# Shuttle Columbia MIA? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 1, 2003, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shuttle-columbia-mia/152091 "2003-02-01T14:19:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![OpalCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8edcca/32.png) [@OpalCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OpalCat)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shuttle-columbia-mia/152091/101 "2003-02-02T08:22:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robby \* > \*\*I mentioned this in another thread, but CNN never could decide what the speed was. They were saying it was going “12,500 MILES, or Mach 6.” > > It was actually 12,500 MPH, which corresponds to about Mach 17-18. This was the speed it should have been going at this stage of the descent. \*\* I have no idea what the actual speed was, I heard so many different numbers. My comment was mainly that I thought the person had misheard, because they thought it was 6 x faster than it should have been, when the only time I heard 6 x faster \_\_\_\_ was when talking about the speed of sound. ---
**Author:** ![OpalCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8edcca/32.png) [@OpalCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OpalCat)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shuttle-columbia-mia/152091/102 "2003-02-02T08:25:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jeu\_D’esprit \* > \*\*Her design life was 80 some years?. \*\* No, the design life was +/- 100 flights, I think. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shuttle-columbia-mia/152091/103 "2003-02-02T08:43:55Z")
From [here:](http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/sts92_100_flights_001004.html) > [@](#): > > Though the shuttle space has flown for 20 years, NASA expects to continue flying it for at least 12 more. After all, each orbiter was built to last 100 flights and NASA’s four birds have just notched 100 flights among them. That’s only a quarter of the projected lifetime of the fleet. Even the most frequent flier – Discovery – has just 27 flights in its logbook ---
**Author:** ![Tazmanian\_Devil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cc9497/32.png) [@Tazmanian\_Devil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tazmanian_Devil)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shuttle-columbia-mia/152091/104 "2003-02-02T12:41:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jarbabyj \* > \*\*Just for clarification. The crank call was a ‘howard stern crank’, wherein people call in to tragedies and mention Howard Stern. This person said the debris was “BabaBooey’s Metal Teeth”, an injoke for listeners of the show. > > It really made me sick. \*\* So when I heard ‘You’re a real idiot, you know that?’, it was probably the call screener who said that. Thanks for the clarification on that. That was the only part I heard, and I thought it was the caller who said that. I still think the caller was a complete jackass of the highest order. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shuttle-columbia-mia/152091/105 "2003-02-02T13:56:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr. Frink \* > \*\*With a tragedy such as this, emotions are running hot. But that’s no excuse to make an ignorant comment like this. I hope you’re not serious. \*\* Ever been to an air show where there’s an F-117 on display? There’s armed Air Force MPs carrying M-16 who **will shoot to kill** if you try to cross the rope seperating the public from the aircraft. The debris is necessary evidence upon which the lives of future astronauts depend. Anyone attempting to make off with a “souvenir” is putting not only those who fly space craft in the future at risk, but those on the ground as well. I think that shooting in such an instance is justified. ---
**Author:** ![Wearia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/13edae/32.png) [@Wearia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wearia)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shuttle-columbia-mia/152091/106 "2003-02-02T18:46:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OpalCat \* > \*\*No, the design life was +/- 100 flights, I think. \*\* Yes, and this was her 28th flight so just past one quarter is accurate. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shuttle-columbia-mia/152091/107 "2003-02-02T19:02:54Z")
They may be more than up to the job, but they’re expensive, hazardous (Way too many points of failure), and carry too little cargo… And our replacement, the X-33 failed. I understand that we want to amortize the cost, but there are other ways to keep them flying, and still have something better to launch from earth. Make them space-to-space craft, for example. From your example, Tranquilis, we shoudn’t have switched to jets because prop planes were still functional. This is clearly wrong, I think… It’s not computing power or anything, it’s a simple matter of improved materials science and design. And, okay, we’re hitting the atmosphere at mach 25. Simple G-force acceleration? Why must we do it at that speed? ---
**Author:** ![Briny\_Deep](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/briny_deep/32/17188_2.png) [@Briny\_Deep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Briny_Deep)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shuttle-columbia-mia/152091/108 "2003-02-02T19:17:09Z")
> [@](#): > > And, okay, we’re hitting the atmosphere at mach 25. Simple G-force acceleration? Why must we do it at that speed? I believe, though I am by no means certain, that this is the nature of being in orbit around the Earth. I think the speed varies depending on the height of the orbit, but if you’re in orbit at all around a body the Earth’s size, you’re locked in to a certain speed. I was thinking about the same thing last night and this morning. It’s too bad we can’t slow to zero at the upper fringes of the atmosphere, then lower ourselves down carefully inch by inch. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shuttle-columbia-mia/152091/109 "2003-02-02T20:27:03Z")
Yes! Thank you, Masonite. Right. Orbital velocity. If you’re slower, by definition, you’re lower. I knew I was missing something. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shuttle-columbia-mia/152091.md?page=5)