Talk:Space Shuttle Columbia

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

See the external links - specifically, this one from a NASA site:

Columbia, the oldest orbiter in the Shuttle fleet, is named after the Boston, Massachusetts based sloop captained by American Robert Gray.

-- ALoan (Talk) 09:49, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Probably because nobody bothered to put one up. Why don't you do it?71.243.221.144 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

Embarrassment as major contributing factor?

Yeah, it sure looks that way. And don't ever underestimate embarrassment and avoiding embarrassment and poorly responding to embarrassment, as major contributing factors in human behavior. A good leader takes this into account, gives their people a little time and a little space, as needed, when possible, and often the person only needs a little time and a little space, as tangible signs of respect, and then gently pulls the person back onto a 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. [More than preliminary, these got the ball rolling! "Preliminary" is a mistake of emphasis, please see following section which has excerpt from William Langewiesche's article.]

[I made a mistake. And I'm going to steer a middle course between hiding it and trumpeting it to the skies. Cool Nerd (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)]

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!

They did not have this healthy argument, or anything like it.

Engineers could also point out that if every single thing was run past managers, nothing would ever get done. But again, no healthy argument. It was all freeze out and people being hurt and people walking on egg shells and not communicating.

If there had been some kind of good communication, then okay, yes, yes, of course yes, we are going to take care of the foam issue in a mature, adult way. And at the same time we're going to reform communication issues and out-of-agency issues for the future, at least talk about these, at least take the next step and see how it goes.

Engineers who were told to do the analysis using the Crater model assumed, Photos had been taken but were inconclusive and we can't tell you more because of security clearance. However, that seems like the kind of thing that could be said directly, one adult talking to another adult.

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. [But, it does not have the bolt-from-the-blue aspect of other system accidents. Currently, I would not even classify it as a borderline case. I would classify it, sadly and infuriatingly, simply as a case of overbearing management.] [1]
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200311/langewiesche

(I realize in the above that I have 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) and Cool Nerd (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC), all by Cool Nerd, just me! But please, pitch in if you want to.

William Langewiesche from "the Atlantic" article, Nov. 2003

" . . . The caib discovered that on the morning of January 17, the day after the launch, the low-level engineers at the Kennedy Space Center whose job was to review the launch videos and film were immediately concerned by the size and speed of the foam that had struck the shuttle. As expected of them, they compiled the imagery and disseminated it by e-mail to various shuttle engineers and managers—most significantly those in charge of the shuttle program at the Johnson Space Center. Realizing that their blurred or otherwise inadequate pictures showed nothing of the damage that might have been inflicted, and anticipating the need for such information by others, the engineers at Kennedy then went outside normal channels and on their own initiative approached the Department of Defense with a request that secret military satellites or ground-based high-resolution cameras be used to photograph the shuttle in orbit. After a delay of several days for the back-channel request to get through, the Air Force proved glad to oblige, and made the first moves to honor the request. Such images would probably have shown a large hole in the left wing—but they were never taken. . . "--the Atlantic, November 2003. [4th page, roughly a quarter to a third of the way down]
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/11/columbia-apos-s-last-flight/4204/4/

" . . . What the Debris Assessment engineers could not imagine is that no photos had been taken, or ever would be—and essentially for lack of curiosity by NASA's imperious, self-convinced managers. What those managers in turn could not imagine was that people in their own house might really be concerned. The communication gap had nothing to do with security clearances, and it was complete. . . " [roughly three-fourths of the way down
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/11/columbia-apos-s-last-flight/4204/4/

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).

AFRSI vs FRSI

Externally, Columbia was the only orbiter in the fleet that had an all-tile thermal protection system (TPS), although this was later modified to incorporate nomex felt insulation blankets on the fuselage and upper wing surfaces. The work was performed during Columbia's first retrofitting and the post-Challenger stand-down.

That's not true. Whoever wrote that was confusing Advanced Flexible Reusable Surface Insulation with Felt Reusable Surface Insulation. When Columbia was initially delivered it did have Nomex FRSI, but it did not have AFRSI blankets. This is evident in hires photos of STS-1. After its seventh flight most of the LRSI tiles were replaced with AFRSI. The article needs to be changed. The Challenger article also seemed to have something about this, but I haven't been able to find good high resolution photos of Challenger in its early configuration so I can't say anything certain about that. Discovery and Atlantis had AFRSI blankets from the get-go though.130.234.5.136 13:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Enterprise

was there any plans to refit OV-101, as there were after Challenger, after Columbia? 70.55.88.11 06:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is really a question for Talk:Space Shuttle Enterprise. That article currently says that NASA considered and rejected the idea after Challenger because it would be more cost-effective to build a new one (Endeavour). (Presumably this was even more true after Columbia.) However, it doesn't give any sources for this information (of which I'm sure there are plenty), or for just about any other information, so I've tagged that article as unreferenced. Hmmm — I just noticed this article is short on specific references, too… ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Cowboy Bebop Appearance

I know it has probably been brought up before but the Columbia appeared in the anime Cowboy Bebop in session 19 Wild Horses. Doesn't this warrant even the slightest bit of a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.59.101 (talk) 06:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. That falls within the definition of trivia, making it quite a bit superfluous. Sorry... SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

While I can understand that random trivia sections are despised (I personally just loved them, but that's just me), such citations would fall under the "In popular culture" or "In fiction" sections, that as far as I know are still healthy and accepted in WP (there are even pages like Jupiter in fiction). Could you please explain why are you eradicating attempts to introduce such information? Cyclopia (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There is an article called Space Shuttles in fiction which are full of such information. In the article about the real shuttle, fictional appearances are off-topic. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Tribute

This section of the article states that the "In the television series Star Trek: Enterprise both the first and second starships of the human-built NX-Class were named in honor of pre-existing NASA space shuttles." This isn't true...the first NX-Class starship was in fact named after the USS Enterprise from Star Trek (an earlier model of the very ship that inspired the name of the first space shuttle). 24.63.15.17 (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Jeremy

Leave that Star Trek crap. Star Trek is a commercial entity. Commercial entities don't give tribute. Amanitin (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The destruction of the Columbia as future history

Stephen Baxter, in his book Titan (copyright 1997) has the Columbia being lost in late 2004 during the re-entry process. In Baxter's version, the shuttle loses power in both OMS engine pods, possibly due to a fuel conduit heater problem. This leads to an attempt to compensate by using RCS thrusters to complete the re-entry burn. Meanwhile, the heater problem, which might have been caused by frozen hydrazine, leads to excessive heat in the APUs, threatening to knock them out. Columbia actually survives the re-entry blackout in Baxter's version, unlike what occurred in real life, but the APUs are totaled, and the crew is forced to bail out like a bunch of paratroopers. One crewman remains aboard, vainly attempting a safe landing on the Mojave Desert. However, the last APU fails before the pilot can do so, and he is left with an unresponsive orbiter. The stern hits the ground first, apparently causing a bounce and then the bow hits the ground (?). This causes the Columbia to break apart, with the crew compartment being severed from the rest of the ship and then essentially pulverized. Ouch. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay... what are you trying to say? SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica Columbia

Hey, I'm from polish wiki and i have a little question: is that true, that BSG Columbia's name came from this space shuttle? insanelyapplepie83.26.97.110 (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

article needs lots of work

the history section is a joke....it doesn't even mention the near fatal crash of the shuttle in November 1983 which was keenly downplayed on how safe the actual spacecraft really was.

"Columbia landed on Runway 17 at Edwards Air Force Base on 8 December 1983, at 15:47 pm PST, having completed 166 orbits and travelled 4.3 million miles over the course of its mission. Right before landing, two of the orbiter's three auxiliary power units caught fire due to a hydrazine leak, but the orbiter nonetheless landed successfully. Columbia was ferried back to KSC on 15 December. The leak was later discovered after it had burned itself out and caused major damage to the compartment." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.180.5 (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Time in space

Calculating from the duration times given for the separate Columbia missions, I get a total time in space of 300 days, 17 hours, 47 minutes, 15 seconds. Are one or more of the mission times in error, or is there another cause for the discrepancy? RandomCritic (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)