NASA knew Columbia crew could die but chose not to tell them

page: 2
40
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by sylent6
 


Which launch? The problem with Columbia occurred during launch.

Challenger was launched because NASA was under pressure to ensure a launch. They had had a number of delays, and it was still early in the shuttle program, so they were under pressure to prove the concept worked as advertised. They had had problems with the o-rings on one or two other launches, but they had been successful launches, so they figured they could get away with it again.




posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   
I am usually critical of NASA when it comes to non-disclosure of ufos and aliens, but in this case they did the correct thing. If there was no time to launch a recovery mission and it was either stay in orbit and suffocate to death, or take your chance and try to land, then NASA gave them some hope. Some hope is better than no hope.

Why tell the astronauts "you are going to die one way or another!"??

NASA has a history of poor decision making. Lets not forget the challenger disaster 20 years before that.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
There is a risk involved with participating in the kind of space program that launches a crew into space, without a redundancy plan for getting them back in a worst case scenario.

And frankly, for what little defense it provides; it is extremely difficult to anticipate some of these mishaps.... I take little comfort in that though... In theory they had the entire mission duration to enlist some aid from other space-faring communities, from any kind of intervention they could muster... and in the end only, they had to admit they could do nothing... and so did.

I wish we wouldn't be so inclined to use human tragedy as a descriptor of the culture which gave us the space program.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by WaterBottle
 


No I would rather have control over my own life and be able to act with full information of facts, imagine being able to call your loved ones one last time etc and where is life there is hope, they could attempt to take several actions and in the last option staying in orbit would save the nation a lot of money even be less damaging to the space program if well managed...

In any case I think it should be a good practice to record a video to the public and family before taking a part in such a risky activity, heck even the terrorist understood the propagandistic power that it can have...



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle

Originally posted by Tardacus
They should have informed the crew and let the crew decide what they wanted to do.


Suffocate or Incinerate...Choose one?

That'd be awful.


The reality is actually worse. It was shown that they did not die instantly when the cabin flipped end over end and was torn apart. One crew member failed to secure his helmet and gloves and expired from asphyxiation and the others were killed from blunt force trauma from cabin debris.

I can't imagine how incredibly horrible it must of been and I'm sure they all knew they were going to die. They were equipped with parachutes but the violence with which the ship was torn apart prevented any of the crew from using them.
edit on 1-2-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I can't believe that we don't have a rapid-response launch vehicle ready to go at a moments notice 24/7/365 to be used for rescue or resupply.

Did anyone think about asking the Russians?

They could have used the ISS to look for damage, and when found used the escape capsule. As you pointed out, it *would* leave the ISS crew vulnerable -- but it would probably take less time to get a new emergency capsule up there than a fully fueled orbiter.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
I'm sure someone much more knowledgeable on space issues will correct me if I'm wrong but the ISS is in a very different orbit. If the shuttle wasn't launching with the intent of going there, aren't they short of fuel to do it by spur of the moment decision? I'd understood that's a delicate thing that needs planned in advance and on purpose to make work?

If there was ANY chance of rescue or help, I would want to know as a crew member. Absolutely I would. If there was 0 chance whatsoever? Probably not. The outside possibility (as I'd imagine they saw it through comfort of past record and just hope by the sheer nature of hope) of disaster on re-entry vs. the certain death of orbit would make a sudden death into a long anticipated torture and agony for the waiting alone.

I can only guess they would have considered what was on pads around the world with any options whatever of getting something up to them and drawn blanks for lack of any expectation this would actually be needed in a mission? I understand they changed A LOT for the final missions following it to insure it couldn't happen again this way if they discovered serious damage......which says a lot to the limited options at the time, doesn't it?



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   


I'd rather not know I had a high chance of being incinerated. Wouldn't you?
reply to post by WaterBottle
 


So you think it would be better not to know and just burn up on the re-entry.

Let me ask you this...
Do you have a family?
Do you have children?
Do you have a mother/father?
Do you have a wife?

The reason I ask these questions is because those are the reasons that I feel they should have been told.

I think they of all should have received the chance to prepare a goodbye for their families and say their last words to their loved ones. I know that if I was being faced with sure death I would want the time to tell my wife, sons, brother and many others how much I love them and what they mean to me.

I would want them to remember my last words.

I don't critize you for not wanting to know but I feel my reasons are a pretty valid reason for me wanting to know.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


Unless the Russians were prepping a rocket at the time, they wouldn't have had anything they could use either. NASA probably knew the exact status of the Russian rockets at the time.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


It all depends on the orbit. If they're in a close enough orbit to the ISS orbit, they would have enough fuel to make it. If they were on a vastly different orbit, then they wouldn't even be able to get close.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The ISS wasn't really a choice because then they would have been risking the ISS crew as well,

Actually ISS wasn't a choice because there would have been insufficient delta-V available to even attempt to align to ISS' orbital plane and attempt a docking.

Incidentally, if it hasn't been mentioned already our own Jim Oberg covered this issue quite nicely already:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



When the NASA official raised the question in 2003 just days before the accident that claimed seven astronauts' lives, managers thought - wrongly - that Columbia's heat shield was fine. It wasn't.

www.kansascity.com...



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by unityemissions
 


I have to think that they could have prepped something, I don't care if it was a rocket with a pay load of scuba gear, something. When you consider that we have apparently gone to the moon, and you look at apollo 13, I just can't see them doing nothing.


Well, it would be nice if NASA had an emergency launch rocket ready and waiting with goodies to help out, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

How long did it take to plan out the apollo missions? Years.

How much air did they have left? Days.

Unless you can provide some objective facts to prove that they were capable of sending up supplies, or a re-entry vehicle close to their co-ordinance in say... 72 hours or so, I think you're being far too idealistic, and not grounded in reality.
edit on 1-2-2013 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
If the shuttle wasn't launching with the intent of going there, aren't they short of fuel to do it by spur of the moment decision?

Yes, absolutely. That is why windows to rendezvous with a satellite or space station like ISS are nearly instantaneous; you have a very short window of opportunity to launch into the same orbital plane as your target. If you do not do that, then you will not have enough fuel to align the orbital planes and attempt a docking. Plane change maneuvers are extremely expensive on delta-V.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Having read the article in question there are a few things that can be stated:

Space travel, going to and from is a dangerous propsition. There is nothing safe about it. Getting there is a luck of the draw, if you consider this: To get there, you are strapped to the back of a bomb, and shot off into space. Any number of things can go wrong. If the ship is not protected you fry. If it is not air tight, you will die in the vacumm of space. And the entire thing can blow up. These are some of the risks that go along with such, and there will be accidents along the way, as there is no real way to prevent them from happening. If you look at the history of space travel, there have been mistakes, each one different and never the same one twice. It will not be the last, but they are far and few between.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


I couldn't remember if they had gone to the ISS on that mission or not. I knew if they hadn't they probably couldn't get to it, but I forgot the exact mission details.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I remember reading about this, and it would have taken too long to prep another shuttle for a rescue mission. Their O2 would have run out anyway. I don't think the ISS could have supported that large a crew for the time it would have taken them, either.

Although now that I am typing this, they might have been able to dock at the ISS and live in the shuttle, until a rescue shuttle could get there with replenishment for the ISS since they'd be severely depleted.

I wasn't there, though so what do I know.


It was not a matter of supplies or oxygen, they couldn't make orbit with ISS so that was not an option. They were in a different orbit with no fuel to reach the Space Station.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
There is a risk involved with participating in the kind of space program that launches a crew into space, without a redundancy plan for getting them back in a worst case scenario.

And frankly, for what little defense it provides; it is extremely difficult to anticipate some of these mishaps.... I take little comfort in that though... In theory they had the entire mission duration to enlist some aid from other space-faring communities, from any kind of intervention they could muster... and in the end only, they had to admit they could do nothing... and so did.

I wish we wouldn't be so inclined to use human tragedy as a descriptor of the culture which gave us the space program.


Aside from all the astronauts who have died trying to make their dreams come true, the biggest tragedy of all is that we spend way too much on military hardware and not enough on the space program. In fact they completely trashed it as of late.

It is said that the "real" space program is run by the air force special operations who get to fly in those tr-3b ufos and everyone thinks they are alien craft. Regardless if the government wants to restore some faith in itself then it better start coming clean soon. I am tired of hearing greys, reptillians, nordics, pleadians, etc with zero proof to it all. Usually where there is smoke there is also a fire. In the words of phil schneider they think the citizens are morons and treat them as such. He was a black ops geologist working to construct DUMBS and had seen grey aliens for himself.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I always get sad thinking about Columbia, probably stems back to it actually flying over my house on a cheeky day off school when I was a kid, it was 'piggybacking' a Boeing 747 flying out of Glasgow airport in '83 I believe, I would have been 8 years old so it was pretty mind blowing (Lived under the flight path). Between times in '86 we had the Challenger disaster which also saddened me. Then later on not long after Christmas time 2003 Columbia happened and that pretty much killed my interest in space flight.

This track is a nice tribute to Columbia using the last words of the crew as an overlay.



I'm sorry I couldn't contribute more to the thread, I thought it was actually well known that NASA knew what was happening, the thermal insulation foam was shown to have broken off on take off, meaning hot gasses would penetrate the interior of the wing. You can tell by the tone of voice of the guy at command that perhaps he knew what was about to happen.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by ngchunter
 


I couldn't remember if they had gone to the ISS on that mission or not. I knew if they hadn't they probably couldn't get to it, but I forgot the exact mission details.


It was a rare non-ISS mission. Spacehab's maiden flight (similar to the old Spacelab modules that would fly in the cargo bay and provide lab space). STS-107 had an orbital inclination of 39 degrees. ISS has an inclination of 51.6 degrees. Never mind the longitude of ascending node, the difference in inclination alone is killer.
edit on 1-2-2013 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


1 does not know all the details TrueAmerican, but if these allegations are true, its perhaps why some have a understandable interest in NASA data (shares) from rovers and Hubble like scopes and EA*RTH activities but cannot fully connect to the NASA agenda knowing these activities may have or do go on with their own members.

RIP to the Crew of the shuttle Columbia



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

And I think this speaks highly of theories that NASA WOULD NOT TELL US, if there were indeed a deadly asteroid inbound, and instead would choose to let those die in ignorance of their upcoming fate.


I think this is the most important thing to take away from this situation. Even though NASA is a civilian space program, it makes you wonder what their best interests really are. Clearly it is not "civilians".

I'm as shocked as anyone that no feasible rescue was attempted or anything. From what I've read, NASA engineers wanted to image the vehicle with a spy satellite in orbit, but management refused to ask. When you factor in NASA's responsibility in the Challenger tragedy (launching in adverse conditions knowing faults could lie in the O-rings that were subjected to cold temperatures) and this wonderful gem of info, I think its safe to say people there were not doing their jobs.





new topics
top topics
 
40
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join