[ale] OT: Space Shuttle Columbia

[miguel]

so according to this article the 'astronauts' are more like...lets 
say.....hmmmm.....daredevils? test pilots? kamikaze?

regards
miguel

Matt Smith wrote:

>According to an article on MSNBC or CNN.com, the orbital altitude difference
>and inclination between the shuttle and ISS made the rendezvous impossible.
>There wasn't enough fuel to accomplish it, and even if there were, it would
>have taken days, of which they had few in reserve.
>
>If you read about the escape plans on nasa's site for ditching the shuttle
>during descent (beginning at 30,000 feet, I believe), the expected survival
>rate of that isn't much higher than what finally resulted.
>
>Certainly, better precautions for this type of thing could have taken place,
>but who would have known??  Exactly what happened this time (insulation
>breaking off/hitting) had happened before with no problems.  Without a
>reasonably safe means for inspecting for possible damage, what where they to
>do?
>
>
>--Matt
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff Hubbs [mailto:hbbs at attbi.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 6:12 PM
>To: ale at ale.org
>Subject: Re: [ale] OT: Space Shuttle Columbia
>
>
>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
>
>
>----- 
>Confidential Information 
>
>The information in this e-mail message (including any attachments) is
>privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the
>individual or entity named above.  If the reader of this message is not the
>intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
>distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
>_______________________________________________
>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