Originally posted by Robonakka
They could have went to the space station and had one of the astronauts there bring over a space suit and then ferried everyone over to the station.
Then sent another shuttle to retrieve them. It was not hopeless. It was just easier to let them die.
Research is your friend. In this case, the amount of research is remarkably small: A quick look at the orbits of Columbia and the International Space
station, a quick look at the specifications for the Orbiter, and a quick visit to Atomic Rocket / Project Rho to consult a few tables, and you can do
all the calculations needed to determine whether or not Columbia had sufficient delta-v to match orbits with the I.S.S. If that's more than you care
to do, I can save you some time and mouse pad wear and summarize the results in three words: "Not even close".
Research short-comings aside, your proposition doesn't make logical sense. Even if NASA (or the ever-popular, ever-shadowy "they") didn't mind
losing seven highly trained astronauts, and didn't mind yet *another* public relations disaster, why would "they" casually write off a Shuttle
orbiter? The loss of Columbia disrupted every major civilian space project underway at the time, and did the same for at least three major military
One of the things that defines most conspiracies is the idea that someone (or several someones) is manipulating events for some form of gain....so,
exactly who gained from Columbia's loss? NASA certainly didn't (see above re: schedule disruptions and public relations problems). The US Military
didn't (see above, part II). The defense contractors didn't (no replacement Orbiter was fabricated). So...what made it "easier" for "them" to
let Columbia and her crew die?