Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster from NASA TV

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

1. I love the use of the word "contingency". I guess it can be justified in that, in the moment, they don't know yet what has happened (only that communication has been lost). But knowing what we now know, though, it sounds so . . . newspeak.
2. The re-entry procedure is one of the most dangerous parts of the flight of the STS (Space Shuttle Tranporter) flight, like the launch, the speed, altitude, and attitude have to be exact.  If they are going too fast, it will effect the flight surfaces ability to withstand heat exposure.   There are a lot of theorists that keep trying to blame the tiles on it, yet they can only take so much heat until they fail or fall off, which exposes its interior components, which not be designed to take the extreme environment the transporter fuselage is in.   If you look up, Space Re-entry window, and find the data on it, you will see that it is like a small place in space, in fact very small, considering the speeds the STS enters at.   Unlike a regular aircraft, pitch (nose + tail), speed, altitude, and attitude(wing positions in reference to ground) have all to be factored.   The pilot and copilots, if you look further, have many practices, trials and trialings they go through, and then the experience they already have just to get to it.   Not everyone in the final frontier, has a name on the list of ingredients they must not demise from in a landing or takeoff.
3. I have seen a video where there are to rockets coming towards Columbia  in this same video there is some questioning about the nasa logo on the left side oif a bullet riddled spaceshuttle floating in space which had a nasa log on the left side while the Columbia did "not" have that logo  there were 2 shuttles up there one was a decoy  and the pther was taking pictures above russia . check out from where the shuttle was launched    not the usual way
4. A briefcase-sized styrofoam piece can kill 7 people? Wow, logic much?
5. That day there were seven more stars in the sky... RIP heroes
6. Your welcome. Space travel is unforgiving and always will be.
7. Thanks, wow such a small aerodynamic imbalance can cause catastrophic damage. Thanks for the info R.I.P. crew, STS-107 must have taken alot of courage.
8. A piece of foam (the size of a briefcase) came off the external tank during launch and hit the leading edge of the wing putting a 10 inch hole in it. It was not detected on orbit because NASA didnt try real hard. During re-entry (when it is much hotter entering then exiting the atmosphere) the wing burned from the inside out causing structural failure of the orbiter. Still at 12000 mph and 125000 ft, there was no surviving.
9. Come on man I know its the internet and all no faces ect. Show some respect for the dead, stop bickering over who is at fault. 
10. Can you give me detailed information on what exactly happened on launch that made things so bad? I wish to know if it was caused at launch or later in orbit or re-entry. Sorry for this question but you seem knowledgeable. 
11. This breaks me every time, I think astronauts/cosmonauts whoever is flying up into the stars has my total and absolute respect. It takes real hero's to do these kinds of things, its sad that this had happened but in the broad spec of things only one bad/lethal launch out of so many, it was bound to happen at some point. I hope it was fast for them, I wish them no suffering and want them to pass on with comfort. 
12. Aerodynamics were not compromised because at that point the atmosphere was too thin. Heaters were later added to the attach points.
13. I'm actually amazed that the shuttle made it all the way through the launch. After the foam chunk busted a hole in the wing the Aerodynamics had to have been compromised pretty bad. The crazy thing is the foam's purpose was considered obsolete and later removed from the design. All it did was aid in aerodynamics around attachment hardware.
14. Funny then, because some of the Columbia engineering teams must have had precognition so they could have hindsight bias before the accident (source: Popular Mechanics, 5 Years Later, 5 Hard Lessons From the Columbia Shuttle Disaster, 1 Oct 2009 ). Much like a previous Shuttle mission, involving an engineer who thought that launching in sub-freezing temperatures may be a bad idea, this ended in tragedy. ""Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
15. It's called the hindsight bias - none of this was predictable, yet after the incident everyone thinks seeing such problems is an obvious and easy thing to do. Not at all. If different actions could be taken then they would have been. This was cause by a small foam strike on the leading edge of the wing which damaged the thermal protection system. Non of this could have been predicted or prevented.
16. This all happened cos of laziness and ignorance... Saving those lives was a possibility as close as a pen standing an inch away from an officer responsible for the authorisation of usage of the observation satalites which could be sent in to look at the condition of the shuttle before landing.
17. 1:44 Guys! Why I'm seeing two yellow dots fallowing the shuttle? They didn't have HD back then or am I missing something? 
18. Entry interface of the atmosphere is world recognized at 62 miles or about 400,000 ft. The shuttle re-entered the atmosphere for every mission exactly where it suppose to with no issues. STS-107 was no different.
19. the thermosphere is located 50-90 MILES ABOVE SEA LEVEL, and is the upper most layer of the earths atmosphere.
20. that is a 20 mile error at a speed of 17,000 MPH re-entered the atmosphere prior to re-entry window.