OT: Shuttle Breaks Up During Re-Entry - Page 6

tbontob · #51 February 3rd, 2003, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:

quote:
Originally posted by Taz-in-Space:
By the way, did anyone catch the mis-information
that someone at NASA tried... it was stated that the pieces could be toxic and not to pick up and handle them. Some fable about fuel contamination. Imagine, 3000 or so degree heat on re-entry and some fool says that this fuel may still be there!

Not some fool, a rocket scientist. It's not mis-information, it's a fact.

To burn the fuel you have to mix it with oxygen. It is not extrodinary at all that measurable amounts of fuel would remain unburned when you consider the speed at shich the ship fell apart, and the altitude. Very thin atmosphere at that point.

Pieces were getting blown off and flying off due to Ge forces. Once they got away from the oxygen in the fireball they would burn out from lack of oxygen. Explosions can put out fires as well as ignite them. That's why they use dynamite to stop oil well fires.

Geoschmo

Yes I caught it too!

As you say the shear forces of the wind would be extraordinarily high. The friction would heat the pieces to almost molten metal and any residue would be boiled or burnt off before or on impact.

I just put it to the administration wanting to give souvenier hunters second thoughts.

Wardad · #52 February 3rd, 2003, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tbontob:
... I just put it to the administration wanting to give souvenier hunters second thoughts.

[/QB]

That, and avoid liability law suits in the highly unlikey event it did not all burn off.

Ruatha · #53 February 3rd, 2003, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tbontob:

As you say the shear forces of the wind would be extraordinarily high. The friction would heat the pieces to almost molten metal and any residue would be boiled or burnt off before or on impact.

Well. That did obviously not happen.
A lot of things have shown up that aren't molten metal. Helmets etc.

But I do also think the main reason is to sttop souvenir hunters. And a good reason aswell!

[ February 03, 2003, 19:23: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

tbontob · #54 February 3rd, 2003, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ruatha:

quote:
Originally posted by tbontob:

As you say the shear forces of the wind would be extraordinarily high. The friction would heat the pieces to almost molten metal and any residue would be boiled or burnt off before or on impact.

Well. That did obviously not happen.
A lot of things have shown up that aren't molten metal. Helmets etc.

But I do also think the main reason is to sttop souvenir hunters. And a good reason aswell!

Thanx Ruatha

True, I didn't take into account the lightness and size of the object.

I stand corrected.

Baron Munchausen · #55 February 4th, 2003, 02:33 AM

I don't think the government is spoofing on this. The violence of the break-up of the shuttle is no guarantee of safety. The hydrazine tanks are probably the strongest components of the shuttle. They had to be to contain the stuff. If a tank containing some residual hydrazine landed in the street near some homes the residents would have to be evacuated until they could bring in some HazMat team to remove it. Even a small leak could kill someone. It is VERY dangerous stuff.

And as Geo observed, Hydrazine is not the only toxic material that could have been in the shuttle. Many 'normal' things could be converted to toxic substances after being incinerated, too. Many pLastics produce dangerous fumes, for example. I think the government is on the straight-up on this one. The shuttle debris is dangerous.

minipol · #56 February 4th, 2003, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Who can't help but feel a loss here? The Columbia was they icon of the space shuttle fleet and NASA.

The seven astronoughts who were lost died doing what they loved, and I can think of no better way to go to the great beyond then doing it doing something that you love.

Right, but it was too early for them to go IMO.
I would love to die while doing something i love just not now. Let's wait another 50 years.

tesco samoa · #57 February 4th, 2003, 07:14 PM

you know what drives me nuts...

Is that this is a photo op for so many people.

Fake grief because it is the 'in thing to grieve'

Where were these people Last week when that plane with 21 people aboard went down ??

And if these were 7 grunts in the field... Nothing.

Always has sickened me. The fakeness and circus aspect of it all.
But I guess thats what tv news is all about...

CNN is just brutal.... I don't know why they just don't change their name to eXtra or ET.....

My two cents on the horrible accident.

oleg · #58 February 6th, 2003, 04:51 PM

As it is, NASA dismissed the theory about the piece of foam issolation. The current idea is that Columbia was struck by either meteorite or space debris. I wonder why no theory of UFO interference emerged yet. Or am I wrong ?

geoschmo · #59 February 6th, 2003, 05:04 PM

You are wrong. They haven't dismissed it. They are simply backing off of it as the leading candidate becuase it is pure speculation at this point. It is no more or less likely than any of the other possible explanations. Except maybe the alien one.

The problem is the press and the public are impatient and want an answer now. Whether it is the wrong answer isn't as important as getting it instantly.

Geoschmo

solops · #60 February 6th, 2003, 05:05 PM

And who knows what they had on board for experiments? Radioactive sources, hazardous bio material, etc.... Nope, don't touch.

I live in SE Texas. A friend whose Dad lives a bit north of here had a chair come down on his farm and tiles hit next to his barn. Just thinking about the chair gives me the willies.