Talk:Space Shuttle Columbia disaster/Archive 1

Recent lecture on the subject
I recently went to a lecture at UCSD on this subject, given by one of the principle investigators in NASA's return-to-flight program. Some of his findings should make their way into this article, but I don't want to disturb your careful editing and fragile consensus...


 * A coating of Inconel was found on the inside of the left wing's carbon-carbon tiles, and nowhere else. This is the most important piece of forensic evidence in the investigation, in my opinion.
 * In an "admiral test," a chunk of foam was shot out of a cannon at a dummy wing, under realistic conditions. This put a very large hole in tile 6, rather than just shifting the T-seals, as you report.  From the video, it looked like 60-80% of the tile was removed by the impact.
 * Countless numerical simulations (FEM studies, using L-Dyna) were performed. These reached such a degree of accuracy that the size and shape of the hole and the surrounding cracks from the above-mentioned test were predicted in detail, although in the simulation one large chunk of tile failed to separate.

If you have questions about this, I'll respond. I'm entirely convinced by this investigator's explanation.

Destruction of Columbia Distracts

 * The accident of the shuttle is a tragedy for the famillies of the victims but the medias seam to forget at every year in the world 40'000'000 die just because they have nothing to eat. So what? Dom


 * No-one is forgetting anything, starvation is disgusting, but we would not be human if we were not interested in the Columbia story. Your holier-than-thou posturing isn't required here: it doesn't help. 138.37.188.109


 * Yeah, starvation in the 21st century is more a problem of despotism, corruption and bad governance than it is of agriculture. Perhaps the starving should move to where the food is?  Or perhaps it's merely natural law at work?  At any rate, it has nothing to do with the Columbia disaster.

Renaming Away from Unsupported "explosion"
This page needs to be renamed since there is no evidence that the shuttle was destroyed by an explosion. All evidence so far indicates it disintegrated so lets rename this page to Space Shuttle Columbia disaster or something similar. --mav


 * The title doesn't indicate destruction and there is evidence of an explosion over Palestine, but I agree that disaster is probably a better title. Can someone fix the pronunciation character in the main article?  I couldn't get the article to show an upside down e. B

Might it be better to merge it into STS-107 (or at least for the two to be one article, whatever the title)? --Camembert


 * The articles, as they should, cover two different subjects: the STS-107 covers the entire mission; and the disaster article covers only this aspect of the mission in greater detail...when, where, who, why. B


 * That still doesn't necessarily warrant two articles. It would be nice to focus everyone's effort on a single article, channelling attention to the other aspects of STS-107 rather than relegating that article to relative obscurity and having a great article on the explosion itself. -- RobLa 20:40 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

This article is going to grow as information is released that is disaster specific, whereas the other page is going to grow as information is retrieved which refers to the actual mission. Vera Cruz

Discussion of Quick Editions
Just want to give an attaboy to everyone who contributed to this article, & got it promptly into place. I heard about this disaster 30 minutes after it happened when the wife turned on the tv, & I was able to learn the important details by looking at this article -- which came up faster than the link to the article on CNN. -- llywrch 19:38 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting this page up so quickly. This is what makes Wikipedia so special, that it can be almost up to the minute in its information. I'm just watching the coverage here in Dublin on Sky News; I only discovered about the accident 30 minutes ago. My sympathies to the people of the United States and of course Israel on the loss of life. JTD 20:12 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

--- Yeah! That's Wikipedia! But I think whether considering the possibility of a terrorist atack wouldn't be a problem of imparcial opinion? I wonder if this evil axis has not gone so far. Let's stop the war. Peace now!

Waking to news this disaster on Sunday morning in New Zealand, can someone advise the time difference between UTC and EST? I am unable to work out exactly when this disaster ocurred. Nearest I can get is a bit after Midnight NZDT, give or take a few hours.


 * EST is UTC-5. --nknight

Also, a note on accuracy, as news of this disaster evolves, better information comes available, For Example the NASA Emergency Notice states : "Communication and tracking of the shuttle was lost at 9 a.m. at an altitude of about 203,000 feet above north central Texas while traveling approximately 12,500 miles per hour (Mach 18)." This is slightly different to the 207,000 feet and Mach 17 currently in the article. Can someone verify which facts are correct and update the article? Also Reuters reports (Ron) Dittemore (Space Shuttle Program Manager) said the space agency picked up first indications of a problem ... with loss of key data transmissions from the left side of the orbiter. Is anyone else able to verify this significant fact?
 * Have now found better quotes and articles on this incident and heard quotes on radio news - have added to article. -- kiwiinapanic 00:23 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

Modemac notes (Maybe it's obvious to state that all seven crew members died, but you never know.) - I think this is a fair assumption, now, even before this has been officially determined. Perhaps it has not been so boldly stated before now out of respect. We are writing for the future, so we may need to wait for reasonable evidence even before stating the obvious. - kiwiinapanic 00:34 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)


 * The loss of contact was expected and planned by NASA...

From the NASA briefing this afternoon, it was mentioned that the loss of data and communications signals were not expected, as the shuttle was at an altitude and in an area suited for signal pickup. I would suggest possible revision of this statement if it can be confirmed that this is the case. - Jsmaria 04:02 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)


 * I think a loss of contact was expected, but not so soon, and not in that area. Atorpen


 * A better term for the planned loss of contact is radio blackout. According to the Space Shuttle Operator's Manual (Becontree Press 1982) this occurs between L-25 and L-12 minutes, with maximum heating at L-20 minutes.  However, it would appear that telemetry may continue to be received during the radio blackout.  Given the timing I suspect that loss of contact was expected but the manner of the loss was unusual.  The wording does need rephrasing - perhaps the news will help. kiwiinapanic


 * ABC television said that there is no radio blackout inside the atmosphere -- contact was regained once the shuttle came into the atmosphere, and should have remained until landing. -- Zoe


 * Have now seen the TV news and it is clear that there was no radio blackout. Mission Control was in active communications with Columbia, discussing sensor readings when communications was unexpectedly disrupted.  Columbia was transmitting with last words being Rodger, uh... - (Possible sounds of explosion - Communications disruption - loss of signals). kiwiinapanic 05:41 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

Removed the sentence:
 * The loss of contact was expected and planned by NASA as a standard consequence of the shuttle passing through the ionosphere.
 * The above is not true. Radio Blackout is due to ionisation of air caused by heating due to the passage of a spacecraft into the atmosphere. I (kiwiinapanic) have changed this to read.


 * At time of the communications disruption, Mission Control was discussing abnormal sensor readings with Columbia.

Suitability of Photograph Captions
I'd just like to note that having "The crew in happier times" for the photo caption is considered appropriate and common-practice where I live, but that the practice of refering to a dead crew as being just "the crew" kind of feels inappropriate for me. Just differences in practice between different countries, I did not put it there as 'vandalism'.
 * I don't think anyone thought it was vandalism. 138.37.188.109


 * The crew photo could be titled Crew of STS-107 on Launch Day - though I won't do that. I think it insensitive to use euphemistic terminology in this publication and in these circumstances.  Being factual, and specific, rather than implying emotions, even those that appear obviously.  Let the photo speak for itself.  I do not think the obvious emotions need to be stated in a caption.

Launch Day Link and Tribute

 * I changed Launch Day to launch day, on the assumption that it is NOT an offical term that always gets set in U/C. If I was wrong please change it back: I just felt it looked wrong like that. 138.37.188.109

I also moved the bit about paying tribute to later in the article. It is interesting and relevant but not of such primary importance as to need to be almost the first thing you read. Hope this is OK. 138.37.188.109

Controversial Edit Regarding Involvement
The use of the term "involved" is irresponsible journalism: The word means, complicated, complex or intricate; You have no such reasonable expectation, neither historically nor technically: Historically terrorists having been predicting "spectacle over America" (which the WTC was not "over" but in one place); technically NASA has long known of underwing damage during liftoff of shuttle missions---the kind of terrorists at work are clearly competent enough to sabotage the replacement tiles with compromised quality at the manufacturer source, making them inadequate for the heat of reentry.... You have virtual proof that terrorism was, "involved"---what you don't have is expectancy of incident terrorism like a rail-gun shot.


 * What an extremely strange contribution. I have tried hard to understand it but cannot. It seems to be based on a rather odd overreaction caused by your somewhat narrow definition of the word "involved". Could you please have another go at explaining exactly what it is that worries you about the article? Thanks. 62.30.150.99 08:37 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)

It seems that there is misunderstanding here - the word involved was used as a verb in the article, and it does not mean complex/complicated/intricate there. It appears that the sentence was interpreted to mean that terrorists are not capable of something as "involved" as downing the space shuttle, and the objection seems to be to that interpretation. So, it is just a language problem.

Link Rot Issues and Archives
The first of the external links be done with this link - is there an archived copy of the notice on the NASA site, or should it just be removed from the article? Tompagenet 01:43, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * See if there's a working link on the Internet Archive. If so, it's safe to use that link. Zippy 01:55, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Integration of Entries
I think it's time to integrate Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and Space Shuttle Columbia into a single article. There is a lack of parallelism between the way the Columbia and Challenger articles are handled and I see no reason the disaster info can't be included in the main article (with a redirect at the disaster article so nobody is dead-ended). I plan to do this soon if no major objections arise. Jgm 15:15, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree... I can merge it as well if Jgm doesn't. Evil saltine 09:52, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Finally got around to it. Jgm 22:16, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * No, NO, NO! You fix that by expanding the Space Shuttle Challenger article to a point where the disaster text can be summarized there and spun off into its own article. Now the nice summary that was at Space Shuttle Columbia is gone and it is replaced by an entire article. Please do not confuse the topics of articles; this one is about the disaster and Space Shuttle Columbia is about the shuttle - all missions. I'm going to move the text back where it was developed - here. --mav 23:36, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, clearly one could obtain a parallel situation either way, and we disagree about what the best way is -- a key tenet of Wikipedia is that there are no limits on article length; why make a reader navigate around multiple pages to find the details they were looking for? That's what tables of contents are for.  As to "balance", I say piffle: if you want balance flesh out the other sections of the article; the nature of the system is that the subsections that gain the most content are by definition the ones that need it most.  I suppose I won't revert this or spend much more energy on it, though I think the combined article is better than the sum of the two now (and I did give two months' warning in two different places).  Jgm 01:11, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually that is already the case. See STS-51-L. --mav


 * Not really. At the time I wrote of the lack of parallelism between Challenger and Columbia, the information on the Challenger loss was in the main Challenger article.  Since then the individual mission articles have been created, and the detail on the Challenger loss moved to the STS-51-L article.  So now we for Columbia we have *three* articles (Space Shuttle Columbia, Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, and STS-107) all covering bits of the story.  Ugh. Jgm 01:11, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah so - there are three subjects: Space Shuttle Columbia (subject is the Columbia shuttle), STS-107 (subject is what the mission was and its results), and Space Shuttle Columbia disaster (subject is the break-up, its causes and the investigation that followed). If and when any sub-topic in those articles gets too long, then other articles can be created and summaries left in their parent (the investigation in this article may eventually be spun off and a summary of the investigation left in its place). That is news style and is useful to the reader because it gives them to choice on how much detail they want to read (if they want a summary on a sub-topic then they will just read that and not go to an article dealing with the sub-topic in more detail). --mav 03:17, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Three articles seems right to me. Maybe four if I ever write a full CAID article, though I'll try that in this one first until people complain that it's way too long. The mission itself should follow the usual mission format, with all the experiments and such described in detail and link to full details of loss. The main Columbia article covers everything and mentions and links to the loss article and the loss article covers that in great detail (more than we have now). Jamesday 11:32, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

One more thing while I'm ranting here: I actively dislke the term disaster as it's used in this article title -- a "disaster" is in the eye of the beholder and is inherently POV. Jgm 01:18, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Only if you change the definition of disaster.

disaster n 1: a state of extreme (usually irremediable) ruin and misfortune; "lack of funds has resulted in a catastrophe           for our school system"; "his policies were a disaster" [syn: catastrophe] 2: an event resulting in great loss and misfortune; "the whole         city was affected by the irremediable calamity"; "the          earthquake was a disaster" [syn: calamity, catastrophe, tragedy, cataclysm] 3: an act that has disastrous consequences


 * The break-up of the Columbia was a disaster for that shuttle, its crew, the family members of the crew, the shuttle program and for the entire United States (and to some extent the world). It is also the common name of the incident. --mav


 * If I may, an attaboy to the participants thusfar. This talk page has been in many ways as informative as the article itself. Brings back a lot of very vivid memories seeing the first few posts. Take a bow, all. --134.198.241.50 23:41, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Photographs of Beam or Bolt of Energy Striking Columbia
As far as I can tell, he's cited a credible source and made a relavent observation. I see no reason to take it out. &rarr;Raul654 20:33, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

-

And here are articles discussing that photographed beam striking the Columbia:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/02/11/MN150539.DTL&type=science http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/news/1044647336115990.xml http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/02/31315.php

Right then. Perhaps you can tell me what is wrong with my version? Evercat 21:04, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea what is wrong with your "version," I have no idea which version is yours or whose, I simply correct errors. - Plautus Satire

Why did you keep reverting even after I kept this stuff in the page? ie this version. I think it's the best compromise you're likely to get. Evercat 21:08, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea what you put in or took out or when, and it's a dead issue now, the entry is protected with the reference to the photographs of the beam, although I would be happier if links were added to the "external links" section to reflect the existence of these credible reports of those beams or bolts striking the Columbia. - Plautus Satire

Oh so you were just reverting without looking at what changes had been made. That's nice. Would you be happy with the version mentioned above? Evercat 21:14, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, undercat, what I was doing was correcting errors of omission, without regard for who was doing it. - Plautus Satire


 * What did I omit, please? Evercat 21:18, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I already told you, I don't follow personalities. I stick to the facts, regardless of the presenter. - Plautus Satire


 * Fine, fine, whatever. So what "important facts" were missing from my version, which I thought was a reasonable compromise, yet you reverted it anyway, with the edit line revert from evercat's hack? Evercat 12:31, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Fine, fine, whatever. The errors in your edit are as follows:
 * 1) You introduce "conspiracy theory" where it does not belong. Why did you feel the need to mention what "conspiracy theorists" believe? Are you aware that FBI investigators are "conspiracy theorists"? Is that what the FBI thinks happened? A laser hit the Columbia? What about police detectives? They routinely engage in conspiracy theory. Do they also think that lasers hit the Columbia and destroyed it? Do all "conspiracy theorists" (amateur and professional) believe this as well? Either ammend this blanket statement so that it does not cast that backhanded "conspiracy theorist" slur or move this FACTUAL PRESENTATION OF DATA away from mentions of "conspiracy theory". (Held at arm's length, of course, right? No conspiracy theories are valid, right?)
 * 2) You introduce this FACTUAL OBSERVATION FROM THE GROUND OF THE COLUMBIA in a section you titled "other theories". Reporting of factual observations from the ground belong with other reported factual observations from the ground, not "penned up" in a little section designed to keep uncomfortable facts out of your sight (without a lot of scrolling). Plautus satire 16:08, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The issue is one of importance. The reader is entitled to ask why this information is important. It's clearly not considered important by the official investigators, which is why doesn't belong in the main timeline. But for it to appear at all, we need to know who does consider it important, otherwise it's just an irrelevant piece of data. The answer to the question of who does consider it important is conspiracy theorists - a term which, despite your protestations, is quite well understood. Evercat 20:02, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * And where do you point out the importance of the "red flare" noted in the timeline? Who thinks it's important and why? No clue, but you know that "conspiracy theorists" at the San Francisco Chronicle, Huntsville Times and NASA and Boeing think the beam or bolt of energy photographed striking the Columbia moments before it started to come apart is important.


 * Note: Plautus has inserted text above which destroys the context of my message below. Evercat 20:23, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * ''Note: I explained why I inserted this text. In my original statement I intended to indicate that Evercat somehow "knows" that those two news organizations and NASA and Boeing do not think photographs of a bolt of energy striking the Columbia are important. I left out a negative and instead said the opposite. Clearly Evercat does "know" that the photographs of that bolt of energy striking the Columbia are "unimportant".
 * Do they? If you can show that NASA consider it important then fine, it might belong in the timeline. But I've not seen any evidence that this alleged bolt of energy is an important factor for the investigation, which seems to have focused on the foam impact. Evercat 19:55, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry about the above, I meant to say "unimportant," indicating that you stated they were "unimportant," even though they were reported by those two papers and by NASA and Boeing through their agents. I don't know how to go about changing that without causing an uproar, so I will just attempt that again below:
 * And where do you point out the importance of the "red flare" noted in the timeline? Who thinks it's important and why? No clue, but you know that "conspiracy theorists" at the San Francisco Chronicle, Huntsville Times and NASA and Boeing think the beam or bolt of energy photographed striking the Columbia moments before it started to come apart is unimportant.
 * How do you come by this knowlege that the photographs are seen by those two news agencies and NASA as unimportant? Both news agencies printed multiple stories on the photographs and agents of NASA and Boeing have also announced limited information about the photographs, and the media has consistently ignored it. I know only of a single question raised during the Columbia press conferences regarding them, and the answer indicated the images were extremely interesting to NASA and Boeing people and they could not identify what was in these photographs. That definitely seems to me to be very significant. Granted, wikipedia is not for news flashes, but this is no less trivial a detail than edits to the entry to INCLUDE naked-eye observations from the ground. Why are telescopic, photographed observations therefore EXCLUDED? It's because you don't like the implications. Not liking the implications does not overturn reality. Perhaps you should investigate more carefully into the notion of "neutral point of view" when you determine where data should go into an entry and how it should be characterized (or even IF you should be tainting the data in the first place by "characterizing" it). - Plautus satire 20:13, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * ''Note: I have now moved this to AFTER Evercat's post, hopefully that will satisfy the extraordinarily picky, or the anal retentive, or whoever it is out there with the bug up their backside that wants to ban over every single misplaced comma or period.


 * You mean the investigation led by the Department of Defense? NASA and Boeing are still following up fault tree analysis, and they have not been "focused on the foam impact" as you suggest.
 * Ron Dittemore of NASA stated categorically many times to the media that they and Boeing are not engaged in speculation followed by search for evidence to support that speculation.
 * When the CAIB was formed, Sean O'Keefe and Harold Gehman both said that they would steer the investigation toward foam damage and try to find evidence to support that. Is that objective? Is that science? Which do you trust? A report of a foregone conclusion propped up by as much evidence as will stand scrutiny or a fault tree analysis of every single shred of evidence available and conclusions drawn only from that available evidence?
 * Now can you explain why this observation from the ground does not belong with other, similar observations from the ground around the same time? Oh, I know why, because the idea of a beam or bolt of energy striking the Columbia just moments before it started coming apart makes you very uncomfortable. It's a fact that makes you uncomfortable, so you are trying to characterize it as an irrelevant fact, by saying that "conspiracy theorists" abound at the San Francisco Chronicle, the Huntsville Times, at NASA and at Boeing. Interesting theory.
 * By the way, I don't protest the term "conspiracy theorists." What I protest is the notion that "conspiracy theorists" lack credibility. I have cited many examples of professional conspiracy theorists who enjoy a wealth of power and authority that is willingly granted to them by the whole of society, for example the police. - Plautus satire 18:36, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

-

Yes, it WAS reported that someone took a photograph that alleged showing something purple near the shuttle. The purple "zap" is an artifact of the camera, the purple fringe can be reproduced with many CCD cameras. There is a conspiracy theory being presented by Plautus Satire on various other websites (google the user name and "columbia") and this looks like another attempt to further it. If this purple beam had anything to do with the tragedy then it would have been reported, and it hasn't been other than the intial reports of the photographs. SheikYerBooty 21:16, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Are you aware here that you say "it was reported" followed by "if it had anything to do with the tragedy it would have been reported"? By your own logic, this photographed beam or bolt of energy had something to do with the destruction of the Columbia by the Starfire beamed energy weapons range. - Plautus Satire-


 * Are you aware that you misquoted me and took it out of it's proper context? You are stating, as a fact, that there are photographs showing "beams or bolts of energy striking the orbiter".  I'm not disputing that there are photographs, I just dispute what they show.  Being a science-minded person I'm sure you've heard of Occam's Razor, try applying it to these photographs.  Reporters don't generally have a scientific background, so I'm not really putting any stock in what one of them thinks they saw in a picture. We should stick to the facts in the timeline, not introduce extraneous information, especially something that the CAIB report later determined "the pattern was due to camera vibrations during a long-exposure". SheikYerBooty 04:42, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * I didn't misquote you, you misspoke and apparently now misremember. Your statements are above, you can see I perverted neither the context nor the implication of your own words.
 * I did not state any speculation about what this photographed beam or bolt of energy was. I stated as a fact, and am willing to state again as a fact, that the San Francisco Chronicle reported on this beam or bolt of energy striking the Columbia. The Columbia "Accident" "Investigation" Board did not provide credible evidence to back up their claim that these photographs were "artifacts" of a faulty camera and they have in no way shown that these "artifacts" are the result of a reproducible malfunction.
 * I'm glad you've stopped insisting that these photographs were not taken. Then stop engaging in contrarian trolling.
 * Being a "science-minded person," I am aware that Ockham's razor is not science, but merely a rule of thumb.
 * Many reporters have a "scientific background," contrary to your misconception on the matter. And the former NASA astronaut who was cited as exclaiming, "wow" upon seeing the images? What about her "scientific background"? And Ron Dittemore's claims that they represent no known phenomenon with which anyone at NASA is familiar? What about Ron Dittemore's "scientific background"?
 * The Columbia "Accident" "Investigation" Board is not a credible source of information regarding the Columbia. Perhaps you should get your information about this incident from the "horse's mouth," so to speak, instead of the horse's ass (Admiral Harold Gehman), who suggested fixing nonexistent damage to the RCC of the wing leading edge with bags of water and tape., - Plautus
 * (PS: Why did you feel the need to change the formatting of my responses to your post? You whined like a little baby when I inserted my responses into your edits. Why have you now changed the format of MY posts? I did not change anything in your posts here, I simply inserted my responses where they were appropriate. You have gone far beyond that, taking my in-context responses and placing them in one large out-of-context jumble. My edits would have left both posts readable, your edits removed mine from their context and made them appear to be nonsense. Don't do it again, this is your last warning.)

You are correct that digital cameras often produce an effect known as "fringing," but this fringing does NOT occur in the absence of an object producing the image. Ergo, this beam was a real object, captured by a digital camera, the color of which around the fringes may be distorted. Does this explain away the beam or does it simply imply the beam was very bright? - Plautus Satire

It implies that you haven't read the CAIB report. What the image you're referencing shows as the "beam" is variation in the normal plasma effects from the orbiter as it returns to earth, as a result of five minutes of accumulated damage from re-entry with a hole in the wing. The first sign of the damage to the orbiter was on MADS data at 13:48:39 (CAIB Volume 1 page 38). The oribiter passed over California starting at about 13:53 (CAIB Volume 1 page 40). The Kirkland image is considered on page 71. See Appendix G-5 NSTS-37379 Starfire Team Final Report, pages 359-362 and 376-381 (PDF) for additional images and analysis.
 * No, that is not the image to which I refer. That's the image to which you refer. I'm referring to the images taken by a San Francisco astronomer that clearly show a beam or bolt of energy striking the Columbia just moments before the onset of its destruction. The Starfire images only prove that Starfire (a beamed energy weapons range) was indeed tracking the orbiter. The photographs from the San Francisco astronomer prove only that some sort of energy bolt or beam was striking the orbiter just prior to the beginning of its destruction. - Plautus Satire


 * If you can find a copy of the photograph I'd like to include it in the article because it's interesting to have the images which attracted most attention in the early days here. Did you mean the image the CAIB describes as '6.4.3 Special Still Imagery Analyses of Alleged "Lightning" Image. A still image taken from California was submitted to NASA by a member of the public. A superficial look at the image suggested that it might record an anomalous re-entry event that was claimed to be lightning striking the Orbiter. Our analysis suggested that the pattern was due to camera vibrations during a long-exposure'. That's on page 114 of the Image Analysis Team Final Report, the CAIB Report Volume 4 Part 2 (PDF). The report mentions but doesn't link to further analysis being done on the image. When it comes to what the SF Chronical reported, we have to be careful to report exactly what they published, which seems to be "that appears to show a purplish electrical bolt striking the craft" (from your first link). Jamesday 02:45, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the image. As you say, it is mentioned in the CAIB report and dismissed without qualification as an artifact or defect of the camera. Absolutely no basis is given for this conclusion. In other words, it's a baseless conclusion. Should we insert baseless conclusions all over wikipedia starting now? If this contention by the CAIB is included, it should be noted that no known evidence supports this conclusion and all known evidence refutes it. - Plautus satire 18:40, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

- If you're going to postulate the Shuttle being shot down, it's best not to have the shot happening five minutes after the orbiter showed damage from it. If you want to have it be a beam weapon, it helps if the beam weapon doesn't look just like the normal plasma from the shuttle re-entry. Jamesday 22:02, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I did not insert into the space shuttle columbia disaster entry any suggestion that Starfire shot down the Columbia. What I do with my own Geocities web space is my business. Facts are facts. Undeniable facts can only be denied by contrarian fools. - Plautus Satire

- Your statements above imply that the CAIB is a reliable source of information. If you had watched the testimony you would know this is not the case. Board members routinely mischaracterized, misinterpreted, misunderstood and misused testimony from NASA and Boeing engineers. In fact, the ruler of the CAIB said that NASA should have fixed nonexistent damage to the RCC of the wing leading edge with bags of water and tape.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3077565/ ''"?Anything that had heat-absorbing properties? would be stuffed into the hole, Gehman reported, including flexible thermal blankets from the upper surface of the shuttle. Heavy metal objects such as stainless steel tools would be jammed into the breach, as well as bags of water that would be left to freeze. Teflon tape would cover the hole, and be cooled initially by the water ice behind it."

And as for Starfire, who admits they were tracking the Columbia, Starfire is a beamed energy weapons lab, cut and dried, operated by the Directed Energy Directorate and owned wholly by the Department of Defense.

Can you show me some pictures of this "normal plasma" from shuttle reentries that looks like lightning? Of course you can't. That's why Ron Dittemore of NASA was quoted saying of these photographs that they don't represent any known atmospheric phenomenon with which anybody at NASA was familiar.

Who's postulating that the shuttle was shot down? I simply inserted a factual statement about some photographs of very anamolous bolts or beams of energy striking the Columbia just moments before it started to break up. End of story.

- Plautus -
 * He photographed something that looked like a red flare. It's entirely your supposition that this flare or whatever it was represented "very anamolous bolts or beams of energy striking the Columbia". It's speculation, nothing more. -- ChrisO 01:45, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "he" here. The entry as I first saw it stated a newspaper journalist witnessed an event consisting of a "flare". I did not dispute that, as I have no knowlege it is false (yet). I inserted the (I feel) very relevant fact that an amateur astronomer took five photographs of a beam or bolt of energy striking the Columbia moments before telemetry began to indicate problems. What's speculation is your contention that you and I are talking about the same witnesses reporting the same observations. Clearly we are not. You are referring to a journalist with "eyewitness" testimony and I am referring to an amateur astronomer with a story AND photographs. - Plautus Satire

- I've watched every CAIB hearing and press briefing at least twice and have the video of all of them on my computers here, as part of a mirror of everything on the CAIB web site. I've already pointed you to photographs of the plasma, as well as analysis of images from Starfire. See the link to the PDF of CAIB Report appendix G-5 in my earlier response and look at the page numbers I gave.
 * Your earlier response is just as inappropriate here. I am not referring to the images that prove the Starfire beamed energy weapons lab was targeting the Columbia while a San Francisco astronomer was photographing beams or bolts of energy striking the orbiter. I am merely referring to the images from that astronomer that show the beams or bolts of energy striking the orbiter. - Plautus Satire

Your page 'Is this "purple beam" part of a missile defense system?' www.geocities.com/plautus_satire/columbia/X/ postulates that the Columbia was shot down, as does spaceshuttle-columbia.com/forum/display_message.asp?mid=31 "what are the odds that this orbiter was a sacrificial lamb to further some hidden agenda?", also by you. Jamesday 23:54, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * That is correct. And my web space on Geocities is mine to do with as I please. I did not post to wikipedia that the Columbia orbiter was "shot down," I merely inserted the (I feel) very relevant fact that an amateur San Francisco astronomer photographed a beam or bolt of energy striking the Columbia just prior to its destruction. You can look on the San Francisco Chronicle's web site for proof of my claim.
 * http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/02/05/MN192153.DTL&type=science
 * http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/02/11/MN150539.DTL
 * I'm sorry you disagree with demonstrable facts. That doesn't change the fact that this item belongs in this entry. - Plautus Satire


 * Thanks for clarifying which image you meant. Jamesday

I would like to see the pictures of the "beams" or "bolts", do you have a link for them? If you don't then we can't really say with any certainty that they really happened and that they had anything to do with the breakup. End of story. I'm not interested in reading about someone's opinion before they had a chance to analyze the alleged pictures, I want to know what the opinion of them NOW is. SheikYerBooty 00:00, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * No, I do not, as the pictures have never been released to the public. Copies of the images were received by a former NASA astronaut, receipt was confirmed at Huntsville by Ron Dittemore, Michael Kostelnik and others of NASA, and existence of the pictures reported in the San Francisco Chronicle (where the photographs were taken) and in Huntsville (where they were received finally by NASA at the HQ in Huntsville).


 * Of course you're right. Because I can not show you the images must be a good reason to disbelieve NASA, the SF Chronicle and the Huntsville, Alabama Times. And what analysis of the images did I suggest? None. I simply reported that these beams or bolts were reported at the time, which they were. Draw your own conclusions. Wikipedia is not for drawing conclusions, but relating factual information. - Plautus Satire


 * So it's second-hand speculation without anything that we can confirm ourselves? This is getting better by the minute... -- ChrisO 02:18, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * No, it's first-hand reporting by a San Francisco Chronicle reporter who saw the photographs, similar first-hand reporting by the Huntsville Times, Ron Dittemore, Michael Kostelnik and many others. - Plautus Satire

I've not been involved in this debate until now, so I can claim to have a neutral view here.

I think there are two issues that need to be addressed: what the disputed paragraph says and where it should go. The paragraph says (with the disputed part in bold):


 * At about 05:54 PST (08:54 EST), a California news photographer observed pieces breaking away from Columbia as it passed overhead, as well as a red flare coming from the shuttle itself. The San Francisco Chronicle later reported that an amateur San Francisco astronomer had taken five photographs with a Nikon 880 digital camera that depicted an orange beam or bolt of energy or electrical activity tinged with purple striking the Columbia just is it began breaking up. 

I don't think this is at all satisfactory. It makes two assumptions: that the red flare seen in the photograph represented an "orange beam or bolt of energy or electrical activity" and that it was "striking the Columbia".
 * It would seem the one making assumptions here is you. Perhaps you should read this: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/02/11/MN150539.DTL
 * "At previous press conferences, NASA officials have said they were trying to assess the 'validity' of the image, which was taken during the time when sensors on the shuttle's left wing first showed indications of a problem." - Plautus Satire

I can think of two alternative explanations off the top of my head - that it was a lens flare or outgassing from the damaged wing.
 * Well you need to call NASA and tell them your two explanations. They have only said that they are baffled by the images. - Plautus Satire

If it was outgassing, the flare could just as easily have been coming out of the Columbia rather than going into it. The precise explanation isn't important.
 * Perhaps a precise explanation of the images is not important to you. How important do you think it is to the families of the dead astronauts? - Plautus Satire

The point is that the article shouldn't try to state as fact any specific explanation, particularly not when it's as speculative as this.
 * I did not offer any explanation, I only stated the verifiable fact that this report of the beams or bolts of energy was made, and that photographs of the phenomenon exist and were also reported. - Plautus Satire

Bear in mind also that NASA's explanation is also a theory, albeit one which best fits the available facts.
 * You mean the CAIB's explanation. NASA has not yet offered an explanation. In addition, NASA and Boeing have both said since day one (1) that they stand by their debris analysis and were satisfied that the foam presented no danger and was most probably not the cause but merely an obvious scapegoat. NASA and Boeing are not paid to jump to conclusions based on foamology like the mass media and the masses in general do.
 * NASA and Boeing have been steadily doing fault tree analysis which to this day is not complete. And NASA and Boeing both know that fault tree analysis will identify which system failed when (at best), and not necessarily why or how. Ron Dittemore stated very early that we would probably never know the ultimate cause, but that it could be narrowed down, and that foam was probably not it. - Plautus Satire

The second question is where the paragraph should go. By placing it right at the top of the article, it implies strongly that the "beam striking the Columbia" explanation is why the accident happened.
 * By placing it in correct chronological order it fits both the style and content of the preexisting page. - Plautus Satire

This gets the order of the article wrong - the timeline should comprise a list of what was observed from the ground at the time.
 * uhh...these photographs were taken by an astronomer ON THE GROUND. - Plautus Satire

Theories about the cause the disaster did not emerge until after it had happened (obviously). Any theories of what happened should thus go in the "Investigation" section which discusses events after the crash.
 * It's not a theory that a beam or bolt of energy was photographed striking the Columbia. It's a fact. - Plautus Satire

There is a related question as to what order the explanations should appear in. I think the official explanation should appear first; it is, after all, the official explanation and the most widely accepted. The "beam" explanation is a clearly fringe theory.
 * Ah, back to maligning the bleeding edge. Well done. Let's give this guy the ostrich award. Would you please look through my telescope, sir?
 * Look, I didn't insert a theory or any speculation, I inserted a relevant fact. These photographs were taken, and it was reported, this is not Plautus Satire's news flash, it was reported by two reputable mass media outlets, namely the Huntsville Times and the San Francisco Chronicle. I'm sorry the rest of the mass media decided to keep you ignorant about the pictures until now. That does not mean it's a theory. Look it up. It's a fact, jack. - Plautus Satire

Having said all of this, I think Evercat was right to put the paragraph where s/he did, but I think that it needs more work to make it less speculative. Say something like "At about 05:54 PST (08:54 EST), a California news photographer observed pieces breaking away from Columbia as it passed overhead, as well as a red flare coming from the shuttle itself. Some people have suggested that the five photographs taken by the photographer show an orange beam or bolt of energy or electrical activity tinged with purple striking the Columbia just it began breaking up." (It would be a good idea to add another sentence indicating NASA's view of this theory.) -- ChrisO 01:03, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * You started by saying it was speculation (which I've now proven to you it was not) then you say you want to "fix it" by adding what some speculate based on these facts? I think you're right, YOUR addition should go elsewhere, but the one I inserted should remain exactly as it stands. - Plautus Satire
 * By the way, I should add that the background to this claim appears to be a conspiracy theory that Columbia was accidentally shot down by a US Air Force directed energy beam (i.e. a laser). See http://www.totse.com/en/politics/us_military/dedculpritinor168844.html . Others have claimed that it was the work of UFOs or a "scalar weapon" (no idea what that is, but see http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=28143 ). I'm sure you can work out for yourself how likely these explanations might be. What's for sure is that this disaster appears to have got a lot of kooky types very excited. -- ChrisO 01:07, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * By the way, Temple of the Screaming Electron is not wikipedia. Neither is rumormillnews.com. Neither is Geocities and neither am I. Can we stay on topic here? Are you saying that because others share my conclusions based on the same sets of facts that I must be wrong? Please, get real. - Plautus Satire

I don't want to re-start the edit war but may we take out the "purple beam" reference from the timeline now? That information adds nothing of substance to the timelime, the photographs later were determined to be the result of camera movement. If it belongs in the article at all (doubtful) it should be in the Investigation section with a clear explanation that there was no "bolt or beam" involved with the accident - SheikYerBooty 15:58, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * This is a falsehood. No explanation has as of 2-14-2004 been given by NASA for what this might have been, and NASA is the only organization that is confirmed to have the images. - Plautus Satire


 * I've edited this page to put my comments back in the proper order. Plautus, do NOT edit them again, please. If you need to respond then put your response below, do not change my formatting or structure.  The CAIB report does explain what is shown in the pictures.  Since you have not seen the pictures, and they are not available for us to view, what you're trying to insert into the timeline is a guess made by a reporter for a newspaper and it's clear that it does not belong here.  You can't insist that the "bolts" "striking" the Columbia are "facts", regardless of how pesonally appealing you find that idea.  The purpose of the timeline is to establish the order of events and highlight key moments, not document insignificant items, especially ones that later turned out to be artifacts from a moving camera. SheikYerBooty 01:18, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Face it, you're wrong. The Columbia "Accident" "Investigation" Board has said many things that turned out not to be true, like the idea the nonexistent damage to the wing could have been fixed with bags of water and tape. They do not explain how this sort of artifact can be produced by this type of camera, nor have they reproduced any similar malfunctions with that camera. I can say all day long until the cows come home that this or that arbitrary picture is a "camera defect," unless I can prove it it's speculation at best. I inserted a fact into that entry and it was excised by people who don't like the implications of that fact. End of story, cut and dried. You can go to the news stories yourself and see that these images were reported. I'm sorry you missed them the first time around, they were hard to catch, but I saw them and I inserted them into the entry. What I insisted is that the San Fran Chron reported on the pictures, which they did, and nothing you can say or do will ever change that. Get over it and get over yourself. And as for where this FACT belongs, let's examine the entry where I placed it. Right in front of it was a mention of an OBSERVATION FROM CALIFORNIA FROM THE GROUND. The images were taken during an OBSERVATION FROM CALIFORNIA FROM THE GROUND. Why does this FACT not belong with a nearly identical FACT? Pray, do tell. - Plautus


 * Watch it Plautus - that was very close to a violation of our Wikiquette policy. --mav 02:32, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Plautus, by using scare quotes around the words accident and investigation you're making your bias crystal clear, hence your irrational requirement of having a reference to these alleged beams or bolts. You're a well known Columbia conspiracy theorist and your demands that this information be included in the Columbia disaster entry are not from a desire to see factual information but appear to be an attempt to build support for your theory.  You have not seen the pictures so you cannot tell us what they contain, you can only guess and provide a POV that strongly reflects your bias. I'm chosing not to respond to your personal attacks but I do hope that you will restrain yourself in the future. --SheikYerBooty 03:40, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * My personal beliefs have nothing to do with the material I edited into the entry. I reported that the San Fran Chron reported on the pictures, and they did. I'm sorry you find this objectionable, but facts are facts, and facts belong in the public domain, front and center AHEAD of speculation, not BEHIND it. I didn't report what the pictures contained, I reported on a report that told what the pictures contained. Have you ever edited information into wikipedia that you have not personally verified? Every edited anything into wikipedia that you only know by reading about and not by doing or witnessing? - Plautus satire 18:46, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

- I really fail to see why this information is presented in the entry as an adjunct to a "conspiracy theory". This is pure factual information, the time of which has been narrowed down to the moments just before the telemetry from the Columbia indicated trouble. Why people have such a strong reaction to this issue is beyond me. It's a clear-cut case of factual information being inserted at a point where it is relevant. I see no need to introduce "conspiracy theory" where it does not belong. (P.S.: I would like to apologize for coming on so strong, I realize now I breached the accepted codes of conduct here and I intend to comply just as every other productive user intends to.) - Plautus Satire

I agree that this shouldn't be presented as it is now. I'll write a section which better covers the early reports sometime over the next week or so. Jamesday 06:03, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I anxiously await your changes. Plautus satire 15:48, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dance of the SheikYerBooty
It seems SheikYerBooty is intent on living up to his confrontational implied threat ("I'm ready to dance with you.") he inserted into my attempts for mediation. SheikYerBooty has reversioned an entry that was reached over compromise by discussion in the talk pages. He has offered no explanation here for his actions, so I am going to change the page back to a widely-accepted version. - Plautus satire 15:22, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, Plautus, you modified the document away from the consensus version and back to your conspiracy theory version without comment on this page. Look directly above this latest entry of your (inflammatory title, btw) and you'll see that Jamesday offered to rewrite the entry (the consensus version) and you  said I anxiously await your changes.  Well, you didn't await his changes, you just changed it back to your version, a version that is factually wrong and extremely POV.  This has ALL been discusssed here on this page. --SheikYerBooty 15:32, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * SheikYerBooty, didn't you just change the section heading for this section, giving the section a new context? Haven't you jumped down my throat for that kind of thing? How is inserting factual early observations with other factual early observations "factually wrong and extremely POV". SheikYerBooty, I suggest that you are engaged in a personal vendetta here, as evidenced by your statements in my request for mediation that you're ready to "dance" with me. Apparently by "dance" you meant "go on an unwarranted reversion spree with Curps". - Plautus satire 15:36, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Also, SheikYerBooty, it was pointed out to me that calling something a "conspiracy theory" casts a tainted light on that subject and violates NPOV. So any reference to the reports of these photographs you dislike so much can not be called "conspiracy theory". For one thing, the photographs are not a conspiracy theory. For another thing, calling them such would be factual but violate NPOV as was explained to me by mav. mav, can you support me on this? You did say calling something "conspiracy theory" is used to casts a tainted light on it, and violated NPOV. - Plautus satire 15:42, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Why yes. Plautus, I did change the inflammatory section heading that you created. But I decided to let it stand as another example of your  mean spirited and belligerant attitude.  And yet again, what you inserted BACK into the article is not NPOV, it's not ever factually accurate and the the community consensus was not what you're claiming.  You said you would wait for a rewrite by Jamesday and then didn't.  It's all there Plautus, read your words and look at the page history. --SheikYerBooty 16:24, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

An example of my "mean spirited[sic] and belligerant[sic]" attitude? You announced your intention to "dance" and now you are "dancing". I feel the section title is both accurate and defensible. How is it that inserting verfiable, factual observations into the timeline violates NPOV? Can you explain that? In English? Without resorting to voodoo? - Plautus satire 17:39, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I have explained it numerous times, but I'll be happy to do it again for you. You inserted the following into the entry: The San Francisco Chronicle later reported that an amateur San Francisco astronomer had taken five photographs with a Nikon 880 digital camera that depicted an orange beam or bolt of energy or electrical activity tinged with purple striking the Columbia just is it began breaking up.  This is wrong on several counts.


 * What the SF Chronicle really said was: The digital image is one of five snapped by the shuttle buff at roughly 5: 53 a.m. Saturday. Not five images, 'one' image.


 * SF Chronicle did not unequivocally state what the photos depicted, they used this sentence: ...appears to show a purplish electrical bolt striking the craft as it streaked across the California sky.   You removed the "appears" part of it, turning speculation into "fact".


 * You embellished the reporting by adding this: orange beam or bolt of energy or electrical activity tinged with purple. Read the article again and tell me where you came up with an "orange beam", it's not in the SF Chron stories.
 * "They show a bright scraggly flash of orange light, tinged with pale purple, and shaped somewhat like a deformed L. The flash appears to cross the Columbia's dim contrail, and at that precise point, the contrail abruptly brightens and appears thicker and somewhat twisted as if it were wobbling."Photos show odd images near shuttle, David Perlman, Chronicle Science Editor
 * As is clearly demonstated immediately above, it was reported in the San Francisco Chronicle that the beam or bolt of energy was orange. - Plautus satire 20:57, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * What you also failed to include was the part of the story where they explain there are several possible explanations including a barely perceptable jiggle of the camera as it took the time exposure. The jiggle could have been introduced by the cameraman as he manually pressed the shutter release button (a fact) on a image that had a four to six second exposure (another fact).


 * Wave your hands all you want and protest my edits as part of some secret cabal out to get you, your entry was wrong and I took it out. You claimed that you would wait for a rewrite by Jamesday but then lied about it when you re-inserted your version.  Is that clear enough now for you?
 * Not a secret cabal, an open, proud alliance to seek the permanent ban of one user, me. - Plautus satire 20:57, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * You're the one that put my name on the list of people that you think are harassing you, I'm willing and able to come to my own defense and prove my innocence, hence the "dance" comment. --SheikYerBooty 18:59, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * You can not defend the indefensible. You have threatened me and harassed me. - Plautus satire 20:57, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Look before you revert:

"The San Francisco Chronicle reported that an amateur San Francisco astronomer had taken photographs of the northern sky with a digital camera at around that time. In one of those pictures "a glowing purple rope of light corkscrews down toward the plasma trail created by the shuttle, appears to pass behind it, then cuts sharply toward it from below. As it merges with the plasma trail, the streak itself brightens for a distance, then fades". [1] This photograph has not yet been made publicly available, the camera in question has been flown to Houston for further investigation by NASA." (emphasis mine) Anthony DiPierro 19:20, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * The picture in question has been thoroughly debunked as showing an artifact from movement during a long exposure. The CAIB determined this MONTHS ago and the only reason that Plautus would like this information here is to strengthen his theory that the shuttle was shot down by some sort of Death Star raygun.  It adds nothing to the timeline of substance, this moment in time has already been  accounted for by the first entry, and Plautus himself agreed on this very page to wait for a rewrite promised by Jamesday.  For those reasons it's clear that this does not belong in the timeline section but in the "other theories" section.  --SheikYerBooty 19:29, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * The CAIB has a poor record for accuracy and in their "debunking" of this "bunk" they cited no evidence, only wild speculation unsupported by any evidence, and in contradiction to Nikon's claims and the known properties and behaviour of the camera. - Plautus satire 20:57, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * If the picture has been debunked then add that, cite, and attribute, at which point you can move most of the text into a separate section, leaving at least one sentence referring to it in the timeline. Anthony DiPierro 19:30, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * It's already been done, the details are in section 9 of this page. That is why it doesn't (and shouldn't) appear as an event on the timeline, it's a non-event. --SheikYerBooty 19:40, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm missing something. You claim it may have been an artifact of the camera.  That's a debunking?  Or am I missing something? Anthony DiPierro 19:46, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm fine with your version of 19:58, 21 Feb 2004. Curps 19:59, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry I wasn't able to think of a comprimise sooner. Anthony DiPierro 20:03, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm leery of asking this but where did the exact time of the Picture In Question come from? I don't recall seeing any reports that nailed it down to the minute. --SheikYerBooty 23:25, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * The time is mentioned in the referenced article, and it's approximate. Anthony DiPierro 23:28, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I see that in the latest link there is a time mentioned. I'm still mildly unhappy with using this event as the start of the timeline, but probably not enough to create a new timeline from official NASA materials. --SheikYerBooty 15:56, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

The "mysterious purple streak"
Is this really notable enough to be included? It's just a random camera misfunction, which happened to be a in a picture of the space shuttle. Maybe this should be moved to an article about digital cameras or digital photography. --NoPetrol 22:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. It's quite well known - in fact, I just linked to this page as I've come across an image with a similar streak. Dan100 13:22, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

If enough conspiracy theorists believed in this to put it on the page in the first place, then I think it's proper to let the theory be refuted to independent-minded folks who come here for answers. Joel

Wow... all I have got to say is the idea that the government shot down the shuttle is completely laughable... Dru


 * "Enough" in the case of Wikipedia is "one." That hardly constitutes a reputable minority.&mdash;chris.lawson (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I am in strong favor of removal of this section. Bas

Asteroid name?
The article says that the asteroid named for pilot William McCool is named "51829 Williemccool". Is this correct, to have an "e" instead of an "a"? I did a web search and found more hits on the "e" spelling than on the "a" spelling, but I'm wondering why the pilot's name would have been spelled wrong for the asteroid. - Brian Kendig 19:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Check the number of 'm's, there... It looks like it's named willie-mccool, rather than william-mccool. Shimgray 16:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Total removal of conspiracy section
If there are no further objections I plan to totally remove the conspiracy section. Section itself says 'attracted little mainstream support', hence not worth mentioning. The given reference only talks about the airborne laser, not about anybody suggesting that it shot down the shuttle, which would be a totally ridiculous suggestion. The other point about the Buran is also not backed up by a reference. Without any further data it is pointless to compare the Buran and shuttle situation. Conclusion: both points are far-fetched and there is no evidence that these beliefs were widespread. An encyclopedia should not repeat all the random thoughts of all the crackheads in the world! Bas.


 * Agree 100%. See my comment above under "Mysterious Purple Streak". I personally feel it disgraces the memory of the victims of this tragedy to allege they were killed by some wide-ranging conspiracy that one or two nutjobs believe in. There's absolutely no evidence to support it, it's not a particularly famous conspiracy (unlike, say, the Kennedy assassination, where at least there are enough unanswered questions to keep the theorists supplied with material), and it's not really encyclopedic. It was worth having in the article for the first month, until it was determined that the streak was a camera artifact, and then it became utterly superfluous. You won't find any opposition from me if you want to remove it. (removed comment no longer relevant) &mdash;chris.lawson (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Removal of purple streak section
See above topic: for the same reasons I think the purple streak section must go. I did some googling and in fact the top two hits were the linked SFChron article and this very wiki page. Furthermore, the picture in the SFChron article originates here, it is not the amateur one with the streak. As the section already mentions itself, it turned out to be an optical aberration. So as above: rumour is not very widespread, and the claim is proven wrong by the the experts -> conclusion must be to remove the section. Speak now or I will delete it. Bas


 * I agree, the abberation in the image is easily reproduced on a long-exposure of an airliner passing overhead by the wind briefly blowing on the side of the lens. This section does not belong in an encyclopedia article --Pvtparts 03:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Picture of crew before launch
It may be inappropriate or appear odd to have a picture of the Columbia crew smiling and waving towards the camera as they are about to embark on the mission, especially in this article. Perhaps it could be moved down? Or maybe a picture of them "not so happy" would be better for the section? I may be wrong.


 * I disagree. Space exploration requires a sense of mission and ethusiasm.  It also helps to show the magnitude of the loss. -- Fplay 17:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The new CFC-free foam
I believe that discussion of the freon free foam in the section "Initial investigation and fears" should be removed. It is mostly incorrect.

First, the freon ban did not directly affect the foam, but the agent used to apply it.

Secondly, the old (CFC-based) agent was used as an propellant on the left bipod ramp area from where piece hitting the left wing peeled of, as can be seen on the pages 51-52 of the CAIB report.

Comments made by Rep. Sherwood L. Boehlert in 3/3/03 C&E News Letters should also be of interest.

If you do wish to mention the problems that the freon ban caused, you should not imply that they were factor in the Columbia disaster.


 * Ah, I removed that... I think this is what I get for doing rollback whilst also trying to book train tickets. I assumed it was restating material already stated - you're right, though, we need to explicitly state the CFC-free foam wasn't implicated. I don't think we need to cite Boehlert, though, as CAIB vol.1 is pretty clear on this. Shimgray | talk | 18:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've rewritten that section to slightly better reflect the situation as it exists - the "environmentalism killed Columbia" theories are common enough we ought to refute them, I guess, so best to keep mention of the composition change in. Thoughts on the rewrite? Shimgray | talk | 18:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Third, the change in the agent used to apply the foam did make things worst were the foam was used, but actually lead to a modification (addition of millions of pin holes) that actually did reduced foam shedding. Many, many modifications had been done over the years, with no results, but in making the problem worst an improvement was implemented. This point was highlighted by someone on the CAIB during one of their meeting in Houston.

This thing failed to be a feature article?
It is a worthy subject and it is time to whip this article into shape. First, we are going to have to get rid of the blow-by-blow of re-entry. Next, we need to get those references into shape and finish up getting the Challenger article into shape also.

Take a look at how the vital ingredients are in the photos on the right, and you can follow how the essential elements of this disaster came together and killed the best and brightest this country had to offer. -- Fplay 17:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Re-entry timeline
For the re-entry section, what does everyone think of a timeline like this : Talk:Space Shuttle Columbia disaster/timeline (either one)? - Evil saltine 23:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Either would be an improvement. Looks like #2 would involve more work, but looks better. I'd recommend doing whichever one was feasible based on available time and effort. I think the reentry timeline content should remain, albeit reformatted. It may seem boring or excessively detailed, but we don't decide encyclopedia content by what's not boring. If we did we wouldn't have articles on calculus or group theory. Joema 03:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

ESA plans
The reference to the ESA plans in the lead section seems out-of-place to me. Columbia had a big impact on the American space program, and a litle impact on other space programs. -- Pinktulip 02:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * How about the International Space Station? The ESA was a partner on that. -- 69.105.203.73 02:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of changes to second paragraph: 23:47, 1 February 2006
Reduced word count in 2nd paragraph. To quote Elements of Style: "A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts." See http://www.crockford.com/wrrrld/style3.html#13. Long prepositional phrases are particularly bad.

Don't use passive voice. Changed wording to avoid this.

Sentence was incorrect: "NASA did not investigate the matter further until after the disaster". In fact NASA did investigate during the mission, including running various thermal protection system damage simulations. However the investigation scope was limited. For details see CAIB report:.


 * That works for me. -- Pinktulip 13:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Launch to Landing - Was: Risk assessment - NASA's Impact Investigation, Liftoff to Landing

 * Launch to Landing, Header changed, timeline - ... ... Debris strike during launch . Launch to Landing . Destruction during re-entry ... ...

Launch to Landing:
 * Liftoff to Landing:
 * Or
 * Risk assessment


 * Others?

In a risk-management scenario similar to the Challenger disaster, NASA management failed to recognize the relevance of engineering concerns for safety. Two examples of this were failure to honor engineer requests for imaging to inspect possible damage, and failure to respond to engineer requests about status of astronaut inspection of the left wing.

Engineering made three separate requests for Department of Defense (DOD) imaging of the shuttle in orbit to more precisely determine damage. While the images were not guaranteed to show the damage, the capability existed for imaging of sufficient resolution to provide meaningful examination. In fact the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) recommended subsequent shuttle flights be imaged while on orbit using ground-based or space-based Department of Defense assets [1]. NASA management did not honor the requests and in some cases intervened to stop DOD from assisting.

NASA's chief thermal protection system (TPS) engineer was concerned about left wing TPS damage and asked NASA management whether an astronaut would visually inspect it. NASA managers never responded.

Throughout the risk assessment process, senior NASA managers were influenced by their belief nothing could be done even if damage was detected, hence this affected their stance on investigation urgency, thoroughness and possible contingency actions. Deciding to conduct a parametric "what if" type study more suited to determine risk probablities of future events, instead of actually inspecting and assessing the actual damage.

Much of the risk assessment hinged on damage predictions to the thermal protection system. These fall into two categories: damage to the silica tile on the wing lower surface, and damage to the reinforced carbon/carbon leading edge panels.

Boeing-developed damage prediction software was used to evaluate possible tile and reinforced carbon/carbon (RCC) damage. The software predicted severe penetration of multiple tiles by the impact, but Boeing engineers downplayed this. They believed that results showing that the software overstated damage from small projectiles meant that the same would be true of larger foam (SOFI) impacts. The program used to predict RCC damage was based on small ice impacts, not larger SOFI impacts. Under 1 of 15 predicted SOFI impact paths, the software predicted an ice impact would completely penetrate the RCC panel. Engineers downplayed this, too, believing that impacts of the less dense SOFI material would result in less damage than ice impacts. In an e-mail exchange, NASA managers questioned whether the density of the SOFI could be used as justification for reducing predicted damage. Despite engineering concerns about the energy imparted by the SOFI material, NASA managers ultimately accepted the rational to reduce predicted damage of the RCC panels from complete penetration to slight damage to the panel's thin coating.[2]


 * Also, the results from the two multiply tile missing case are missing.

The multiple tiles missing portion of the study was never completed, the proviso of report's conclusion that "safe return" was indicated.


 * Not meeting the proviso, negated the "safe return" indicated.
 * http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/2203main_COL_debris_boeing_030123.pdf Page 13


 * Multiply tile missing analysis is on-going.


 * Conclusion: Contingent on multiple tile loss thermal analysis showing no violation of M/OD criteria, safe return indicated even with significant tile damage.


 * To my knowledge, I have never seen the results of the proviso of the “safe return” indicated statement. As far a I can see, after this meeting the multiple tile missing thermal study was dropped and not completed. If someone has a references showing the results of this analysis, I'd love to see them.

NASA managers assumed a rescue or repair was impossible, so there was no point in trying to inspect the vehicle for damage while on orbit. However the CAIB determined a rescue mission, though risky, might have been possible - but only if there was certain knowledge of severe damage within five days into the mission[3] [4]. Additionally, that on-orbit repair was possible.

Ultimately the NASA Mission Management Team felt there was insufficient evidence to indicate that the strike was an unsafe situation, so they declared the debris strike a "turnaround" issue (not of highest importance) and denied the requests for the Department of Defense images. [edit]

This section should deal with what NASA did between liftoff and landing. How they dealt with the impact that was observed during launch. Much of this discussion is currently in the Launch (Debris Strike) section now. I think this should be a separate section from the launch (accident - debris strike), and landing (destruction - disaster) sections. This 16 days is a critical time period where NASA could have done something, and is distinctly different from the two much shorter time periods on both ends where once they are committed to it, things just happen.

Suggested plan -

1) stick a header on the main page approximately were it should go

1.1) What should the header be?

2) some rearranging if necessary.

3) additional detail expanding on what was going on

4) Paring down.

5) ":" used to move statements left to right, main page to unimportant comments

Currently missing from this section, time line, Boeing Study which incidentally was never finished, but used to justify no problem-no photos, some Mission Management Team (MMT) minutes, email exchange.

Additionally, the rescue option was viable if started within five days, the five day limit had to do with lowering consumable usage and preparing another Shuttle Flight. The repair option was available until the deorbit burn.

WRT the repair option, another point missing about the location of the damage, it occured at location on the bottom of the Orbiter where it was possible for the Astronauts to access it. Anyplace else, and access to the damage would have been vastly more difficult.

Comments/Discussion?


 * You're right I'll try to add something along those lines. Joema 14:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Work in progress...Joema 15:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, done. Let me know any feedback. As you suggested, I:


 * moved material from the Launch (debris strike) section
 * created new section called "Risk assessment" for the NASA actions, Boeing "crater" program, etc.
 * created a new section called "Was rescue or repair possible?" to describe the NASA/CAIB findings for these items. Joema 17:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

From Mission Management Team (MMT) meeting minutes there is discussion about previous mission close call with debris, bad rational and throwing something together. This ends up being the Boeing report. A parametric study that should have been done after the close call and before the next launch. Not as a substitute for inspecting "actual" damage. Very very bad engineering practice. Engineers work under the direction of management, not the other way around. Management unwilling to accept direction from engineer (pictures, visual inspection). Also from the MMT minutes, talk about reducing damage due to softness (density) of the SOFI (foam). E-Mail correspondence shows MMT chair makes inquires about this rational. In the correspondence is told impact a function of energy not softness (density). Parametric study uses this softness (density) rational for the RCC and it is accepted. The previso in the conclustion indicating "safe return" is never met.

[begin new comment by dbfair 03:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)]

I've got some concerns in the same area as the changes that you (24.238.207.232) have just made (some concerns with your changes, some with pre-existing wording). As a reference, I've used the 1/23/03 (during the flight) Boeing risk assessment report to NASA, available here:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/2203main_COL_debris_boeing_030123.pdf

(1) "Boeing-developed damage prediction software was used to evaluate possible tile and reinforced carbon/carbon (RCC) damage. The program predicted severe and complete tile penetration of multiple tiles by the impact, but NASA engineers downplayed this, believing the program over predicted damage."

- In fact, "Crater" predicted a wide variety of damage conditions depending upon varying assumptions, notably the angle of impact of the foam. Only under certain conditions was the damage predicted to be severe. Also, I don't know if NASA engineers downplayed this (they may well have), but if they did, they weren't the only ones - Boeing engineers also felt "Crater" was conservative.

(2) "The program used to predict RCC damage was not designed to predict foam impacts, only small ice impacts."

- can you explain why you added the word "small" here? That's not clear to me from the presentation I referenced.

(3) "It also predicted a penitration depth greater than the thickness of the RCC panel."

- This is misleading. Boeing engineers interpreted the data to indicate little chance of severe damage to the RCC (obviously, in hindsight, a major error in either engineering judgement or the tools used to inform that judgement). Damage was predicted to exceed the RCC panel thickness with ice impact, not the presumably less damaging foam impact, and even then, only in the case of an impact angle > 15 deg (the max. reported angle was 21 deg).

(4) " In an E-Mail exchange, NASA managers questioned engineers if the softness (density) of the SOFI could be used as justification for reducing predicted damage. Despite being told by engineers that impact damage is a function of energy, not softness (density) of the material, NASA managers accepted this rational to reduce predicted damage of the RCC panels from being fully penitrated to slight damage to the panal's thin coating."

- Can you provide a reference to the email exchange? Also, softness and density aren't interchangeable. I would personally like to see this worded in a more factual and less "pointing-the-blame-finger" way.

(5) "The multiple tiles missing portion of the study was never completed, the proviso of report's conclusion that "safe return" was indicated."

- Again, I think this is misleading. In hindsight, the fact that the multiple tiles missing work wasn't done is irrelevant - it's the RCC that was the primary failure, not the tiles. In the report I referenced, the conclusion was drawn that RCC damage was not an issue (and that, again in hindsight, was a big error).

I hope I haven't come across as being too harsh - I think you've brought up some interesting information (e.g., the email exchange). I'll try to add my two cents to the article, and let's continue to talk here to see if everyone can agree on the edits. ... dbfair 03:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Only under certain conditions was the damage predicted to be severe. Also, I don't know if NASA engineers downplayed this (they may well have), but if they did, they weren't the only ones - Boeing engineers also felt "Crater" was conservative." - dbfair


 * While the Crater simulation covered many conditions, the severe damage was predicted for likely SOFI size and impact angles. Thus the many Crater parameters in no way changes the point. The damage was clearly downplayed due to a vague feeling that Crater over predicted damage.. This was mentioned several times by Ron Dittemore in press conferences, plus the CAIB concluded that. Whether Boeing engineers felt similarly doesn't change things. Joema 04:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Much of my motivation for proposing my changes comes from my feeling that the tone had started to sound like Boeing did everything it could, and NASA management was solely to blame. I don't think that's a fair characterization - I think there are faults in all quarters (see, for example, CAIB p. 145, "The assumptions and uncertainty [in the flawed extrapolation of RCC ice damage to lessened RCC foam damage] embedded in this analysis were never fully presented to the Mission Evaluation Room or the Mission Management Team."  I only mentioned that Boeing engineers also downplayed damage to indicate that, at least in this regard, they share that shortsightedness with NASA management.


 * Also, my impression is that it is accepted that Crater does, in fact, overstate damage in many circumstances - it's not just a vague feeling. Again from CAIB p. 145, "the results of calibration tests  with small projectiles showed that Crater predicted a deeper penetration than would actually occur".  After reading the CAIB sectioned you pointed out, it seems to me that the greater flaw was the extrapolation of Crater and RCC Crater-like simulations to much larger sized foam pieces, for which the simulations were never validated.


 * Still, after rereading the presentation I referenced, I think you're right that severe damage was predicted for likely SOFI conditions. The "wide range" I referred to is only apparent after the assumption of Crater overprediction is included.  I'd like to go back and rework my changes to the article and then ask what you think. ... dbfair 18:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "- can you explain why you added the word "small" here? That's not clear to me from the presentation I referenced." - dbfair


 * That's straight from the CAIB report, Vol 1, page 143: "small debris, usually ice" Joema 04:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing me to the relevant CAIB pages. I hadn't realized the role played by the assumption that it was safe to extrapolate the Crater-like RCC simulation to larger size debris.  I see now that the debris size is important and I'll undue my change to remove it. ... dbfair 18:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "- This is misleading. Boeing engineers interpreted the data to indicate little chance of severe damage to the RCC (obviously, in hindsight, a major error in either engineering judgement or the tools used to inform that judgement).  Damage was predicted to exceed the RCC panel thickness with ice impact, not the presumably less damaging foam impact, and even then, only in the case of an impact angle > 15 deg (the max. reported angle was 21 deg)." - dbfair


 * The Crater-like RCC algorithm predicted RCC penetration for impact angles > 15 degrees. The debris transport analysis concluded the impact angle was 21 degrees. There was no data that allowed extrapolation from ice to foam. See CAIB report, volume 1, page 145. Joema 04:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with you. But I will point out that only 1 of the 15 projected trajectories of the foam actually hit the RCC, and that (as you correctly point out) was at 21 deg.  Again, my motivation what to make it more clear that Boeing and NASA (ie, basically the whole team) should share in the blame. ... dbfair 18:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. Your Boeing/NASA comment is good and we should be careful about that. However the point isn't that only 1 of 15 predicted trajectories hit the RCC. Rather the single trajectory which did caused predicted penetration. IOW a 100% failure rate at the predicted impact angle. The second point is there was no valid basis whatsoever for extrapolating from ice (what the impact program was designed for) to foam. Normally an encyclopedia article shouldn't be critical or judgmental. However the title is "Columbia disaster", not "Columbia", so the subject material concerns this. As you suggested we should still strive for a factual, not critical presentation, but the CAIB explanatory wording itself is critical so we can't avoid that to some degree. Joema 18:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

"replace "complacent" with more neutral wording" - dbfair


 * It wasn't my addition, but the "complacent" wording is straight from the CAIB report: "NASAʼs safety culture has become reactive, complacent...". CAIB report Vol 1, p. 180. I agree it's important to not be judgemental or editoralize. However taking items straight from the CAIB report is generally safe. Joema 05:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I hadn't realized it came from the CAIB. I agree that taking items from the report should be safe, given the time, effort, and talent that went in to generating it.  I'll remove my edit.  Thanks for all your comments, Joema.  ...  dbfair 18:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your suggestions. You're right -- despite the subject material we shouldn't insert undue, unwarranted critical statements. Joema 18:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree.


 * The extrapolation statement needs to be rewritten with respect to the tiles, but they were extrapolating way out of the range of the database.


 * page 6 of http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/2203main_COL_debris_boeing_030123.pdf


 * 3 cu in @ 200 fps vs 1920 cu in @ 600 fps is an impact energy that is 5760 times greater. Extrapolating 3 and a half orders of magnitude outside of their database.


 * Email Exchange with respect to softness(density) of the foam and impacts


 * http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/9119main_1-22-03-email_Austin_currently_missing_are_Austin_Ham_Bosses_EMail.pdf


 * http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/9119main_1-22-03-email_Austin.pdf


 * Jan 22, 2003 9:33am from Linda Ham to Austin and Roe:


 * Can we say that for any ET foam lost, no “safety of flight” damage can occur to the Orbiter because of the density?


 * Jan 22, 2003 11:31am Ralph Roe answers Linda Ham:


 * No-the amount of damage ET foam can cause to the TPS material-tiles is based on the amount of impact energy-the size of the piece and its velocity....it is a pure kinetic (...kinetic energy...) problem...there is a size that can cause enough damage to a tile that enough of the material is lost that we could burn a hole through the skin and have a bad day (loss of vehicle and crew....

So, here we see that Linda Ham's Boss (NASA Manager #7) should know that impact damage is a pure function of kinetic energy, size (meaning mass) and velocity (actually velocity squared).


 * The very next day, Linda Ham accepts the softness/density argument twice during the presentation to the MMT as justification for reducing damage to the RCC.


 * Jan 23, 2003 MMT meeting,


 * http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/2203main_COL_debris_boeing_030123.pdf


 * 1)On page 8,


 * RCC is clearly capable of withstanding impacts of at least 15 degrees; relative softness of SOFI(compared to ice) would indicate greater capability


 * 2) On page 13,


 * RCC damage limited to coating based on soft SOFI


 * I agree that softness and density are not quite interchangeable, but they “are” the context of what was going on here when it is being used as an argument for reducing expected damage. The fact is, the day before the MMT meeting Linda Ham make inquires about the density rational and is specifically told that damage from impacts to tiles is “purely” a function of kinetic energy. Not density, softness, or any other thing. Then, accepted the softness(density) rational during the presentation to reduce damage to the RCC from being fully penetrated to minor coating loss (a few thousandth of an inch). I have no problem using one or the other or both softness-density you choose.


 * BTW, the softness of the foam actually adds energy to the impact, as the foam tends to bounce a little. There was a good video presented at one of the CAIB meetings showing and impact of the foam against a wall (probably the 3 cu inch test), it rebounded off the wall somewhat.


 * RCC:


 * Jan 24, 2003 Presentation


 * http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/2204main_COL_debris_boeing_030124.pdf


 * On pages 3,4 and 5 we see charts of impact velocity and angle over various areas of the impact zone. Chart 3 seems to be an early estimate where velocities are higher and angles lower. Charts 4 and 5 are more refined versions. All impacts to the RCC on these charts are 14 to 21 degree impact. In fact the 14 and 21 degree impacts to the RCC are essentially in the same place.


 * From previous days presentation:


 * http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/2203main_COL_debris_boeing_030123.pdf


 * On Page 8


 * Impact damage depth ranges from .23 to .33 inches for impact in the range of 15 degrees to 21 degrees, with the nominal (average) panel thickness being only .233 inches. So, the softness rational is used to reduce damage from 0.23-0.33 inches to essentially zero (the thin coating of SiC).


 * BTW at low temperatures (ascent) the SiC coating has very similar structural properties to the graphite, the structural component of the RCC panel. At the elevated temperatures of entry, the SiC is close to or at it's melting point, but will not burn. The graphite will so it need the protection of the SiC coating.


 * Page 10


 * The only RCC thermal study done was for the panel having some coating lost. What they are talking about here is a very thin coating of SiC on top of the .233 inch thick reinforce carbon carbon (RCC) panel. The loss of 0.09 inches is the thermal burning loss of the Carbon Carbon. Notice that the initial panel thickness here is only 0.193 inches to begin with, less than the nominal (average) thickness.


 * More on the MMT meetings later.


 * Uh, this is getting frustrating: there was no landing. "Launch to landing" is NASA management speak, used because it has a certain lilt to it because both the words "launch" and "landing" start with the letter "L". There was no landing and that is important (in case you did not notice - remember: we have seven dead astronauts and that it what it important). I am changing the section name to something more appropriate. Please do not use section names that are merely wishful thinking: we all wish that there was a landing and that the astronauts survived, but that is not the case. Got it? -- PinkCake 01:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Management at odds with engineers
I just read an article in the World & I (sorry, subscription required) explaining that Feynmann figured out what caused the Challenger disaster although he was thwarted by management every step of the way.

The Columbia article likewise speaks of management pressures on engineers.

I think we need to bring out this aspect of management not listening to engineers, belittling or ignoring their concerns about safety, and over-ruling them for (dare I say it?) political reasons.

We could mention this topic briefly here, but it deserves a larger treatment elsewhere, perhaps an article of its own.


 * Dr. Feynmann did not figure out what happened. Information from engineers was leaked to General Donald Kutyna from an astronaut friend of his. Kutyna then found a way to have Feynmann announce the information so the astronaut wouldn't get in trouble. (Source: 'The Best Mind Since Einstein' from NOVA)

The actions of NASA managers, one in particular (Linda Ham), are mentioned in the investigation report for having various degrees of culpability in not investigating or even blocking the engineer's requests for further investigation into possible damage to the shuttle. I think that that section of the article should be enlarged or done as a separate article, mentioning their names, and summarizing their actions that contributed to the disaster. Cla68 15:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Image of foam strike
I'm wondering as to why this page has no image of Columbia being hit by the foam. It should be included in the article.

It's because useable photo's of the event aren't available. The photographic coverage of launch has greatly improved since 2003.86.134.89.221 14:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How about this picture? It shows the foam strike quite well. -- KarlHallowell 03:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

FAC again
I believe the time is right to run this for FAC once more. I won't be the one to do it though because it was I who was (in my wikipedia youth) the one who did so the first time round. If anyone has any final improvements please go ahead, and then would someone consider nominating? Thanks. User:Tom walker 23:19 GMT 17 August 2006

"Lock the doors"
I question the article's statement that "lock the doors... is the code phrase that indicates a contingency is in effect". After the Challenger accident, flight director Jay Greene declared a contingency explicitly, without mentioning the doors; and in fact, Leroy Cain explicitly declared a contingency only two minutes after he told GC to lock the doors. So I'd like to know whether the statement is based on a particular source, or just on inference. MLilburne 09:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Fair use" Time magazine image.
Would it be as well to replace the fair use image with Image:Trosky Columbie.jpg, or a simmilar PD image. The fair use status of the image that is currently in use to illustrate the disaster, a magazine cover, is disputed (see it's talk page), and this version is exactly the same image, only it is PD, and the writing/titles are absent. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 22:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Do NOT merge this article

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed merge. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the merge debate was request withdrawn by initiator. Cjosefy 12:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do NOT merge Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and STS-107. One article is about the mission itself, and another is about the breakup and aftermath thereof. This is similar to how we have separate articles for Space Shuttle Challenger disaster and STS-51-L. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with SchuminWeb. This has been talked about before, and was roundly rejected then. I expect it will be roundly rejected a second time.--chris.lawson 21:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I also agree. MLilburne 22:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I also agree. Joema 23:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Should not merge.  Baccyak4H 01:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. STS-107 is one of a sequence of articles covering all the STS missions. 107 was a full mission in which much happened, it deserves to be kept seperate from the disaster that ensued. User:Tom walker 10:16 GMT 17 September 2006


 * Oppose merger - per SchuminWeb --GW_SimulationsUser Page 13:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur, per Shumin's argument; these two articles should not be merged. Zurel Darrillian 16:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose the merge, per SchuminWeb. The mission and accident are two very distinct items deserving of seperate articles. Cjosefy 19:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose - As Shumin said, if Space Shuttle Challenger disaster and STS-51-L are separate articles, so should this and STS-107. Harperska 19:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Removing -- Scetoaux 01:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Minimum use of acronyms in lead section
Folks: please keep acronyms in lead section to a minimum. Both SS disaster articles tend to suffer if you use the lead section to introduce acronyms. Acronyms and obscure jargon in the lead section just signal to the reader that the article is going to be unpleasant, alien and difficult to comprehend quickly. TPS and RCC are not really central to the story: they are merely engineering details that are intrusive and distracting when introduced in the lead seciton. Every Shuttle has TPS and RCC but this is the _disaster_ article where astronauts died. Keep that in mind when you modify the lead section. TPS and RCC merely demonstrate that we cannot keep our priorities straight about what is and what is not important but someone who was not-so-mature decided to shove these acronyms in when what we should be deal with is the event's place in History and national and international priorities and huamn lives and stuff like that. -- PinkCake 23:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Woulda, coulda, shoulda...
Folks: As a matter of style: please avoid speculative statements. If NASA management made a decision, then report the decision (e.g. decision for no EVA). Please do not attempt to explain was "would have" been requied to do an emergency EVA, etc. That is all speculative and not very desirable. Try this out: PAST TENSE ONLY on those verbs. Boldly state true facts and let somebody else ramble on about other possiblities that did not happen and other speculation. -- PinkCake 00:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The section on "Possible emergency procedures" (I assume this is the section to which you are referring) is based on an exploration by the CAIB of the possibilities of saving the astronauts. Thus, while it is obviously speculation, it is speculation by a reliable and important source, and is thus important to the article. Quite a few readers are going to want to know whether the astronauts could have been saved if NASA management had acted in time; this is the section that answers those questions. MLilburne 08:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Correct observations are OK, such as: "The shuttle was designed for...", "Its operating limits are..." (current tense is fine, but past tense after Shuttle retirement (scheduled for 2010)), and "The management decided..." Among other benefits. Yes, if a qualified investigative board has finding, then those finding can be supported. Wikipedia should not be presenting such assertions independently: it should be "The pros said this...".  See? The structure can follow subject...past-tense-verb...object. -- PinkCake 21:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no independent speculation in the referenced section. It was taken or paraphrased from the detailed CAIB report. Joema 03:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Although on further reflection I can see why PinkCake is a little confused: nothing in the "Possible Emergency Procedures" section is footnoted, and although the CAIB is mentioned from time to time, the slightly informal style of the writing sometimes makes it unclear exactly where the speculation is coming from. This could be easily fixed, though, and I don't agree that speculative statements ("would have") are always and everywhere a bad thing. MLilburne 07:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me emphasize: there was no editorial speculation in the referenced section. PinkCake merely assumed that, then without questioning or reading more closely, went on to give a accusatory lecture. He further assumed the "would have" wording was editorial in nature -- in fact the CAIB used similar wording. Had he taken the time to read the article and citations more closely, it's obvious the "Emergency procedures" section is paraphrased from the CAIB report, as the first sentence of each subheading implies. That relevant CAIB report section was footnoted in the earlier brief mention of rescue/repair, in section "Flight risk management", in the next-to-last paragraph.


 * However to make it even more clear, I've added redundant footnotes to the "Emergency procedures" section, plus tweaked the wording to make it a little more obvious. Joema 13:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Priorities
Priorities are: human life, ship survival, continuation of space program (all big-picture concepts that do not require engineering data). All the rest of the In many ways, such people are just like Columbia: a pile of junk that we tolerate because we accept that you have to have your brief turn in the spotlight. But you are rather intrusive and please keep that in mind. Figure out what is important, please, self-limit your intrusiveness. -- PinkCake 01:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * wishful thinking by you wannabe-managers
 * engineering data from showoffs and other obsessed nerds
 * acronyms from you pseudo-govt-beauraucrats

Featured Article (FA)
It appears to me that this article is close to being FA-worthy. An interested party just needs to take the time to get it there. It needs a lot more in-line citations in the text, at least one every paragraph. Also, the references section needs to be better-formatted and organized (see the Linda Ham article for an example). Then, I think it would be good to go. Cla68 03:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's fairly close to FA status, although there are a couple of problems. A reader objected to the timeline style in the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster article, and I think that he had a point. There's no real reason that this timeline couldn't be in prose too. Also, the memorials section is really listy as it stands, and needs to be tamed somehow. Beyond that and the citations, yes, there's no reason why it shouldn't be nominated as a FAC.


 * Do I have time to do this? Alas, not at the moment. MLilburne 07:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate the work to improve these articles, I cannot over-emphasize how strongly I disagree with removing the timeline format in the Challenger disaster article, or ANY OTHER article on aviation-related disasters. Because of the time-critical nature of events preceding aviation accidents, general news and information coverage of such incidents often includes a timeline section. You see this in Time Magazine, New York Times, Aviation Week, etc. A properly-sized timeline section doesn't weigh down the article or swamp it with unnecessary detail. Timeline format facilitates quicker recognition of what happened when, and better illustrates the chronological relationship of events preceding the incident. Readers who don't require that level of detail can easily skip over that section. The timeline format is much more readable than prose format. Joema 14:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see there being an argument for leaving the Columbia timeline, and I'm quite prepared to be convinced. The Challenger timeline, on the other hand, was quite long and included a lot of extraneous dialogue, so I'm comfortable with having included the relevant information (including times) in prose format. If you want to discuss it further, perhaps we should do so on the Challenger talk page? MLilburne 14:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Having looked again at the old Challenger timeline, the only part of it that was in timeline form was actually the dialogue. The descriptions of the unfolding of the accident were in prose anyway. So I'm not sure the article has lost anything valuable. MLilburne 14:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The old Challenger timeline include a concise description of the failure sequence. It straightforwardly answered one of the most common questions: what happened and when did it happen? This information was largely removed in this edit on 17 Sept 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster&diff=prev&oldid=76147643. I'll continue this in the Challenger disaster article talk page. Joema 19:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think the timeline issue has an easy answer. I think a timeline approach is better for technical writing and a prose approach is better for a story-telling composition.  Since this is an "encyclopedic" article, I think either a technical or prose style is appropriate.  It the timeline continues to prevent this article from making FA, then perhaps prose should be strongly considered. Cla68 00:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In this case I think the best thing to do is wait until (if?) it gets to FAC and see what happens. This timeline I feel more comfortable with than the Challenger one, and it's possible that no one will mind it. My only concern at the moment is that we need to make it clear where it's sourced from. MLilburne 07:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

More FA thoughts
I've been continuing to think about cleaning up the article for FAC, and it seems to me that the section on "possible rescue options" belongs after, or perhaps as part of, the CAIB section, since the rescue options were assessed and discussed purely by the CAIB and the CAIB is our only source. Does anyone feel differently or have different reasoning?

I also think we should really, really get rid of the "Miscellaneous Items" section. Usually having a section like that means that either the items don't belong in the article in the first place, or that the article isn't complete (because if it were, there would be a suitable place to put these facts). Thoughts? MLilburne 08:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I looked over the points that you discussed, and I agree. The rescue section, as well as possibly other sections, could do quite well in the CAIB section.  We might as well give it a whirl.  And if we don't like it, we can revert it back.  As for "miscellaneous", the "purple streak" could possibly go under CAIB due to its being investigated by that body, but I'm not sure where the "terrorism" section should go.  Perhaps we could spin it out of that heading into its own section?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I was thinking terrorism might well fit under the "initial investigation" section, as it was something that people initially suspected before the CAIB report proved it to be groundless. Or it could have its own section if we could make it a bit longer. I'm still undecided really.


 * I'll move the rescue section sometime over the next couple of days, if no one gets to it before me. MLilburne 18:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Worms
How come the surviving worms section was removed? Josh215 17:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't removed. It's now in the "recovery of debris" section, where it fits a little more logically. MLilburne 19:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggest remove section
Seems the section (?) "Ken MacLeod's comment" should be removed, or at least be de-sectioned and have the text put under the section "Memorials."Tragic romance 10:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the surviving worms?
The canisters were recovered, the petri dishes opened and the worms were examined (prob. under microscope) and found to be alive. After that, I expect that the cultures were transfered to petri dishes with fresh food media and further generations were allowed to propigate. C. elegans has an average life span of approximately 2-3 weeks and a generation time of approximately 4 days. -- 199.33.32.40 01:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor correction: 7-10 days on that "life cycle". See "Worms found alive" in and other web refs. -- 199.33.32.40 01:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a CMU article that talks about the worms:


 * Ordinarily, C. elegans eat bacteria. But that diet requires weekly feedings from astronauts, adding another chore to their busy schedules. With the synthetic nutrient, feedings every four to eight weeks suffice.


 * Because C. elegans' lifespan is only two to three weeks, most of the recovered worms were several generations removed from the ones dispatched at Cape Canaveral Jan. 16. But Szewczyk said some of the survivors most likely were born in orbit. These were in a control group that was eating bacteria. Deprived of food after the disaster, they went into a state of arrested development that prolonged their lifespan. In contrast, the worms on synthetic nutrient stayed active. Each Petri dish contained 10 to 500 worms at launch. Upon recovery, there were 0 to 27,000 worms in each dish, Szewczyk reported.

Still, I have to assume that they continued to feed the worm cultures when they were back on the ground since they represent a sort of living historic museum, but I really do not know for sure. -- 199.33.32.40 22:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Why can’t they built another shuttle to replace Columbia? They built Endeavour to replace Challenger, why can’t they do it with OV-102?

 * I've been meaning to do that for a while, actually. Please feel free to step in and deal with it. MLilburne 10:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no technical reason they couldn't replace it, but there are huge money reasons. The Shuttle fleet is going to be retired in a couple years, so building a replacement would be a strange investment.  Also, Endeavour was built mostly out of spare parts built for the rest of the program, those spare parts no longer exist.  For example, the wings were already build, the carbon-carbon nose, the doors, gear, most of the major structural components had been built a few years earlier when NASA put in an order for a set of spares because they could see that the companies that originally built the shuttle could not guarentee that they'd have the tooling or expertise to cheaply replace things in the future.  Everything is possible through the magic of money, but money is a very finite resource, so...  short answer, $$$$.  Long answer, see above. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 17:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is mostly correct. Endeavour was largely constructed "from scratch", using up some of the the massive supply of spare parts that were intended to support the 4-ship shuttle fleet for their original 10-year / 100-flight design lives.  This was considered a much less expensive (and more likely to be successful) option than attempting to refit the Enterprise to space flight capability.  The first two ships, Columbia ('81) and Challenger ('83), were originally expected to retire in the early-mid 1990s, with Discovery ('84) and Atlantis ('85) extending the fleet mission into the mid-late 1990s.  When Challenger was destroyed only 3 years into her 10-year mission plan ('86), the Endeavour (ordered in '87 and delivered in '91) was considered absolutely essential to complete the Challenger's role in the fleet.  Besides, most of the "team", with the technical skills and drawings and such, were still more or less in place from the construction of the first four, and they were primed and ready - eager - to go with the construction of the fifth.  Anyway Columbia was destroyed nearly 10 years beyond her original life expectancy, so her replacement is considered a much much lower priority - even if there were sufficient spare parts, not to mention the skills and lessons learned from the construction of the other five.  Most of the expertise in Shuttle constuction has long since retired.  Even if a sixth orbiter were authorized today, it would likely require at least 5 years to get one assembled, tested, and operating - even if adequate supplies of 20+ year old spare parts were readily available.  Yes the cost to construct yet another shuttle would be prohibitively high, but the fact remains that the Shuttle Fleet is operating far beyond their planned retirement, and the mission is rapidly dwindling.  That said - a modern replacement for the manned shuttle fleet is desperately needed, but it should be based on technologies maturing in the 1990s and 2000s, rather than that from the 1960s and 1970s.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 18:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If they started constructing a new orbiter (OV-106), they'd be lucky to get it delivered by the deadline for the Shuttle's retirement. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 12:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The biggest problem is that you have to certify new designs as orbit-worthy. This is true for satelittes, such as the Hubble Space Telescope, which flew with a fairly old version of a main computer.  In both manned and unmanned craft, you have to be extremely conservative because the environment is unforgiving. That means that you might go with technology that is more than a decade old. It seems forever compared with how quickly our PC's become obsolete, but again, large margins of engineering safety are required and take lots of testing time before you can deploy new technology. The dynamic is slower than, say, even FDA approval for new drugs, which is about seven years. -- 199.33.32.40 23:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Poignant conversation"
It doesn't seem to me that this paragraph is appropriate where it is now. It may have been an ironic remark in the light of events, and people may still be grieving, but that doesn't change the fact that the paragraph comments on the remark in a very POV way. It is clearly reflecting the opinion of the author, not synthesising secondary sources. If you could find a reference to the remark in the press, then it might be relevant in the discussion of press coverage and the mourning for the astronauts. For example, purely hypothetically, "The New York Times and the Atlantic Monthly commented on the poignancy of the remark, which was frequently featured in television coverage of the accident..." But if a statement like that can't be made (and I don't know whether it can or not), then the information doesn't belong in the article. I'm taking it out for now. MLilburne 13:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Final sentence of Terrorism section
I removed this sentence from the end of the terrorism section, since I don't understand what it means and it doesn't have a reference:

"Investigation commission studied the fourth  possibility - diversion, but there was found no evidence."

Miraculouschaos 17:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Discrepancy between description of final onboard video + actual
Hi there. Seems like a small thing, but the section "Onboard Video" reads "and ends approximately four minutes prior to the start of the shuttle's disintegration" which is different from the text in the video, which says (at 0:08, for example) "ends approximately 11 minute prior to loss of communications between Columbia and Mission Control." I was going to say this was flatly contradictory, but I suppose I might be missing something. Did breakup begin 7 minutes before LOC? That's not what the timeline in the article suggests; it has the first broken-off piece at approximately 8:58, and LOC one minute later.

Also, have a nice day! :)Eh Nonymous 21:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Language is POV
Some of the language in this article seems unnecessarily harsh -- the "Debris strike during launch" and "Flight risk management" mostly. The language made me want to doubt the article's neutrality.

I'm not disputing the facts of this article at all, I just think the language goes too far in assigning blame rather than letting the facts speak for themselves.

I've tried to make it more NPOV by softening the language, but I think it still could use some work. I'll copy one example paragraph here I think is over-the-top:


 * Throughout the risk assessment process, senior NASA managers were influenced by their belief that nothing could be done even if damage was detected, hence this affected their stance on investigation urgency, thoroughness and possible contingency actions. They decided to conduct a parametric "what-if" scenario study more suited to determine risk probabilities of future events, instead of inspecting and assessing the actual damage. The investigation report in particular singled out NASA manager Linda Ham for exhibiting this attitude.

Again, I'm not disputing the facts here, but this seems subtly POV to me; it's the kind of language that throws up red flags. I'm not sure how best to fix it, though, without diluting the facts.

I also added a few tags to the "Debris strike during launch" section; it seemed the most POV to me (I made the most changes there) and has no citations at all. -- jhf 17:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

somethins is wrong.
Image:Trosky columbie has been deleted. That is the sign of failed GA!Jer10 95 04:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

confusing phrasing
This sentence needs clarification: "Because the NASA team could not verify that the repairs would survive even a modified re-entry, the rescue option had a considerably higher chance of bringing Columbia's crew back alive."

Not sure which is correct, that the NASA engineers could not verify the repair(s) would survive (in which case it seems that the chance of Columbia's crew being brought back would be lower, not higher), or that because the crew would have a better chance of bailing out, regardless of the robustness of the repairs, they would subsequently would have stood a better chance of surviving. - IstvanWolf 11:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I admit the wording is a little bit poor, but basically the sentence is referring to repairing the wing and trying a manned reentry with Columbia vs. sending another shuttle up on an STS-300 mission and transferring the crew to there for reentry and allowing Columbia to break up. If you can think of a better way to word that sentence, feel free to fiddle.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

payments to families
This needs to be added somewhere, just not sure where yet:
 * Documents revealed under Freedom of Information legislation reveals that NASA paid $26.6 million to families of the astronauts aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia when it disintegrated during re-entry in 2003. (AP via Seattle Post-Intelligencer)(Orlando Sentinel) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Post-Columbia fixes
This article fails to mention what was done post-Columbia to fix the problems noted by CAIB. I recall seeing various reports on foam fixes (which clearly weren't entirely effective, given STS-114 and STS-118), which are germane to this article; but I know nothing about management changes. Bhudson 18:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Photo of Disintegration
What happened to the photo of the Columbia disintegrating?
 * It was hosted on and deleted because: "06:24, 16 March 2007 Davepape (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Trosky Columbie.jpg" (not by NASA; no evidence has been given that it is released under a free license)" --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * From it's deletion debate: "While certainly a famous and symbolic image, there's no evidence that it's free. The summary for this image states that it was taken by an amateur photographer, and that the rights were subsequently purchased by The Associated Press. Therefore, it's a copyrighted media image, certainly not appropriate for the Commons." --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems it may not be appropriate for Commons, but it does seem to have a place on Wikipedia under fair use as a unique historic image (historicphoto) that is non-reproducible. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So is this image already back up under fair use or no? If not, I think it does need to be there. I just don't know what you're talking about. Cheers, Corvus coronoides  talk 23:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Space Shuttle Columbia fragment.PNG
Image:Space Shuttle Columbia fragment.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Confusing sentence
In the Columbia Accident Investigation Board section, there is a sentence Even after these were completed, the recorder was never removed from Columbia, and was still functioning. It may be me, but I don't understand what this means. Davidelit 07:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's much clearer. Thanks TheDJ. Davidelit 02:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:2003 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster.PNG
Image:2003 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Falling debris
Wouldn't it be possible to protect an orbiter against falling debris with a one-time use lightweight shield that is to be thrown off at an appropriate height? Christian Storm 10:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That would probably still incur too much of a payload penalty to be practical. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Technologically impractical? Or do you also mean the costs? It does not have to take so much if it’s for one-time use; it just has to sidetrack the debris/absorb the impact while being destroyed. Do you think it's technologically impossible? Maybe one can carry less, but it's a balance with safety. Christian Storm 14:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The space shuttle is being phased out and as such, major design changes are unlikely. always keep that in mind
 * The missions it still needs to complete are almost all fully loaded with equipment. There is a reason they no longer use tiles on the top of the shuttles, carry ejection seats and use unpainted external tanks. It's weight, and it's a lot of weight. Readding that stuff would take 5 years, and they'd need another way to carry all that heavy equipment into space.
 * Adding such a temporary shield requires points that it's fixed to, and a way to shed the shield without touching the tiles. It would be just as dangerious as the current procedures I think, and it would be too heavy to carry some of the ISS components up into space.
 * Wikipedia is not a place to discuss these kinds of things :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

From an engineering point of view, the proposed fix is a band-aid, not a root cause fix. It accomodates the problem-- it does not obviate it. It is possible with other configurations to obviate the problem rather than accomodating it. For example, the standard stacked stages rocket does not have this issue-- falling ice just falls away as on the Apollo spacecraft. Dalebert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.140 (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Article at risk
This article is in risk of Vandalism this page has been vandalised 4-5 times. we need to semi-protect this page from vandalism.--Jer10 95 02:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Report it here: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Cla68 04:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Vandalism risk: (Very High)
 * Protection (Very low)
 * Users complaining about vandals here
 * Users votes to semi-protect the article
 * Users Tired of reverting valdalism

We need to reduce valdalism risk


 * Jer10 95 06:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What is valdalism and how, pray tell do we protect against such a risk?! :) --LookingYourBest (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Purple Streak Image
I found a link to it if anyone wants to add it as a referance

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_firesky12.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.185.104 (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Questionable Statement
The last sentence in the second paragraph, "While Columbia was still in orbit, some engineers suspected damage, but NASA managers limited the investigation on the grounds that little could be done even if problems were found." Since there were still three other shuttles I think something could have been done. Would a source for the statement be possible? Louis waweru (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed - it needs a citation. As such, I've tagged it with a  tag.  I even read the first citation for the article, and it doesn't discuss human issues at NASA at all.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Shuttle Program Manager Ron Dittemore said several times there was nothing that could have been done. Added citation for this. Dittemore further said trying to image the vehicle for damage wouldn't have been useful, based on his experience of trying this on STS-95. The CAIB report discusses the two possible contingency procedures: on-orbit repair and a rescue shuttle. It concluded that both were possible, although risky. Normally a rescue is not possible, as it takes too long to prepare a shuttle for launch. However in this case, by coincidence Atlantis was well along in launch processing, and likely could have been rushed to launch within roughly two weeks. However shuttle-era managers had never considered such procedures, thus Dittemore's statements. Joema (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Louis waweru (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Destruction Profile
"During re-entry of STS-107, the damaged area allowed the hot gases to penetrate and destroy the internal wing structure, eventually causing the in-flight breakup of the vehicle." This implies that the destruction of the internal wing structure led to the breakup. My understanding was that the drag on the left side caused the vehicle to turn. This eventually took it out of a sustainable attitude, as the atmosphere started impacting the right side of the vehicle rather than the front, then other areas that were not designed to take the full force of re-entry stresses, ultimately breaking it apart. Patrickbowman 06:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not an expert on these things, but it seems you have a valid concern, so I tagged the passage. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm re-reading the CAIB report, and the entry here is a reasonable interpretation of its statement on the physical cause. From page 49:
 * "During re-entry, this breach in the Thermal Protection System allowed superheated air to penetrate the leading-edge insulation and progressively melt the aluminum structure of the left wing, resulting in a weakening of the structure until increasing aerodynamic forces caused loss of control, failure of the wing, and breakup of the Orbiter."
 * Looking over the detailed timeline, "loss of control, failure of the wing, and breakup..." was the specific order of events. Wing deformation due to damage influenced the "loss of control" (due to changes in drag and lift), but "increasing aerodynamic forces" is given as its cause. I think my point still stands, but it's perhaps just a grammatical adjustment, or inclusion of the intermediate steps.   Patrickbowman 23:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it overthinking the issue to want to change the wording from "eventually causing" to "eventually leading to"? It seems like such a minor change but also seems more correct.Patrickbowman (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Why a CNN clip?
The Challenger accident page doesn't have brand-name photos--especially at the top of the article. Hmmm. 68Kustom (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the Challenger accident was filmed and photographed by NASA themselves, and all NASA material is completely free for usage. This accident, was however only photographed and filmed by amateurs and some local news stations. As far as I am aware, there are no free images available of the "break-up" of the shuttle. As such, an non-free image is needed. This image from CNN for instance. The problem is however that if we use such material, we cannot cut out CNN logos etc, because this material has commercial value to CNN. We can only use it in its "original form" and we cannot edit it. We could have also used a FOX image or any other image, but chance decided otherwise and so a CNN frame it is. We do not add multiple clips from multiple commercial sources, since that is more than we need to illustrate this event. If you know of a free image that shows the breakup, please upload the image and integrate it into the article. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, there is also the footage of the debris contrails taken by that AH-64 gun camera, I'm sure it should be possible to put that into the article somehow as a screencap. As for the legality, I guess it should be about as free as NASA images are, considering it's of military origin and thus basically paid for by tax money. 91.33.253.218 (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Diary
A diary of an astronaut onboard the Columbia surivived the crash. Click —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nukedoom (talk • contribs) 18:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Technical information
I commented on this same topic in reentry vehicles but felt I should make it here as well. I have no source for this as it is likely classified, labeled under ITAR or some variation thereof. I know it is unavailable in official data unless one is working for NASA. I was discussing with some engineers at NASA's Langley research center in the aerothermodynamics division, they perform experimental testing for shuttle support, and found some interesting information. First off, due to heating reasons, the shuttle must maintain a laminar boundary layer until it decelerates beyond Mach 17 (it may be 13). If the boundary layer transitions to turbulent before this point, the shuttle will be destroyed. Official reasons for the Columbia's destruction aside, the damage caused the shuttle to transition at about Mach 19 or 20. Even if the hot air never entered the wing, it would have been destroyed. This was also why so much experimental testing was done on the return to flight mission after columbia, culminating in the astronaughts performing a space-walk to remove some tile liner. Written off as a practice drill, this was done because the wind tunnel experiments performed at Langley actually said that little bit of liner was enough to move the transition point to turbulent flow dangerously close to the critical Mach number. I don't intend to even try to find a source for these materials as I believe that they are unavailable publicly. I learned of them during a discussion I had with several engineers while interning at the facility. If anyone wants to make use of it its here. I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy so will not make an attempt to write this into the article. 192.12.88.2 (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Data Recovery from FAT16 Hard Drive
The article states that it was possible to recover the data on the hard drive because it was in FAT16 file system and therefore the data was contionuous, this is utter rubbish, FAT16 do fragment the data maybe not as bad as FAT32 or NTFS, but still does (anyone remember defragmenting disks under DOS 5.0 or DOS 6.0?). The reason why the data was easily recovered is more likely due to the fact the disk was relatevily small and FAT16 has a very simple data structure, therefore it was possible to rebuild the partition table by scanning the segments. Other more recent file systems, more recent, with inodes, high level of data redundancy and checksum would have been far more resilient to destruction. Blastwizard (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, it's likely incorrect. The statements are either speculative or misunderstood as the facts were conveyed from a technical person to a New York Times reporter, through copyedit then interpreted and incorporated into Wikipedia. The references are no longer available, plus this degree of detail seems inconsistent with a general access encyclopedia article. I'll re-write the section to reflect these issues. Joema (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * has links to a number of articles about the data recovery. My guess is that the AP story (i.e., the one reported in the New York Times) that was previously referenced is the one at .  One of the stories refers to a paper published "this April [i.e., April 2008] in the journal Physical Review E"; that appears to be a reference to:  TJRC (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Pics of Enterprise's wings used in test
I was recently at Udvar-Hazy, where Enterprise currently lives, and snapped some pics of the left wing leading-edge which was used in the CAIB tests. The panels clearly show evidence of being so used. That part of the article is a bit busy as it is, but if there's a use for these, here they are: File:Enterprise Left Wing Edge 1.png File:Enterprise Left Wing Edge 2.png File:Enterprise Left Wing Edge 3.png. ☢ Prompt Critical (talk) ☢ 21:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Space Shuttle Challenger disaster which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 08:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Cowboy Bebop
BTW, this is strange coincidence, but in anime "Cowboy Bebop TV" ep.19 (year 1998), shuttle Columbia was used to rescue the main character from Earth orbit, and on the way back, the heat plates were damaged. Shuttle landed almost safely that time...--77.37.149.87 (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Chairman of Accident Investigation Board
The article says General Deal chaired the Accident Investigation Board.

The Board's report (see reference 5 of the article) says retired Admiral Harold Gehman did. The CBS News Space Reporter's Handbook and Gehman's Wikipedia article concur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurelcooper (talk • contribs) 00:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Orbit Inclination
The article should note the orbital inclination of 38 degrees. 143.232.210.38 (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed move
I propose moving the page to Space Shuttle Columbia accident. Disaster is a much-overused word in popular media, & vastly overstates the impact & casualties.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  23:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Accident" implies a relatively minor and recoverable event. "Disaster", particularly in the academic sense of "the consequence of inappropriately managed risk" better fits the circumstances of the loss of Columbia. While fatality was limited to the seven members of the shuttle crew, the high-profile nature of space missions and the ramifications for the prospects of continued manned spaceflight put it within the realm of the disasterous rather than the merely accidental.74.83.14.59 (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Basic English grammar and usage
Hi folks. I notice the lead sentence of this article currently reads "The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster occurred on February 1, 2003, when shortly before she was scheduled to conclude its 28th mission, STS-107, ..."

Can anyone else see a problem with this? I tried to correct it, but I was reverted. My own preference would be to replace "she" with "it", as most space articles on Wikipedia seem to use this pronoun ("she" is generally reserved for ships), as do most real-world sources. But we should certainly not use two different pronouns in one sentence, should we? --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)