[ale] OT: Space Shuttle Columbia

Tue Feb 4 23:11:16 EST 2003

You raise an interesting point.  It's one thing to land on the moon for
the first time.  That called for titanium gonads (and apparently they
needed them - please note that I think my figurative terminology covers
men and women alike).  But, to run similar risks - manifold, at that -
for some noble but not earthshatteringly critical experiments calls into
question just what gains - even if spiritual - we are getting in return.

And, I have to admit that I wonder about NASA-as-employment-program. 
The Shuttle program is basically a GOCO (Government Owned, Contractor
Operated) deal (United Space Alliance - whose
shuttle-with-"USA"-at-the-bottom emblem appears on the backs of support
staff visible in shuttle prep video - is the Flight Operations
Contractor).  The NASA people are, by and large, meeting-attenders and
paper-reviewers.  But, I digress; I want technical prowess in the US,
but I also want it bringing us more than just a bunch of people with
money to spend at the Merritt Island Wal-Mart. 

On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 22:29, miguel wrote:
> 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

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