4 ways Columbia could have been saved. From NASA's Kennedy Space Center Home Page

NASA's Kennedy Space Center Home Page ^ | 04 February 03 | Mitchel Tighe

[w1andsodidwe]

And while I'm on the subject... this posting of join dates on members is about as mature as a fresh pile of cowcrap. You can bet your bottom dollar that whoever does such a thing sure wouldn't like it if they joined up somewhere to contribute and got that kind of treatment. You and your kind aren't doing FR any favors by behaving this way. Maybe you need to go get your own board and see how fast it fills up with you reminding everyone that they just joined.

I believe that you are out of line on this. I posted his join date because it was obvious that he had not read any previous posts on this subject, or even listened to media reports or read a newspaper. It was as though he arrive to this subject as a new born babe, therefore the date posting was valid.

[Kevin Curry]

. . . is this how we welcome people here now?

It's how we screen for trolls. Is Tighe a troll? We'll see how he weathers scrutiny.

[Fred Mertz]

Well, let's send you up strapped to the wing on the next shuttle launch so you can do some in-flight maintenance.

Howz about using high powered telescopes, you know, like the ones that capture pictures over Iraq. Ditz.

[Chad Fairbanks]

I believe we've seen eveidence presented here in previous threads (which I KNOW you read, so don't plead ignorance) that stated the odds of being able to see damage with a ground-based telescope would require the damage to be extensive... if it was a few tiles, it would not have been easily seen...

bottom line: if the damage was extensive enough to be seen by ground-based telescopes, it was extensive enough that the crew would already have been aware of the damage...

[Richard Kimball]

ALS signed up 2002-01-26

Sorry, couldn't resist. Sometimes Freep does get a little rough. This post combines several factors that guarantee a flaming response

1. Thread posted first day signed up
2. Posting of hypothesis that has been thoroughly repudiated multiple times on multiple threads, and in various other media sources within last two days
3. Opens thread with statements that are pretty inflammatory

All in all, I think people have been relatively restrained in their comments. As far as saving Columbia, I haven't seen any options suggested that would have involved less risk than the option tried, particularly when you consider that no one knew how bad the damage was. To save Columbia, you would have to change some parameters from BEFORE the launch. Each of these parameter changes would require other changes in the overall shuttle launch program. A couple of options would have been to include more supplies on shuttle launches allowing a longer sustained orbit (weight issues), tile repair kits (technical issues), slowing down before re-entry (fuel issues), docking ring and fuel for access to space station (fuel, technical and space station won't hold that many people issues), having another shuttle ready to launch for rescue (double cost of each launch).

Space travel is tough and dangerous. If it wasn't every bozo that has a hat would be up there. There are people a lot smarter than me who have dedicated their lives to this program and to understanding space travel. Questions certainly need to be asked, but I don't think you'll find any, "well, just do this and everything will be okay" answers.

[TLBSHOW]

BUMP

[TLBSHOW]

nasa warned
plenty about the shuttle

http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news?p=nasa+warned&c=

[JudgemAll]

AHAHAHAHAAHHAHAH!!AHHAHAHAHH!

ZOT!

zot alert

[snooker]

Unfortunately the eva suits were also on the ground. The mission was not configured for eva. The cargo bay was full of experiment modules.

AFAIK ... No way in, no way out.

snooker

[Brett66]

Unfortunately the eva suits were also on the ground.

I guess they truly were doomed. Hindsights 20/20 I guess but it would seem like they would stow at least one suit just in case. I think there's a few things they could rethink in the future that would give them more flexibility for dealing with such situations in the future. It's really kind of surprising just how limited their options were.

[Fred Mertz]

that stated the odds of being able to see damage with a ground-based telescope would require the damage to be extensive...

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't use the term ground-based in my statement of query.

[snooker]

I believe the real problem was the shuttle bay was full of stuff with no door. At least that was what a friend who works close to the shuttle program said to me.

No need for EVA suits if there was no door. No docking collar no way to connect to another mission vehicle. They did each have inside the vehicle suits.

The mission was simply not designed for anything but inside vehicle low gravity experiments.

Doomed from the getgo if the debris actually damaged the wing. IMHO taking out one critical tile near or on the leading edge and there would be no hope for safe re-entry. Since NASA could not prove damage they went with re-entry.

Space is a risky business even if no one is paying attention.

BTW, I was involved with the Apollo program, hence contacts and interest on my part.

snooker

[Chad Fairbanks]

Well, other than Hubble (which certainly wouldn't work), where are all of our other telescopes????

[Fred Mertz]

How about our surveillance/spy satellites; you know, the ones that can read newspaper headlines. I'll admit to not having much knowledge about them, that's why I asked the question aloud, hoping someone with better knowledge could address whether some sort of surveillance telescope (satellite, U-2, etc.) could have examined the Columbia from afar.

[Chad Fairbanks]

So which is it - Sattelites, or telescopes????

[Poohbah]

How about our surveillance/spy satellites; you know, the ones that can read newspaper headlines.

Not quite true: the best resolution you're going to get will be about six inches, which means that you can distinguish the PRESENCE of a six-inch square object, not identify what it is.

I'll admit to not having much knowledge about them, that's why I asked the question aloud, hoping someone with better knowledge could address whether some sort of surveillance telescope (satellite, U-2, etc.) could have examined the Columbia from afar.

U-2 is out--the cameras point the wrong way (don't even THINK of trying to roll a U-2 inverted).

Satellites--orbital mechanics may have precluded a detailed examination (you need the satellite, the Shuttle, and the Sun to all be in proper relationship with each other in order to examine the wing in detail.

Additionally, there is the possibility that the object striking the left wing did NOT do significant damage, and that any damage to the tiles was done while in orbit. (IIRC, one of the Shuttles took a window strike on orbit a few years ago--had the same object grazed the underside TPS instead of a window, it would have taken out several tiles, and in all likelihood no one on the Shuttle would have known until reentry.)

[Fred Mertz]

I really do appreciate your input, Mrknowitall. Thanks very much;^)

[r9etb]

Even if it was after the 80 seconds, they still had options.

1. They didn't "have" a problem until the next day. There was no basis on which to call an abort.

2. The Flight Rules governing an abort are very specific, and very limited. They are not based on "something that we won't even know about until tomorrow may have happened (or not)." (Having participated in meetings where these rules were reviewed and revised post-Challenger, I know this to be true.)

3. Aborts are dangerous. The probability of the Shuttle surviving an abort is significantly less than one -- and thus they are (again) not something to do on the basis of "bad feelings." In any case that does not involve serious propulsion or guidance problems, orbit is the safest place to go.

[CARDINALRULES]

Well you must have missed this at #41-- Try Mitch and this was before my new computer (I've not been here in a few years) that had what I thought was my old PW. Of course, my new computer and Outlook do not have it, ergo, I had to register again. Actually, now that I think about it, the last time I was here was impeachment .

So he left out a word or two like "during impeachment" -- big fricking deal--his posts are a lot easier to interpret than yours.

An easy search turned up this MITCH signed up 1998-04-10 -- which could be his old name.

He never said he was banned but that he lost his password to his old account.

---

That being said, it is frustrating seeing the same questions and theories being posted over and over after being answered and/or debunked/confirmed.
If they would take the time to find and read over the MANY threads already posted with hundreds of replies they would find what they wondering about, or add to already on-going conversations.

[snopercod]

I'm sorry, but having watched the stupid questions the reporters are asking NASA, then reading your post, it's a toss-up as to who is more ignorant of the Space Transportation System - you, or the bubble-headed blond from People Magazine.