Even if a tethered EVA could have been performed there was no way that the underside of the orbiter could have been examined. No handholds on the fuselage or wing in order to pull onesself along and remain stationary. Had they had an MMU onboard, which they didn't, then they should have tried that option.
Seems as though NASA has gotten complacent along with most of the public about the Shuttle. After reviewing quite a few of the flight synopses one can see that there is a certain amount of damage to the tiles that occurs on every single flight. Should the fleet have been grounded until a better insulating system was developed and a zero tolerance policy been adapted? From now on a "worst case" mindset should probably be adopted on every flight. Limit the size of the crew. Always carry enough fuel and a docking collar to get to the ISS. Always carry at least one MMU and an EVA suit for each crewmember. The possibility that the leading edge of the port wing was damaged wasn't thought of until the telemetry data from reentry was gone over and they still haven't determined with certainty that that did in fact occur. Based on previous experience with the ET shedding insulation the conclusion was reached that damage serious enough to cause a problem had not occurred.
The decision to leave the orbiter and tanks exposed to nearly two weeks of rain while on the pad will be looked at. Should a cocoon encasing the whole pad be developed that can be opened/removed prior to fueling and launch. Did water penetrate the insulation during the rain and then freeze as it ascended causing it to fracture and dislodge. A high speed computer should be examining every frame of video shot in real time of the launch so a decision to execute a TAL can be made before the Shuttle reaches orbit. Should the decision to abort be made by a computer and not the launch director. Is the idea of a reusable spacecraft and all the safety measures that would have to be in place to virtually guarantee that there would be no danger of a loss too cost prohibitive to make it worthwhile. Should everyone at NASA be fired and should the space program be privatized.
There were two EVA suits onboard. I have read that there is a disagreement as to whether an EVA could have been performed through the hatch in the tunnel
leading to the SpaceHab. Maybe it could.
You're asking questions. I like that. There are no stupid questions. Well, okay there are "some" stupid questions. I dont' think yours are. The crew had to be able to access the payload bay. The payload bay doors sometimes hava a problem closing. The crew MUST be able to facilitate this function manually if needed. I don't pretend to propose the crew could have inspected the underside of the wing. We are now hearing the leading edge was jagged, and that could have been viewed IMO. I addressed that process a number of responses before this one.
Docking with the ISS is sometimes prevented by non-similar orbits. I'd be surprised if this isn't a problem most of the time. Out of 360 degrees, I'd be surprised if the shuttle were to be within 20 degrees plus or minus most of the time, on non-docking missions. I believe that it may be true that the shuttle seldom achieves an orbit much more than 90 degrees off that of the space station. That being said, non-similar trajectory is still a problem. Then there's the issue of Columbia being too heavy to reach the ISS. I believe that to be the case. But then that could have been a reason to retire it, if it weren't for the problem of non-similar trajectory which would make that problem mute.
I think it's reasonable to mention limiting crew size. I just don't think it's the right idea. Losing 4 vs 7 is a no-win fix in my mind. Fix the problem. Lauch as many crew as you need or want to.
I'm not convinced a high-speed computer could check the film in real time, with enough precision to make a go/no-go decision. I may be wrong. It would detect and highlight certain frames. If those frames were judged by a NASA tech to be a problem, you could no-go space entry. That is an iffy proposition. Even after two weeks the conclusion regarding the problem the insullation actually posed, is still iffy. What you might set up here is a red-tag on each and every mission do to second-guessing. I'd rather see a space retrieval remedy devised.
I'm not as anti-NASA as it sounds on some of these threads. I'm willing to kick them on the hind-side if I think they warrant it. I'm also willing to recognize sucesses when it's warranted. What might be a good idea, is to set up a review board that establishes an oversight of NASA operations. They shouldn't be too tied to the techs or the management. They should be an unbiased liason, that in extreme circumstances could slap down management hard. Floating from one mission specific pre-flight crew to the next, they could develop a relationship with hands on people that would make absolutely sure NASA management wasn't sh-t canning valid complaints and concerns. I do not believe we are at the stage where privatization is viable. I still believe an SSTO space plane is a must before privatization can be realized. BTW, I think that is the single most important task this nation faces, outside of immenent military hostilities and the war on terrorism.
Space is the high ground. We need access on a ho-hum basis. Fly into space, return the same day. Fly into space again. When this happens, the United States will become the Federation. We will inhabit space. We will make sure that a representative Republic rules the high frontier. Commercially, privately, governmentally, militarily, this should be the only acceptable outcome to citizens of the United States.
Great minds...