NASA Press Conference Thread

[ksen]

NASA Press conference any minute now....

[_Jim]

I wonder if a meteor could have hit the shuttle -

Are you aware of what the last few minutes of telemetry originating from the STS-107 showed?

Or did you simply skip over that portion of this thread?

[Ramtek57]

They should have done a space walk outside to check for damage. And if there were some, they could have docked at the space station to have repairs done or send another shuttle up to get them.

[_Jim]

Time to get out of here ... the simps have finally arrived in force.

Gresham's Law ("bad money/posters drive out good") is now in effect ...

[FITZ]

I saw one large one from my window and then considered going outside to see if there were more ---what is so strange about that?

[Don Munn]

You don't have a clue on how a space mission works do you.

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

When there is an emergency situation, people are capable of incredible things. Did you watch the Tom Hanks movie about the return of the "doomed" apollo mission?

Believe me, if they had determined there was no safe way to re-enter orbit, they would NOT have just re-entered and said "oh well let's roll the dice".

They would have gone to the space station and lived there until their return could be arranged.

[steveegg]

I don't know the answer. I suppose it depends on how far into orbital descent the decision is made.

I assume you mean ascent because once a proper deorbit burn is done, that shuttle is coming down. I don't know enough about orbital mechanics to provide a precise answer either, but I do know that a trip to the ISS requires a particular launch profile, one that Columbia did not use.

Who cares? The space station has MONTHS worth of supplies. And it only has ONE capsule on it.

I hear sometime in June, with the 3 people there. I'll be optimistic and say the end of June, which is 150 days from today, about 163 from when they might have been able to dock with the ISS. Divide that by 3 1/3, and that's 45 days had they docked today, or 34 days from today had they docked at the earliest opportunity. If it's only until the beginning of June, that drops it to 36 days if they docked today or 25 days from today had they docked at the earliest opportunity. They could have used the one capsule to offload 3 of their number and extended the time somewhat.

Had they been able to get to the ISS, this would have been a viable option.

Who knows what Nasa could really do if it wanted to get it done? There are also numerous possible ways to get things into orbit, not just shuttles.

Now how do I deal with this? You're asking the same agency who saw pieces of the external fuel tank fall off on launch 2 of the last 3 launches, with possible catastrophic damage on the last launch, to cut corners to get another shuttle up no later than the middle of next week if Columbia couldn't get to the ISS and hope that they could get the repairs done quickly. If they could have made the ISS, then there would have been some time to get things close to right.

As for launch vehicles, there are exactly 2 ways for humans to get into space; the shuttle and the Russian Soyuz. We don't have any rocket-launched capsules, and the last I checked, the Russians abandoned their shuttle program.

"""Where are the replacement tiles supposed to be stored?"""

In the cargo bay of the new shuttle

I thought you were hankering for them to have already been on the current shuttle. As for timing, see above.

"""How is the crew going to heat the adhesive to get these replacement tiles to stick?"""

Heating torches

See above.

[Cboldt]

They should have done a space walk outside to check for damage. And if there were some, they could have docked at the space station to have repairs done or send another shuttle up to get them.

Everything is obvious in hindsight. Using your protocol, every shuttle mission would include an inspection EVA and the possibility of a trip to the repair shop before re-entry (maybe that should be the protocol), because every launch has the possibility of damage. Or are you asserting that this mission had indications of extraordinary damage? It may have, I don't know. But the NASA conference indicated at least one previous launch tank insulation shedding event, and subsequent examination of shuttle vehicle indicating no serious damage resulting from that event. Have you ever driven over a pot hole? Do you inspect your tires after 100% of pot-hole events? Tire damage is potentially life threatening.

[Ramtek57]

Oh, and I suppose you do. Why don't you explain it to us then.

[Don Munn]

You must be in a similar orbit to make the station and also once you commit to deorbit there is no return to space. The shuttle would not have the right angle to track and catch the space station.

[Just mythoughts]

Considering it was daylight when this event occured, window or watching out side doesn't track with what has thus far been reported.

So are you reporting news?

I did not say strange but gifted.

[The Right Stuff]

my hubby and I came up with the exact same scenario - plant an explosive somewhere where it will cause the most damage and detonate it during landing when the vehicle is under the most stress.

According to NASA, this was exactly when the shuttle disintegrated.

Only thing is, you'd have to have a guy named Abdullah who works at KSC and could plant it ahead of time - and I know their security is pretty tight.

Just wait for the Islamofascist conspiracy line that the Israeli astronaut did it.

[steveegg]

The Columbia was too heavy (being the first shuttle and structurally overbuilt) to reach the ISS, and did not have the docking equipment regardless.

That answers that question. Prototypes usually are overbuilt (remember when the external tank was painted?).

[Ramtek57]

Ok, maybe they couldn't haved docked with the space station. They could have parked by it and have one of the space staion guys to float over to them and get them.

[steveegg]

When there is an emergency situation, people are capable of incredible things. Did you watch the Tom Hanks movie about the return of the "doomed" apollo mission?

Believe me, if they had determined there was no safe way to re-enter orbit, they would NOT have just re-entered and said "oh well let's roll the dice".

They would have gone to the space station and lived there until their return could be arranged.

Check your history, son. Apollo 13 was in 1970; Skylab wasn't launched until 1973. The Soviet Salyut 1 (the first space station) wasn't launched until 1971.

[Stefan Stackhouse]

His answer was totally defensive. Between several of his responses, the "theme" was "Nothing could have been done to repair tile damage" - I don't believe that for a minute. Regardless, who cares if it couldn't have been repaired? That is NO justification for failing to fully investigate before re-entry.

Worst case, if a visual inspection had discovered damage that could lead to the type of catastrophic failure that happened today, the shuttle could have made it to the ISS, which could have served as their "lifeboat" until a rescue/repair mission was sent up. This would have required some imaginative improvising, no doubt, but no more so than what was done for Apollo 13. I guess that crew doesn't work at NASA any more, though. . .

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

People are totally missing the point.

This is not about whether or not they could have recovered from their descent. This is not about whether or not they could have docked at the space station.

This is about one simple thing - why didn't Nasa make a visual confirmation that the during-launch insulation impact did not cause serious damage?

The program director was asked if Nasa had considered a spacewalk to examine the damage. He did not answer the question directly. Intead, he said "we cannot walk outside the shuttle and REPAIR TILES".

Wouldn't you think that they would at least want to know if the damage was bad or not? Doesn't make sense. Who cares if they couldn't fix it? You wouldn't just roll the dice and try to re-enter orbit. You would wait as long as possible before running out of water/food/air, and exhausting all potential rescue mission scenarios.

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

steveegg writes
""Check your history, son. Apollo 13 was in 1970; Skylab wasn't launched until 1973. The Soviet Salyut 1 (the first space station) wasn't launched until 1971.""

I fail to see the point of your reply. I didn't say anything about the timeline of history of those missions. I said that people can do amazing things when put to the test.

What was your point?

[Don Munn]

In space you do not just drive where you want. You must be in a similar orbit to chase and catch an object (space station)

They were not in the same orbit and your fuel only allows minor corrections.

[Stefan Stackhouse]

I think the press conference included assertions that the astronauts were asked to photograph the launch tank as it departed the shuttle, to permit the development of technical solutions to the shedding of insulation. Also asserted was that this was not the first mission that shed insulation from the launch tank. If those facts are true, one could infer that the astronauts knew that insulation was shed from the launch tank, etc.

And the guy said that, unfortunately, the film was lost in the catastrophe. Good grief, so they are telling me that with all this amazing high technology, they couldn't carry on board the same digital camera I can buy at Circuit City for $150, and download the images?