Time to remove the mask

Yes I know what publiszizing my website on this newsgroup will mean but I
believe that the ISS may be in line to suffer the same fate as the Columbia.
I don't know why but I have a hunch that there is an ongoing effort to get
rid of both programs and perhaps awareness is the only thing that can help
save them. Remember, without longterm missions onboard the ISS, several
months to years, there will be no Mars mission with its long travel time.

Ok here it is...my website that is the product of constant work for 16
months is at
http://www.columbiassacrifice.com

If you view the site keep in mind that I fully accept that there are
probably at least a couple of things I am wrong about but I also believe
that there are more than a few things I am right about. All constructive
critiscism is welcome.

Thank you

but I
believe that the ISS may be in line to suffer the same fate as the Columbia

Florida Today reports much the same on their website. Their interest is
honestly jobs. If ISS and shuttle both ended together the job loss espically
the standing army supporting the shuttle, will be a devastating blow to the
economy. Plus tourism may slow, given NASA loosing its high profile launches.

The local economy will be devastated when this occurs. Florida today is doing
what it can in the hopes of preventing it.

Remember, without longterm missions onboard the ISS, several
months to years, there will be no Mars mission with its long travel time.

Ahhh WITH ISS SHUTTLE I think a mars mission is impossible. Both programs just
suck up too much $$

NASA loathe to end either program voluntarilly will probably see their end by a
big high profile accident

Despite protests here I believe yet another lost vehicle accident anytime soon
will be the end of shuttle operations With too few shuttles, increasing safety
and cost concerns to fix whatever kills the next shuttle, it will be time to
pack it in.

NASA in self defense should get moving on a new designed manned launcher BUT
this will mean the end of the standing army and many jobs. The agency remembers
well the downsizing at the end of apollo.

Honestly I think this is why no shuttle replacement has ever gotten built. It
would cost too many jobs

Frankly its time to cut our losses and move on. I think the best thing would
be....

ISS is safely evacuated do to a shortage of supplies. The crew returns home
safely on their Soyuz ISS has a control problem key systems are lost and
permanent loss of control occurs. It reenters safely in the pacific doing no
harm but giving the world a BIG scare given the possiblity it might have come
down a bit sooner in some highly populated areas. Mass panic occured in the
targeted zone. No one died but it was a bad scene.

With no ISS to support the remaing shuttles take their final trips to nice
indoor museums, and the standing army is disbanded

Well not exactly The next manned launcher and a new heavy lift booster are
fast tracked along with a new designed station and moon mission. Much of the
spending is a JOBS program to help employment. Since many of the workers will
be needed for the new operations a special unemployment program is set up for
those effected. They get free college and education programs with pay to help
retrain them during the stand down

Within 3 years we are flying our NEW manned launcher it sets on top of a
expendable.

A new statiuon designed specifically for long term operations is on the drawing
boards High reliabulity, low maintenance, abilty to remain unmanned in orbit
for long periods if needed are its design specs. Its higher orbit will make
things easier too

Many of the new station parts are being used in a modular way for a small 3
man moon base and moon lander

The best part is that all of this is being funded at just about 2004s nASA
budget, thanks to the savings by the end of the shuttle ISS program.

One othetr minor detail

Hubble although presently not 100% got a robotic visit. It was partially
successful and there are plans to relocate its orbit nearer thwe new station
once its operational

They decided to keep it around for long term study and operations. The new
location will make service easier too.

HAVE A GREAT DAY!

"Skorpious" wrote:
Ok here it is...my website that is the product of constant work for 16
months is at
http://www.columbiassacrifice.com

If that took 16 months to build.... The message you wrote here must
have taken *weeks*.

If you view the site keep in mind that I fully accept that there are
probably at least a couple of things I am wrong about but I also believe
that there are more than a few things I am right about.

There is not a single thing right about that site.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

On 06 Jun 2004 11:47:31 GMT, (bob haller) wrote:

but I
believe that the ISS may be in line to suffer the same fate as the Columbia

Florida Today reports much the same on their website. Their interest is
honestly jobs. If ISS and shuttle both ended together the job loss espically
the standing army supporting the shuttle, will be a devastating blow to the
economy. Plus tourism may slow, given NASA loosing its high profile launches.

The local economy will be devastated when this occurs. Florida today is doing
what it can in the hopes of preventing it.

No. Losing the Shuttle would hurt, but it would not be devastating to
Brevard County (home of Florida Today and KSC). It is not the same
place as it was during the Apollo shutdown and economic collapse in
the early 1970s. They learned their lesson then, Brevard's economy
today is *much* more diversified now. For example, Port Canaveral is
now the second busiest cruise port in the world, and that has almost
nothing to do with KSC.

Brian

"Skorpious" wrote in message
...

Ok here it is...my website that is the product of constant work for 16
months is at
http://www.columbiassacrifice.com

If you view the site keep in mind that I fully accept that there are
probably at least a couple of things I am wrong about but I also believe
that there are more than a few things I am right about. All constructive
critiscism is welcome.

okay, off the top of my head:

quote
If the shuttles skin was exposed to high reentry temperatures why didn't the
temperature sensors register much higher readings than they did?
/quote
first off, the problem wasn't with abnormally high "skin" temps (though
there are at least three totally different types of materials used on the
"skin" of an orbiter), it was with plasma entering through a hole in the
leading edge into the *interior* of the wing and burning the
low-melting-point aluminum structure *inside* the wing. That's covered in
quite a bit of detail in the CAIB.

quote

If hot plasma entered the wing or wheel well, again, why didn't temperature
sensors respond to the problem?

/quote

they did. Flight controllers were monitoring abnormal temps throughout the
entry, and telemetry that wasn't presented realtime also shows clear
patterns of progressive overheating. That's covered in quite a bit of detail
in the CAIB.

quote

Why did witnesses see debris coming off the shuttle so early during reentry?
(News reports have eye witness accounts from the west coast.)

/quote

Because that's when the left wing began disintegrating. It wasn't an
*explosion* or a sudden disintegration, things played out over a period of
thirty minutes or so. That's covered in quite a bit of detail in the CAIB

quote

Did the shuttle have strain gauges or other stress sensors attached to
critical structural members, as do many military and civilian aircraft, to
detect structural damage?

/quote

Columbia still had these, although IIRC the other orbiters do not because
they were built as production craft, not test articles like Columbia. But
the data was not monitored realtime, just recorded for postflight analysis.
That's covered in quite a bit of detail in the CAIB

quote

If the shuttle had sensors to detect structural damage why wasn't the crew
or mission control alerted to this problem prior to the final breakup?

/quote

read the MOCR transcripts, there were plenty of off-nominal warnings that
flight controllers were looking at during reentry. That's covered in quite a
bit of detail in the CAIB

quote

What kind of protection does the shuttle have from collisions with space
debris and would the crew be alerted to an impact serious enough to cause
severe damage?

/quote

only the natural damage resistance of the thermal tiles/blankets/RCC. That's
covered in quite a bit of detail in the CAIB

quote

How much damage would the shuttle have to sustain to cause a catastrophic
failure of the thermal protection system during reentry?

/quote

depends on where the damage occurs. A lot for the tiles, very little for the
RCC as it turns out. That's covered in quite a bit of detail in the CAIB

quote

Why is it that other shuttle missions sustained moderate to severe damage to
the heat resistant tiles that resulted in no heat damage to the skin of the
orbiter?

/quote

AFAIK Columbia sustained no damage to the heat resistant tiles. The damage
was to the *RCC panels* on the wing leading edge, not the tiles covering the
wing and undersides. Two completely different types of material with
completely different properties and ability to sustain damage. That's
covered in quite a bit of detail in the CAIB

Which answers your question: other shuttle missions sustained damage to
other parts of the orbiter, not the part that was in fact damaged during
STS-107. These two things are not alike.

Now to your conclusions:

the first one is a shocker:

quote

It is virtually certain that the OEX Data Recorder was planted in the debris
field well after Columbia's breakup as a vehicle to introduce additional
evidence favorable to the, "Debris impact with wing breach", scenario. Main
Tip-off: (NASA documentation shows that the Columbia's OEX Recorder along
with all of its associated equipment, wiring and sensors was removed during
Columbia's last overhaul in Palmdale).

/quote

But you have to dig through all the technobabble that you're randomly
slapping together to make yourself look knowledgeable, to get to the
following disclaimer:

quote

One of the news article on the page, Columbia's Recent Overhaul, contains
the following sentence, "Technicians also removed 1,000 pounds of old wiring
and equipment used to monitor Columbia's earliest flights 20 years ago.".
The whole MADS/OEX system weighs a little less than a thousand pounds. None
of these documents contain a statement saying precisely that the OEX
recorder was removed or replaced but all of the evidence points in that
direction.

/quote

So like a good conspiracy theorist you are quoting material totally out of
context, and making a totally unfounded conclusion based on data that
doesn't remotely support your hypothesis.

Now here's the absolutely priceless piece de resistance of your work:

quote

The actual altitude at LOS was calculated to be 34,500 Ft.

/quote

I'm assuming you don't realize that's the typical cruising altitude of a
modern jet aircraft, say a Boeing 767. Literally tens of thousands of
ordinary people fly at that altitude *every day*. It's well within the
atmosphere, which is why the control surfaces of aircraft work up there.
Hell, you can easily see buildings on the ground from that height.

Yet you also claim that Columbia was doing Mach 18 at that point. That's
roughly 12,500 MPH, or 18,500 feet per second. So if Columbia were diving
straight down at that point (no forward momentum), it would have taken *less
that two seconds* to crash into the ground from 34,500 feet up. But since
she was in fact moving forward, we'll be generous and estimate that Columbia
would have been a whole *ten* seconds away from plowing into the surface,
well short of the KSC landing strip (by almost a thousand miles).

And oh by the way, all those flight controllers never once noticed that
Columbia wasn't still in the upper fringes of the atmosphere where she was
supposed to be at that point, but was basically on final approach to
Galveston Bay?

Now do you see how utterly ridiculous your "engineering analysis" is? I have
no idea what kind of Rube Goldberg calculations you used or where you
started from, but if your model gets totally absurd results, time to change
models.

Not a bad job at all on the website design, though. Very nice layout.

That's one of the subtle dangers of conspiracy theories, the ones with good
presentation skills use all that glossiness to create the illusion that they
have the slightest clue what they're talking about.

--
Terrell Miller



"Married men live longer than single men, but married men are a lot more
willing to die."
Proverb

Skorpious wrote:

Yes I know what publiszizing my website on this newsgroup will mean but I
believe that the ISS may be in line to suffer the same fate as the Columbia.
I don't know why but I have a hunch that there is an ongoing effort to get
rid of both programs and perhaps awareness is the only thing that can help
save them. Remember, without longterm missions onboard the ISS, several
months to years, there will be no Mars mission with its long travel time.

Ok here it is...my website that is the product of constant work for 16
months is at
http://www.columbiassacrifice.com

If you view the site keep in mind that I fully accept that there are
probably at least a couple of things I am wrong about but I also believe
that there are more than a few things I am right about. All constructive
critiscism is welcome.

I'm sure Google was a great help. You forgot to include a few of your
resources, such as "Weekly World News." Perhaps aliens penetrated while
Columbia in orbit.

If you wish to commemorate Columbia this is NOT the way to do it.
--
Barbara Needham

OK, Sparky, back into the nut bag with you.

plonk



"Skorpious" wrote in message
...
Yes I know what publiszizing my website on this newsgroup will mean but I
believe that the ISS may be in line to suffer the same fate as the
Columbia.
I don't know why but I have a hunch that there is an ongoing effort to get
rid of both programs and perhaps awareness is the only thing that can help
save them. Remember, without longterm missions onboard the ISS, several
months to years, there will be no Mars mission with its long travel time.

Ok here it is...my website that is the product of constant work for 16
months is at
http://www.columbiassacrifice.com

If you view the site keep in mind that I fully accept that there are
probably at least a couple of things I am wrong about but I also believe
that there are more than a few things I am right about. All constructive
critiscism is welcome.

Thank you

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 12:18:10 -0400, "Terrell Miller"
wrote:

quote

How much damage would the shuttle have to sustain to cause a catastrophic
failure of the thermal protection system during reentry?

/quote

depends on where the damage occurs. A lot for the tiles, very little for the
RCC as it turns out. That's covered in quite a bit of detail in the CAIB

I wouldn't say that. The 107 foam-shedding was by far the largest
piece of launch debris ever seen to impact the Orbiter. The problem
isn't that the RCC was too vulnerable, its that the warning signs of
an escalating problem were consistently ignored.

Brian

Who is this peckerwood, Scorpious????

Derek Lyons wrote:

"Skorpious" wrote:
Ok here it is...my website that is the product of constant work for 16
months is at
http://www.columbiassacrifice.com

If that took 16 months to build.... The message you wrote here must
have taken *weeks*.

If you view the site keep in mind that I fully accept that there are
probably at least a couple of things I am wrong about but I also believe
that there are more than a few things I am right about.

There is not a single thing right about that site.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

As has been pointed out to you several times, the end of both programs (with
respect to NASA involvement) have been announced.


Tentative date of 2010 for shuttle. how many truly believe thats enough time to
complete ISS construction? NASA will drag its feet to keep the standing army
employeed as long as possible. Plus with ISS contiuning for longer than 2010
there doesnt appear to be a clear resupply vehicle ready either.

If say they shuttles were grounded twice more before 2010 for needed safety
fixes does anyone believe that 2010 will stick?

Even presently assuming RTF next year with 4 or 5 flights per year its going to
be tough to complete the station even in a 3 person max configuration
HAVE A GREAT DAY!