Talk:Space Shuttle Columbia disaster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject Space
Portal:Space
 Space Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
WikiProject Space exploration WikiProject Space exploration Space exploration-Importance: Top

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.
Good article Space Shuttle Columbia disaster has been listed as a good article 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 review.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster Management.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Engtech article has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale.

Talk:Space Shuttle Columbia disaster/Archive 1

Contents

[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_SimulationsUser 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: 4.2/5 stars (Very High)
  • Protection 0.4/5 stars (Very low)
  • Users complaining about vandals here 8.8/10 stars
  • Users votes to semi-protect the article 6.1/10 stars
  • Users Tired of reverting valdalism 6.8/10 stars

We need to reduce valdalism risk


[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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/p/a/Talk%7ESpace_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster_3fb2.html"