[ale] OT: Space Shuttle Columbia

[Christopher Bergeron]

Attriel, we fundamentally agree that we don't know _what_ happened or 
what could have been done to prevent it.

However, the facts (as I know them) are these:

    -Kalwana made _several_ mistakes while she was on space missions (I 
don't have links; but if you'd like for me to provide them for 
quantification, I will)
    -NASA laid of _5_ (not 1 or 2 - five) Safety Administrators within 
the past 2 years
    -1 NASA _official_ resigned from NASA in protest of the "Faster, 
better, cheaper" philosophy and decreasing budget

I just wanted to point out these _FACTS_ before I address your "points":



attriel wrote:

>>>The bottom is smooth. Nowhere to hold on/attach to. Adding attachment
>>>points would result in an unacceptable amount of friction at that
>>>point and would likely result in the same thing we saw Saturday.
>>>      
>>>
>>I know that the bottom is smooth.  But, we all know that they've had the
>>MMU for YEARS and it's not very big; why is it not standard equipment?
>>It needs no attachment points.  Barring that, what about slinging some
>>nylon rope.  Why was there no EVA suit?
>>    
>>
>
>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?
>
Case in _safety_ point.  There should be a threshold for which safety 
concerns (IE: weight) is valued higher than the highest "satellite 
Television" bidder.  You don't have to be a rocket-scientist (no pun 
intended; no insensitivity intended) to know that cutting corners costs 
lives - particularly in a high risk industry such as space travel.  The 
weight of said spacesuit should "trump" the weight of the "paid cargo" 
(I'm assuming that a portion of the cargo was paid for - if it wasn't 
then the cost should be distributed across the program).

>  
>
>>>Can't fix it.
>>>      
>>>
>>Point taken, but could they not fix it because it's IMPOSSIBLE or
>>because they didn't have a few pounds of tools or parts?
>>    
>>
>
>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 ...
>
>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.
>
>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
>

Any "armchair" person can tell you that there exists a certain 
cost/benefit ratio to anything worth doing.  In this case, the safety 
costs outweighed the benefit of the lives of 7 of America's BEST.  As 
such, I challenge you to sit on your high-horse (as defined by your 
previous comment(s)) and tell me otherwise; and I dare you to quantify 
your "justification".

>
>  
>
>>>Can't
>>>re-enter any other way.
>>>      
>>>
>>I am not satisfied of that.  When you say "any other way," you mean with
>>a normal wheel landing at the Cape or at Edwards.  I am not satisfied
>>that, knowing serious damage was present, that an abnormal re-entry
>>wasn't an option, even if it meant a mid-ocean ditch.  Besides, there
>>are emergency runways all over the world - IIRC, Dobbins is one.
>>    
>>
>
>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."
>  
>
I can think of 3 Astronauts that "beat the odds" by coming through the 
atmosphere prematurely and in a "hap-hazzard" fashion:  the Astronauts 
of the Apollo-13 mission.

>>>Can't dock at the ISS. Can't just fire up Atlantis
>>>and send them a ride. They took their chances and lost. That's life on
>>>the edge. The same thing happens in military aviation, just on a much
>>>smaller scale. You put your fate in the hands of the Almighty and do
>>>your job as ordered.
>>>      
>>>
>>I'm not sure of your point.  This was not a military mission nor was it
>>an all-military crew.
>>    
>>
>
>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 ...
>
>--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!)
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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