[ale] OT: Space Shuttle Columbia

[Jeff Hubbs]

Bob -

I'm going to take a stab at a prediction; let's see how right/wrong I
turn out to be.

Based on what I've heard, seen, and know so far, I think that the
insulation shedding from the ET damaged the left wing near the leading
edge.  No big surprise there.

I think that an EVA should have been performed, even if it were under
suboptimal conditions.  However, If they didn't have a proper EVA suit
on board, an umbilical, and a simple hand thruster...SHAME!!

I believe that an EVA might have provided key information regarding the
survivability of re-entry.  I envision two courses of action that could
have been explored: 1) rendezvous/offload of crew to the ISS followed by
an attempted remote re-entry 2) (and this is specious) a re-entry
attempt with a skewed yaw and/or roll to ease up on the damaged side (I
say specious because an analysis may have also shown that this wouldn't
have mattered.  If it turned out that coming in with a few degrees of
intentional yaw would have dropped the temp where the damage was, well,
it would be worth having to land it God knows where or even do a water
ditch to spare the crew.

According to a recent MSNBC article, "Dittemore said that after the
engineers concluded the shuttle would be safe, there was no
consideration given to *having it reenter the atmosphere tilted away
from the damaged side.* That might have allowed the crew to eject when
the shuttle reached a lower altitude, but would have certainly doomed
the spacecraft." (emphasis mine).  I saw this this morning but I
mentioned the idea of a skewed landing to my wife on Sunday.

Also of note:

"There were also no contingency plans to allow the astronauts to escape
to the international space station or send a rescue shuttle."

I realize that this flight may have lacked docking adapters to dock
cleanly with the ISS.  Fine; go EVA, even if it's in the pumpkin suits. 
The Apollo 13 crew was saved primarily because YEARS EARLIER, someone
(Max Faget?) decided that TWO independent life support and electrical
systems and THREE independent propulsion systems would make the entire
trip to the Moon.  That decision gave them options.  Here, we have a
situation where TWO manned spacecraft were in orbit.  One, with seven
aboard, was apparently damaged such that it might not have been able to
land.  The other had three onboard with a supply ship coming.  

Because of this, it is incredible to me that the ISS was never
considered as a rescue option.  It is incredible to me that the Columbia
astronauts were sent up with no EVA capability. It is incredible to me
that damage was known to exist but of unknown extent and very little was
done to assess it.  Spy satellites???  Come ON!

Root cause:  Many years back, they stopped painting the ET; this saved
about 600 pounds of weight in paint alone.  I believe that the paint
would have served another purpose:  keeping the insulation intact.  They
already knew that insulation was coming off the tank; it had struck the
Orbiter before.  This time, the impact was visible on tracking cameras;
there was no reason to believe that its effect on the wing was
insignificant.  Did you know that when they have the Shuttle on the pad,
they have to chase away woodpeckers?  They go after the insulation on
the ET.

Here is an analogy.  Suppose I have in my hand a 18" length of
two-by-four and I stand about 10' in front of my car and I hurl the
two-by-four at it.  What will happen?  It depends, doesn't it?  It could
graze the lip of the hood and leave a mere scuff.  It could also punch
out a headlight or detach the air dam.  It all depends on the hit.

The shuttle tiles are fragile enough that they can't fly it atop the
special 747 in rain; they have to put down somewhere.  And here they
are, with a film taken 80 seconds into the flight, showing a hunk of
foam (and I don't think it's as light as styrofoam, I think it's more
like what's in car bumpers, but I'm not sure) striking the Orbiter and
exploding into a big cloud of dust (remember when you see the pictures
that the Orbiter is the size of an MD-80).  They had TIME to examine the
situation fully even if they went all the way to orbit.  They COULD have
aborted right then.

I think that the Apollo-style decision process and contingency strategy
will be shown to be absent with the Shuttle program.  Again.

- Jeff



On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 17:02, Transam wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 07:47:41AM -0700, Joe wrote:
> > Jeff Hubbs <hbbs at attbi.com> writes:
> 
> > > I guess no one else has mentioned it so I figure I should...
> 
> > > This morning at about 9AM, the Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated on
> > > reentry over central Texas.  Multiple video recordings show several
> > > portions of the spacecraft.  No survivors are expected.
> 
> > I cried when I heard the news. I vividly remember Challenger, and I
> > didn't expect to see the loss of a second orbiter in my lifetime - I
> > really thought it'd have been replaced by something better by now,
> > like Delta. Perhaps this will inspire us to revitalize our manned
> > space program, and provide the funding necessary to do it right.
> 
> Throwing money at problems does not solving them.
> 
> Recall that the problem with Challenger was incompetent and arrogant
> management that refused to believe the engineers who said:
> 
>   "If you launch at this low a temperature, there is a real possibility
>   that the O rings will fail and the shuttle and astronauts will be lost."
> 
> I watched a number of companies go bankrupt (or loose millions) because
> of management failing to listen to their technical experts.
> 
> The Challenger disaster also was due to questionable bidding procedures
> where an inferior design required O rings while a competing price-competitive
> bid did not.
> 
> Of course, it is far too early to speculate on what caused the Columbia
> disaster.  Let us not just start talking about just throwing money at it.
> 
> > Unfortunately, without some serious competition in that arena, it
> > doesn't seem likely. This might actually herald the end of the US's
> > manned spaceflight program.
> 
> > A sad, sad day.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > -- Joe Knapka
> 
> Bob Toxen
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale


_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale