Video was reviewed after launch where damage was suspected. Re-entry was done because no damage was found. Shuttle could not get to station because it was in a different orbit. Next shuttle mission was not soon enough before Columbia ran out of fuel, O2, food, Co2 scrubbers etc. to stay in orbit. Also you dont launch the next mission without determining what happened to the previous one.
Hi, WHY wasn't the columbia launch aborted during launch if nasa saw the wing getting damaged by falling debris on live cameras? As for the re-entry, why did you take the risk? I mean surely their were other options to take, such as either docking with the ISS and having the astronauts picked up by the next scheduled shuttle mission? Or leaving the columbia in orbit whilst waiting for another shuttle to meet with them and transfer the astronauts to the healthy shuttle?
*** Take your time to read the links. ***
reason this is the only view fron the cockpit the NASA clowns can deliver from these NASA clowns:
nasa-hoaxes DOT blogspot.com
***
ISS / space shuttle is a hoax. There are no "astronauts" in the rocket launched from Cape Canaveral, as there were no "astronauts" in any Apollo, Soyuz & Co.
Russia's Putin has shown long ago that he would soon put an end to this hoax, staged by the US and the Soviet Union for decades.
amazing how that vehicle can withstand all that heat & etc from re-entry. i can remember as a kid every time a shuttle went up it was live on tv & was a huge event.
Actually, the wings are rather big because the Air Force demanded for a large crossrange capability on reentry / landing which would allow the shuttle to launch into polar orbit, deploy a satellite and land on american soil within one orbit. Also, delta winged airplanes without a horizontal stab are quite common.