The coverup regarding the fate of Challenger astronauts, page 3

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 15 times

reply posted on 6-11-2012 @ 04:46 PM by wildespace

reply to post by touchdowntrojans

The article explains it all. NASA said from the start that the astronauts perished in the explosion. When a bit later it became apparent that the crew were alive all the way down and probably even conscious, NASA didn't want to upset the relatives, didn't want ripples in the water, didn't want to be accused to being responsible for horrible suffering of the crew. So they kept secret most details about the recovery, and even removed a big part of the crew cabin from display when there were visitors.

reply posted on 6-11-2012 @ 04:59 PM by Valhall

reply to post by wildespace

But let us be clear. No one knows how long any/some/all of them were alive after the failure. So, it is wrong (unfounded) for the article to claim they were alive "all the way down".

reply posted on 6-11-2012 @ 08:43 PM by JimOberg

Originally posted by wildespace
reply to post by touchdowntrojans

The article explains it all. NASA said from the start that the astronauts perished in the explosion. When a bit later it became apparent that the crew were alive all the way down and probably even conscious, NASA didn't want to upset the relatives, didn't want ripples in the water, didn't want to be accused to being responsible for horrible suffering of the crew. So they kept secret most details about the recovery, and even removed a big part of the crew cabin from display when there were visitors.

All major media jumped to that conclusion. A different view only 'became apparent' when NASA's own report raised the possibility [wow, some coverup!]. Relatives were already upset.

And what's this fantasy about removing a big part of the crew cabin? I have no idea what you're referring to.

reply posted on 6-11-2012 @ 09:07 PM by Maskander

Originally posted by WhoDat09
Maybe a summary of that page I went there and that's a lot of reading! I wouldn't mind reading what it says I'd just like a small summary of it here to know whether I would read it ..... or not.

Don't bother nothing new.

reply posted on 6-11-2012 @ 11:51 PM by Zaphod58

reply to post by Valhall

They were alive long enough for the pilot to be attempting to restore power to the crew cabin. That can take a little bit of time, so we can assume from that they were alive most of the way to impact. Personally, I believe that they were alive all the way down.

reply posted on 7-11-2012 @ 08:28 AM by JimOberg

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Valhall

They were alive long enough for the pilot to be attempting to restore power to the crew cabin. That can take a little bit of time, so we can assume from that they were alive most of the way to impact. Personally, I believe that they were alive all the way down.

"Quite a bit of time"?? I suspect you're just making that up, and have never sat in a shuttle cockpit simulator. A few switch throws on the fuel cell buses can be done in 4-5 seconds. By then the total power loss would have been horrifying proof the cabin had detached from the power supply.

I agree, it's safe to assume the crew was not killed on the initial breakup -- NASA analysis, never secret, agrees with that. Their level of consciousness as the cabin vented to near-vacuum remains unknown, and unknowable.

reply posted on 7-11-2012 @ 08:50 AM by Zaphod58

reply to post by JimOberg

I said "a little bit of time", not "quite a bit of time". It's not a matter of just randomly throwing switches, you have to throw the right switches in the right order. A shuttle is similar to an aircraft, and I know how to start an aircraft. You have to throw the switches in a certain order, which means you are looking at a 45 seconds to a minute or so trying to restore power on one attempt. There was enough time for him to try it more than once before the cabin hit the water. They had almost three minutes from break up to impact.

reply posted on 7-11-2012 @ 08:59 AM by wildespace

Originally posted by JimOberg
And what's this fantasy about removing a big part of the crew cabin? I have no idea what you're referring to.

Quote from the article:

At KSC, Bob Crippen was doing his part to keep things buttoned up tight. When members of the press were allowed to look at shuttle debris spread over a hangar floor as part of the reconstruction effort, he ordered the easily recognizable 576 bulkhead, the back wall of the crew compartment, removed from the display before reporters arrived. He didn't want anyone seeing any part of the crew cabin. "They never did let anybody see the wreckage from the crew compartment," says Robert Hotz. "I've seen it. [Commission member] Gene Covert and I went over Crippen's head. We took a look at it and we could see why they were trying to cover it up. It proves very conclusively that the astronauts couldn't survive a ditching. Yet they had been happily giving the astronauts training in how to survive a ditching when everybody knew it was fatal."

I really wish people would read the article that I made the subject of this thread.

reply posted on 7-11-2012 @ 10:53 AM by JimOberg

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by JimOberg

I said "a little bit of time", not "quite a bit of time". It's not a matter of just randomly throwing switches, you have to throw the right switches in the right order. A shuttle is similar to an aircraft, and I know how to start an aircraft. You have to throw the switches in a certain order, which means you are looking at a 45 seconds to a minute or so trying to restore power on one attempt. There was enough time for him to try it more than once before the cabin hit the water. They had almost three minutes from break up to impact.

They did have enough time, the question remains, did they have enough consciousness.

I've done shuttle training for astronuats, and procedures development/documentation, so I was basing my estimate on my own experience in a shuttle cockpit simulator. And sure, I doubt they'd give up on trying again and again, while they could, so we don't really have an argument here.

edit on 7-11-2012 by JimOberg because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 7-11-2012 @ 11:09 AM by JimOberg

Only minor quibbles over the article -- thanks for posting it.

reply posted on 7-11-2012 @ 09:45 PM by Zaphod58

reply to post by JimOberg

That's one of the things I was thinking about today. Even if there was a decompression, I've seen people take several minutes to get to the point where you could tell something was seriously wrong. I've watched so many training sessions in the altitude chamber and watched guys go the full time limit still doing the task they were given. It really depends on the person, what kind of shape they are in, etc. While there's no way to know for certain, thank god, it's entirely possible that at least one or two of them were awake the whole time.

reply posted on 8-11-2012 @ 05:43 PM by SrWingCommander

I don't think there was a cover up. I just think they really didn't want to confront the horror that they might have been awake.

There are no ejection seats in the shuttle.....even after the post challenger redesign.
There was no capsule recovery system......even after th redesign....
By the time of the challenger accident, they didn't even wear pressure suits during take off or landing.....that did change.
They do have a limited ability to bail out while on approach for return once they are within th atmosphere.....but the shuttle would still have to be in stable flight.

Any escape system proposed was simply deemed to heavy to fit within the confines of the design, and the chance of successful use was an extremely narrow margin.

As far as someone saying they want to hide the autopsy because it might show water in the lungs.....of course they had water in the lungs. They were at 100 feet for SIX WEEKS!

I think NASA just got over zealous protecting the remains...the families...and their image.
,

edit on 8-11-2012 by SrWingCommander because: (no reason given)