shuttle columbia

[dmspilot00]

"In order for your analogy to hold, the adoption of the 737-600 would have to be based on emotional and scientifically (I have to reread this lest I develop bruises from your criticism of my spellin')sparse reasons. Since the 737-600 is both cheaper to perate, safer, and newer tech, I'd say your analogy fails completely"

OF COURSE my analogy fails according to you because that was NOT my analogy, but the TOTAL OPPOSITE of my analogy!

I SAID just because the new foam is environmentally friendly does NOT mean it was implimented by wacko environmentalsts for emotional and scientifically spare reasons. It could be it was merely better technlogoy that NASA wanted to use--just like how the 737-600 is better technology, it happens to be it is more enviromentally friendly, and it was not developed because of wacko environmentalists for emotional and unscientific reasons.

I said "I would also like to know how just because a newer technology is more environmentally friendly automatically means that it was hastily implimented by wacko environmentalists. Sticking to aviation examples, 737-600s are more environmentally friendly than 737-200s, does that mean that it was the hippie extreme environmentalists that got Boeing to redesign it? I think not. " Now where do see me say that the 737-600 was developed because of emotional etc. reasons?

In order to argue against a point I make, you first must be able to read, write, and understand the English language. You are attempting to argue against a point that I did not make; a point that you mistakenly think I'm trying to make.

flywithastick treated the following as THEORY:
The foam stiking the wing caused the shuttle to disintegrate.

flywithastick treated the following as FACT:
The type of foam was changed because of wacko extreme environmentalism.

He DOES NOT present the type of foam being changed because of environmentalism as a theory, but as fact. He presents the foam striking the wing causing the accident as a theory. Therefore, he presents as fact, not theory, that if the foam striking the wing caused the accident then environmentalism is to blame!

You haven't interpreted a single thing I have said so far correctly.

 

[TXCAP4228]

OF COURSE my analogy fails according to you because that was NOT my analogy, but the TOTAL OPPOSITE of my analogy!

I SAID just because the new foam is environmentally friendly does NOT mean it was implimented by wacko environmentalsts for emotional and scientifically spare reasons. It could be it was merely better technlogoy that NASA wanted to use--just like how the 737-600 is better technology, it happens to be it is more enviromentally friendly, and it was not developed because of wacko environmentalists for emotional and unscientific reasons.

Ok, the extent of what you said was:

So according to you we would reject new technology and Boeing would still be cranking out 727s and 737-200s because they were "effective."

It looks to me like you're trying to go back and make it say something other than the exact words you wrote to begin with. I think my interpretation of those words is fair.

I said "I would also like to know how just because a newer technology is more environmentally friendly automatically means that it was hastily implimented by wacko environmentalists. Sticking to aviation examples, 737-600s are more environmentally friendly than 737-200s, does that mean that it was the hippie extreme environmentalists that got Boeing to redesign it? I think not. " Now where do see me say that the 737-600 was developed because of emotional etc. reasons?

You said this in a later post. I guess you were trying to go back and reframe your analogy. Fine.

In order to argue against a point I make, you first must be able to read, write, and understand the English language. You are attempting to argue against a point that I did not make; a point that you mistakenly think I'm trying to make.

1) Ok, here we go again with attacking me. One of these years I might get a bruise (oh no). Ok, Professor dmspilot, since you are holding yourself out as a higher standard, please go back and reread this sentence: "Now where do see me say that the 737-600 was developed because of emotional etc. reasons?" Are you missing a pronoun anywhere? I thought that was funny. I would never bring up something like that but you opened the door. Don't worry, I don't think it reflects on you personally. I just keep thinking about something I learned as a child - those who live in glass houses should not throw stones, or something like that.
2) It took you two or three posts to even make a real argument so you will pardon me if you only now make your position clear. You might consider that it is the responsibility of the speaker (or the typer in this case) to make his or her position clear from the beginning. If I misunderstod your position all along then you have to take some responsibility for that.

flywithastick treated the following as THEORY:
The foam stiking the wing caused the shuttle to disintegrate.

flywithastick treated the following as FACT:
The type of foam was changed because of wacko extreme environmentalism.

He DOES NOT present the type of foam being changed because of environmentalism as a theory, but as fact. He presents the foam striking the wing causing the accident as a theory. Therefore, he presents as fact, not theory, that if the foam striking the wing caused the accident then environmentalism is to blame!

You haven't interpreted a single thing I have said so far correctly.

Well, if I was interpreting incorrectly before then then so are you on this. Show me where Fly held the reason for the change as anything other than part of the theory. My whole problem started with you running off (seemingly) half-cocked and jumping all over him in defense of environmentalism without bothering to support what you said - as if I should just accept your position as dogma no matter what. After some number of posts I am starting to see your point of view, but I still think you are trying to say that what fly wrote is something other than what he said it was - a theory.

dms, didn't we agree about something on some other thread recently? Dude, I am not out for a flame war or out to get you. I am also not attacking you even though you are attacking me. Take a deep breath and count to ten, huh?

 

[Typhoon1244]

Originally posted by flywithastick:
Heard today on Rush...

Good god! Seven people are dead...and you guys are debating the safety of the National Space Transportation System based on something on Rush Limbaugh?

 

[EagleRJ]

Uh oh.

Here we go....

 

[Typhoon1244]

Uh oh. Here we go....

Well I'm sorry, but I think it's silly for people to be flaming each other over an investigation into which none of us has any real insight.

Try to imagine sitting there, watching the autopilot work. The dull orange glow outside the windshield isn't frightening at all. In fact, it's rather pleasant. What isn't pleasant is that high-frequency vibration that's been coming and going for the last three minutes. Now it's constant...and increasing. Maybe you talk about it, maybe you don't. You're fifteen minutes out when the vibration increases to a violent tremor. Caution and warning tones begin to sound. You're still trying to process the situation when the ship begins a rapid roll and yaw to the left...then the world comes apart. A wrenching shock, maybe a bright flash, and the ship is tumbling sideways. You hardly have time to think about what might come next before all the displays go blank, and you feel the overwhelming rush of decompression. Then overwhelming noise, a lurch that dislocates shoulders...and suddenly you're free and blind in an eleven-thousand knot slipstream...it doesn't last long...

When I think about what happened Saturday, the bickering and posturing that happens on this forum becomes less than insignificant.

Still, I guess we all have to deal with this our own way...

"Can't we all just get along...?"

 

[flywithastick]

Good god! Seven people are dead...

and that's sad for their families and friends. But what does it have to do with a debate about one of the worlds most complex and interesting failure analyses?

and you guys are debating the safety of the National Space Transportation System based on something on Rush Limbaugh? [/B]

sure didn't hear anything about this new insulation system on mainstream media. Actually I heard it from Roger Hedgecock, and was confirmed by a board member above. Sorry I didn't get *your* approval on the content and source of my post!

 

[dmspilot00]

I don't know what happened but the only points I was trying to make were:

1. Don't stereotype
2. If NASA decided to change their type of insulation, and the new insulation happens to be "environmentally friendly," then that should not automatically mean that some wacko extremist environmentalists were responsible.

And I do not see any reason why the points 1 and 2 above need to be backed up because they are pretty common sense. Why would I need to write a point-by-point persuasive essay on why one should not "jump to conclusions and blame an entire group of people for a fatal accident"?

 

[Pilotadjuster]

Rush?

I gotta side with Typhoon here...we're making assumptions because of the unsupported comments of a radio show guy?

--before you flame me guys, lets be fair, Rush did not offer any source for his opinion and I have not heard that particular bent anywhere in the "Mainstream" media (including Fox News, which at times appears to the right of Rush!).

as an aside and to lighten things a bit, I heard a different theory by one of Phil Hendry's guests, but it might be a bit off....

 

[flywithastick]

Re: Rush?

I gotta side with Typhoon here...we're making assumptions because of the unsupported comments of a radio show guy?

By will Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 4, 2003; Page A15

But political pressures may also have contributed to the foam's tendency to break away at launch. A change in the foam's formulation, instigated in 1997 as part of NASA's effort to use more environmentally friendly chemicals, was considered a possible cause of a sudden increase in the amount of foam breaking off that year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21034-2003Feb3.html

 

[Pilotadjuster]

Post

I stand corrected Fly. Seems as if that covers both ends of the political spectrum as well...rare when the Post and Limbaugh agree on something--may be a world record!

 

[saabcaptain]

An RTLS abort in the eyes of several shuttle CDRs (and I heard this from the souce) is that you have a 25% of making the runway, 25% of ditching the shuttle (bailing first if you had time), and 50% chance of breaking up the shuttle under aerodynamic load and dying. It is considered the VERY last resort when you have no other choice because of engine failure. This will NOT change and I am terrifed of the day some crew has to do it... I don't want to see it... ever.

 

[saabcaptain]

Typhoon when did you realize what you were seeing was the shuttle... did you report it on the freq?

 

[Typhoon1244]

Typhoon when did you realize what you were seeing was the shuttle... did you report it on the freq?

Didn't realize what it was until we got to DFW and somebody told me.

Here's what I submitted to NASA:

---------------------------

On Saturday, February 1, 2003, I was the pilot-in-command of Atlantic Southeast Airlines flight 479, operating as Delta Air Lines flight 4479. Our aircraft was a Canadair CRJ-200 Regional Jet registered as N854AS. My copilot was First Officer Timothy Mangan, and my flight attendant was Ms. Sabrina Mitchell. We departed Charleston, South Carolina, at 12:06 GMT and were on our way to the Dallas–Fort Worth Airport, our home base.

At approximately 14:00 GMT, we were flying west-southwest approximately fifteen miles southeast of Longview, Texas, at an altitude of 28,000 feet and a true airspeed of 441 knots (0.79 mach). The ceiling and visibility were unlimited.

I observed what appeared to be the condensation trail of another aircraft directly in front of us and slightly above, traveling east-southeast. As it drew closer, I began to see two or three thin, barely-visible condensation trails behind the main trail and moving parallel to it, although at a slightly slower speed.

The entire formation looked like a large aerial refueling tanker at high altitude with a group of small aircraft decelerating away from it.

As the object moved through my eleven o’clock position, a cascade of “sparks” showered from each side of the object. There were between fifteen and twenty of these objects, each of them leaving a similar trail of condensation or, perhaps, smoke. The larger sparks burned a brilliant white-orange. Smaller ones appeared green in color. Among the sparks was a diffuse cloud of extremely thin filaments that appeared to be a silvery-green color. The sparks were visible for about ten seconds, then began to dissipate.

The behavior of the objects reminded me of pictures of large military aircraft dispensing flares and chaff for the purpose of evading surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles. I came to the conclusion that what I was seeing was probably a B-1 Lancer bomber whose crew had inadvertently activated one of its defensive systems.

At this point, the object at the head of the original condensation or smoke trail was burning bright white-orange, much brighter than any of the sparks it had emitted. It also appeared to be descending at a small but increasing angle.

As the “cascade of sparks” began, an unidentified voice on the Fort Worth Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) VHF frequency said, “look up!” Upon the ARTCC controller’s request, the pilot of another aircraft described the object. The controller then announced that a Space Shuttle was scheduled to pass over the area on its way back to the Kennedy Space Center. Having no reason to assume anything unusual had happened, I accepted the idea that what I had seen was a normal re-entry, and I immediately directed my passengers’ attention to the orbiter, which was now passing through my ten o’clock position.

Almost immediately, I observed the object appear to “twist” to one side, then separate into four pieces which continued to glow very brightly. Two of these objects were smaller than the others and faded from view fairly quickly. Just before the objects moved out of view behind our left wing, the condensation or smoke trails they were leaving assumed a shallow “corkscrew” shape, as if the objects generating the trails were tumbling as they descended.

No longer convinced that what I had observed was an orbiter, I asked the ARTCC controller to verify that an orbiter was scheduled to pass over our area. He did. I informed the controller that the object I had observed was in three or four pieces, and that I doubted it was the orbiter in question. He replied that he hoped it wasn’t.

Upon arriving in Dallas–Fort Worth at 14:38 GMT, I was informed by another pilot that Columbia was missing and presumed destroyed. I immediately came to the horrible realization that the object I had observed was indeed Columbia. At approximately 19:30 GMT, after completing another scheduled round-trip, I returned to my home and contacted an operator at the Johnson Space Center to reported my observation.

I must stress that I cannot characterize any of the events I observed as an “explosion.” The events I observed looked like nothing more than the destruction of a large object by aerodynamic forces. In fact, at one point, I wondered if what I was seeing was the final plunge of an unusually large meteorite or some sort of manmade “space debris.”

Opinion: it is my understanding that there has been speculation that Columbia’s loss may have been caused by some sort of structural failure of the left wing. This theory would appear to be consistent with the observations I made. The “cascade of sparks” could have marked the moment the left wing failed, which would have caused the orbiter to tumble and be torn apart by excessive aerodynamic loads.

 

[EagleRJ]

Driving to the airport this morning, I heard an update on the radio that left my mouth hanging open. The DJ said NASA was looking into other causes besides the foam, including the "possibility that an on-board system of explosives may have accidently been triggered". Now, it's true that the Shuttle has a range safety system like all other rockets, but
1) None of the eyewitness or video accounts even remotely suggests a sudden explosion that caused the breakup, and
2) The range safety package is only installed on the external tank and along the sides of both SRBs.

I haven't seen any mention of this on the internet, TV, or papers. I wonder if the radio DJ was just making stuff up, or if a NASA spokesman actually said that? Did anyone else hear that report?

 

[dmspilot00]

Driving to the airport this morning, I heard an update on the radio that left my mouth hanging open. The DJ said NASA was looking into other causes besides the foam, including the "possibility that an on-board system of explosives may have accidently been triggered". Now, it's true that the Shuttle has a range safety system like all other rockets, but
1) None of the eyewitness or video accounts even remotely suggests a sudden explosion that caused the breakup, and
2) The range safety package is only installed on the external tank and along the sides of both SRBs.

I haven't seen any mention of this on the internet, TV, or papers. I wonder if the radio DJ was just making stuff up, or if a NASA spokesman actually said that? Did anyone else hear that report?

In the local newspaper this morning there was an article that said NASA was looking to other causes. (Edit--see subsequent post).

So he was right about looking into other causes, but I don't know about explosives. Either more information has been released and the media didn't pick up on it, or the DJ was confused and thought thrusters firing meant explosion...