If the burnout descent of the Jules Verne cargo ship was obseved,you know the disintegration of Space Shuttle Columbia was!

On Nov 1, 7:46*am, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
wrote in message

...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27479972/

an excerpt from the article, detailing the assertion made in the
subject: line, and to further pique the interest of the readers and
followers of the pursuit for "the last frontier"....

The recent destruction of the European Space Agency's Jules Verne
cargo ship was eagerly observed by scientists hoping to glean new
information on how objects behave as they enter Earth's atmosphere.
Observers aboard two chase planes caught photographs and video of the
double-decker bus-sized spacecraft's demise, but no such campaign is
possible with the returning ammonia tank.

It may have been possible, but not worth it. *Note that Jules Verne had
thrusts and the ESA could basically control when and where it would enter..
No such thing was possible with the ammonia tank.



************************************************** ************************************************** ****

If the demise of the Jules Verne cargo ship was observed, then could
not also the demise of Space Shuttle Columbia have been likewise
observed? *Columbia had had problems all the way from launch to
reentry, and it was well known that it might not "make it home".

No it wasn't.

I have a feeling there are some tapes of Columbia's disintegation on
reentry, and am calling here now for NASA to present them, or face a
FOIA request filed on behalf of the American people and the surviving
families of the Columbia crew.

Go right ahead.



And, besides, if they have a Jules Verne cargo ship and can send it
UP, then why can't they bring that baby home? *That way they can bring
down junk from space, instead of littering space with it.

Because to bring it home would require equipping it with thermal protection
and a landing system. *These take up mass, which means less useful cargo to
bring TO the station in the first place.

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

yeah, just easier, in the viewpoint of a "vaunted" (cough, cough)
"scientist" (cough, cough, cough) like you and your ilk to continue to
pollute space.

lsten, if the US had the technology to put a man in the moon in the
60s, then the US has had the technology since then to bring the space
trash back with it.

just because the US has left a bunch of space trash on the Moon, on
Mars, and elsewhere throughtout space does not mean the US has any
"possession" of it.

capiche?

On Nov 1, 9:21*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
wrote:
If the demise of the Jules Verne cargo ship was observed, then could
not also the demise of Space Shuttle Columbia have been likewise
observed? *Columbia had had problems all the way from launch to
reentry, and it was well known that it might not "make it home".

You know, one of these days someone new may come along who posts a
interesting first *message, then doesn't follow it up immediately with a
loony-tunes second message. A couple of weeks ago someone posted a
really interesting link regarding the Soyuz TMS, and then followed it up
with a giant rant against Islam.
You post a interesting story about the ISS Ammonia tank reentering, then
immediately follow it up with some sort of conspiracy thing about the
destruction of Columbia.
NASA thought (at least officially) that Columbia was going to make it
down just fine.
There are a lot of photos and films taken of it during its entire
reentry - showing it first shedding parts as it was over California till
it finally disintegrated over Texas.
There are also on-orbit photos of it taken by NRO recon sats, and
infrared photos taken of it during descent showing the missing RCC wing
panel on the wing leading edge and heat plume over its wing as the wing
started to burn off.

Pat

pat, you need to focus on one thing at a time. i know you fancy
yourself so sort of esteemed expert on space or some such, but i am
sure it is mostly in your small,deluded, perverted mind that that is
true.

time for the US to go up and clean their space trash up - including
the remains of the Columbia debacle. or else have the chinese start
to clean up the American space crap - but they won't discriminate
between that which is in use and that which use has already been
completed.

On Nov 1, 9:35*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:
A couple of weeks ago someone posted a really interesting link
regarding the Soyuz TMS

TMA:http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...pace/20081013_....

Pat

Talking to yourself again Pat? See, I told you are too busy confusing
multiple issues in your mind. One thing at a time fella.... like
those things that help you get through the night, however anything
ever could, given your idea that space is just a place to defile as
Earth has been.

On Nov 1, 7:46*am, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
wrote in message

...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27479972/

an excerpt from the article, detailing the assertion made in the
subject: line, and to further pique the interest of the readers and
followers of the pursuit for "the last frontier"....

The recent destruction of the European Space Agency's Jules Verne
cargo ship was eagerly observed by scientists hoping to glean new
information on how objects behave as they enter Earth's atmosphere.
Observers aboard two chase planes caught photographs and video of the
double-decker bus-sized spacecraft's demise, but no such campaign is
possible with the returning ammonia tank.

It may have been possible, but not worth it. *Note that Jules Verne had
thrusts and the ESA could basically control when and where it would enter..
No such thing was possible with the ammonia tank.



************************************************** ************************************************** ****

If the demise of the Jules Verne cargo ship was observed, then could
not also the demise of Space Shuttle Columbia have been likewise
observed? *Columbia had had problems all the way from launch to
reentry, and it was well known that it might not "make it home".

No it wasn't.

Well, Greg, either my memory is much better than yours, or my
knowledge of the history of space exploration is. As supplied by
someone else down the thread, here is an excerpt of an article where
it is said there were concerns about integrity as early as the 2nd
day. Even THAT is a lie though, because it was not long after the
shuttle was sent up that the films came back, showing what more than
likely, and unfortunately was, damage to the shuttle from the launch.

As has been said so many times - those who ignore history (in this
case, the Challenger tragedy) are doomed to repeat it (the Columbia
tragedy).

I leave you, Greg D. Moore, crumped at my feet, you a broken man.

************************************************** *****************************************
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...4shuttle01.htm

Starting on Day Two of Columbia's mission, by which time it was clear
that NASA had concerns about possible damage to the shuttle's heat
shielding tiles during launch, there were six opportunities for USA
129 to see the shuttle, Molczan said. (Either or both of the other two
KeyHoles may also have had opportunities, but on Jan. 16 both entered
orbits that make them invisible to the group's members.) USA 129's
closest passes were on Jan. 20, when it flew within 88 miles of the
shuttle, on Jan. 25 (70 miles) and on Jan. 29 (99 miles), with all
three offering a probable resolution of two inches, Molczan said.



************************************************** *****************************************


I have a feeling there are some tapes of Columbia's disintegation on
reentry, and am calling here now for NASA to present them, or face a
FOIA request filed on behalf of the American people and the surviving
families of the Columbia crew.

Go right ahead.



And, besides, if they have a Jules Verne cargo ship and can send it
UP, then why can't they bring that baby home? *That way they can bring
down junk from space, instead of littering space with it.

Because to bring it home would require equipping it with thermal protection
and a landing system. *These take up mass, which means less useful cargo to
bring TO the station in the first place.

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

I leave you, Greg D. Moore, crumped at my feet, you a broken man.



You say that after proving my point. There were no photographs.

You are a sad little man.


************************************************** *****************************************
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...4shuttle01.htm

Starting on Day Two of Columbia's mission, by which time it was clear
that NASA had concerns about possible damage to the shuttle's heat
shielding tiles during launch, there were six opportunities for USA
129 to see the shuttle, Molczan said. (Either or both of the other two
KeyHoles may also have had opportunities, but on Jan. 16 both entered
orbits that make them invisible to the group's members.) USA 129's
closest passes were on Jan. 20, when it flew within 88 miles of the
shuttle, on Jan. 25 (70 miles) and on Jan. 29 (99 miles), with all
three offering a probable resolution of two inches, Molczan said.



************************************************** *****************************************


I have a feeling there are some tapes of Columbia's disintegation on
reentry, and am calling here now for NASA to present them, or face a
FOIA request filed on behalf of the American people and the surviving
families of the Columbia crew.

Go right ahead.



And, besides, if they have a Jules Verne cargo ship and can send it
UP, then why can't they bring that baby home? That way they can bring
down junk from space, instead of littering space with it.

Because to bring it home would require equipping it with thermal
protection
and a landing system. These take up mass, which means less useful cargo to
bring TO the station in the first place.

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.




--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

On Nov 2, 10:27*am, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
I leave you, Greg D. Moore, crumped at my feet, you a broken man.


You say that after proving my point. *There were no photographs.

Oh, you going to try to run it out on some technicality, as if a film
cannot be translated into a sequence of photographs? You sir, are a
scoundrel and if you are a supporter of the US government you are an
infidel, and if you are a NASA scientist, it is no friggin' wonder
that NASA has come mean "Need Another Seven Astronauts" as well as
what it originally was meant to.


You are a sad little man.

No, NASA is a sad organization. It knew PRELAUNCH there were problems
with both Charllenger and Columbia and they sent the birds up anyway.
Challenger contractors told NASA management there were problems with
the O rings (cold weather, ahhh duh!) but the NASA brass did one of
the 2 following things - 1) kept it hidden from the Reagan
administration and decided to launch anyway, in a rogue action or 2)
told the Reagan administration and Reagan told them to send it anyway
because of the oh so vital "race for space" - gotta beat those evil
Russians now, don't we, no matter the cost. I well suspect it was the
latter, but everyone know what a liar and denier of the truth Ronald
Reagan was, as well as a stoop who would not suffer the consequences
of his actions, and, as such, just passed the buck on back down the
line to NASA on it.

NASA had FINALLY discovered in the intervening years and as the launch
of the ill-fated launch of Columbia approached, that after all the
cold weather damage to space shuttles that cold weather launching was
not a good idea but decided to send Columbia up anyway And sure, ya
nitwit, you are going to TRY to say that it was not a cold weather
launch, but it was - ice licking all over Columbia as it was set up.

"Yeah, let's just take another chance, hey it's only the lives of 7
more astronauts!"

And, sure enough, as the sun rises in the east, and the rains come in
the spring - here at least, anyway - NASA rolled snakeeyes!

You have a bunch of friggin' charlatans and infidels at NASA. You
always have, and you always will.

Hopefully each of the families surviving the Challenger and Columba
astronauts were paid AT LEAST $10 million, for the NEGLIENCE of NASA
and the United States government.

I bet you have problems even striding a mudpuddle, "Strider"!

Plain enough now, cowboy?




************************************************** ******************************************http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...4shuttle01.htm

Starting on Day Two of Columbia's mission, by which time it was clear
that NASA had concerns about possible damage to the shuttle's heat
shielding tiles during launch, there were six opportunities for USA
129 to see the shuttle, Molczan said. (Either or both of the other two
KeyHoles may also have had opportunities, but on Jan. 16 both entered
orbits that make them invisible to the group's members.) USA 129's
closest passes were on Jan. 20, when it flew within 88 miles of the
shuttle, on Jan. 25 (70 miles) and on Jan. 29 (99 miles), with all
three offering a probable resolution of two inches, Molczan said.

************************************************** ******************************************







I have a feeling there are some tapes of Columbia's disintegation on
reentry, and am calling here now for NASA to present them, or face a
FOIA request filed on behalf of the American people and the surviving
families of the Columbia crew.

Go right ahead.

And, besides, if they have a Jules Verne cargo ship and can send it
UP, then why can't they bring that baby home? That way they can bring
down junk from space, instead of littering space with it.

Because to bring it home would require equipping it with thermal
protection
and a landing system. These take up mass, which means less useful cargo to
bring TO the station in the first place.

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Nov 1, 3:51 pm, " wrote:
On Nov 1, 2:53 pm, Brian Thorn wrote:

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 08:21:40 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

There are also on-orbit photos of it taken by NRO recon sats,

No there aren't. That's what the engineeers wanted, but the NASA brass
said "its nothing, shut up and color" and wouldn't call the NRO.

Seehttp://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030214shuttle01.htm

Thank you, thomsona, for providing the link that indicates I knew what
I was talking about from the beginning, and that therefore verified my
veracity. And from globalsecurity.org, no less. Ahem! But I am
sure they aren't one of the many no-bid DHS related no-bid contractors
who cane in the door after 9/11/01, are they?

Because I had posted something of this nature about 1 year ago to some
NASA groups and was told, at that time, that it was not feasible for
Columbia to have been observed on its ill-fated descent as the Jules
Verne cargo ship was.

I just accepted it as gospel that those "experts" who purportedly knew
so much about the space program and NASA would not lie about it.
There were some suspicions in my mind at that time though, that the
truth had not been revealed.

Sooo, I decided to cool my heels for a while and then come back and
see what would happen then (that most recent then being now). And,
sure enough, somewhere along the line, it was identified our
government had been involved in yet another coverup.

Yes, the technology existed THEN to do so, as the link provided has
shown, but NASA, and most probably the GWBush adminitration for some
reason, saw fit not to monitor Columbia on the way down. If, for
nothing more, than to discover SOMETHING!!!!!! I guess they didn't
want to have the photos of the 7 astronauts as they were jettisoned
out of the shuttle and burned to death. Too gruesone, right?

The pictures from the ground in Texas, said to be the only ones of the
descent, were supposedly of Columbia when it was 37 miles up and on
final descent to California. And, if memory serves on THAT one, the
person or person who took those "only known photos" unceremoniously
had those images taken from them by the US government.

There are some other things that I think were incorrect about that day
that Columbia disintegrated, and I know that NASA was responsible for
it at the least, and well suspect that the GWBush administration
wanted, for some reason.......

Oh well, you do the math......

Which, it appears, was much to the chagrin and dismay of

Brian Gaff - sad ****** apologist and attempter of obscurity
Greg D. Moore - someone who does not know **** and therefore is a
charlatan
OM mamma's boy plonker - enjoy your life of ignorance and coverups
OM!
Pat Flannery - see Brian Gaff and Greg D. Moore above

and anyone else who wants to think that the space program is run as it
should be. It is NOT run as it should be, it is a bunch of rubbish,
inefficiency, and for naught in the long run.

But, and yeah!, it's sending a space shuttle up in cold weather that
should have been avoided - from jump street.

wrote:
pat, you need to focus on one thing at a time. i know you fancy
yourself so sort of esteemed expert on space or some such, but i am
sure it is mostly in your small,deluded, perverted mind that that is
true.


Two pictures of mating giraffes and I'm a pervert. :-)

time for the US to go up and clean their space trash up - including
the remains of the Columbia debacle.


In case you haven't figured it out yet, there aren't any parts of
Columbia still in orbit; there are probably lots of undiscovered debris
in a path leading from California to Louisiana, but even whatever fell
off of it in orbit has reentered by now.

Pat

wrote:
I leave you, Greg D. Moore, crumped at my feet, you a broken man.


"crumped"? :-D

Pat

wrote:
The pictures from the ground in Texas, said to be the only ones of the
descent, were supposedly of Columbia when it was 37 miles up and on
final descent to California.


You do realize that you've got it going backwards, don't you? It passed
over California first, then broke up over Texas on its way to KSC.
I leave you crumped at my feet. :-D

Pat