Columnbia crew survived longer than first thought

[Charleston]

NY Times reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/16/national/nationalspecial/16SHUT.html?ex=1058932800&en=7512384f537281e1&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

[Charleston]

Corrected version.

"Charleston" > wrote in message
news:IB2Ra.17672$zy.12304@fed1read06...
> NY Times reporting.
>
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/16/national/nationalspecial/16SHUT.html?ex=1058932800&en=7512384f537281e1&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
> --

A quote.

....Several people say information about the last moments of the shuttle
could help save lives in the future.

"It's a pretty good container they have the crew in; that's the last part to
come apart, just like it was in Challenger," said one investigator with the
board, referring to the fatal shuttle accident in January 1986. "It stayed
together for a pretty long time."

The investigator, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, noted that the
loss of the Columbia was now viewed as preventable because the damage on
liftoff that doomed the shuttle was from a problem that had been previously
identified but not corrected, foam falling from the external tank and
striking the orbiter.

He added, "As we sit there thinking about what they were going through, or
what their last thoughts were, it kind of angers you."

It kind of angers him? Understatement redefined in less than one week.

Man where have I read this before?

I am having the sci.space.shuttle Deju' vu blues.

Sigh.

Somehow I am just wondering all over again.

> Daniel
> Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

[DSCOTT]

charlestonchewschocolatecandycandidly @youarekiddingright.spam
(Charleston) wrote in <wJ2Ra.17677$zy.740@fed1read06>:

>Corrected version.
>
>"Charleston" > wrote in message
>news:IB2Ra.17672$zy.12304@fed1read06...
>> NY Times reporting.
>>
>>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/16/national/nationalspecial/16SHUT.html?ex
>=1058932800&en=7512384f537281e1&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
>> --
>
>A quote.
>
>...Several people say information about the last moments of the shuttle
>could help save lives in the future.
>

Then its a sure bet NASA will not use the information.
If the deaths are embarassing to management it will not be
used. That is the sad turth of NASA culture. Save the management
first cover your ass by not learning the truth and then blame
god or the engineers that were not allowed to check for the
amount of damage because managment did not want the truth
known. I suspect they are still in hide the facts mode.


>"It's a pretty good container they have the crew in; that's the last
>part to come apart, just like it was in Challenger," said one
>investigator with the board, referring to the fatal shuttle accident in
>January 1986. "It stayed together for a pretty long time."
>
>The investigator, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, noted that
>the loss of the Columbia was now viewed as preventable because the
>damage on liftoff that doomed the shuttle was from a problem that had
>been previously identified but not corrected, foam falling from the
>external tank and striking the orbiter.
>
>He added, "As we sit there thinking about what they were going through,
>or what their last thoughts were, it kind of angers you."
>

I wonder if they have on tape where one of them is cursing
NASA management for hiding the true extent of the damage as he
was dying.

>It kind of angers him? Understatement redefined in less than one week.
>
>Man where have I read this before?
>
>I am having the sci.space.shuttle Deju' vu blues.
>
>Sigh.
>
>Somehow I am just wondering all over again.
>
>> Daniel
>> Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC
>
>
>


David A. Scott
--
My Crypto code
http://cryptography.org/cgi-bin/crypto.cgi/Misc/scott19u.zip
http://cryptography.org/cgi-bin/crypto.cgi/Misc/scott16u.zip
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip old version
My Compression code http://bijective.dogma.net/
**TO EMAIL ME drop the roman "five" **
Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged.
As a famous person once said "any cryptograhic
system is only as strong as its weakest link"

[Kent Betts]

"Charleston"
> Man where have I read this before?
>
> I am having the sci.space.shuttle Deju' vu blues.

Yeah.....this article is old info restated, based on the length of time the
on=board systems were functioning, as recorded on the OEX.

[Kent Betts]

One time I figured out that the on-board systems quit at about the time of the
"big puff" on the WFAA tape, just after it passes the light pole. For what it's
worth.

[Charleston]

"Kent Betts" > wrote in message
...
> One time I figured out that the on-board systems quit at about the time of
the
> "big puff" on the WFAA tape, just after it passes the light pole. For
what it's
> worth.

I remember that big puff vividly. It was disconcerting. I find the timing
of the NY Times article interesting in that it follows Jim Oberg's questions
here yesterday by just a day. I wonder if there is now a lot of talk about
the crew's fate going around in media circles. The pressure will build now
for the TV networks to one up each other. It may get ugly.

Daniel

[Jorge R. Frank]

"Kent Betts" > wrote in
:

> Yeah.....this article is old info restated, based on the length of
> time the on=board systems were functioning, as recorded on the OEX.

Right. Loss of signal was 7:59:32 CST and OEX data stopped at 8:00:14 CST,
with main body breakup assumed to occur almost immediately thereafter. So
"the crew lived almost a minute after loss of signal" is just a more
sensationalistic way of saying "the crew lived a few seconds after main
body breakup", which is what we've been saying.

Really, with the information in this article, it could have been written
immediately after the OEX data was released. It took the Times this long to
figure that out? Morons.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[James Anatidae]

"DSCOTT" > wrote in message
...
> charlestonchewschocolatecandycandidly @youarekiddingright.spam
> (Charleston) wrote in <wJ2Ra.17677$zy.740@fed1read06>:
>
> >Corrected version.
> >
> >"Charleston" > wrote in message
> >news:IB2Ra.17672$zy.12304@fed1read06...
> >> NY Times reporting.
> >>
> >>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/16/national/nationalspecial/16SHUT.html?ex
> >=1058932800&en=7512384f537281e1&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
> >> --
> >
> >A quote.
> >
> >...Several people say information about the last moments of the shuttle
> >could help save lives in the future.
> >
>
> Then its a sure bet NASA will not use the information.
> If the deaths are embarassing to management it will not be
> used. That is the sad turth of NASA culture. Save the management
> first cover your ass by not learning the truth and then blame
> god or the engineers that were not allowed to check for the
> amount of damage because managment did not want the truth
> known. I suspect they are still in hide the facts mode.
>
>
> >"It's a pretty good container they have the crew in; that's the last
> >part to come apart, just like it was in Challenger," said one
> >investigator with the board, referring to the fatal shuttle accident in
> >January 1986. "It stayed together for a pretty long time."
> >
> >The investigator, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, noted that
> >the loss of the Columbia was now viewed as preventable because the
> >damage on liftoff that doomed the shuttle was from a problem that had
> >been previously identified but not corrected, foam falling from the
> >external tank and striking the orbiter.
> >
> >He added, "As we sit there thinking about what they were going through,
> >or what their last thoughts were, it kind of angers you."
> >
>
> I wonder if they have on tape where one of them is cursing
> NASA management for hiding the true extent of the damage as he
> was dying.

That a Soyuz 1 reference?

If it were me, I'd me be way too busy concentrating on my primal panic than
thinking to blame NASA.

> >It kind of angers him? Understatement redefined in less than one week.
> >
> >Man where have I read this before?
> >
> >I am having the sci.space.shuttle Deju' vu blues.
> >
> >Sigh.
> >
> >Somehow I am just wondering all over again.
> >
> >> Daniel
> >> Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> David A. Scott
> --
> My Crypto code
> http://cryptography.org/cgi-bin/crypto.cgi/Misc/scott19u.zip
> http://cryptography.org/cgi-bin/crypto.cgi/Misc/scott16u.zip
> http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip old version
> My Compression code http://bijective.dogma.net/
> **TO EMAIL ME drop the roman "five" **
> Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
> made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged.
> As a famous person once said "any cryptograhic
> system is only as strong as its weakest link"
--
Gargoyles SETI@home group
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_167065.html

[Jorge R. Frank]

"Charleston" > wrote in
news:GD4Ra.17735$zy.13958@fed1read06:

> I find the
> timing of the NY Times article interesting in that it follows Jim
> Oberg's questions here yesterday by just a day. I wonder if there is
> now a lot of talk about the crew's fate going around in media circles.
> The pressure will build now for the TV networks to one up each
> other. It may get ugly.

It has already led to just about every other newspaper in the country
running their own version, regurgitating the same old story that JimO broke
in late February:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/1996484
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-
shuttle16jul16002426,1,6080011.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts107/030715crewmodule/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-07-16-shuttle_x.htm
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=425049
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20030716-073657-6583r.htm

This vividly illustrates the dangers of the increasingly sloppy journalism
at the NY Times. When, say, the Houston Chronicle does something like
this, no one notices but the puppies and parakeets. When the Times does
it, everybody else feels they have to follow suit.
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[Charleston]

"Jorge R. Frank" > wrote in message
...
> "Charleston" > wrote in
> news:GD4Ra.17735$zy.13958@fed1read06:
>
> > I find the
> > timing of the NY Times article interesting in that it follows Jim
> > Oberg's questions here yesterday by just a day. I wonder if there is
> > now a lot of talk about the crew's fate going around in media circles.
> > The pressure will build now for the TV networks to one up each
> > other. It may get ugly.
>
> It has already led to just about every other newspaper in the country
> running their own version, regurgitating the same old story that JimO
broke
> in late February:
>
> http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/1996484
> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-
> shuttle16jul16002426,1,6080011.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
> http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts107/030715crewmodule/
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-07-16-shuttle_x.htm
> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=425049
> http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20030716-073657-6583r.htm
>
> This vividly illustrates the dangers of the increasingly sloppy journalism
> at the NY Times. When, say, the Houston Chronicle does something like
> this, no one notices but the puppies and parakeets. When the Times does
> it, everybody else feels they have to follow suit.

Ya, it is pretty pathetic. You would think they would lose some credibility
somewhere. My guess is they will win a Pulitzer for elite investigative
reporting:-(

Daniel

[OM]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:32:57 GMT, "Michael R. Grabois ... change $ to
\"s\"" > wrote:

>"Regarding the recent story on the space shuttle Columbia ("Crew of Columbia
>Survived a Minute After Last Signal" by John Schwartz and Matthew L. Wald, July
>16, 2003) - it is hardly "new" news that the crew may have survived for tens of
>seconds after the loss of signal. In fact, NASA's own timeline published on its
>web site in March contained the information that the Times is "breaking" as a
>news story. Additionally, there was a factual error in the story. The article
>refers to the crew responding to messages about the tires overheating, when in
>fact the sensors indicate pressure. The messages were generated when the wires
>burned through and the sensors went off-line, causing messages for low
>pressure."

....The sad part about this is that Schwartz *knows* this. He also has
carte blanche access to the FAQ and can quote it as a source, although
the info in question comes from the CAIB's official timeline. I'll pop
him off a line here shortly and remind him of this. He and I used to
work together on the _Deadly Texan_ about 15 years ago, so I can
probably get the point across. Last thing the _Times_ needs is another
bogus fact story :-)


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Bruce Palmer]

Michael R. Grabois ... change $ to "s" wrote:
>
> I actually sent a letter to the editor about the article:
>
> "Regarding the recent story on the space shuttle Columbia ("Crew of Columbia
> Survived a Minute After Last Signal" by John Schwartz and Matthew L. Wald, July
> 16, 2003) - it is hardly "new" news that the crew may have survived for tens of
> seconds after the loss of signal. In fact, NASA's own timeline published on its
> web site in March contained the information that the Times is "breaking" as a
> news story. Additionally, there was a factual error in the story. The article
> ...

Just about every story you see now contains one factual error in
particular. When was the last time you saw an article anywhere that
referred to "plasma" and not "hot gasses"?

--
bp
Proud Member of the Human O-Ring Society Since 2003