Columbia Discussion thread

Feb 1, 2003

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

The astronauts have always know the risk and accepted it. Continue with the shuttle for now but start building a new fleet of diverse heavy boosters and manned craft that are more useful and economical than the shuttle.

The only reason that we are continuing with the shuttle is because of beaurocratic inertia (leaving aside where it is coming from for now), at NASA. Were the same factors in existence in say the Airline industry, we'd have a larger number of crashes, and still be using the Douglas DC-3!

What i have been responding to from the beginning of this argument is the idea that we cannot compare the mentality of a Combat commander, with the mentality of the professionals of NASA. The complaint was made that "you never see a general cry" over his troops. My response was that a general sends his boys out knowing that some of them are going to be killed, because war is a profession of deliberate death, and requires a different sort of professional detachment than a field that is simply "dangerous".

Conservababe took a lot of heat yesterday for being a little cold. But she has the right attitude. Bury our dead with honors and continue their dream. Even if some crews do die. It's part of the business. Explorer just isn't a safe career and that's not why anyone chooses it.

i do not dispute this for one second W. All that i say is that we should not compare the "apparent coldness" of the professionals at NASA with the professionals in war. They are entirely different matters. The only thing the two possibly have in common is the fact that those people wore the uniforms of the military of their countries...some had seen combat. Nothing i have posted mitigates either their personal courage, or the professionalism of the people on the ground doing what needed to be done. Either Conservababe needs to read these posts closer, or i (and others) need to present our thoughts in a better manner, or (as i suspect is the case) both events need to happen.

[Timesink]

Apparently, the Texas Amber Alert system was activated yesterday in order to spread the word about the toll-free number to call to report debris.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

One thing it asserts is that another Israeli died on the Challenger--a relative of the author.

i believe that a crew member of Challenger, Dr. Judith Resnik (don't know if i spelled the name correctly), was Jewish. It is entirely possible that she had relatives in Israel. Whether or not she had Israeli citizenship or not is unknown.

[Mark Felton]

Debris Photos (post them here)

[tiki]

I am so sorry.

[Fabozz]

"There is the remote possibility that an Islamic is in NASA, don't you think?"

I'm sure there are many Muslims in NASA. I'll even grant the remote possibility that one or more of them are terrorists like Malvo. But one guy sneaking into the Vehicle Assembly Building to plant a bomb on the orbiter, or even just sabotage it by breaking off a few dozen tiles, is impossible. Every time anybody touches the orbiter, his work is double- and triple-checked just for basic safety reasons, let alone for security reasons, so you'd need not merely one terrorist mole but dozens of them working together inside NASA over many years—and even then their plan would have been foiled by the increased level of security and scrutiny this particular flight received because of Ramon's presence.

No, Pravda's "Saddam got UFO technology from the Zeta Reticulans" theory is a much more promising line of inquiry.

[JulieRNR21]

You nailed it. America is America because we DO care. We care about an astronaut that we've never even heard about until today. We care about the the oppressed and tortured in Iraq and the starving in Africa. Some may say that we don't but America is the most compassionate, giving country in the world and we mourn, especially if we lose one of our own.

Thank you.......I agree and I have no problem with anyone expressing grief....even 'professionals'.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

Amen.

Thanks for the ping.

[perfect stranger]

[Quix]

[Qx note: the following greeted me on arising Sun AM. I believe there's SOMETHING in this that's accurate. I don't know what portion or % that might be. But I believe God is AT LEAST SAYING MORE LOUDLY--"ALERT--PAY ATTENTION! WAKE UP!" In that light, I've included the AGGRESSIVE/RADICAL PRAYER PING LIST as addressees. I BELIEVE AT LEAST 2 PRIORITIES ARE TO PRAY FOR ISRAEL AND TO PRAY FOR BUSH'S SAFETY AND HEARING GOD'S WILL AND OBEYING IT--especially in terms of backing off from pressuring Israel to take a murderous Palestinian state in her bossom--e.g. West Bank. That he, for the sake of the USA must become as protective of Israel's Covenant lands as God is. But hey--Please pray as you feel led of Holy Spirit to pray!]

Mailing-List: contact end-times_news-help@associate.com;

ONE THING
WE AREN"T
BEING TOLD
ABOUT
THE COLUMBIA EXPLOSION

by Barry Chamish

So the Space Shuttle on its 113th mission, carrying Israel's first astronaut, explodes on the Sabbath over Palestine, Texas. Too unbelievable to be accidental, right? Well, maybe it isn't. We will return [to that].

I had prepared my usual report from Israel and it was chock full of powerful eye-witness evidence. It was that sort of week. Now who will give a hoot about last week's news? So let's summarize what I won't report in depth and get it over with.

* We were going to start by asking why, if two/thirds of Israel's Jewish voters chose parties from the Right, is it that Sharon is forming a coalition with the Left, guaranteeing that Peres will be back in the cabinet? And our conclusion was, obviously, that the voters wasted their time voting.

* Then we were going to present eye-witnesses that the Green Leaf Party, which all polls showed winning 2-4 seats, lost because of mass ballot destruction. And something similar took place to Herut, before the vote counting began.

* Like mother, like daughter. Dahlia Pelosoff Rabin is sick with cancer and not telling anyone. A close friend of hers contacted me with the information.

* My last article included an interview with an associate of Rabin's personal bodyguard, who was called away for an overseas assignment a week before the assassination. I was told, "You got that story right. What you missed is he wasn't the only one called away on the night of the rally.

Practically the whole Shabak protection unit was called to a gathering in Mishmar Hashiva that evening when we should have been on duty."

Back to NASA, once again an acronym for Need Another Seven Astronauts.

Obviously, it's too early to make a claim for sabotage, but there are some signs to look for and one powerful piece of evidence unknown outside Israel.

The easy way out is to observe that just when an Israeli is on board, the shuttle disintegrates. Two of the 113 shuttle flights ended in disaster, so Ilan Ramon, we calculate after the fact, had a 1 in 56.5 chance of not returning or a 1 in 112 chance before boarding. These are high but not unlikely odds. That there were Jewish astronauts on both shuttle disasters, (a distant relative of mine, Judy Resnick died in the 1986 conflagration), is entirely explainable by coincidence.

So let's increase the chances of improbability by noting that Ramon was in the Air Force squadron which bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1982, and he was on the craft on the eve of an American invasion of Iraq.

There are several thousand Israeli Air Force pilots who weren't on the Iraqi mission, so Ramon's choice as the country's astronaut may not have been entirely coincidental. The Columbia explosion has the grand potential of rallying Americans against Iraq either way. Sabotage would be fine for that purpose but the images of rejoicing in Baghdad are useful as well.

THEN, that the first explosion reported was over Palestine, Texas gets a bit spooky already. Which brings us to a peculiar NASA reaction. The space agency initially insisted that no explosion was heard from the Shuttle by anyone . What people thought was an explosion was actually debris hitting the ground.

A few hours of TV watching proved that to be untrue. All kinds of witnesses saw the vapor trail and heard the explosion. They included a Texas senator and ordinary people like Randy Hendricks and Kim Dornak-Anderson, both interviewed on Fox News. Yet NASA continued to insist the Shuttle broke up, not exploded. The final proof of this false contention came from the Shreveport, Louisiana weather station, which taped the explosion on its radar screen.

So why was NASA denying that there was an explosion? The only answer anyone should come up with is that an explosion means possible sabotage.

There is another reason not to dismiss that option; the reaction of the astronauts themselves. The last radio transmission proves that the crew didn't suspect anything was wrong. Then came the end of transmission, suddenly. There was not a moment of fire or smoke within the cabin. No one saw a wing in jeopardy. No one felt a sudden jolt. And those are the telltale human signs of an immediate and highly traumatic blast.

I'm not an aeronautical engineer and I'm sure there are lots of reasons why the Columbia could have exploded. However, I know that no engines were ignited because the ship was in a gliding mode.

So, with no motors running and no fuel being sparked, what precisely exploded the whole ship in one gigantic blast?

Which leads me to one concrete piece of evidence that should be very closely examined. The Israeli TV Channel Two, had a reporter and crew inside the NASA Control Center. Ilan Ramon's landing was being carried live from a number of sites and Channel Two's reporter was in the right place to hear the REAL last transmissions from Columbia.

And they are not even close to what the rest of the world is being told. According to the reporter, one NASA message to the crew was most significant. A few moments before the end, NASA broadcast the following message. Now there is some Hebrew translation involved, so there are going to be some differences in the actual message; But the Channel Two reporter heard, "Rick, you're going to be surprised. We're starting the D-Orbit burn now."

The reporter wisely asked why the commander of the mission was going to be surprised and concluded that the message could lead in all kinds of suspicious directions. It was the only blatant talk of alternative suspicion that I heard all night.

I waited for hours through five TV networks and not once did I hear this conversation. All I heard was a warning about tire pressure, an acknowledgement, then nothing. But something very odd preceded the final words NASA agreed to release. And it IS a reason not to dismiss sabotage.

And that may go a ways to explaining why the Homeland Security division of FEMA was placed in charge of collecting debris, backed by a beaut of a scare campaign for what will become of all who hold on to Shuttle souvenirs.

[Qx: ahhhh, I see. Is he saying shades of flight 800? Prevent people from collecting any evidence of sabotage? Seems a bit of a stretch but not beyond possibility, it seems to me.]

Now for me, here's the clincher. NASA stressed that it had no idea what caused the tragedy and even noted that they may never know. However, they have totally discarded terrorism as a cause of the "accident."

So, if NASA doesn't know what caused the disaster and may never know, how exactly do they know with such concrete certainty that it wasn't sabotage?

end

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Luke 21:28 "And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is an information list only, NOT a discussion list; please direct your responses to the discussion list at:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To subscribe, send ANY message to
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To unsubscribe, send ANY message to
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Contact list owner:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Quix]

PING

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Please be aware that the senerio that you have presented for our consumption is at this time premature. Be aware also that you should hold on to what ever information you have obtained (obviously through open sources, correct?) for future reference. At this particular point in time, there exists a multitude of alternate causuality senerios, none of which require what was alluded to in your 1190 post.

Although i do not recal the number, (somewhere in the 800's-900's) i posted a possible alternate senerio...namely that one of the left side landing wheels blew a tire. i have no idea what your technical abilities are, but a tire inflated to the specified pressure of the shuttle is a potential bomb if it goes off in near-vacuum conditions at the temperatures the shuttle was generating at the time. It would be sufficient to do structural damage to the left wing.

Again, while i cannot dismiss your senerio, i believe that it is too premature to speculate until alternate senerios are determined to be unworkable.

[Quix]

Quite incined to agree with you.

But I don't think it's ever to early to pray.

Times are getting curiouser and curiouser.

REALITY--not just TV representations of it--REALITY itself may become increasingly convoluted and contradictory.

Anyway--thanks.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

REALITY--not just TV representations of it--REALITY itself may become increasingly convoluted and contradictory.

Haven't owned a television in over 15 years, and you left out the word "painful". (Romans 8:19-31)

[George W. Bush]

What i have been responding to from the beginning of this argument is the idea that we cannot compare the mentality of a Combat commander, with the mentality of the professionals of NASA. The complaint was made that "you never see a general cry" over his troops.

I noted that the control team maintained its composure until well after we knew Columbia was lost. But I didn't really appreciate the somewhat weepy tone of the briefing and the emotional appeals. If they couldn't have conducted the first press conference without that, they should have waited a day. NASA will benefit more, both int internal morale and in PR terms, from a public perception of professionalism.

My response was that a general sends his boys out knowing that some of them are going to be killed, because war is a profession of deliberate death, and requires a different sort of professional detachment than a field that is simply "dangerous".

No. If you are a scientist or engineer, as the NASA leaders are, you know that you're going to bury some. It's not as different a picture as you are painting. Merely because it's civilian doesn't mean it's not dangerous. We quite often don't give full credit to our civilians in the line of danger like police and firefighters because they are civilian. But a lot of them die tragically too. Just like these astronauts.

Some lines of work are inherently dangerous. The people who take those jobs are a special breed. The work is dangerous but those involved are the ones who know better than anyone else how worthwhile and necessary it is.

In comparison to some of the NASA interviews, I really appreciated the aggressive gung-ho attitude we heard from our old Apollo astronauts. To me, they were the only ones who really made sense and had the right perspective.

[trussell]

Place Marker

[Quix]

Good points.
Thanks.

[patriciaruth]

I'm not an aeronautical engineer and I'm sure there are lots of reasons why the Columbia could have exploded. However, I know that no engines were ignited because the ship was in a gliding mode. So, with no motors running and no fuel being sparked, what precisely exploded the whole ship in one gigantic blast?

There were several explosions. The integrity of the heat shield tiles was breached, and heat/fire from the high kinetic energy of the shuttle in its high spot in the gravity well was not able to dissipate in external heat and light against the friction of the upper atmosphere. 3000 degree heat, greater than lava or the surface of the sun, penetrated into the left wing and melted the frame and caused instability. The nitrogen in the left tire may have been the first explosion. The heat penetrated further and hit the propellant fuel tanks for the retrorockets and they exploded.

This is physics. Like the failure of the tail section, held on by plastic composite bolts, of the American Airlines plane in New York in 2001 after 9/11 was physics.

Physics, not the hand of God, nor of a terrorist, IMO.

We were given free will. We can mess around with stuff and get ourselves into trouble. Physics are the boundaries of our playpen.

God rarely suspends the laws of physics for our benefit so that we do not suffer the consequences of our actions. I doubt that he suspends them to our detriment.

When you do risky things, when you have fallible humans putting complicated machines together, then bad things can happen as people and their understanding of their work is not perfect. The prior deaths of astronauts were not messages from God, they were accidents of a child taking their first steps in a new field of endeavor.

Coincidence is a tempting explanation. But I think that President Bush actually explained the bunching of "coincidences" better in the State of the Union speech.

"This country has many challenges. We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and other generations."

Too many things have not been attended to on the watch of the last President, and a lot of chickens are coming home to roost.

NASA has been underfunded and ignored, and not given a new vision and inspiration. Under Reagan we built the B1 and B2 stealth fighters and bombers to replace our aging B-52 bombers, a huge leap in technology. Our current fleet of shuttles was designed over a generation ago. We can still get reasonable use out of our remaining fleet, down 40% in strength since Challenger and now Columbia have been destroyed. But we need to design a more modern space transportation system with some forward leaps in technology and safety that may be already developed or could be with some dedication and funding.

But we do need perspective. So far we've lost less people than Columbus lost coming to the New World. He lost the Santa Maria, his flag ship, the best of his three ships. It sank near San Salvador, and he had to abandon crew, all of whom died before he returned on his second vogage.

God said Abraham's seed, descendents, would eventually count more than the stars of the skies. I believe that will not be possible till man has spread to the stars. When Christ said "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also must I bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd," I believe he was speaking of personally going to another world to save the sentient souls there, although the Mormons may disagree and cite their Book of Mormon and the ministry of Christ in the Americas.

Conjecture is fun and I can be just as far out as you, Quix. :-)

[Quix]

VERY, VERY WELL SAID.

I CERTAINLY MUCH MOSTLY AGREE WITH YOU.

A slight difference may be that I believe God intervenes more than we think though often subtly.

And there is the Scripture, a righteous man's steps are ordered of The Lord.

WE AFFORD PLENTY OF OPTIONS given our imperfect ways!

APPRECIATED YOUR WONDERFUL MSG.

tHANKS.

[Marysecretary]

quix, I'm not sure I understand all of this. WHO is suspected of sabotage? NASA? The Jewish astronaut, the Jewish government? Palestinians? All of the above (smile)?