Talk:Space Shuttle Columbia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Space Shuttle Columbia is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. |
[edit] Unpowered glider
I know this info is probably relevant somewhere, but it didn't fit into the paragraphs we have so far:
- (The Space Shuttle is an unpowered glider during re-entry, with very little ability to maneuver.)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dachshund (talk • contribs) 21:32, 1 February 2003 (UTC)
See: space shuttle Vera Cruz — preceding comment was posted at 21:36, 1 February 2003 (UTC)
[edit] STS-107 details
Is having the full details of the crew of STS-107 appropriate on this page, when they are given in the articles on STS-107 and on the Columbia disaster? - kiwiinapanic 03:32 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)
- Yes it is how dare you say this,Topgear23
[edit] Space Shuttle Buran
If Space Shuttle Buran doesn't relate to Columbia, then how does
- Space Shuttle Challenger
- Space Shuttle Enterprise
- Space Shuttle Discovery
- Space Shuttle Atlantis
- Space Shuttle Endeavour
The only difference is the above are American, and the Buran was Soviet. It is not like there are 30 countries building space shuttles. There have only been a handful of shuttles sent into space by humans, and the Buran is one of them. To discount the Buran because it isn't NASA's, is being America-centric.
- I've added Buran to the Space Shuttle template. The problem now is that the header in the template redirects to the NASA Space Shuttle program. A general definition on space shuttles should be in that page.--Andylkl 12:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Rakesh Sharma
Kalpana Chawla was not the first astronaut of Indian birth. The first was Rakesh Sharma who went into space in 1984. This fact is mentioned in wiki's Kalpana Chawla page.
Jay 00:36, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Integrating articles
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 15:13, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I very strongly disagree and am surprised I haven't seen your message until now. Having over two thirds of this article about one aspect of Columbia - her death - would unbalance this article. The summary here is a good overview of the event. --mav 23:46, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
-
- Response to this at Talk:Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. Jgm 02:12, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
[edit] why the shuttle is named "Columbia"
The shuttle was was named after Columbia University b/c scientist at the university were the ones to invented the ceramic tiles that protected the shuttle from the heat of entering/exiting orbit.
- The above anonymous statement was written with someone with a particular interest in Columbia University, judging from the edit history. As a son of Right Stuff parents who worked for Rockwell, the company who manufactured the Space Shuttles here in Palmdale, I can tell you the above statement is patent nonsense. The naming of the Columbia was to represent the United States as a whole, and "Columbia" is often used to represent the United States in manufactured things. It's derived from the name of Christopher Columbus, explorer of the New World called the Americas - not Columbia University, which also is named after Columbus. Unlike our anon friend above, I'm willing to sign and datestamp my contribution here. --avnative 02:36, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, in reading the article, the Robert Gray sloop Columbia story is entirely plausible, but the Columbia University story is patent nonsense. Gray's sloop most likely was named after the explorer Columbus. Still would like a cite one way or the other. --avnative 02:42, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
-
- Columbia, the oldest orbiter in the Shuttle fleet, is named after the Boston, Massachusetts based sloop captained by American Robert Gray.
[edit] Changed the picture
I changed the picture of Columbia landing (in the history section) at the end of STS-73 to that of Columbia landing at the end of STS-1. The pictures are about the same quality but the historical significance of STS-1 seems greater than STS-73. It would seem, especially in the history section, that this image is a better fit. Triddle 02:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Loss of the Columbia
Why in heaven's name are there no details in this article regarding the loss of the Columbia? The bare fact of the breakup is reported as if it were mere routine. Bizarre. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.90.94.112 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Read carefully, and remember that blue links can be clicked on for more information. Jgm 11:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] What are Chines?
What are Chines? They are listed under the launch photo but not described nor listed anywhere else.
Columbia launching during STS-1. The original white-painted external tank, as well as Columbia's distinctive black chines, are clearly visible Kember 15:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- Well, they're the black bits at the sides. ;-) More seriously... it's a term for the "wing roots", the sections at the front end where the wings join the fuselage. The term originally referred to where the sides of a boat join to the hull. Image:Shuttle profiles.jpg may make it clearer. Shimgray 15:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Great tragedy
The Columbia disaster was a great tragedy - let's hope it never happens again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.40.75.55 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- It is extremely unlikely that the Columbia disaster will ever happen again. -Ashley Pomeroy 05:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] This image?
Can someone post this picture in the article? It's a nice photo that shows the NASA meatball logo and American flag & "Columbia" on the wings. http://www.ccastronomy.org/photo_shuttle_Columbia_STS-107_launch_portrait.jpg
This one shows Columbia's wing markings, too: http://www.vesmirweb.net/galerie/raketoplany/ig05_sts107_launch_02.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.130.233.72 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Error in History
I don't want to make the change and later get yelled at by the wikipedia admins, so I'll let someone else do it. Columbia's second mission was NOT STS-9, as the article states. It was definitely STS-2. It also flew STS-3 to STS-5. STS-6 to STS-8 were flown by Challenger, and then STS-9 was Columbia's Sixth mission. Check here for info: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/shuttleoperations/archives/1981-1986.html.--71.252.17.117 15:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- The article is correct, missions STS-1 to STS-4 were not operational missions. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 15:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Plasma vs Superheated air
The footnote re NASA referring to "supeheated air" is inconsistent with our page on superheating, which defines the term relative to a liquid but which makes no sense for a gas...shall we assume that it would be more correct to just say "very hot"? --Sharkford 19:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Song played at launch of STS-1?
I remember watching Columbia's first launch, but can't remember the song that was played. It was on the TV news broadcasts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.136.146.36 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cowboy Bebop
The anachronism could be resolved by figuring the old fellow had a _really_ tough job finding all the parts and rebuilding Columbia. ;) The episode shows a novel method of launching the Shuttle horizontally using JATO rockets on either side of the nose and a jettisonable fuel tank in the cargo bay. Whether or not that would actually work... The show is set in the future, so one could presume more energetic fuels and a superlight composite material for the fuel tank. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.136.146.36 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re-entry image
Why no image of the final re-entry? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.21.254.107 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Embarrassment as major contributing factor?
Yeah, it looks that way. And don't ever underestimate embarrassment, and avoiding embarrassment, and poorly responding to embarrassment as a factor in human behavior. And a good leader takes this into account, gives their people a little space, and then gently pulls them back to the constructive path.
NASA engineers made preliminary inquiries with DoD (Dept of Defense) about taking some high resolution photos of Columbia. These preliminary inquiries were a blur between laying the groundwork for such a request and going ahead and making the request.
NASA managers found out and in a mixture of anger and embarrassment cancelled the request. Managers and engineers never had the healthy argument, 'Hey, you make us look like idiots. When you go outside the agency like that, you make us look like idiots. Let us do our jobs, too. Keep us in the loop.' Engineers could then point out that if every single thing was run past managers nothing would ever get done and all they were doing afterall was seeing if such photos were feasible. Both sides could have had a healthy argument and discussion and probably the conclusion would have been, okay, we're going to take care of the concern about the foam strike in a mature, adult way, and we're going to reform some communication things and out-of-agency things for the future.
That never happened. In fact, communication was so muted and so awkward that when engineers were told to do the analysis using the Crater model, they assumed 'Photos were taken but were not conclusive. We can't tell you more because of security clearance issues.' That seems like that's the kind of thing that could be said directly, one adult talking to another adult. High-res cameras would show military capabilities and the engineers did not in fact have the necessary security clearance.
But as we all know, tragically, no photographs had been taken. In fact, William Langewiesche argues that Columbia has aspects of a system accident precisely because of this miscommunication. [1]
(I realize in the above that I've made an artificial distinction between engineers and managers. That is of course unfair. Most managers have backgrounds as engineers and are very sympathetic to the concerns of working engineers.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.62.68.23 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Columbia Debris
It said on the page that they didn't seal the shuttle's remains inside a missile silo after the disintegration, unlike Challenger's remains. What happened to the remains of Columbia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.151.77 (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
