• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What steps could have been taken to avert the shuttle disaster?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
This is just like Challenger, when anyone could plainly see the flame protruding from the solid rocket booster towards the main fuel tank.
Click to expand...

LMAO!!!! OK, I won't insult as you apparently really are clueless. Of course the flame was seen shooting out from the Challenger.
rolleye.gif
It wasn't the flame shooting out that was the cause of that disaster, it was the symptom.

Kiyup as head of NASA in 1987: "Well you see, it's simple. See that flame shooting out the side of the rocket booster? That's the cause of the crash. All we have to do from now on is make sure that flames don't shoot out the sides of these boosters."


Bwhahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!
 
Originally posted by: Kiyup
Yea, well...

You can all sit and stew on why 7 hard working astronauts died.

I say after a years time.... (That takes anyone that is a government bureaucrat.)

They will say it's tile failure on the left wing that caused it. And something hit that wing on liftoff? Be for real.
Click to expand...

That may be. But it doesn't change the fact that you're a fscking idiot making accusations that you have no no basis. The available analysis didn't support making any changes to the mission. And there were few to no options even if the analysis had suggested a problem.

I'm not suggesting that this is the best we can do. There is obviously a problem ... obvious in hindsight. It needs to be addressed. But to make the kind of shameful accusations you've been pulling out of your ass on the basis of the available information is inexcusable.

This is just like Challenger, when anyone could plainly see the flame protruding from the solid rocket booster towards the main fuel tank.
Click to expand...

What caused that flame?
The flame is only a clue.

 
Originally posted by: Corn
This is just like Challenger, when anyone could plainly see the flame protruding from the solid rocket booster towards the main fuel tank.
Click to expand...

LMAO!!!! OK, I won't insult as you apparently really are clueless. Of course the flame was seen shooting out from the Challenger.
rolleye.gif
It wasn't the flame shooting out that was the cause of that disaster, it was the symptom.

Kiyup as head of NASA in 1987: "Well you see, it's simple. See that flame shooting out the side of the rocket booster? That's the cause of the crash. All we have to do from now on is make sure that flames don't shoot out the sides of these boosters."


Bwhahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

pwned! 😀
 
whether or not this is related to the disaster or not, i remember reading on nasa's website that from the last columbia launch to this one was the shortest time in between launches they have had so far. (i'm pretty sure it was this launch, i may be wrong though) of course, this may have nothing to do with it, but it always leads to speculation on whether it had anything to do with the disaster or not.
 
I still can't understand why there was no "black box" like device onboard. Yes, all comm and telemetry is recorded on the ground. But in the event those links between the vehicle and ground control are severed, it would be helpful to the investigation to see what transpired after contact was lost.
 
Originally posted by: Kiyup
Originally posted by: jteef
they said on fox news today that the relative speed of the falling insulation was only 60 miles per hour.
Click to expand...

I retract all I said. Sorry. Fox news said that.
rolleye.gif
Click to expand...

Do you have any analysis or sources that says otherwise?
How much will drag accelerate a piece of foam in the distance between where it tore off of the tank and where it hit the wing?
Of course, you only have a few frames of grainy video to estimate the size & weight of that piece.
 
Ze sspeed of die inzulation ist zimply a fucntion of die coeficient of drag times da distance it fell plus die ackzelleration made by die main kraft in die ziet dat elpazed zince breakoff und impact. Zo zimple.

Kiyup, du bist ein wienersnitzle. Wo ist dein kopf?
 
Originally posted by: MacBaine
Originally posted by: Corn
This is just like Challenger, when anyone could plainly see the flame protruding from the solid rocket booster towards the main fuel tank.
Click to expand...

LMAO!!!! OK, I won't insult as you apparently really are clueless. Of course the flame was seen shooting out from the Challenger.
rolleye.gif
It wasn't the flame shooting out that was the cause of that disaster, it was the symptom.

Kiyup as head of NASA in 1987: "Well you see, it's simple. See that flame shooting out the side of the rocket booster? That's the cause of the crash. All we have to do from now on is make sure that flames don't shoot out the sides of these boosters."


Bwhahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

pwned! 😀
Click to expand...

Listen, you made the CA thread no? Please, your opinion is worthless.

Now back to Corn (that passed through my digestive tract)

Flame shooting from solid rocket booster towards liquid fuel tank. Symptom.

That's so ludicrous it doesn't deserve a remark.
 
Originally posted by: Kiyup
Originally posted by: MacBaine
Originally posted by: Corn
This is just like Challenger, when anyone could plainly see the flame protruding from the solid rocket booster towards the main fuel tank.
Click to expand...

LMAO!!!! OK, I won't insult as you apparently really are clueless. Of course the flame was seen shooting out from the Challenger.
rolleye.gif
It wasn't the flame shooting out that was the cause of that disaster, it was the symptom.

Kiyup as head of NASA in 1987: "Well you see, it's simple. See that flame shooting out the side of the rocket booster? That's the cause of the crash. All we have to do from now on is make sure that flames don't shoot out the sides of these boosters."


Bwhahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

pwned! 😀
Click to expand...

Listen, you made the CA thread no? Please, your opinion is worthless.

Now back to Corn (that passed through my digestive tract)

Flame shooting from solid rocket booster towards liquid fuel tank. Symptom.

That's so ludicrous it doesn't deserve a remark.
Click to expand...

What CA thread?

 
Originally posted by: Kiyup
Originally posted by: TallBill
a stupid topic that started with a crappy post.. Turn off CNN for a bit and go read a book on spaceships.
Click to expand...
That sounds like a great idea. Would you recommend
this?
Click to expand...

Ah, now I understand.
You view of engineering & analysis is taken from the star trek universe where knowledge is perfect and most technical problems can be solved in 60 minutes (the rest are in a 2 part episode).
 
Originally posted by: ergeorge
Originally posted by: Kiyup
Originally posted by: TallBill
a stupid topic that started with a crappy post.. Turn off CNN for a bit and go read a book on spaceships.
Click to expand...
That sounds like a great idea. Would you recommend
this?
Click to expand...

Ah, now I understand.
You view of engineering & analysis is taken from the star trek universe where knowledge is perfect and most technical problems can be solved in 60 minutes (the rest are in a 2 part episode).
Click to expand...

Only a geek like you wouldn't realize that I was being facetious.
rolleye.gif
 
Originally posted by: TallBill
And only an idiot like you would continue a coversation that didn't exist.
Click to expand...

Yep, no conversation of how quite coincidentally a large piece hit the shuttle during liftoff on one of the more critical parts of the underbelly and it's burning up in the atmosphere.

Nope, no convo here. Move along.
 
Originally posted by: Kiyup
Originally posted by: TallBill
And only an idiot like you would continue a coversation that didn't exist.
Click to expand...

Yep, no conversation of how quite coincidentally a large piece hit the shuttle during liftoff on one of the more critical parts of the underbelly and it's burning up in the atmosphere.

Nope, no convo here. Move along.
Click to expand...

No one is saying that's not what happened. You're just being especially obtuse.
 
hahaha, i dunno how many people it'll take to tell kiyup that he's an idiot before he shuts the hell up. idiots like that usually will never understand though
 
Originally posted by: d33pt
hahaha, i dunno how many people it'll take to tell kiyup that he's an idiot before he shuts the hell up. idiots like that usually will never understand though
Click to expand...

Interesting how you have nothing to contribute but an idiot insult. Get lost.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Ze sspeed of die inzulation ist zimply a fucntion of die coeficient of drag times da distance it fell plus die ackzelleration made by die main kraft in die ziet dat elpazed zince breakoff und impact. Zo zimple.

Kiyup, du bist ein wienersnitzle. Wo ist dein kopf?
Click to expand...

Werner is spinning in his grave Moonie...

Honestly, I'd prefer any discussion @ least have the decency to take place the day after the memorial service.


 
Originally posted by: Kiyup
Originally posted by: d33pt
hahaha, i dunno how many people it'll take to tell kiyup that he's an idiot before he shuts the hell up. idiots like that usually will never understand though
Click to expand...

Interesting how you have nothing to contribute but an idiot insult. Get lost.
Click to expand...

why do i need to repeat what 10 other people have told you?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top