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

page: 6
40
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard
I'm inclined to agree - a happy, cheerful, emotional soul is far more reassuring and inspiring to a future age of spaceflight than a lost, drifting, bleak death.

I think NASA did the right thing, rightly or wrongly - these brave people did not hurt, fear or suffer.



Really?
Really!
Here is the last minutes of their flight.
At 9:36, the ship begins to shake, then camera pixalation, more shaking, then the video ends at 10:00.

You cannot convince me that as the ship began to yaw and shake, that they weren't scared!
edit on 1-2-2013 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   
I think the ISS has a Soyuz capsule always up there availible to evacuate the ISS. Wonder if it could have saved a few on the Shuttle...



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:32 PM
link   
In the heated debate over details, I feel that some of you have lost the point of what the anniversary of Columbia is really about. These people were real heroes who knew the dangers of space flight and were brave enough to take that risk for betterment of all of us.

Whatever the circumstances were, they knew there was a real risk, anyone going into space knows there is a real risk they will never come back. The people in mission control that day had high regard for the people in that shuttle and not only admired them, they considered them friends and colleges, of that I'm sure.

It would have been just as hard if not harder to be on the ground and know that your friends were going to die. I can't imagine what it would have been like and I doubt many of us could. I am not saying there is no possibility that there was some sort of cover up and I wont pretend to know all the details but there is one thing I do know.

Those astronauts on Columbia were patriots and it is a damn shame what happened to them. I hope there in a better place and at least for a while, that is what we should remember about this tragedy during the anniversary. Of course, thats just my opinion.
edit on 1-2-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 09:18 PM
link   
nvm
edit on 1-2-2013 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 
I would have tried to figure a way to send them to the space station, to check things out first.
At least that's what I was thinking at the time.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   
At the time, I would agree with the decision to say nothing. Since then, precautions had been taken, but at the time, there seemed to be no good options to assure a safe return. Personally, I would rather enjoy the mission and look forward to return.

When the shuttle program was launched in the early 1980s, I remember reading that there was a 1 in 25 chance of a catastrophic failure. Launches were televised, we cheered. There was excitement, but the shuttles were working, little doubt we had safely conquered space again. Then Challenger happened, #25 mission.

After that, we continued to cheer the landings, but didn't see the launches on tv. Then we lost track of how many missions were sent up, and space shuttle missions became routine. Then Columbia happened, having stretched the chances, but still a catastrophic event.

There is a reason we wish "God speed" to astronauts. Humans can safely circumnavigate the Earth thousands of miles, but to rise above the Earth even a relatively short distance is to go where we are not safe. Columbia astronauts had already defied the odds. They had already "touched the face of God". IMO there was no need to spoil their reality.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by OOOOOO
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 
I would have tried to figure a way to send them to the space station, to check things out first.
At least that's what I was thinking at the time.



If that was even remotely possible it would have been done, the ISS was only 50% complete in 2003.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whateva69
What NASA should have done is put out a world wide alert, asking the public if anyone had any ideas or solutions to the problem that they are encountering.

The more people who know about a problem, the higher the stakes in someone being able to solve it.

Love and harmony
Whateva


It had been determined (incorrectly, obviously) that any damage sustained at launch would not cause problems at re-entry. There was no indication of any problem until far too late do do anything about it.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 10:56 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.


These are NASA scientist, the smartest people in the world. If any poster on this board thinks they know a way these people could have been rescued that these rocket scientist never thought of, they are being idiots.

Launching a shuttle takes months to plan as does launching a rocket. If it was a simple as you make it sound every country would be doing it.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 10:58 PM
link   
How long before air supply would have run out? How could they get more? No other nation on the planet could have affected rescue or delivered more supplies? Did they check? Was there any O2 fuel tanks on board? Any way to reach that fuel and siphon it?

Did the placement of windows on the shuttle preclude a visual of the leading edge of wing where the damage could have occurred?

Is there a computer simulation of the breakup of the shuttle anywhere? I imagine the wing sheared off and this would have cause a sudden change in reentry profile. A heavy yaw and then "bounce" that would have probably caused loss of consciousness?

Understand hindsight and all just have these questions. The return flight of Apollo thirteen was beset with "impossible quandaries" and they made it because they never said oh well, theres nothing to be done...



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Not an expert obviously, but couldn't we theoretically fire the shuttles rocket to match the velocity of Earth rotation
and get it in geosynchronous orbit and attempt a soft atmospheric reentry?

Wouldn't it be possible to ease yourself into the atmosphere instead of slamming into it?



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaOwl
 

That would require almost as much fuel as it did to achieve orbit in the first place.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


How long before air supply would have run out? How could they get more? No other nation on the planet could have affected rescue or delivered more supplies? Did they check? Was there any O2 fuel tanks on board? Any way to reach that fuel and siphon it?
No. And since it had been determined (incorrectly) that re-entry would not be a problem the questions are moot.


Did the placement of windows on the shuttle preclude a visual of the leading edge of wing where the damage could have occurred?
Yes.


Is there a computer simulation of the breakup of the shuttle anywhere?
Probably, but you have it about right. The wing did not shear off but the yaw force developed by increased drag was stronger than that which the thrusters were able to cope with. The ship tumbled and broke up.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I think there was a similar incident that happened a while back where the outside of the craft was damaged. NASA was like "its fine to land" because they couldn't see the damage. The leader was like "We are all going to die." Since they weren't getting any help from NASA.

They ended up partying and goofing off since they refused to die sad. It ended up that they survived, but NASA took a look at the damage on the ground and crapped themselves.

Astronauts, i think, are prepared for critical failure at anytime. They accept that they might die and that is the price of being on a new frontier.
edit on 1-2-2013 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 11:47 PM
link   

I'd rather not know I had a high chance of being incinerated. Wouldn't you?


I've been watching these forums for a long time now; this comment finally inspired me create an account. Sorry if I come off as negative. Maybe this guy just trolled me, if so, you trolled me into making an account.

These people you're talking about, the one's you assume would think exactly like you, are the best of the best. To assume these people would be frightened like you, is an insult to them. I know this is just your opinion but it is my belief that its that kind of nanny-like thinking that got people to close doors to any options for their survival.

You tell them what the problem is and give them atleast a slim chance of survival. Have them brainstorm up there while the NASA crew on the ground brainstorms here. If they die, atleast they tried.

These guys are brilliant and daring. This is what they live for. I dont think they would have been scared at all, concerned, yes. Comming up with options, yes. But shivering and whimpering, no.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 11:48 PM
link   
HONESTLY?

In these circumstances. if I was in space, knowing I would lose the ability to breath, I would not want to know, and try and come home. These were VERY WELL TRAINED people who died, they must have knew there was a chance of failure on rentrey

I think the NASA people did the right thing.
What good would it be telling them?
Maybe to say goodbye to family?
Maybe the chance was slight to get them home, so the tried.

This is a lie, most would done I think.
Although nobody would like to be in that position with people they were close to, in orbit

RIP to them all




posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1

You cannot convince me that as the ship began to yaw and shake, that they weren't scared!


As far as we/I know, the ship did everything to counter the forces automatically, we can assume that the crew did not experience major shaking etc. until literally seconds from breakup.

I can imagine it was sorta like a "bumpy" ride, but then this was re-entry and I don't *think* the crew was aware of *anything* being wrong. The only thing which was wrong and apparent for the crew and and ground-crew were how all the sensors stopped working. In my opinion, the ship broke up instantly the second Columbia was not able to counter anymore.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by stirling
 

The analysis determined that burn through would not be a problem. And it wasn't. That is not what caused the disaster. Shuttles have landed with missing tiles.

What makes you think there were EVA suits on board?


edit on 2/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


That's the problem! I very well remember the Shuttle landing a few times with tiles missing, I thought to myself "WTF?"

I read a short excerpt yesterday from a book in regards to the Columbia catastrophe, where it was pointed out what a mistake by NASA it was to see the missing tiles each time as "something normal" which 'wouldn't be a cause for concern'. This should have never happened in the first place, not simply accept that a bunch of tiles will be missing each and any time the Shuttle would come back like it's completely acceptable.
edit on 2-2-2013 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-2-2013 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle

I'd rather not know I had a high chance of being incinerated. Wouldn't you?

Yep.
edit on 1-2-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)


The high chance of being burnt to a crisp is part of the hazard of the job. No kidding, being in space can kill you. Same as taking risks to the north pole or deep sea diving.

I just never expected controllers on the ground to think it was a good idea to lie to the crew. If ships go down, either in the ocean hundreds of years ago, or in space in modern times, a crew needs to know the truth, that the ship is broken. There was lots of time dedicated to communication before and during the trip, and the way they describe it is betrayal.

If there was no way out but death, I think if I were an astronaut, I'd want the option to take another way out, like going as far away from the planet as I could, so they'd never have to pick up my body parts. Or by dive-bombing into the atmosphere for maximum incineration. All they would have to do is open a door, and the air would go out immediately, and the results would be quick.

But that's the mentality of the government-kind. Let's just keep it a secret and they will never know. The motto of cowards everywhere. Yuck.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 01:13 AM
link   

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)


I feel as though that was right thing to do. From a moral standpoint, I too would not have told them that their death was imminent. Think about it, there was nothing they could have done and they did not have time to say their goodbyes, so after you tell them they are going to do, then the rest of their few moments living would be spent having a huge drop in hope seeing as though they were probably looking forward to see their loved ones again.


when faced with the choice of letting the astronauts die trying to come home or leaving them to orbit until their air ran out,


I would have much rather not be told of my impending fate and die an unexpected death than to be told I am going to die and then suffocate a slow death orbiting the Earth.

Also, lol @



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



The dilemma for mission managers is that they simply didn't know if the space shuttle was damaged.


How would they send a rescue for something if they didn't even know it was going to happen? And a 'rescue'? Rescue what? Why would they spend millions more on another ship, send it into space, and rescue the astronauts all in a month's time (assuming a month because they would have found out after the departure from the Moon)? This is all they could have done, either tell them that there was a risk of them not making it home and have them stuck drifting until they suffocate or just not know and die unexpectedly.
edit on 2-2-2013 by mr10k because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join