California photos appear to show start of disintegration

Ft Worth Star Telegram online byline: Los Angeles Daily News ^ | Monday, Feb 03, 2003 | unspecified

[Archangelsk]

Maybe because most folks involved in analyzing photographs are methodical and don't do knee jerk reactions well.

[Torie]

This may not be the thread, but my tentative layperson's not fully informed view, is that I am quite unhappy with NASA. For starters, just why would they let a plane fly without anyway to rescue the crew if it appeared to dangerous for the plane to reenter the atmosphere, and endure that punishing heat? If I were Bush, I would be asking a lot of questions. I am also dissatisfied that NASA did not disclose the damage to the wing if it knew, prior to reentry. Maybe that knowledge, if it existed, simply didn't get up the food chain. Whatever, I am not a happy camper. The net result, is that the plane is unlikely to ever fly again. That is my guess.

[SierraWasp]

"as far east as, well, California ..."

Don't mean to be picky but... Don'tcha mean west, instead of east?

Yep! Stuff was all over the Sacramento T.V. on Saturday about people seeing irregular sights and sounds as they watched "flares" falling away from the shuttle.

However, I'd be willing to bet a lot that it was traveling at such high velocity that it followed the trajectory beyond at least NV, UT & NM! Maybe even all the way to TX!!!

[Torie]

This may not be the thread, but my tentative layperson's not fully informed view, is that I am quite unhappy with NASA. For starters, just why would they let a plane fly without anyway to rescue the crew if it appeared to dangerous for the plane to reenter the atmosphere, and endure that punishing heat? If I were Bush, I would be asking a lot of questions. I am also dissatisfied that NASA did not disclose the damage to the wing if it knew, prior to reentry. Maybe that knowledge, if it existed, simply didn't get up the food chain. Whatever, I am not a happy camper. The net result, is that the plane is unlikely to ever fly again. That is my guess.

[hole_n_one]

TLB is correct again

Exactly how many times can hell freeze over?

[Howlin]

For starters, just why would they let a plane fly without anyway to rescue the crew if it appeared to dangerous for the plane to reenter the atmosphere, and endure that punishing heat?

You mean this time, or for all of them? I've heard astronauts say it's like sitting on top of a controlled bomb. They ALL know the risks.

I am also dissatisfied that NASA did not disclose the damage to the wing if it knew, prior to reentry

It was in the papers right after the launch and they did discuss it with the crew, from what they said today.

[_Jim]

why don't you go ahead and post that screen snapshot you said you had this afternoon.

Dang ... I *just* saw on it Fox here locally again too - the entire run of the full motion-picture video shot in Nevada ...

[Joe Hadenuf]

You have a link handy to this?

[_Jim]

Don't mean to be picky but... Don'tcha mean west, instead of east?

Please forgive my geographic dyslexia ...

[SierraWasp]

"The net result, is that the plane is unlikely to ever fly again."

One would be forced to presume you refer only to Columbia.

[Howlin]

Nice try, but this is what you said this afternoon:

Live Thread: NASA PRESS CONFERENCE
			Posted by _Jim to Howlin On News/Activism 02/03/2003 5:48 PM EST #374 of 496 Dammit - I saw it. I took a scrren capture too. You want me to post that? Geez ... Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies

[Howlin]

Let's see the Hawaii one,too.........LOL.

[Torie]

Well it is odd none of us knew that the plane was in real trouble until it burned up. I don't think NASA was sensitive to parsing the risk reward ratio, is my guess. And I suspect at this juncture NASA agrees. As I say, I doubt the plane will ever fly again, unless the science is very persuasive that a plane prone to trouble has been made more foolproof. It is not as if Western civilization rides on this plane flying; it doesn't.

As I say, I am just venting. I await more facts. But pendign that, I have no intention to give NASA a pass.

[Torie]

I have grown to hate planes in general (and try to avoid being trapped in them, or in the maze one must endure to get into them, and since that view is not idiosyncratic, the airlines in general are all going BK), but yes, you are right.

[_Jim]

BTW, your "women" remark pretty much shows what a jerk you are.

Ha ha ha ha ...

I have found women to be, at times, and sometimes concurrently, any or all of at least the following: highly irrational, intensely critical, abjectly negative, highly irritatable, intensely conniving, remarkably unconcerned and, last but not least, bitchy for absolutely no reason wahtsoever ...

Gentleman - do any of you concur?

[Howlin]

Screen snapshot, got one?

[Howlin]

highly irrational, intensely critical, abjectly negative, highly irritatable, intensely conniving, remarkably unconcerned and, last but not least, bitchy for absolutely no reason wahtsoever

So what are you saying about yourself. If I recall correctly, you're the one who left the thread in a snit this afternoon.

Don't say you didn't. I have the post right here.

So, what "issues" do you have?

[_Jim]

Have you 'gotten well'?

Recovered from 'your stew'?

Are you 'ready to talk'?

[SierraWasp]

"Gentleman - do any of you concur?"

The events under consideration shall not be concluded until the gravitationally challenged member of the feminine gender begins to vocalize!!!

And you, Sir, had better not "stop short!"

[_Jim]

I have grown to hate planes in general

I drove 1,000 miles, one way, twice, over Christmas to avoid planes and carry what I darn well wanted too ...

And for my trouble I got to see sites that I hadn't seen in years, drove right straight up through the heartland of America, into and through the grain basket of the world.