Posted by dasboot to dtel
On News/Activism 02/06/2003 8:09 AM EST #24 of 54
They knew that there were problems with impact damage from foam and/or ice tearing off. They knew that there was some amount of damage that could be tolerated.
They knew that there was an amount of damage that , dependent upon location and depth, would possibly doom the re-entry.
They knew that in order to initiate abort (acknowledged to be risky , but safer that re-entry with compromised heat-shielding), the damage would have to be assessed, real-time, pre-orbit.
And finally, I understand they knew that significant damage to the tiles would be indicated by white areas where the hard surface had been shed.
The simple and obvious solution is to place monitoring cameras on the tank-struts, facing the underside of the vehicle, hard-wired to the cockpit, and visible to the ommander and pilot, who can then make the decision to continue to orbit or abort, based upon something better than guess-work and wishful thinking. The determination then rests where it should: with the commander and pilot.
They don't know for certain what brought the thing down; and because of this goof, we may never know.
Can anyone tell me that the solution was beyond the reasonable consideration or discovery of the NASA Brain Trust?
Can anyone tell me that cameras were impossible? I've seen film of launches, taken by just such "fisheye" cameras, that were mounted on the exterior of Saturn rockets, right in the slipstream.
Can anyone tell me that this kind of mistake would have been given a pass by the early NASA pilots?
Bad. Very bad.
With a little foresight, this thing might have been avoided, the crew and vehilce saved, if indeed the tiles were the cause. At least the commander and pilot would have been given a fair shot at recovering themselves.
I don't think it matters a whit what the cause was, with regard to the poor quality of mission ops.
Sprites, elfs, and metiorites are acts of God; the fact that they couldn't assess the space-worthiness of the vehicle--in light of what was known before-hand--is, I think, inexcusable.
One last thing: a few are discounting the force with which 'exfoliated' foam or ice could have on the tiles because of the relative velocity and short distance to the wing. But I want you to think about the last time you were doing 65 on the highway, and a sheet of ice lifted from the hood of your car and smacked the windshield. Very short distance; same relative velocity; big bang, and sometimes a cracked windshield.