TERROR IN ORBIT

THE COLUMBIA DISASTER
THE CASE AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT

by Marshall Douglas Smith, Senior Editor, Brother Jonathan Gazette

PART 1 -- INTRODUCTION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

February 1, 2003 at 7:59:32 CST, Spaceship Columbia mysteriously disappears into history and is never heard from again.

fig. 1 Artist Conception of Columbia Reentry Feb 1, 2003

And not for the first time, a civilian NASA Space Shuttle mission has been drawn deeply into an international military intrigue with disastrous results. The public is told "we may never know the cause," and a military-style investigation produces results that the chairman of the "secret" investigating board says will "never see the light of day." So what happened to the evidence we will never see? What does that other evidence show about what caused the Columbia disaster?

First, in this report I need to divide the Columbia evidence into two groups. One group is all the evidence you have seen or heard so far, which has come from the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB). This is all the videos, pictures and news stories about the Columbia disaster that you’ve seen, heard or read on TV, radio or in the newspapers. The second group is the evidence that comes from NASA and all other sources. Believe it or not, most of the time, the evidence from the CAIB and from NASA do not agree. One of them has to be wrong. Here’s an example.

By mid-February, two weeks after the Columbia disaster, the CAIB had produced a series of event histories called the Official Timeline. It supposedly is based on the impounded and locked-up data from NASA. But it is produced by the CAIB and NOT NASA.

CAIB OFFICIAL TIMELINE fig. 2 Preview of the Official Timeline from CAIB Report April 8, 2003. This will be expanded and analyzed later in this report.

Whenever a Space Shuttle is re-entering the atmosphere from orbit and landing, it is controlled by a computer program called OPS 304. This very same computer landing program has been used on all the 100 or so Shuttle flights. Once the landing site is chosen -- either KSC in Florida, Edwards AFB in California, or an emergency alternate field -- then the OPS 304 computer program knows when to fire the retro rockets and how to steer and adjust the speed so the Shuttle lands exactly at the chosen field.

That landing profile has to be exact. Since the Shuttles are landing like gliders with no fuel for the engines, they must be at the right place at the right altitude and speed. If the landing profile is not exact, they will fall short or run past the landing field, or even risk burning up in the atmosphere. There is no second chance in a Space Shuttle for another go-around for the landing. It must be done right the first time and thus the need for a computer -- five redundant computers, in fact, with four as backups -- to make a precise and proper on-time landing. Actually it was a problem with the redundancy of the computers which ultimately caused the destruction of Columbia, but that will be explained later in this report.

As evidence and data from NASA, and not the CAIB, I have a copy of the landing profile for STS-5, which is from the fifth Shuttle flight back in 1982. Since the OPS 304 computer program landings are about all the same, the landing profile for STS-5, Columbia's 5th Shuttle Mission in November 1982, should be about the

NASA STS-5 OPS 304 Trajectory Data fig. 3 NASA Trajectory Profile for STS-5, Columbia Nov 16, 1982, Based on the OPS 304 Computer Landing Program, Showing Flight Parameters from Entry Interface with the Atmosphere Down to the Point of Landing.

same as for STS-107, which was the last flight of Columbia. Except for the minor off-nominal deviations in yaw and roll, the general deceleration or slowing of Columbia and the slow drop in altitude with time were exactly as shown in the flight profile. Everyone agrees. But then something very strange happens in the CAIB timeline.

According to calculations using the STS-5 data and the OPS 304 computer program, Columbia should pass over the California coast at its programmed time of 7:53 CST and then cross the western Nevada border about four minutes later at 7:57. So far, so good. But then the CAIB Timeline shows that Columbia traveled the distance from the western border of Nevada to near Dallas, Texas in only three minutes. The CAIB claims that the complete loss of communication (Loss of Signal or LOS) occurred near Dallas at 8:00 CST. That means Columbia took four minutes to cross California then somehow sped up tremendously and went three times as far in only three minutes to get to Dallas. Does that makes sense? The Shuttles are always slowing down when they are landing, not speeding up.

That is an example of how either the NASA landing profile is wrong or the CAIB Timeline is wrong. Both pieces of evidence can’t be correct. So which would you trust, the NASA profile, which has been repeated almost exactly in the last 100 Shuttle flights, or the CAIB Timeline? It would seem that someone has arbitrarily moved the location of the Loss Of Signal (LOS) at exactly 8:00 CST from its expected location around Arizona to somewhere a thousand miles away near Dallas, Texas. Why would the CAIB do that? In this report, I will provide the evidence and reasons later.

Also in this report, along with investigating and comparing items of evidence from various sources, we will take a look at the motivation and make up of the investigators. Beside the CAIB, that includes FEMA.

To most people the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the group that helps out when a disaster such as flood, hurricane, tornado or earthquake occurs. Then FEMA helps find emergency housing and may even hand out checks to help people get back on their feet after the disaster. If you are under 30 years old, that might be all that you know about FEMA. You may not know that about 1991, FEMA was drastically changed.

Along with its regular tasks and duties, FEMA also has the authority to call up the National Guard and Reserve, which normally are under the control of each of the state governors. It used to be only the President of the United States had that authority to place troops from under the governors to be full military under the Pentagon. FEMA can now put those troops under its own jurisdiction.

Also since 1991, FEMA is authorized to arrest, jail and prosecute U.S. citizens. This is presumably, in times of riot, insurrection or natural disaster to stop rioters or looters. But what laws do they enforce? FEMA is a federal agency but now is enforcing state and local laws. The FBI is a federal agency but can only arrest and prosecute through the Justice Department for infractions of federal laws. The federal FBI cannot arrest you for speeding down the road or spitting on the sidewalk, but the federal FEMA can do it. In fact, FEMA can make up its own laws as it goes along. Has it ever done so?

Yes. In the case of the investigation of the Columbia disaster, February 2003. FEMA was appointed to take charge of the recovery of the debris from Columbia. FEMA called up the Texas and Louisiana National Guard, not just to assist in picking up the pieces but to cordon-off the areas and put them under FEMA control. And FEMA created a law making it illegal to pick up and take any piece of Columbia debris. Many people were arrested and the cases are pending in the courts. And where did that law come from? FEMA made it up by publicizing that anyone caught picking up and taking any debris would be arrested and prosecuted.

Since FEMA is a living-breathing incarnation of a military coup and police state about to happen at a moment's notice all rolled into one, why was FEMA put in charge of the Columbia investigation? On February 3, when FEMA was appointed to take charge of the Columbia recovery, many Americans were aghast. Why was FEMA in charge? Usually for civilian air disasters, the NTSB and FBI have been in charge for decades; why did FEMA suddenly take that role? Here's an example of how the unique power of FEMA was used in the Columbia investigation.

In the first week of the Columbia investigation, the CAIB took over the role of prime investigator from NASA. During that week NASA had already reviewed and ruled out the possibility that foam debris from the main tank had hit the left wing and caused damage. But as soon as the CAIB took over, the foam/left wing theory was resurrected and has been the focus of the investigation ever since.

The only evidence which the CAIB had was a fuzzy video showing tank foam dropping onto the left wing. But that video was

fig. 4 Fuzzy Video Showing Foam Hitting the Left Wing. Actually the Foam Hit the Bipod Attachment Just Behind the Nose Wheelwell and Shattered Into Powder Before It Got Anywhere Near the Wing. This Will Be Fully Analyzed Later in This Report.

modified for the public by rotating the image and slowing it down to make it look like foam dropping by gravity. Actually at that time Columbia was supersonic and flying above Mach 2, which makes particles in the airstream move very differently. The wind forces at Mach 2 are so much greater than the force of gravity that objects no longer fall or move by gravity. The strength of the sonic shock wave radiating from the nose and wings of Columbia would prevent any object in the airstream from penetrating the shock wave and hitting the wing. Thus nothing in the airstream from the External Tank could hit the wing at Mach 2. This will be shown and clarified later in this report. So the CAIB needed better evidence to prove its theory.

Then on March 19, 2003 FEMA found a tape recorder in Hemphill, Texas. It was the Orbiter Experiments recorder (the OEX), which had been used in the first flights of the Shuttle (which in fact were Columbia) for recording the flight data to confirm the proper flight path of Columbia as it followed the OPS 304 program though the radio blackout phase of re-entry.

The radio communication blackout problem was solved in 1989, when the second TDRSS communication satellite was placed in geo-synchronous orbit over India. Thus landing Space Shuttles could now remain in continuous contact with Mission Control all the way down by aiming their radio beams backward toward the satellite through the hole in the hot plasma surrounding the nose and wings of the orbiter. After that time, 14 years ago, the OEX recorder became useless and redundant dead-weight, but removing it and all of its miles of data wiring would be time-consuming and costly. So the OEX recorder was simply left installed below the crew compartment mid-deck floor.

Within days of FEMA finding the OEX recorder, the tape was cleaned and decoded and the data delivered to the CAIB. The data

THE OEX RECORDER fig. 5 The near pristine but scorched OEX data recorder "recovered" by FEMA in Texas in March 2003, but removed by NASA from Columbia during its refurbishment in 2000.

seemed to show evidence of heat spikes in the left wing both about the time Columbia was "struck" by some foam and then again as it was re-entering for landing. This was the smoking gun that the CAIB needed to close its case. But there is one problem with that evidence. An AP wire story dated February 17, 2003 reported that NASA during the lengthy two-year upgrade and refurbishment of Columbia in 1999-2001 removed the OEX recorder and its 1,000 pounds of useless and redundant wiring in order to save weight. The OEX recorder had not been used in over 10 years.

The next obvious question is, if the OEX recorder and its wiring were removed from Columbia in 2000, how did FEMA find it in a pasture in Hemphill, Texas in March 2003? And how did "data" get onto that tape? The obvious answer, FEMA can find it -- because it can. And there is nothing neither you nor I, nor the President of the United States nor even Congress can do or say about it.

It seems much of the important evidence about the Columbia disaster is being covered up and hidden away from Congress, the public and even NASA itself.

fig. 6 NASA Director O'Keefe Inspecting Columbia's Wheel Assembly at the Evidence Collection Hangar at KSC Florida April 28, 2003

All of the Columbia debris evidence was first gathered and locked away by FEMA in its Alabama facility, and only some of it has been released and sent for public display in the Kennedy Space Center hangar in Florida. FEMA has the authority to do that.

To find out who else might be involved in the covering up of evidence in the Columbia disaster by FEMA, you only need to ask, who appointed FEMA to gather the evidence rather than the NTSB and FBI? When America finds the answer to that question, America will not be pleased.