It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.



page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 2 2003 @ 05:16 PM
OzChris: it was just AFTER launch actually. so they couldn't really do anything about it.

posted on Feb, 2 2003 @ 06:21 PM

Originally posted by OzChrisWith all the time and money spent on shuttle launches wouldn't you want a 100 % PERFECT FLYING MACHINE.

Minimal damage to me is nott 100% perfect. Gees the craft was 20 years old and was ready for decomissioning 2 years ago. That in itself proves to me the machine was not fit to fly.

First off, NASA's budget is very low only 8 billion as compared to over 100 billion when Reagan was in office.

Second, the craft was designed for 100 flights and it was only on its 28th. The shuttle was in good condition and had many more years ahead of it if not for this tragedy.

Lastly, even if it a piece of debris that hit the wing was the cause of this incident. There was really not much NASA could have done to prevent this tragedy. NASA did inform the crew of the debris. They could have used a space telescope to check the shuttle out, but even then it would be hard to find the problem. A missing tile is unfortunately common and the shuttle is supposed to be able to work still. Lets say NASA found there was a missing tile, even then there were no procedures available so the crew could go out and fix a problem.

posted on Feb, 2 2003 @ 06:47 PM
I thought that when they first launched The Columbia they said that something hit the wing like ice or something. I dunno. My dad was telling me that. Like they thought it was just ice or something breaking off and it hit the left wing. maybe that damaged the tiles so when they were coming back into the earth's atmosphere the tiles broke up. I mean when you're coming in that fast and the friciton makes it that hot it could've started to melt the casing and over heated the tanks or something. I mean not everyhting that goes wrong is a conspiracy or terrorism. Plus that debris could be very dangerous. Imean those are toxic chemicals that they use to fuel those engines. Pardon the poor grammar.

posted on Feb, 2 2003 @ 07:30 PM
People... space is dangerous.

In the 1980's, I worked with Rockwell International (they built and maintained the shuttles), while I wasn't involved in the shuttle program, I knew several people who were. I also knew some who were involved in the Challenger investigation. I can vividly recall the frustrations of one of my acquaintances involved in the investigation.

He compared the state of the space program to transatlantic sailing in the 1700's... we pretty much know how to get where we're going, but there are surprises every time. His real frustration was toward the politicians who seemed to expect an inordinate level of safety from the space program. There is a fine balance between an acceptable level of safety, and so much imposed safety that it hampers the viability of the program.

This is a tragic event beyond words. Not only for the families and friends of these explorers, but for this critically important process of reaching into the frontier. I fear the foolish idiot politicians will impose safety restrictions that hamper a process which cannot be safe.

There are an innumerable amount of things that can go wrong with the shuttle returning from orbit. There is no conspiracy here. Space is dangerous. People have died who go there. More will in the future. It's tragic, but necessary, and they know it.


posted on Feb, 2 2003 @ 07:41 PM
well said William. i agree totaly. i've often thought of our space exploration like that of the early explores in the 1500-1600's and so on.

sure you got to be a safe as you can, but people got to understand its a ricky business going into space. people will die doing this.

i just hope that out of all of this NASA will get more funding. maybe even start working on designing new shuttles (i always thought the x-33 looked the most promissing)

posted on Feb, 2 2003 @ 07:46 PM
Excellent analogy William!

Like the Spanish Galleons that held the fate of the new world when they sailed.

So much invested in such a dangerous venture.

Back then they took the losses and carried on, I hope our politicians and public have the foresight to do the same....

posted on Feb, 2 2003 @ 07:54 PM
1600s? Please, our space program is more like the Greeks passing through the Pillars of Herakles.

Or the phonecians sailing around africa, it's doable yes, but so many simply disappeared in those early voyages in a time with no communication, we have no clues how many really attempted it, we just have the myths that arose from the dangers.

Today we know what their fate is, they don't "disappear" and the tragic reality of that fate is death, and our level of experience equates to a greek sailor 3000 years ago, struggling to cross the mediterranean.

Let alone pass through the pillars of Herakles (straits of gebralter)

no signature

posted on Feb, 2 2003 @ 08:22 PM
People, age doesn't matter! I bet the only original thing on it was it's name. They replace almost everything after every re-entrance. They don't go, yep, it was damaged, oh well. No, they fix it before each launch and remodel and repair and replace everything. The name was over twenty years old, the ship wasn't.

posted on Feb, 2 2003 @ 08:35 PM

The Space Shuttle system is an old design, based on old technology, using old technology. (For example, the engines use far more moving parts than today's rocket technology)

It cost's about $500 million for each mission, not because things are replaced, but because that is the cost of maintaining the amazingly complex shuttle. For instance, repairing a small pock-mark in a tile (they are a soft material, like a styrofoam cooler, coated with a thin sprayed-on layer of glass-like film) is a time-consuming process involving a dental drill, special epoxy, clamps, and so on. It takes about two hours to repair one dent the size of a pencil eraser.

Government contractors love this.

The shuttle was designed at the height of complex government aerospace contracts. It's an amazing, sometimes beautiful achievement of ingenuity, design, and integration of unimaginable complexity. However... sadly, what began as a brilliant concept for efficient access to space, ended up as a platform for lengthy, costly government contracts.

posted on Feb, 2 2003 @ 09:05 PM
When it comes down to it I personally believe that these budget cuts that people have been talking about killed these space travelers.

When the Spacecraft was supposed to be decommisioned 2 years ago, Why keep giving it missions. The answer NASA just doesn't have the money to build a new one. I don't care what people say about the design of the shuttle (100 mission plan etc) it's what is ACTUALLY DOES and not what it's designed to do that counts.. As we have unfortunately seen in this case.

Maybe BUSH will see this as a wake up call and spend a little more on space exploration than defence.. There has to be a balance.


posted on Feb, 3 2003 @ 01:39 AM
You idiot ozchris, and that goes to anyone else who thinks Bush caused this.


Thank you idiots...

no signature

posted on Feb, 3 2003 @ 04:39 AM
its still a big drop though, from $100 billion to $8billion and you not only have to send the things up but manage a space station which is speeding towards becoming a white elephant in terms of use.

The nasa engineer that left recently has a website:

I have to agree that the program looks fecked for the forseeable future, until the lawyers and politicans have had theire pound of flesh, but I do hope that when you guys have your next election that you may at least consider who has the best future plans for a space program, the ESA is miles behind in this regard apart from Beagle 2 which is scheduled to be on Mars at xmas.

anyways, I digress. I could go on as much as all of you have posted but I thought this little blog summed it all up for me:

little blog

At any rate, they died for what they believe in and I think that's one thing worth dying for.

posted on Feb, 3 2003 @ 08:15 AM

Originally posted by FreeMason
Bout Time stop being so inconsistent.
You're against war in Iraq, so you don't have the RIGHT to even COMMENT about our soldiers, how dare you call them heros when you spit on the jobs they must do.

You sir, are a mindless prick ill equipped to engage in reasonable exchanges at an adult level. My being against a rushed & possibly unneeded action in Iraq IS BEING PRO MILITARY! Folks out here in the real world, not some Rocky Mt. cave dweller like yourself, have nephews & godsons in the active military that we don't want to see die AND are offended by the probable pending sainthood bestowed upon these SEVEN over the 10 sec blip of coverage given to what could have been our loved ones. You tell me how deep you have to dig to even see their names....and it only happened recently.

posted on Feb, 3 2003 @ 08:43 AM
NEW YORK (Reuters) - After an expert panel warned that its space shuttles were facing safety troubles if the agency's budget was not raised, NASA removed five of the panel's nine members and two consultants in what some of them said was a move to suppress their criticism, The New York Times reported on Monday.


[Edited on 3-2-2003 by Zion Mainframe]

posted on Feb, 3 2003 @ 09:11 AM
The reports said they found human remains??? Were they from someone on the ground...hit by a peice of the shuttle.
I may be wrong...but wouldn't all human remains have burned up re-entering the atmosphere. I do not know what the temps were but I would have to speculate that they were less than what cremators (msp?) use.
Just a thought.

posted on Feb, 3 2003 @ 12:09 PM
Maybe the capsule remained in one piece and only broke up lower down, that would carry the bodies through the reentry period...

posted on Feb, 3 2003 @ 12:23 PM

posted on Feb, 3 2003 @ 12:54 PM
Well I knew it wouldn't take long for all the cranks and woo-woos to crawl out and start pushing their agendas, and I supose the link above is just the first one out of the box.....

Saddam said it was Gods punishment on America,
the ufoites will say its a UFO incident,
NWO conspiracists will say that Bush did it,
and generally paranoid people will say YOU ARE BEING FOOLED.

People just take the event and twist it to fit their belief system. ... gets a bit boring after a while....

Here is just another nut trying to advance his website and obsession....

Was HAARP involved in causing the breakup? At a speed of 12,500 miles per hour and descending, the time it would take from leaving the Ionosphere and entering the Stratosphere would be minimal. The distance between the Ionosphere and the Stratosphere (where the shuttle is supposed to have broken up) is only 40 miles. At this speed we are looking at approximately 3-5 seconds to descend the 40 miles into the Stratosphere.

Let's look at the possibility that HAARP was targeting the space shuttle Columbia. Most of us already know that our government uses scalar weapons and microwave weapons. Most of us suspect our government has weapons far beyond those. Most of us know that if our government tells us about these weapons, then they are almost obsolete and have been replaced by newer, more deadly weapons. Perhaps our government is planning to use HAARP as a weapon of mass destruction while fighting Iraq and North Korea.

Personally I think the australians did it because there are NO australians mentioned, what more convincing evidence, I bet they are all hiding and have covered themselves so not to draw attention to their activities. But australians are everywhere and have to be behind the incidents somewhere because of the great Australian world wide conspiracy to take of the worlds sporting events.


posted on Feb, 3 2003 @ 01:35 PM
looks like Bush wants to put more money into NASA.

i sure hope it happens.

posted on Feb, 3 2003 @ 03:03 PM
Some points to bring up on this.

According to news reports that I have seen so far. All if not most of the Space footage there are no stars in the background.

Also According to news reports the space shuttle was 40 miles up. If I am not mistaken. Some one jumping from 6 miles up in earths atmosphere it takes about 2 minuites or so to become road kill in the middle of the ocean. 6+6=4:00 minutes= 12 miles up. According to news report the space shuttle came down in 3:41 seconds. This if correct is imposible.

According to when the Shuttle was over near austraila there is a small map of how long it took to get to the west coast of califorina. From the Coast of Austrialia to the middle mark of the pacific ocean. There was a total time of 8:15am to 8:45am to the middle of the pacific ocean mark then from there to the west coast the same distace from the middle mark of the pacific ocean to austrailia was according to the report was the same distance from the middle mark to austrailia then it was from the middle mark to the west coast. This would mean that the space shuttle got to the west coast over california by about 9:15 which is about the time when the space shuttle was surpose to have broken up. Are we going to find parts in New Mexico and parts of Cailfornia as well?

Also I noticed that on No Bull Crap or NBC news Tom Brokejaw just happened to be in Cape Canaveral Florida when this happened.

Also the media quickly wanted to disgard the possiblity of a missle bringing down the shuttle I heard that repeated over and over again. As if to shun the idea of a missle bringing down the craft. Why it is true for the most part that missles fired from the surface have really no chance of bringing down the space shuttle this says nothing about space based weapons.

My understanding is after the last space shuttle accident. And with data that had been found after re-entery. The tile problem was found to have burned off alot of the tiles after re-entery. So it was decided that multible layers of tiles 3 if I am right were decided to be put on as extra insurence to make sure that there was no chance of burn out opon re-entery.

On another note.

Also According to news reports Insulation may have damaged the Tiles under the left wing of the shuttle or damaged the left wing itself. Perhaps I am wrong but doesnt Insulation go on the inside of somthing? If there was a crack in one of the rockets this would have caused some insulation to come out but it would have also caused the rocket to catch on fire?

Just my 2 cents.


top topics

<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in