Would NASA decieve us to cover up true cause of Columbia breakup???

I have always found that the story behind the reason of the Columbia disaster was a little shallow. Foam destroyed something built for outer space...OK....In all of the other launches, for some reason this was never an issue? I have always felt that it was an exit to blame it on one thing, but actually it was an act of terror, foriegn or domestic

Now, somehow on the very next flight there is something of greatdanger that needs to be fixed. "ohh" cries the media, " if we could have had this type of information maybe we could have prevented Columbia."

THe media will destory NASA for faulty engineering and bad QA of design and maintenance, and the general pop or "sheeple' as some of you charecters say in here, when just think that NASA is outdated and attribute the Columbia disaster to the tradgedy that was just avoided .

just thinking out loud.....

NASA used to use a differnt kind of foam. It was better and didn't break off as easily. Then the EPA (Evirionmental Protection Agency) came around and got NASA to switch to a foam that had less CFC's (Chlorofluorocarbons), but the new foam breaks off much more easily. Foam has hit the underside of the shuttle many many times, but it was never anything critical until Columbia. Now NASA and everyone else is being extra careful and paranoid about every little thing. I highly doubt the Columbia disaster was a cover up.

Here's a diagram showing all the hits the tiles have taken since 1983 to 2002.

No I don't think so. Isn't it an agreement with beaurracies and the citizens that all is transparent, no secrets and no lying. After all it's tax dollars that keep NASA afloat. What would be the purpose of not disclosing information that the taxpayers should know? We paid for it; we get the benefit of all the scientific discoveries NASA makes, Right? So if a disaster happens; they'll give us the real skinny, Right?

It's a brave new world; welcome to the monkey house!

Ya this has happend before its just that there making sure 110% everything is ok because if columbia happend again it would be bad news.

that chart proves the point, of why now? I like hte monkey house crack, so true...

No one finds it an odd coincidence the first Israeli in space is killed over Bush's homestate...I couldn't write a script better than that unless I adapted the 2000 election to screenplay....

Originally posted by esdad71
that chart proves the point, of why now? I like hte monkey house crack, so true...

No one finds it an odd coincidence the first Israeli in space is killed over Bush's homestate...I couldn't write a script better than that unless I adapted the 2000 election to screenplay....

Well the 2 shuttle disasters, as I recall, the first dampering my Super Bowl Shuffle Bears' celebration in 86; both had civilians on board....hmmmm.

What does inner space look like afterall?
What do they not want the public to know.

You have to consider that the chances of a piece of foam hitting the exact spot on the wing to create a hole that lead to a structural failure are slim to none, but it happened. I think that it was just a fluke. The question that I have to ask is "Can they do without the foam on the external tank?"
If they have to have the foam then "Can they go back to painting the tanks again?" I know that they dumped the paint to save weight and cost, but paint might be just what they need to bind the foam together.

Originally posted by Plumbo
Well the 2 shuttle disasters, as I recall, the first dampering my Super Bowl Shuffle Bears' celebration in 86; both had civilians on board....hmmmm.

What does inner space look like afterall?
What do they not want the public to know.

Are you implying that NASA blew up the shuttles because they didn't want civilians to see what Space was like? So they blow up millions and millions of dollars worth of equipment and lives just for the sake of hidding something from one person? Yeah that makes a lot of sense... If that was the case, they could just simply say "No" to having any civilians onboard. It's a lot more cost effective and logical.

Besides, how do you account for that millionaire Dennis Tito, who went into space and stayed on the ISS?

Originally posted by jra
Are you implying that NASA blew up the shuttles because they didn't want civilians to see what Space was like?

Affirmative.

Besides, how do you account for that millionaire Dennis Tito, who went into space and stayed on the ISS?

$$$.