[ale] OT: Space Shuttle Columbia

[Jeff Hubbs]

I don't think it's all that surprising.  Plenty of knowledgeable people
are going to wonder the same things about the same problems.  Although
the answers to some of the questions seem to slam the door shut on those
particular lines of inquiry, there's still a reasonable "well, why the
heck not??" response to some of the answers.  

Note the statement "NASA engineers scrutinized launch video and
determined there was nothing to be overly concerned about. They did not
know if heat tiles were missing."  Red flag.  Causality problem.  If
they did not KNOW if tiles were missing, then they did not KNOW how much
concern to have."  If debris investigation draws a conclusive line of
causality between 1) wing whacked by ET insulation 2) damage to tiles 3)
burn-through and subsequent loss of Orbiter on re-entry, then the
A-number-one screwup (given that nothing was done about chronically
shedding ET insulation) will lie right there in those statements.  

Wasn't it PLAINLY visible in the Challenger tracking footage that one of
the SRBs was shooting flame out the side??  Wasn't one of the most "Gee,
if only..." aspects of the whole Challenger disaster "...someone had
seen the SRB burning through and told the Range Safety Officer to
abort?"

And, wasn't the SRB tongue of flame visible on an EARLIER flight?

Yet again, launch tracking imagery ignored; crew killed.  Actually, in
both cases, it's worse than that:  launch tracking imagery ignored and
imagery HISTORY forgotten; two crews killed

I'm hardly an insider, but I already know enough to know that launch
tracking imagery probably could have saved two crews IF 1) enough angles
were covered 2) the quality was sufficient 3) someone was paying
attention 4) mission abort decisions were based on the results.

I happen to know that imagery operations have at least one dedicated
NASA contractor or sub.  

On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 16:47, SanMillan, Todd wrote:
> Surprisingly, you are not the only one to ask these questions.  For answers
> to your frequently asked questions, try
> http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/columbia_questions_answers.html
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Hubbs [mailto:hbbs at attbi.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 4:43 PM
> To: ale at ale.org
> Subject: Re: [ale] OT: Space Shuttle Columbia
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 16:16, Jonathan Rickman wrote:
> > On 5 Feb 2003, Jeff Hubbs wrote:
> > 
> > > Do you think for a second that if one of the seven astronauts walking up
> > > to the gantry elevator just suddenly stopped and said, "that's it - I'm
> > > not going up.  There are problems that aren't fixed to my satisfaction,"
> > > that he'd be escorted into the Orbiter and strapped into his seat?  Or
> > > court-martialed?  Someone check me on this, but I don't think that ANY
> > > NASA astronauts on space flights who were active military were UNDER
> > > ORDERS to complete their flights, nor do I think they undertook them in
> > > as part of their military duties (except for perhaps the classified
> > > Shuttle flights).
> > 
> > Last post for me on this one...
> > 
> > Jeff, you're still totally missing my point. Forget that I ever used the
> > words "military" and "ordered" mkay...
> > 
> > The point is, flying the space shuttle is freaking dangerous. It will
> > never be completely safe. This is not a trip across town in a Volvo, it's
> > a big friggin plane that travels through the upper atmosphere at a speed
> > greater than a rifle bullet. IT IS DANGEROUS. I'm not implying that those
> > brave souls were expendable, but it's foolish to think that we're gonna
> > successfully eliminate all risks. Those folks knew it, and accepted it.
> > Who the hell are we to argue with them?
> 
> I am well aware of all this; you're not informing me further here.  But,
> I know that if it were me onboard, I'd be placing a HUGE amount of trust
> on the people on the ground.  The people who watch for problems.  Like
> video of a big slice of rock-hard insulation whacking my left wing.  
> 
> It is starting to look as though chronic ET insulation shedding plus
> indifference to post-launch damage detection and assessment and
> insufficient contingency planning will go down as root causes.
> 
> I've been thinking - what if the ISS were totally unreachable and they
> KNEW they couldn't land the Columbia?  Could they have dumped the
> mission plan in favor of a long-duration orbit until another Orbiter
> could go up?  The other three would have been at various stages in the
> pipeline; would it have been possible to get one up in maybe three
> weeks?  Perhaps also lob up a few Soyuzes?
> 
> Instead, I get the distinct impression that Houston did not perceive an
> emergency situation until the Orbiter was beginning to disintegrate over
> California even though one may well have existed from T+80 seconds on.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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