[ale] OT: Space Shuttle Columbia

[Jeff Hubbs]

> > 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
> 
> This was deemed not possible since the orbits of the ISS and Columbia 
> were on different orbits.  Columbia is not equipt with engines to 
> transfer to the ISS orbit.

But it's equipped with engines (from the pad on up) to get it to the
ISS; that much is self-evident.  I feel that Shuttle missions that don't
have firm orbital targets (e.g., satellite capture) ought to be
scheduled and aimed such that an ISS rendezvous is possible using the
available OMS fuel at at least one point in the mission.


> 
> The only possible solution would have been to send another shuttle up to 
> retrieve the astronauts.  Typically preparing a shuttle for launch is 
> 3-4 months.  In such a situation, the claimed the could be ready in a 
> couple of weeks.



> 
>   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.
> 
> I don't know that this would be possible either.  The actual portion of 
> the landing when the problems occurred is controlled by an auto pilot. 
> Further, it apparently will attempt such maneuvers when it detects such 
> adverse heating.  Also, it would not be possible for the pilot to take 
> control of the ship at that time in order to attempt the same.
> 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> Apparently, there were some high tech photos taken of the shuttle while 
> in orbit.  This was not requested by NASA and they did not request to 
> view these photos until after the loss.
> 
> > 
> > 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."
> 
> This is the primary issue to me.  The shuttle is designed to operate one 
> way and one way alone.  The escape mechanism was added after the 
> Challenger and could only be used if the shuttle was in a very stable 
> flight, which would not have saved neither the Challenger or the 
> Columbia.  I believe it was no more then a token effort.
> 
> The bottom line is, if any of the shuttles deviate from the intended 
> path, up, down or during orbit, disaster is assured.
> 
> Also, the tile solution for heat protection was one of three 
> possibilities, chosen because it was the 'most cost effective.'
> 
> > 
> > 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. 
> 
> Yes, this kind of safety solution, I believe does not exist in the 
> shuttle for sake of cost.
> 
> 
> > I think that the Apollo-style decision process and contingency strategy
> > will be shown to be absent with the Shuttle program.  Again.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> -- 
> Until later: Geoffrey		esoteric at 3times25.net
> 
> The latest, most widespread virus?  Microsoft end user agreement.
> Think about it...
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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