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

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
visually it didn;t appear to be 500 mph and the nasa engineers
too did not think that strike was of any great consequence

Nothing was traveling at 500mph relative to the ground based cameras so visual appearance from the camera's perspective is misleading. The velocities at the time of impact were about 1870mph for the shuttle and 1370mph for the foam block, relative to the ground where the camera was located.

And had the block struck two sections over, the NASA engineers would have been right, it wouldn't have been of any significant consequence...because that's where they did their first test and the damage was so small, it wouldn't have created any problems with re-entry. In that test there was no hole, just some micro-fractures.

Unfortunately the section that got struck on Columbia's flight was more vulnerable. This varying vulnerability by section might also explain why so many shuttle flights before had experienced foam strikes without serious problems, some may have simply struck less vulnerable areas, or the foam pieces weren't as large. So they actually thought they had some basis for coming to the conclusion they did (They did have a basis, but it was flawed, obviously).

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by daddio

 

You believe anything NASA tells you?!?!?! You do know they are run by a bunch of nazi's.

If something is leaked like this then msm usually have to report on unless its something that affects the current status quo.

I don't believe ANYTHING I read on the net without investigating it myself completely. I do have a brain and know how to use it. One small panel would not have caused the shuttle to burn up, there are safety measures and other precautions taken in case one of the panels was to accidently get knocked off or fall off. When you engineer something you put in failsafes in case. For the NASA claim to be true, the engineers must have been complete idiots. There was something else that happened and the test of a weapon of some sort is more likely to be true than any failure. Something stinks, and it ain't my feet here.

Originally posted by daddio
One small panel would not have caused the shuttle to burn up

How small do you think it was?

That thing was HUGE!!! Just that one panel cost $800,000.

It's bigger than I thought it was.

Originally posted by daddio
There was something else that happened and the test of a weapon of some sort is more likely to be true than any failure. Something stinks, and it ain't my feet here.

Or they saw something out there, that they shouldn't have.
just a thought speculation

reply to post by AwakeinNM


I do not believe this for one second. You always have a back up plan, I would day this all come down to the cost that the rescue be.

reply to post by Oneggod

What was the backup plan for Apollo 13?

Originally posted by Oneggod
reply to post by AwakeinNM

 

I do not believe this for one second. You always have a back up plan, I would day this all come down to the cost that the rescue be.

If any intention of a back up plan was there, then they should have been withing docking dist to ISS,
assuming that the ISS was indeed habitable at that time

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


They weren't. They were in a completely different orbit from the ISS and didn't have enough fuel to get there.

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.

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)

What would you do in the event of a huge asteroid heading to Earth that would kill us all?

I don't understand how a piece of foam damages a shuttle wing.

reply to post by GreenElf


Several factors, the main one being that the foam was moving much slower than the tile at the time of impact. The other being that "foam" is a bit of a misnomer. When you hear foam, you think Styrofoam or something fairly light like that. This "foam" was much harder than people realize. They used polyurethane foam on the tank which is lightweight, but fairly rigid compared to Styrofoam and other foams.

The nearest analogy I can come up with is when we would have planes come home after flying through a thunderstorm, or even just a rain storm. They flew through nothing but water, and we would have to repaint almost all of their leading edges, and in several cases had to inspect them because the leading edge of a surface was actually dented from the rain hitting it.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I think the water damage on the leading edges of the wing may be due to cavitation, friction
or a combination of the two.
Sometimes the chill factor adds to it.

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


Probably (still a good analogy damnit), but it was impressive. Especially the time one of our birds came home from Guam, and the leading edge of the vertical and horizontal fins, and the nose were stripped bare.

Originally posted by GreenElf
I don't understand how a piece of foam damages a shuttle wing.

Did you watch the video I posted here?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't see how people who have watched that video don't understand the damage. But if you haven't watched the video, then maybe you should. I even provided a specific time index to watch if you don't want to watch the whole thing.