[ale] OT: Space Shuttle Columbia

Tue Feb 4 18:26:54 EST 2003

an abort has a very short window of opportunity before being outside of
the atmosphere and being a moot point as the damage would still have
been lethal. As for docking with the ISS, they did not have the docking
module in the shuttle bay due to the research bay being installed. as
well as not having EVA suits make that a non option. This is not the
first time damage has been done to the heat tiles from the tank foam.
including one impact the penitrated more than 75% of the way through the
heat tiles. I am hoping they will figure its time to install a hard coat
layer over the insulation tles that can burn away on re-entry and
protect the bottom from impacts.

Just my .02cents 
+.01 cent to the tax man

Drag0n
dragon at atlantacon.org

This is your brain:
bash-2.05$
This is your brain on drugs:
Starting Windows XP...
Any questions?

On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 18:19, Dow Hurst wrote:
> I've been wondering about this myself.  Why couldn't an abort been performed?  Or, like your saying, using the ISS until a EVA could be figured out?
> Dow
> 
> 
> >>> hbbs at attbi.com 02/04/03 18:13 PM >>>
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
-- 
Drag0n <dragon at atlantacon.org>
@LANta.con

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