Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
My Point Of View About Columbia Shuttle  
User currently offlineWardialer From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1183 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2757 times:

The Space Shuttle Columbia self-destructed by the astronauts because the shuttle did not have a chance to make it onto the runway. They did not want anymore destruction or casualties on the ground. And also, they wanted to protect Orlando esp. Disneyland.

It was traveling at 21,000 mph @ 207,000 feet at a steep angle so they figured they will overshoot the runway. So again, the astronauts self-destructed Columbia. They probably wanted to do the right thing. Not cause more deaths on the ground.

44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSoku39 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1797 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2709 times:

Stay of the herb pal... stay of the herb.


The Ohio Player
User currently offlineFlyingbronco05 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3840 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2696 times:

As NASA astronauts and pilots, i bet the crew knew what they were doing and even if they were too steep and too fast, they could have, and were probably trained, to fly that shuttle until it slowed enough. They are highly trained pilots landing that. I doubt they self destructed the shuttle.


Never Trust Your Fuel Gauge
User currently offlineJetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2678 times:

If they self-destructed the Shuttle, don't you think they would've explained their intentions to mission control?

Just accept the accident and be sad about it.



"Shaddap you!"
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2669 times:

Let me see if I understand what you are saying.

The shuttle was self destructed because the astronauts wanted to save Disneyworld???

Sorry just can't buy that.

There is some speculation that the shuttle hit a sprite in the Atmosphere. That is an electrical discharge. And oddly enough one is known to have taken out a research balloon a few years ago.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offline737doctor From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 1332 posts, RR: 39
Reply 5, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2669 times:

This is your brain: My Point Of View About Columbia Shuttle

This is your brain on drugs: The Space Shuttle Columbia self-destructed by the astronauts because the shuttle did not have a chance to make it onto the runway. They did not want anymore destruction or casualties on the ground. And also, they wanted to protect Orlando esp. Disneyland.

It was traveling at 21,000 mph @ 207,000 feet at a steep angle so they figured they will overshoot the runway. So again, the astronauts self-destructed Columbia. They probably wanted to do the right thing. Not cause more deaths on the ground.


Any questions?



Patrick Bateman is my hero.
User currently offlinePHX-LJU From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2664 times:

L-188 wrote:

"There is some speculation that the shuttle hit a sprite in the Atmosphere."

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but to my (admittedly limited) knowledge, sprites form above active thunderstorms; California and the Southwest, however, were enjoying perfect weather that day. And anyway, do they think a sprite could have caused wing damage which seems very probable at this time?

BTW, isn't it a bit too early for wild speculation like this?

[Edited 2003-02-09 05:27:29]

User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 7, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2652 times:

I'll suggest deletion as well but before the thread goes away, I'll say this.

The shuttle itself does NOT have a self-destruct device onboard. On lift off, the SRB's and main fuel tank DO have explosives designed to destroy the vehicle if it goes outside a predetermined zone. The controllers @ Cape Canaveral are the ones who would send the order for auto-destruct, not the crew. The plan, at least on paper, is for the shuttle to have already separated from the rockets and land back in Florida or @ the emergency landing zones throughout the Atlantic and in Spain. However, NASA has said that if necessary, they would destroy the shuttle, crew and all, if the liftoff went off course and was going to come down in a populated area. However, I do not believe that the shuttle was destroyed by anything other than a tragic accident. It was not a UFO, not a terrorist, and not some non-existent self-destruct device.

I feel that while the astronauts knew they had a problem, they probably did not know how serious it was until the very end. Not being able to visually see parts of the shuttle breaking off meant all they could rely on were their instrument readings, which didn't tell them much. They probably realized just seconds before the end as the auto pilot lost its fight to keep the shuttle flying that the shuttle was out of control. Breakup and death would have been only seconds later and thank God, very quick and painless.



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineMirrodie From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 7444 posts, RR: 62
Reply 8, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2644 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

NOTE TO USERS THINKING OF posting HERE:

The poster has a right to express his opinion (no matter how drug induced it may be, as someone alluded to above).

Please think before you post and try not to break the rules.

If you DISAGREE (as I do), then do it politely.

peace, mirrodie

PS -to those suggesting deletion: On that grounds?

[Edited 2003-02-09 05:30:27]


Forum moderator 2001-2010; He's a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, a worthless st
User currently offlineJetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2633 times:

"The poster has a right to express his opinion"

Who said he didn't? Don't mistaken criticism for a feeling that one doesn't have a right to say something absurd. Geeeez, I hate that.

Wardialer is just very saddened and in denial about the tragedy; that's all.



"Shaddap you!"
User currently offlineAC320 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2627 times:

Must be pretty darn sad to have his higher brain functions shut down and allow that illogical portion to run wild and free sewing destruction everywhere.

User currently offlineGotAirbus From Singapore, joined May 2001, 851 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2614 times:

Okay, Wardialer ... a few facts:

It was traveling at 21,000 mph @ 207,000 feet at a steep angle so they figured they will overshoot the runway.

I've been doing some reading lately and have found out that the pilot (and the on-board computers) actually calculate whether they can make it to the runway at KSC. If not, there are alternate runways already pre-planned.

21,000 mph or Mach 18 @ 207,000ft is pretty normal. I don't see anything wrong with these kinds of speeds for a shuttle, do you?

Also, the shuttle can slow down just in time for arrival...it still has 207,000 feet to descend, and you know that too.



They probably realized just seconds before the end as the auto pilot lost its fight to keep the shuttle flying that the shuttle was out of control. Breakup and death would have been only seconds later and thank God, very quick and painless.

Gosh, wonder what specific emergency indicator flashed on-screen before the whole thing blew up.

(gotAirbus?)



(gotAIRBUS?) - (Got Commonality?) - (Have A Nice Flight!)
User currently offlineVafi88 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 17
Reply 12, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2611 times:

BTW-NASA Has a self deployed Astronaut program, that if the shuttle over runs the runway, they can jump at ONLY at less than 250 knots.


Marijuana's bad dude....Don't smoke it.



I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
User currently offlineMirrodie From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 7444 posts, RR: 62
Reply 13, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2605 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Don't mistaken criticism for a feeling that one doesn't have a right to say something absurd.

Jetservice, no mistake made. But since I already had to delete other posts here and have had a few requests for delete already, perhaps you can understand my concern.



Forum moderator 2001-2010; He's a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, a worthless st
User currently offlineTWAL1011 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 206 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2596 times:

I decided to copy and paste this whole thing before it gets deleted. It could serve many purposes in the future.

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2592 times:

There is also a theory that the shuttle may have impacted a piece of space junk.

http://www.adn.com/24hour/special_reports/columbia/story/753457p-5450389c.html

This is somewhat supported by the video taken by an amature astronomer in Sparks, Nevada.

http://www.projo.com/sharedcontent/breakingnews/spaceshuttle/khou030207_mh_astronomervideo.303c39ec.html


Well here is a link to some information by the University of Alaska, Fairbanks regarding Sprites and Jets.

http://elf.gi.alaska.edu/

I was looking for the site where I saw that story. It was a newpaper out of San Fransisco but I have to go launch a medevac flight. Sorry.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineWardialer From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1183 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2587 times:

Well I still think the crew wanted to do the right thing by saving people on the ground. The shuttle has a self-destruct button in-case of emergency situations at that altitude or speeds. They wanted to save famous landmarks like Disneyland and populated areas. No offense but I think that might of happened.



User currently offlineTWAL1011 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 206 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2584 times:

It kills me that I had to download and install Real player to view that, but I found it to be pretty interesting. Backs up what that astronomer in CA witnessed. Kinda lends credibility to an explosion or impact, doesn't it?

User currently offlineSoku39 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1797 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2570 times:

Wardialer, do you think that if they were hot and high that would have flown OVER disney world and orlando into the atlantic. Especially if they knew they were over running it before?
sheesh a little bit of a thought process could help people like you out.  Yeah sure




The Ohio Player
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 19, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2552 times:

Sorry about the sudden drop off there guys, I had to go and save lives.

Anyway. Here is a link to a story USA today did about the possiblities of Upper atmoshere. It is more general then the one I saw and lists several phenomenon that NASA will probably look at.

http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20030207/4848025s.htm

I will still look for that other story I saw. That specifically mentioned Sprites being the cause of a High Altitude balloon being destroyed.




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 20, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2549 times:

FOUND IT!!!

It originally was published in the San Francisco chronicle on Friday. Maybe some of our Bay area participants can go and comment to the general accuracy of the paper.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/02/07/MN200326.DTL


Oddly enough didn't realize that weather balloon that was taken out by a sprite was launched from Palestine, Texas.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinePHX-LJU From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2547 times:

L-188,

Thanks for the link! Yes, the sprite theory does sound far-fetched (hence my sceptical initial reaction), but, then again, there is a lot we don't know about the upper atmosphere. I also didn't realize that there was thunderstorm activity near the Bay Area that day.


User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 22, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2537 times:

GotAirbus, did I ever say that a warning light flashed saying they were about to die? What I said was there was most likely very little time between the shuttle going out of control and the breakup. Before that time, there was no way to know for sure that the shuttle was in serious trouble. The small amount of time between loss of control and breakup would have been all they had to know for certain they weren't going to make it.


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2530 times:

Wardailer, They do not have self-destruct charges on the orbiter. It would be too much of an invitation for Murphy's law.

Secondly, The orbiter was well within the flightpath perscribed for reentry, and was not going at 21,000 mph, but more like 12,000 mph, also within perameters.

Lastly, you make the assumption that the pilots "gave up", over 1000 miles from touchdown with 200,000 feet below them. I don't know if you are familar with the Cockpit Voice Recordings and Transcripts that you can get on other sites from aircraft that have crashed, but one thing is consistant with all pilots - they continue to fight to regain control and save their lives right down to the ground. You occasionally hear something like "this is it.", but the Data recorders show that even if the pilot knows that he is going to die, control inputs continue to be made.

I simply don't see pilots giving up until they hit the ground.

Charles


User currently offlineScootertrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 569 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2516 times:

Giving the original poster the benefit of the doubt, I asked an engineer buddy of man at United Space Alliance (the folks who outfit the shuttles now) if such a scenario is possible. To his knowledge, there is no crew accessible destruct device in the orbiter. The SRB's do have such devices, to be used by the Range Safety Officer in the event the shuttle veers drastically off course during launch.

I am sure that the last though through that commanders head was to save his crew and craft, if he was afforded the opportunity to develop any awareness of his situation at all.


25 Ben88 : Hey everyone he's playing a joke on you. Does anyone here listen to Phil Hendrie? One of his "characters" recently called in proclaiming to be an inte
26 Post contains images Wardialer : GOTCH YAH!!!!!!!!!!!!! HA HA HA HA. The last post was true. I just wanted to imitate the caller on Phil Hendrie. I could not resist!!!! So please fore
27 Dripstick : ...yeah...let's create a joke out of a tragic event. Get a life!
28 Post contains images Tbar220 : *scratching head* Boy Wardialer....that was, interesting to say the least.
29 FSPilot747 : "GOTCH YAH!!!!!!!!!!!!! HA HA HA HA. The last post was true. I just wanted to imitate the caller on Phil Hendrie. I could not resist!!!! So please for
30 ExitRow : I think the Space Shuttle was about to hit a previously unknown, high-altitude flying species of elephant and in their corrective measures, the crew l
31 4holer : Is "schmuck" an acceptable word on A.net? I'm not calling anyone anything here, just asking...
32 Muddydawg : I am stationed at Lajes which is a alternate landing site approx 2200 miles from Florida. If they wanted to save Disneyland they could have always lan
33 AC320 : Research? If someone wants to make something like that up they should consider psychological therapy.
34 Post contains images Sebolino : I know exactly why the Shuttle exploded: it was going a little too fast ...
35 Post contains images GotAirbus : B757300 Posted Sun Feb 9 2003 07:57:12 UTC+1 and read 255 times: GotAirbus, did I ever say that a warning light flashed saying they were about to die?
36 Post contains images 737doctor : GOTCH YAH!!!!!!!!!!!!! HA HA HA HA. The last post was true. I just wanted to imitate the caller on Phil Hendrie. I could not resist!!!! So please fore
37 Post contains images Positive rate : Not very funny making a joke out of something like this . The descent from orbit is fully automatic anyway and the commander only takes over manual co
38 ADG : Sebolino If you had been watching Fox News you would know they were travelling faster than the sound of light!!!! ADG
39 Post contains images Sebolino : If you had been watching Fox News you would know they were travelling faster than the sound of light
40 Post contains images BartiniMan : The original poster must be a bored 9 year old kid
41 L-188 : That is a photo from CNN guys. Not Fox news.
42 Boeing nut : The simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. If the astronauts knew they were going to overshoot the runway, they would have ditched in th
43 Post contains images ADG : L-188, If you are referring to my post, I didn't infer your picture was from Fox .. I was laughing at the stupidity of the statement made by fox .. "f
44 Post contains images L-188 : You know. I read that and missed it completely.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Spanish Point Of View? posted Sun Sep 26 2004 05:15:55 by Luisde8cd
Best Way To Die From An Aviation Fan Point Of View posted Sat May 1 2004 16:25:19 by Aviationfreak
A Look Back At 2002 - From A British Point Of View posted Tue Dec 31 2002 14:42:15 by BA777
Friend From Afganistan, Point Of View (letter) posted Tue Sep 18 2001 18:49:08 by Superfly
The World, From An American Point Of View posted Sun Jul 15 2001 08:34:06 by Flyf15
Enron's Skilling Coming To My Neck Of The Woods posted Fri Nov 17 2006 22:06:54 by KaiGywer
I've Revised My Opinon Of Trolley Dollys . . . posted Wed Oct 25 2006 01:30:32 by Braybuddy
PC Liquid Cooling Kits...point Of The Resevoir? posted Sat Sep 9 2006 04:32:45 by Lehpron
My Kind Of Conservative Christian Evangelical posted Sun Jul 30 2006 05:04:33 by Falcon84
What's The Point Of Taking This Picture? posted Sun Jul 23 2006 03:41:57 by Nirmalmakadia