[ale] OT: Space Shuttle Columbia

[Jeff Hubbs]

> B/c the EVA suit is expensive, they weren't using it, and thus there was
> no point in sending it up?  It's also heavy, which makes it stupid to send
> up if they're not using it?

Not as stupid as needing it and not having it.  IIRC, the lunar EVA
suits, with pack, was about 180lb under 1g.  As for the expense of the
suit, it cost as much hanging on a rack as it would have stowed aboard
the Columbia.  

> This isn't like slapping a patch on your blown tire and then inflating it
> long enough to drive to a shop.  This is a spacecraft going through the
> atmosphere ...

Do you think I am somehow not aware of that?  I assure you, I am, and
although it has been a while, I have seen an explanation of the lengthy
procedure involved in replacing and testing (which, by the way, can only
be a destructive test) the tiles.  

> 
> IF they had the tools and the spare tiles ... they were still kinda
> lacking the ground crew and cradle to do repairs properly ?  They were
> lacking the expertise to know how to do it?  And even if they'd managed to
> slap something on, there'd be a 75% or higher chance of it catching on
> re-entry, and exactly the same thing happening.

It appears as though no thought was given to in-orbit surface repair at
all.  I probably overdid it when I mentioned having "spare tiles" - I
know that each one is custom-shaped but I also strongly suspect that a
block of raw material could be carved digitally, in orbit.  However, I
would say that if at least *some* thought and innovation were directed
at the problem, a patch sufficient to prevent a burn-through (the
current leading theory) could have been a book procedure.

> Then all the armchair "space experts who know more than NASA" would be
> complaining about them doing a repair that wasn't 100% necessary b/c maybe
> they coulda made it otherwise :o

"Armchair space experts" can still ask reasonable questions.

> I think "any other way" meant "they still have to come in through the
> atmosphere and build up a couple hundred degrees of heat which is probably
> what caused it to break this time."

Couple thousand and then some, actually.  But, as I've been saying,
within certain absolute limits, there are lots of ways to bring the
thing down and some of them probably have less thermal stress than
others.  If lethal damage was known, the lab module could have been left
in orbit, making it a few tons lighter.  

> But why don't you call up NASA and tell them what they're doing wrong.  I
> can get you the phone #'s if you want

Ah, the patronization escalates.  No matter, but it is my hope that
people who have more access to info than I will be asking these very
same questions and making a report - which I intend to read if I'm
able.  Yes, I *can* read.

> You're right.  Kalpana Chawla wasn't military.  OTOH, she'd had nearly 400
> hours in space, so I'm thinking she'd probably just about figured out the
> risks of sitting on a set of rockets for launch, and re-entry probably
> wasn't flat and smooth any of the other times either ...

To the extent that John Glenn was made aware of his situation when
telemetry indicated a premature landing bag deployment on his Mercury
spacecraft, the Columbia crew nor Mission Control had a good idea of how
badly damaged the left wing was.  The best indications available appear
to have been the takeoff tracking video and remote imagery (ground,
space).  Bear in mind that the area of concern on Columbia was a jet
black surface.  Seven pairs of eyeballs, however, a few dozen feet from
a scar that may well have spelled their doom (granted, we don't know for
sure yet), couldn't do a thing??

> 
> --attriel
> 
> (I try to stay out of these things, but this is getting ridiculous with
> everyone stating how NASA "eff'd up" and it GRR!)

Is it not fairly clear that NASA not only "eff'd up" but denied the crew
several avenues of salvation?  Is it not clear that shedding of the ET
insulation was already known to be occurring?  

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