in the payload bay, if necessary. These are NOT the same suits that you see in pictures and video of astronauts floating about the ISS or Hubble doing work. You COULD attempt to do a vehicle transfer in them, but they aren't designed for it.

[Regarding in-flight structural or tile repair.]"Rampant speculation on your part. IF another capsule or shuttle had been sent up, with a bunch of tiles (which are all premade and could have been taken from other shuttles or parts warehouses) it could have at least been tried. And they could have even tried other options if they had been studied. Your quickness to discount ANY possible way to fix the problem betrays your real objective. YOu want to find a way to excuse the actions of NASA no matter what the intellectual cost."

I was, and still am, 100% correct. There is currently no technology available to repair this kind of damage in-flight. In fact, if you had bothered to follow the link I provided in a previous post, there is speculation that DEVELOPMENT of this technology may be required before the shuttle is allowed to fly again. If it already exists, as you insist it must, then why are people talking about having to develop it?

[Regarding the lack of EVA equipment on board]"You are 100% completely wrong. You do NOT need EVA gear to spacewalk. You need a spacesuit and a tether. You need EVA gear for the best-possible safest-possible spacewalk. Do you even read your own words? Think about it for a minute. What is a spacewalk? Its a man, in a spacesuit, floating in orbit. Hello? Do you realize how silly it sounds to say that a shuttle crew member could not have put on their space suit, tied a rope to their suit, and crawled over to the wing, looked underneath? Good greif."

And how, exactly, is an astronaut in "a spacesuit on a rope" going to get to the leading edge of the shuttle wing, or underneath? I explained this in my very first post. There are no handholds on the shuttle. There are no footholds on the shuttle. Without EVA gear, how is he supposed to get there? You can't just "crawl"...the minute you try to move forward, you will be pushed away from the shuttle. Welcome to the wonderful world of physics.

[Regarding not being able to dock with ISS]"Do you REALLY know this? Quote your source. And, NASA didn't even other to study this option. And what about the other obvious possibility (send up a rescure pod/shuttle/capsule) fit with the option to add fuel or use other means to move the shuttle to an orbit close enough to ISS to do a transfer?"

Yes, I REALLY know this. Besides being the oldest shuttle, she was also the heaviest. In fact, Columbia was too heavy to go to the ISS, period. That's why she was always used for Hubble, straight science, or other satellite deployment missions. NASA didn't study this option because it was NOT an option. Besides the fact that I've already explained that there was not enough time to get any sort of resupply ship to Columbia, not only can the shuttle not be re-fueled in orbit, but the hardware to do this doesn't even exist. You want a source? Here: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/index.html

[Apparently ignoring that Colubmia had no docking mechanism installed]"Just because something is in the official procedure book does not mean it's necessary. It means its IDEAL. There's a huge difference. The problem is that NASA didn't even bother to study the options. And when someone like you tries to justify their failure by saying "there was nothing they could do" you just embarass yourself, and shame the memory of those dead heroes."

I think you're playing with the wrong deck of cards. There is a gigantic difference between an intellectual examination of the facts of the case regarding the current technology available, and attempting justifying anything. So far, you are the only one who keeps attempting to throw blame around on anyone. By your logic, because I refuse to blame NASA for anything specific before the investigation is complete, AND because I have presented an honest review of the lack of options available based on the most prevelant questions being asked, I must be defending NASA by default. Besides being intellectually dishonest, it's a shallow argument used when one has no facts to argue with. You shouldn't be surprised when you get flamed, because it isn't NASA "fanboys" flaming you, it's people who don't want to hear incoherent ranting from someone who obviously couldn't be bothered to do even the most basic research before pontificating about what a horrible bunch of monsters NASA is.

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.