Question I've pondered since the Columbia shuttle disaster

i doubt it. Didnt they determine that it was a loose panel or something that actually was knocked off durring launch? and it caused a weakness in the heat shield, causing it to break away upon entering the atmosphere?

...or am i thinking of another mission.... this makes me want to read up on columbia.

That's my understanding - Breathe

BBB
After reading the above article, I wonder if Columbia would have been stable enough for the pilot to land it in California, or even in Florida if it had made it that far.

BBB

I dunno. no matter where they land the angle of decent required and amount of time spent in air would have caused the same amount of stress on the ships wing structure i would think. those things come in at such speeds they spend a lot of time losing momentum in route so they can land.

I personally think theyre going to find a structual fault as the culprit. without the protective outer layer fully intact the heat could have weakened the metal on the ships wing, causing it to break apart in the heavier atmophere near earths surface. I think it was the debris from lift off.

they should make a little air tight mini ship out of the control area, so the astronauts and shut it down upon reentry and jettison from the main ship should something like this occur, and then just float to earth via a parachute, like the old apollo missions.

i bet if it had stayed together until landing the piolet could have managed it though, atleast enough to make it to solid ground... but who knows.

this time around when they decided to land in california, they also changed the usual direction of descent so that the point where the columbia first ran into problems would put this recent flight over the ocean instead of downtown LA, imagine that conversation

"now, we don't expect any problems, but we're going to red irect your flight plan, so if you do blow up, you won't crush rodeo drive"