[ale] OT: Space Shuttle Columbia

[tfreeman at intel.digichem.net]

On 4 Feb 2003, Jeff Hubbs wrote:

> 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
> 
<<snip>>
> As Matt indicated, it may have been difficult to rendezvous with the ISS
> but I have to ask, was it REALLY impossible??  Could it have been made
> more possible through the mission design?  Would a simple change in
> launch timing - like, an hour or two one way or the other - have made a
> difference?
> 
> What if the lab module in the payload bay were jettisoned, thereby
> lightening the Orbiter by who knows how many tons?

Could this even be done in orbit?

> 
> The Orbital Maneuvering Syetem (OMS) engines are no slouches - they're
> used to de-orbit.  How different could the inclination have been, seeing
> as the ISS is made of pieces that came from the very same Orbiter?  
> 
> It comes down to this:  Why didn't they 1) Assess the damage
> DEFINITIVELY 2) Plan the mission with an ISS rendezvous contingency (for
> the benefit of EITHER crew) 3) Try to modify re-entry 4) Paint the ET
> when they KNEW it was shedding insulation on ascent?
> 

Given infinite resources and a great dollop of knowledge, all these 
questions are completely valid. Given limited resources, as most on this 
list will be aware, the flight engineers and management are forced into a 
balancing act. Given the need (for financial reasons) to operate near the 
edge of the envelop, and given that balance is a _learning_ process, 
something horrid like this must happen to really _learn_ the technology. 
Unless of course, you can arrainge for the infinite resources...

It is the job of your Congress Critter to oversee, and provide sufficient 
resources for NASA to do the job Congress gave them. So Congress must also 
come in for heat, for failing to do their part of the job. Of course my 
congress critter seems to beleive that the tooth fairy is going to solve 
the deficit, but that is another bitch.

Unfortunately, the Shuttle program has probably been flawed from the 
beginning, and the tax payer is paying for that hubris. In shifting from 
capsules to rocket gliders, NASA needed several generations of orbital 
hardware to be tried and discarded, not the one and a half generations 
they have. NASA might have been well served by a Mercury type progression 
to the shuttle, testing ideas, and perhaps losing a few less lives in the 
process (No bets on that).

<<snip>>
-- 
=============================================
If you think Education is expensive
Try Ignorance
                   Author Unknown
============================================

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