Talk:Space Shuttle Columbia disaster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

	Space Shuttle Columbia disaster has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 20, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 18, 2006 Peer review Reviewed July 5, 2006 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Space (Rated GA-Class) Space Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. Related projects: WikiProject Spaceflight Importance to Spaceflight: Top Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. Human spaceflight WikiProject This article is within the scope of the Human spaceflight WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the manned exploration of space. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. WikiProject Disaster management This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This Engtech article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

This article contains material that originally came from a NASA website or printed source. According to their site usage guidelines, "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted". For more information, please review NASA's use guidelines.

Archives

Talk:Space Shuttle Columbia disaster/Archive 1

Contents 1 Featured Article (FA) 2 More FA thoughts 3 Worms 4 Explosion or not 5 Suggest remove section 6 What happened to the surviving worms? 7 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? 8 "Poignant conversation" 9 Final sentence of Terrorism section 10 Article at risk 11 Discrepancy between description of final onboard video + actual 12 Language is POV 13 somethins is wrong. 14 confusing phrasing 15 payments to families 16 Falling debris 17 Photo of Disintegration 18 Destruction Profile 19 Post-Columbia fixes 20 Disintegration photo 21 Fair use rationale for Image:Space Shuttle Columbia fragment.PNG 22 Confusing sentence 23 Fair use rationale for Image:2003 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster.PNG 24 Purple Streak Image 25 Questionable Statement 26 Why a CNN clip?

[edit] Featured Article (FA)

It appears to me that this article is close to being FA-worthy. An interested party just needs to take the time to get it there. It needs a lot more in-line citations in the text, at least one every paragraph. Also, the references section needs to be better-formatted and organized (see the Linda Ham article for an example). Then, I think it would be good to go. Cla68 03:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's fairly close to FA status, although there are a couple of problems. A reader objected to the timeline style in the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster article, and I think that he had a point. There's no real reason that this timeline couldn't be in prose too. Also, the memorials section is really listy as it stands, and needs to be tamed somehow. Beyond that and the citations, yes, there's no reason why it shouldn't be nominated as a FAC.

Do I have time to do this? Alas, not at the moment. MLilburne 07:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate the work to improve these articles, I cannot over-emphasize how strongly I disagree with removing the timeline format in the Challenger disaster article, or ANY OTHER article on aviation-related disasters. Because of the time-critical nature of events preceding aviation accidents, general news and information coverage of such incidents often includes a timeline section. You see this in Time Magazine, New York Times, Aviation Week, etc. A properly-sized timeline section doesn't weigh down the article or swamp it with unnecessary detail. Timeline format facilitates quicker recognition of what happened when, and better illustrates the chronological relationship of events preceding the incident. Readers who don't require that level of detail can easily skip over that section. The timeline format is much more readable than prose format. Joema 14:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see there being an argument for leaving the Columbia timeline, and I'm quite prepared to be convinced. The Challenger timeline, on the other hand, was quite long and included a lot of extraneous dialogue, so I'm comfortable with having included the relevant information (including times) in prose format. If you want to discuss it further, perhaps we should do so on the Challenger talk page? MLilburne 14:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Having looked again at the old Challenger timeline, the only part of it that was in timeline form was actually the dialogue. The descriptions of the unfolding of the accident were in prose anyway. So I'm not sure the article has lost anything valuable. MLilburne 14:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The old Challenger timeline include a concise description of the failure sequence. It straightforwardly answered one of the most common questions: what happened and when did it happen? This information was largely removed in this edit on 17 Sept 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster&diff=prev&oldid=76147643. I'll continue this in the Challenger disaster article talk page. Joema 19:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the timeline issue has an easy answer. I think a timeline approach is better for technical writing and a prose approach is better for a story-telling composition. Since this is an "encyclopedic" article, I think either a technical or prose style is appropriate. It the timeline continues to prevent this article from making FA, then perhaps prose should be strongly considered. Cla68 00:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In this case I think the best thing to do is wait until (if?) it gets to FAC and see what happens. This timeline I feel more comfortable with than the Challenger one, and it's possible that no one will mind it. My only concern at the moment is that we need to make it clear where it's sourced from. MLilburne 07:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More FA thoughts

I've been continuing to think about cleaning up the article for FAC, and it seems to me that the section on "possible rescue options" belongs after, or perhaps as part of, the CAIB section, since the rescue options were assessed and discussed purely by the CAIB and the CAIB is our only source. Does anyone feel differently or have different reasoning?

I also think we should really, really get rid of the "Miscellaneous Items" section. Usually having a section like that means that either the items don't belong in the article in the first place, or that the article isn't complete (because if it were, there would be a suitable place to put these facts). Thoughts? MLilburne 08:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked over the points that you discussed, and I agree. The rescue section, as well as possibly other sections, could do quite well in the CAIB section. We might as well give it a whirl. And if we don't like it, we can revert it back. As for "miscellaneous", the "purple streak" could possibly go under CAIB due to its being investigated by that body, but I'm not sure where the "terrorism" section should go. Perhaps we could spin it out of that heading into its own section? SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking terrorism might well fit under the "initial investigation" section, as it was something that people initially suspected before the CAIB report proved it to be groundless. Or it could have its own section if we could make it a bit longer. I'm still undecided really.

I'll move the rescue section sometime over the next couple of days, if no one gets to it before me. MLilburne 18:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Worms

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

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)

[edit] Explosion or not

The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster was the destruction of the Space Shuttle Columbia over Texas on February 1, 2003 during reentry,..."

It is my impression that the collapse began at, at least, California, or much further.

What about Admiral Hal Gehman, Harold Gehman?

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 17:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

But somewhere it was announced, that explosion happened over Palestina(Texas) town Texas.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl-shuttle-explosion.htm

google results for ---shutle Columbia explosion---- 404 000 for shuttle columbia explosion. Ttturbo 09:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see what relevance a Google search has here.--chris.lawson 16:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest remove section

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)

[edit] What happened to the surviving worms?

The canisters were recovered, the petri dishes opened and the worms were examined (prob. under microscope) and found to be alive. After that, I expect that the cultures were transfered to petri dishes with fresh food media and further generations were allowed to propigate. C. elegans has an average life span of approximately 2-3 weeks and a generation time of approximately 4 days. -- 199.33.32.40 01:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor correction: 7-10 days on that "life cycle". See "Worms found alive" in [1] and other web refs. -- 199.33.32.40 01:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a CMU article that talks about the worms:

Ordinarily, C. elegans eat bacteria. But that diet requires weekly feedings from astronauts, adding another chore to their busy schedules. With the synthetic nutrient, feedings every four to eight weeks suffice.

Because C. elegans' lifespan is only two to three weeks, most of the recovered worms were several generations removed from the ones dispatched at Cape Canaveral Jan. 16. But Szewczyk said some of the survivors most likely were born in orbit. These were in a control group that was eating bacteria. Deprived of food after the disaster, they went into a state of arrested development that prolonged their lifespan. In contrast, the worms on synthetic nutrient stayed active. Each Petri dish contained 10 to 500 worms at launch. Upon recovery, there were 0 to 27,000 worms in each dish, Szewczyk reported.

Still, I have to assume that they continued to feed the worm cultures when they were back on the ground since they represent a sort of living historic museum, but I really do not know for sure. -- 199.33.32.40 22:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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?

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)

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)

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)

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_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 12:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] "Poignant conversation"

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)

[edit] Final sentence of Terrorism section

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)

[edit] Article at risk

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)

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

---

• Vandalism risk: (Very High)
• Protection (Very low)
• Users complaining about vandals here
• Users votes to semi-protect the article
• Users Tired of reverting valdalism

We need to reduce valdalism risk

• Jer10 95 06:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Discrepancy between description of final onboard video + actual

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)

[edit] Language is POV

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 {{fact}} 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)

[edit] somethins is wrong.

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

[edit] confusing phrasing

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)

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)

[edit] payments to families

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).

[edit] Falling debris

Wouldn't it be possible to protect an orbiter against falling debris with a one-time use lightweight shield that is to be thrown off at an appropriate height? Christian Storm 10:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That would probably still incur too much of a payload penalty to be practical. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Technologically impractical? Or do you also mean the costs? It does not have to take so much if it’s for one-time use; it just has to sidetrack the debris/absorb the impact while being destroyed. Do you think it's technologically impossible? Maybe one can carry less, but it's a balance with safety. Christian Storm 14:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

1. The space shuttle is being phased out and as such, major design changes are unlikely. always keep that in mind
2. The missions it still needs to complete are almost all fully loaded with equipment. There is a reason they no longer use tiles on the top of the shuttles, carry ejection seats and use unpainted external tanks. It's weight, and it's a lot of weight. Readding that stuff would take 5 years, and they'd need another way to carry all that heavy equipment into space.
3. Adding such a temporary shield requires points that it's fixed to, and a way to shed the shield without touching the tiles. It would be just as dangerious as the current procedures I think, and it would be too heavy to carry some of the ISS components up into space.
4. Wikipedia is not a place to discuss these kinds of things :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

From an engineering point of view, the proposed fix is a band-aid, not a root cause fix. It accomodates the problem-- it does not obviate it. It is possible with other configurations to obviate the problem rather than accomodating it. For example, the standard stacked stages rocket does not have this issue-- falling ice just falls away as on the Apollo spacecraft. Dalebert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.140 (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo of Disintegration

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)

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)

If only it were like Uncyclopedia where we could just use the reason "nobody cares" and use it anyway. :P Bkkeim2000 07:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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 ({{historicphoto}}) that is non-reproducible. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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)}

[edit] Destruction Profile

"During re-entry of STS-107, the damaged area allowed the hot gases to penetrate and destroy the internal wing structure, eventually causing the in-flight breakup of the vehicle." This implies that the destruction of the internal wing structure led to the breakup. My understanding was that the drag on the left side caused the vehicle to turn. This eventually took it out of a sustainable attitude, as the atmosphere started impacting the right side of the vehicle rather than the front, then other areas that were not designed to take the full force of re-entry stresses, ultimately breaking it apart. Patrickbowman 06:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not an expert on these things, but it seems you have a valid concern, so I tagged the passage. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm re-reading the CAIB report, and the entry here is a reasonable interpretation of its statement on the physical cause. From page 49:

"During re-entry, this breach in the Thermal Protection System allowed superheated air to penetrate the leading-edge insulation and progressively melt the aluminum structure of the left wing, resulting in a weakening of the structure until increasing aerodynamic forces caused loss of control, failure of the wing, and breakup of the Orbiter."

Looking over the detailed timeline, "loss of control, failure of the wing, and breakup..." was the specific order of events. Wing deformation due to damage influenced the "loss of control" (due to changes in drag and lift), but "increasing aerodynamic forces" is given as its cause. I think my point still stands, but it's perhaps just a grammatical adjustment, or inclusion of the intermediate steps. Patrickbowman 23:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it overthinking the issue to want to change the wording from "eventually causing" to "eventually leading to"? It seems like such a minor change but also seems more correct.Patrickbowman (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Post-Columbia fixes

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)

[edit] Disintegration photo

Is there, anywhere, in existence a high quality photo of the disintegration, with size of at least 800x600? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcwenger (talk • contribs) 00:54, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Space Shuttle Columbia fragment.PNG

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)

[edit] Confusing sentence

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)

Yes, that's much clearer. Thanks TheDJ. Davidelit 02:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:2003 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster.PNG

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)

[edit] Purple Streak Image

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)

[edit] Questionable Statement

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)

Agreed - it needs a citation. As such, I've tagged it with a {{fact}} 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)

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)

Thank you. Louis waweru (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why a CNN clip?

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)

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)

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)