Talk:Space Shuttle Columbia disaster/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Link Rot Issues and Archives

message: I removed the following text from the article; someone had put it in after the  tag. - Brian Kendig 15:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{attention}}</nowiki> notes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Asteroid name? 

message: 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) —chris.lawson (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total removal of conspiracy section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of purple streak section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Picture of crew before launch 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The new CFC-free foam  

message: 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)
thread_title:  This thing failed to be a feature article? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Re-entry timeline 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Explanation of changes to second paragraph: 23:47, 1 February 2006  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Management at odds with engineers 

message: 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)
replies: text: How about this picture ? It shows the foam strike quite well. -- KarlHallowell 03:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of foam strike 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Lock the doors" 

message: 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 | Talk 22:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fair use" Time magazine image. 

message: 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)
thread_title: Minimum use of acronyms in lead section

message: 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
*wishful thinking by you wannabe-managers
*engineering data from showoffs and other obsessed nerds
*acronyms from you pseudo-govt-beauraucrats
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)
thread_title:  Priorities 

message: How come the surviving worms section was removed?
Josh215 17:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Worms 

message: 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)
thread_title: Suggest remove section

message: :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)
replies: text: 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. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 | Talk 12:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: 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?

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Poignant conversation" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Final sentence of Terrorism section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Discrepancy between description of final onboard video + actual 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Language is POV 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  confusing phrasing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  payments to families 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Post-Columbia fixes 

message: What happened to the photo of the Columbia disintegrating?
:It was hosted on commons: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 () that is non-reproducible.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Photo of Disintegration

message: :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 Wikipedia: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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Space Shuttle Columbia fragment.PNG

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, that's much clearer. Thanks TheDJ. Davidelit 02:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing sentence

message: :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 Wikipedia: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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:2003 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster.PNG

message: 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)
replies: text: Report it here:  Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Cla68 04:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Purple Streak Image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thank you. Louis waweru (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable Statement 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Why a CNN clip? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Diary

message: 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)
thread_title:  Technical information 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Data Recovery from FAT16 Hard Drive 

message: Links from Space.com (i.e. 1, 22) are broken. --Elitre (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pics of Enterprise's wings used in test 

message: 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)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: 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)
thread_title: Cowboy Bebop

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chairman of Accident Investigation Board 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  Proposed move 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Basic English grammar and usage