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

reply to post by WaterBottle


while that may be true, it is unthinkable that the decision would be made without you.

We can all safely debate this issue from the comfort of our computers but NONE of US knows what was like to have that knowledge and try to make a decision. There is NO right or wrong answer. The question of what to do is highly speculative and subjective; what works for me is different than what would work for somebody else. So don't sit there and pass judgement like you know the right answer. All of those astronauts knew full well the danger of flying on the shuttle, even when it's functioning 100%. There is no conspiracy here, just someone who made a hard decision. They didn't know 100% that it wouldn't make re-entry. Unless you're a command military officer who seen combat no one here knows what it's like to give orders that may result in the loss of life.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican


:shk:

Boggles the fricken mind, if this is true.

When it became clear that the orbiter was seriously damaged and likely wouldn’t survive re-entry, Flight Director Jon Harpold said to Hale and others at the meeting, “You know, there is nothing we can do about damage to the TPS (Thermal Protection System). If it has been damaged it’s probably better not to know. I think the crew would rather not know. Don’t you think it would be better for them to have a happy successful flight and die unexpectedly during entry than to stay on orbit, knowing that there was nothing to be done, until the air ran out?”

My God. I mean you figure that something else might have been attempted, like a rescue of some sorts?

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.

Keep playing God, NASA. :shk:
THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW. After all, it is with our tax dollars that you function at all. Fricken jerks!

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

At first as I read this I believed as well that if there wasn't anything they could do, then not telling them probably was the right choice, bu then again, you raise a very important specter here...the idea that NASA wouldn't tell us if there was in impending disaster from an asteroid impact. I can vision it now...NASA's top brass sitting around some observation room tracking an inbound rock that was miscalculated or missed entirely heading for some major city and them discussing how there's not enough time to evacuate the 3 million people in harm's way, so let's not tell them so as to avoid a panic. "It's better to let them die happily living their lives rather than spend the last 5 hours killing each other in a mass exodus from the city!" Whoa, the decisions. I have to agree with you here that there is a high probability that they would allow people to perish and decide for themselves they are doing the right thing, but they aren't...people would have a right to know so they can choose for themselves how they want to spend those last hours. Maybe they would have their own escape plan. In the case of these astronauts who they knew would have to face re-entry or run out of air, that's a tough call, but I think if there was any chance that re-entry might have been successful, it was worth the try. I would have hated to been in on that decision whether to tell them or not.

So to everyone who thinks they were right for not allowing the crew to say their goodbyes to their families (because that's kind of what it boils down to) - if you were having an annual checkup at your doctors, and the doctor found that you were in the final stages of some terminal cancer or something, you would just rather not know that you only had a couple of weeks or days left?

I would absolutely want to know what the situation was if I had been on that shuttle. If for no other reason than to be able to tell my wife and children one last time that I loved them and that I wish things were different, but at least I was going to die doing something that I loved.

Originally posted by tallcool1
So to everyone who thinks they were right for not allowing the crew to say their goodbyes to their families (because that's kind of what it boils down to)

As Oberg already covered in his thread on this matter, they didn't understand the danger, they honestly didn't think there was a lethal threat to the crew. It was a hypothetical question after they already reached the incorrect decision that the foam strike was not a risk for reentry. It does illustrate a very wrong attitude imho though. Their attitude should be to make every effort to save the crew, no matter how unlikely it seems that they can be saved. It seems clear that Wayne Hale realizes that now, though only after the fact.

reply to post by sylent6


You may want to read up on your history. The damage occurred during launch, they had no way of knowing the shuttle would have been damaged before it was damaged

In the movies they always attempt a rescue mission.

No matter the odds


More often than not, it works.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
In the movies they always attempt a rescue mission.

No matter the odds

More often than not, it works.

Unfortunately the characters in these movies have an unlimited budget, a rescue mission would have cost billions.

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by tallcool1
So to everyone who thinks they were right for not allowing the crew to say their goodbyes to their families (because that's kind of what it boils down to)

As Oberg already covered in his thread on this matter, they didn't understand the danger, they honestly didn't think there was a lethal threat to the crew. It was a hypothetical question after they already reached the incorrect decision that the foam strike was not a risk for reentry. It does illustrate a very wrong attitude imho though. Their attitude should be to make every effort to save the crew, no matter how unlikely it seems that they can be saved. It seems clear that Wayne Hale realizes that now, though only after the fact.

Oh - I did see the reference to his thread but I admit I didn't read it. If Jim Oberg explained it that way, then that's how it was. He is one of the very few people here who has the knowledge and integrity that I will believe outright. Perhaps I should give his thread a read. Thanks.

reply to post by Ramcheck


I love it when you say it like that...cost millions.

That trumps lives.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by Ramcheck

 

I love it when you say it like that...cost millions.

That trumps lives.

I never said it was the right thing, in fact I believe it's the complete opposite.

2nd.

They didn't have any duct tape with them? C'mon! Think about it, there are other space programs; maybe a call for assistance? What about the military space program? Vandenburg could not be called upon to launch some oxygen, supplies, some extra ceramic tiles? Seems like a bullsh*t cop-out to me. Especially coming from an American point of view: We can do anything we put our mind to...unless there is no money to be made.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


It's easy to pass judgement on people's actions when one wasn't there.

These people knew each other very well and had to make a judgement call, if the story is accurate.

The real issue here might be funding to have back ups for trouble/rescue in orbit... but the participants all knew the danger. Still, our priorities suck.

You tell someone they may die and give them a chance to make peace with their maker, send final farewells to loved ones. Let them choose a risky re-entry or the 100% chance of death by asphyxiation but with more time to put things in order. That's the right thing to do, the tougher thing, the moral thing.
The "humane" thing is reserved for how we treat non-humans.

Sad and painful event to endure if true.
But I cannot understand how NASA would not have a backup plan--extra tiles and EVA gear at a minimum. A small repair station on the ISS. I know payload costs alot,but its got to be more cost effective than destroying a shuttle.

Wasn't the ISS up there?
They could have redocked with it and waited for a new shuttle.

I wouldn't of told them there is a high chance of you dying either. Would you rather...

A. Leave them up there to suffocate

B. Tell them there going to die and create mass panic (chance of survival would drop significantly)

C. Don't tell them anything and just pray to god or god's and hope they make it back.

I would pick C.

Myth.

NASA knew the spaceship was fatally damaged but decided not to tell the crew.

This newborn myth consists entirely of exaggerated or misrepresented excerpts from a recent blog posting by former NASA official Wayne Hale. He reported a private conversation during the mission that speculated what might be best in the event lethal damage were discovered. No official decision was ever made, because nobody thought there was any need. Columbia's astronauts were fully informed of the actual results of NASA's analysis, which determined that the impacting debris had not hit a vital region of the heat shield. That conclusion was found to be erroneous only in hindsight.

science.nbcnews.com...

reply to post by FoosM

Wasn't the ISS up there?
They could have redocked with it and waited for a new shuttle.

No. They couldn't. The shuttle never docked with the ISS on that mission, was in a different orbit (much lower and with a very different inclination), and did not carry enough fuel to do so.