• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Space Shuttle

Alareth

Philosopher
Alareth
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
7,682
Location
Jacksonville, FL
I've not taken the time to investigoogle the "truth" for myself yet, but it's time for a change of pace from 9/11. The new Apollo threads are nice, but I need more.

Anyone heard any good Challenger or Columbia related conspiracies? I'm about to leave work so I'll see what "obvious truths" I can find when I get home.
 
Hoo boy. You're sure you want this?

Try this thread at BAUT: http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/61215-columbia-zapped-re-entry.html

This combines the "electric universe" woo with "NASA won't admit the real cause of the Columbia destruction."

Or this thread: http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/61206-haarp-space-shuttle-columbia.html
wherein HAARPWP is blamed for destroying Columbia.

And here's one about Challenger: http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/61078-another-challenger-conspiracy.html

ETA: BAUT is equivalent to JREF for astronomy-related CTs (also try the Against the Mainstream forum - some, um, interesting theories there); ApolloHoax is the equivalent for Apollo hoax believers.
 
Last edited:
I'd worked the Space Shuttle program in the mid-80s, about 2 years worth. I left the program in late summer, 1985. Challenger blew 5 months later, on January 28th, 1986.

When I first heard of it, I was more angry than shocked (as most people were). It had almost happened before. And, I had a general understanding of the bureaucracy that was NASA (and still is). My anger was based on the schoolteacher being aboard. I knew that spaceflight on the shuttle was dangerous and not yet ready for the frivolity of putting just anyone aboard.

Soon after the disaster, and talking to people I still knew in the program, the rumor came out that part of the pressure to launch that day, in 36-degree Fahrenheit weather, with icicles hanging off the ship, came from the White House. President Reagan wanted to do a live hookup with the schoolteacher during his State Of The Union address. People who are younger than, say 35, may not realize the extent of the popularity of Ronald Reagan at that time. Reagan never fooled me, not even when he was running for office and I was a 22-year-old kid, but he definitely knew how to play that role of President to the nth degree. Most emotive President ever. Best reader of a teleprompter. Expert at delivering a canned speech, because, as an actor, he knew just when to pause, how to phrase, how to affect the perfect tone and mood. It was all a charade, but America bought it for the most part. That kind of popularity can encourage arrogance. A publicity stunt such as the Prez-to-Shuttle live talk during his 1986 SOTU address is absolutely characteristic with his administration.

I'm not definitively saying Reagan was partly responsible, but there it is.

Here's more from someone eminently more qualified:
http://www.richardccook.com/
 
Well the re-entry trajectory of Columbia as published by NASA is inconsistent with the debris field..... but I am not saying this proves a conspiracy of any sort.
 
Unsecured Coins:

I have carried out some calculations of the Columbia descent trajectory after loss of signal (LOS) including the effects of air resistance. I assumed that Columbia initially broke up into large sections in much the same way that Challenger disintegrated after the infamous post-launch explosion back in 1986. Thus I assumed that four main components were first formed as the out-of-control shuttle plunged earthwards just south of Dallas: the two wing sections, the payload bay and the welded aluminum crew compartment.

The Columbia crew compartment was found more or less intact outside Hemphill near the Texas – Louisiana border, about 525 km from the official LOS point. However, the ground distance traveled by Columbia after LOS becomes much less than 500 km if we take NASA’s reported location for “the onset of vehicle main body breakup”, (near Kerens, Texas), as a starting point. I estimate the distance from Kerens to Hemphill to be just 240 km, which means that the crew compartment descended 60 km with a forward travel of only 240 km, giving a very steep descent angle of 14 degrees

NASA also give a reference trajectory for a hypothetical object with a ballistic number equal to 220 psf striking the ground near Oakdale Louisiana and indicate a time to impact after LOS of about three and a half minutes. I have tried a variety of input parameters in my calculation to duplicate NASA’s 3 1/2 minute descent time and 200 – 500 km forward distance traveled and simply cannot get close to these values!

In all my calculations I use the following starting conditions: shuttle altitude = 60 km, forward velocity = 5.5 km/s and descent velocity = 36 m/s. I set up two equations of motion, one in the horizontal plane, and the other in the vertical plane (with respect to the earth’s surface) and numerically solve for altitude, time and ground distance using different (trial) values for the coefficients of lift and drag. I have also used the US Standard Atmosphere as published in J.D. Anderson’s Introduction to Flight in the calculation of lift and drag effects. As a first calculation I consider the space shuttle descending in one piece. Based on published data on the shuttle I used a coefficient of lift equal to 1, and a coefficient of drag equal to 0.7. The resulting descent time is very close to 5 minutes with a forward distance traveled of 850 km. Interestingly the calculation shows that the descent velocity increases very rapidly at first because there is almost no air resistance at 60 km. There is then a period of rapid deceleration from 30 – 15 km, as air resistance kicks in, and the shuttle slows to a terminal velocity ~ 75 m/s.

As a second, improved, calculation I have considered just the crew compartment. I assume it has a surface area of about 100 sq. m., and 1/3 the weight of the shuttle. I have taken the coefficients of lift and drag to be both equal to 0.6 since this gives the correct descent time for a calculation when applied to the Challenger crew compartment crash – Challenger took 2 minutes and 45 seconds to descend 16.5 km after the booster rocket explosion. With the above input parameters the Columbia descent time is now reduced to 4 minutes and 15 seconds and the forward distance traveled after LOS comes out to about 800 km. This would put the LOS/breakup point near Lubbock, Texas, well west of NASA’s reported LOS position near Dallas. So, I believe the shuttle was coming in too low!
 
Apollo20 said:
Well the re-entry trajectory of Columbia as published by NASA is inconsistent with the debris field..... but I am not saying this proves a conspiracy of any sort.
Click to expand...
Sigh.

Dr. Greening, if you want to debate these sorts of things, go over the Bad Astronomy/Universe Today Forums (www.bautforum.com) for the shuttle issues, and ApolloHoax (http://apollohoax.proboards21.com) for Apollo Space program issues.

I would suggest, though, that if the re-entry trajectory was significantly inconsistent, then this would be quickly uncovered. There are a very large number of amateur astronomers and space buffs who would notice - and they are world wide, not just in the U.S. That is my opinion, though; if you want a more considered, expert response go to the BAUT forums. I'm not going to follow up on it, myself.
 
ConspiRaider said:
I'd worked the Space Shuttle program in the mid-80s, about 2 years worth. I left the program in late summer, 1985. Challenger blew 5 months later, on January 28th, 1986.

When I first heard of it, I was more angry than shocked (as most people were). It had almost happened before. And, I had a general understanding of the bureaucracy that was NASA (and still is). My anger was based on the schoolteacher being aboard. I knew that spaceflight on the shuttle was dangerous and not yet ready for the frivolity of putting just anyone aboard.

Soon after the disaster, and talking to people I still knew in the program, the rumor came out that part of the pressure to launch that day, in 36-degree Fahrenheit weather, with icicles hanging off the ship, came from the White House. President Reagan wanted to do a live hookup with the schoolteacher during his State Of The Union address. People who are younger than, say 35, may not realize the extent of the popularity of Ronald Reagan at that time. Reagan never fooled me, not even when he was running for office and I was a 22-year-old kid, but he definitely knew how to play that role of President to the nth degree. Most emotive President ever. Best reader of a teleprompter. Expert at delivering a canned speech, because, as an actor, he knew just when to pause, how to phrase, how to affect the perfect tone and mood. It was all a charade, but America bought it for the most part. That kind of popularity can encourage arrogance. A publicity stunt such as the Prez-to-Shuttle live talk during his 1986 SOTU address is absolutely characteristic with his administration.

I'm not definitively saying Reagan was partly responsible, but there it is.

Here's more from someone eminently more qualified:
http://www.richardccook.com/
Click to expand...

Setting aside the loss of life and the impact on the national psyche caused by the Challenger disaster, one of the things that bothers me about the event was how Morton Thiokol was made a scapegoat over the o-rings. Prior to the launch they were consulted about o-ring performance in those temperatures and they told the people at NASA that they couldn't guarantee they were safe under the existing launch conditions.

People on both sides new the danger, but chose to overlook it based on the desire to get in the sky and the accompanying publicity.
 
Apollo20 said:
Unsecured Coins:

I have carried out some calculations of the Columbia descent trajectory after loss of signal (LOS) including the effects of air resistance. I assumed that Columbia initially broke up into large sections in much the same way that Challenger disintegrated after the infamous post-launch explosion back in 1986. Thus I assumed that four main components were first formed as the out-of-control shuttle plunged earthwards just south of Dallas: the two wing sections, the payload bay and the welded aluminum crew compartment.

[snip]
Click to expand...
Interesting. The problem with this, though, is that the disintegration wouldn't have happened in that way. The damage was at the root of one of the wings (the left wing comes to mind, but I could be wrong in that). As the re-entry gasses entered and damaged the wing, a considerable lateral force (yaw-inducing) developed; the automated systems attempted to correct for this until it became to great to compensate for. This was confirmed from telemetry.

So it is likely that a) the breakup was not at all symmetrical and b) the damaged wing did not disintegrate the same way (in fact, I would suspect that it came apart more quickly). In fact, the asymmetrical breakup would probably substantially affect the debris field.

The other issue, of course, is that the aerodynamic and thermal loads on the shuttle would be substantially greater than in in the case of Challenger, so the shuttle would probably disintegrate faster (and in a different fashion, to boot - even leaving aside the asymmetrical initiating damage).

There is photography of the re-entry track prior to the breakup, by the way. One of the threads at BAUT includes one of these photos.

ETA: I prefer your well-reasoned second post to the fact and information-free first one, Dr. Greening.
 
Grmcdorman:

I didn't start this thread, but its title is SPACE SHUTTLE!

I post something about the space shuttle and what do I get from you:

"Sigh. Dr. Greening, if you want to debate these sorts of things, go over the Bad Astronomy/Universe Today Forums...."

VERY STRANGE! But sure, I would be happy NOT to debate this further if it bothers you....
 
Apollo20 said:
Grmcdorman:

I didn't start this thread, but its title is SPACE SHUTTLE!

I post something about the space shuttle and what do I get from you:

"Sigh. Dr. Greening, if you want to debate these sorts of things, go over the Bad Astronomy/Universe Today Forums...."

VERY STRANGE! But sure, I would be happy NOT to debate this further if it bothers you....
Click to expand...
Well, in part, Dr. Greening, it was the content (or lack thereof) of the post. However, what I was trying to point out is that if you want really good answers to this, then the best place to go is the BAUT forums.

ETA: You are correct about the thread topic, by the way. Perhaps I was a bit overly dismissive in my first response.
 
Last edited:
I do recall some years ago that they were having the damndest time working out problems fabricating, and then later installing, the heat shield tiles.

But then (cue the woo) they had an overnight breakthrough! As if a solution was just handed to them!

If the shuttle had been back-engineered from alien technology, would we really have so many problems with it? Maybe we just outsourced it to the wrong aliens.
 
Alareth said:
Setting aside the loss of life and the impact on the national psyche caused by the Challenger disaster, one of the things that bothers me about the event was how Morton Thiokol was made a scapegoat over the o-rings. Prior to the launch they were consulted about o-ring performance in those temperatures and they told the people at NASA that they couldn't guarantee they were safe under the existing launch conditions.

People on both sides new the danger, but chose to overlook it based on the desire to get in the sky and the accompanying publicity.
Click to expand...
Good points. I remember Thiokol getting raked over the coals. This wasn't the equipment, primarily. It was decision-making. Essentially it was the engineers versus the suits who pay their salaries. Suits can be pressured politically because that is mostly what upper management is all about. Engineers see only the numbers.

I followed a good deal of the fallout afterwards. I remember one of the PBS specials focused on an engineer, who refused to look at the monitors while Challenger was counting down and launching.

I'd known, being in the program, about the near burn-through of an SRB at the O-ring on a previous launch. That, along with the schoolteacher (who in a way I felt was sacrificed) had me using the saltiest sailor language I could dredge up when I heard about the disaster, up in Oakland on a business trip. Just about everyone else was shocked, had their hands over their O-shaped mouths. I was swearing up a blue streak. Obviously I'm an engineer.
 
Apollo20 said:
I have carried out some calculations of the Columbia descent trajectory after loss of signal (LOS) including the effects of air resistance. I assumed that Columbia initially broke up into large sections in much the same way that Challenger disintegrated after the infamous post-launch explosion back in 1986. Thus I assumed that four main components were first formed as the out-of-control shuttle plunged earthwards just south of Dallas: the two wing sections, the payload bay and the welded aluminum crew compartment.
Click to expand...

Well, there's your problem. The phenomenology of Columbia's breakup was nothing like that of Challenger. Absolutely nothing. The recovered data module showing how the control system reacted during softening and eventual breakup of the leading edge gives you a much more precise accounting of how and why it broke up, and this is supported by amateur photographs taken as far west as California, sufficient to trace the initial events.

If you want a frank discussion of the debris field, trajectory, and photographic evidence, I suggest you contact Dr. Paul Dimotakis, professor at GALCIT and the JPL Chief Technologist, who conducted a formal investigation into this precise effect personally. You may find it enlightening, and totally inconsistent with your own conclusions.

Quite dangerous to speculate so on the basis of such a poor assumption, wouldn't you agree?
 
R Mackey:

I think you need to do more research yourself old chap! Especially about the fate of the forward crew comparments in the Columbia vs. the Challenger disasters. This is key to what I am saying in case you didn't appreciate that..... And could you please show me YOUR calculations of the trajectory ... then we would have something to discuss!

ETA: Mackey, you appear to be pretty good at SCIENCE, but looking over your last dozen or more posts directed at something I have said, you really could improve the way you address me...You appear to have that proverbial CHIP on a part of your anatomy. I know you TOUGH GUYS like to sound TOUGH. But it never causes any harm being POLITE you know! Try it for a day and maybe you'll see what I mean.
 
Apollo20 said:
R Mackey:

I think you need to do more research yourself old chap! Especially about the fate of the forward crew comparments in the Columbia vs. the Challenger disasters. This is key to what I am saying in case you didn't appreciate that..... And could you please show me YOUR calculations of the trajectory ... then we would have something to discuss!

ETA: Mackey, you appear to be pretty good at SCIENCE, but looking over your last dozen or more posts directed at something I have said, you really could improve the way you address me...You appear to have that proverbial CHIP on a part of your anatomy. I know you TOUGH GUYS like to sound TOUGH. But it never causes any harm being POLITE you know! Try it for a day and maybe you'll see what I mean.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. RMackey used to be so respectful of you. I think you might have upset him when he suffered the humiliation of trying to debunk you with your own work lol
 
Apollo20 said:
R Mackey:

I think you need to do more research yourself old chap! Especially about the fate of the forward crew comparments in the Columbia vs. the Challenger disasters. This is key to what I am saying in case you didn't appreciate that..... And could you please show me YOUR calculations of the trajectory ... then we would have something to discuss!

ETA: Mackey, you appear to be pretty good at SCIENCE, but looking over your last dozen or more posts directed at something I have said, you really could improve the way you address me...You appear to have that proverbial CHIP on a part of your anatomy. I know you TOUGH GUYS like to sound TOUGH. But it never causes any harm being POLITE you know! Try it for a day and maybe you'll see what I mean.
Click to expand...

:dl: :dl: :dl:
oh the irony!

Detonations are exactly like aerodynamic forces, huh, Doc?
Stick to chemistry, ok?
 
Apollo20 said:
ETA: Mackey, you appear to be pretty good at SCIENCE, but looking over your last dozen or more posts directed at something I have said, you really could improve the way you address me...You appear to have that proverbial CHIP on a part of your anatomy. I know you TOUGH GUYS like to sound TOUGH. But it never causes any harm being POLITE you know! Try it for a day and maybe you'll see what I mean.
Click to expand...
Dr. Greening, looking at R. Mackey's post, I don't see anything particularly impolite, other than possibly pointing out that your assumption that the two breakups were comparable (something I pointed out above). Even then, to my mind the wording isn't really confrontational (unlike some of your posts I can point to). He even points you to a expert who studied exactly this thing you can talk to!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom