Columbia's Problems Began on Left Wing

NYT.com ^

[discostu]

The other shuttle(s? I forget how many there are). Problem is there's not a whole lot of spare room for people, probably would have taken two trips. With the space station up there an Apollo 13 type situation isn't nearly so ugly, there's someplace people can wait for months if need be. If they do decide it's the insulation hit on the wing there will probably be some serious rethinking on what to do in bad situations. Given that the shuttle is mostly piloted by the computer anyway they could drop the people in the station and empty run the shuttle down, then if something bad happens it's just money.

[John Jamieson]

Yes

[John Jamieson]

This shuttle couldn't reach the space station.

[r9etb]

The current occupants of the ISS could have eyeballed the wing as Columbia flew in formation close to the station.

The ISS flies at about 52 degrees inclination at an altitude of about 205 nautical miles. The Columbia was flying at 39 degrees inclination, at an altitude of 1f0 nm. The distance and relative speed (roughly 20,000 mph) precludes a manageable "eyeballing."

There are means of trying to do this, however, and NASA should have at least attempted it -- easy to say in hindsight.

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

Can't repair the tiles in the cold. Need heat to bond them.

Americans don't know the meaning of the word, can't!!

If Johnson & Johnson can invent an adhesive to stick on my greasy nose (nose strip), then our best scientists can invent a Lambeau Field-like array of subsurface heating wires to maintain temperatures sufficient for tile repair on critical shuttle wing edges.

[OReilly]

I have learned not to hold NASA in Awe... they are engineers that have learned to be politicians if they want to advance... (more so, the higher you go in paycheck amount) and not usually trustworthy. Goldin was the apex of this corollary.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"Skynews website has a British scientist quoted as saying that NASA knew this ending was going to happen after finding out about the damaged tile, but couldn't do a damn thing about it. In other words, it was a sealed fate once the tile was hit upon liftoff. Guy seemed pretty sure of himself."

If so, NASA would have been collecting more detailed video, etc. If we see see it, then they knew. If not, then we won't.

But does anyone think NASA would know the crew is doomed, but not give loved ones a chance to say goodbye? Or that the loved ones had this chance, but kept it 100% secret?

[jenny65]

Skynews website has a British scientist quoted as saying that NASA knew this ending was going to happen after finding out about the damaged tile, but couldn't do a damn thing about it. In other words, it was a sealed fate once the tile was hit upon liftoff. Guy seemed pretty sure of himself.

On the one hand, this wouldn't surprise me, but I'm yet willing to accept this. One thing that's got me wondering is that I recall on a previous flight last year (some secret military flight), they made a big deal about a new camera they had installed on the exterior of the main tank, pointing at the orbiter. I was watching NASA TV as the launch took place, and the camera got fogged up and didn't give much to look at. Assuming they were able to fix it, it's entirely possible that they've got high-quality footage of the insulation hitting the wing. So far, all we've seen is the fuzzy telephoto video of the launch. But I bet NASA has got much better footage to look at regardless. I still find it hard to believe NASA would OK the reentry if they knew it was doomed. I would think/hope they would have tried to come up with SOMETHING.

[CharacterCounts]

I think if they tried to carry design a shuttle that is fully prepared for every contingency the thing wouldn't get five feet off the ground.

[csvset]

According to what I heard on Fox News, this is not a rare event. It has happend nine times before without incident.

Yeah, I heard the guy at the press conference talk about some of the previous incidents. I wasn't impressed, imo, it wasn't an excuse for not doing a visual check.

I used to launch planes off of aircraft carriers. Not that that equates to a shuttle launch.

The concept of being responsible for the lives of others is the same though.

It was my responsibility to ensure that the catapult that was going to launch the pilot and/or aircrew that our machinery was working. If we screwed up, there was a chance someone was going to die or you lose or damage costly equipment.

I'd never in good conscience not check for damage if something abnormal had occurred, even if previous events had turned up negative or were deemed non-critical.

Imo, it sounds as if they, (mission control) fell into the "cry wolf" syndrone. After X previous impacts why check anything?

I heard the guy say that they had ran different analyses which sounds great but doesn't compare to doing a look see.

Perhaps the wing was fine as projected by the analyses and the shuttle failed due to some other factor, but, since mission control failed to look, perhaps we'll never know.

[OReilly]

Why does this guy have to post this 5 times before any of our NASA Engineers can answer him?.... Could be this is correct?

[alancarp]

I heard something in the news conference about deeming the launch incident as not being of concern. In light of today's events (they're now not ruling out anything, duh), that sounds haunting like the 'Go' for launch given on a 38 degree morning to a certain Challenger crew.

[discostu]

Was it load or just overall? If it was load you can always throw that crap away. If it was overall then you need another plan. The craft was still space worthy so they could have waited for a rescue. But the first step of the whole thing is the guys down on the ground feeling the damage is bad enough to warrant extreme measure, if they don't have enough info then all the contigency plans in the world mean nothing. Also you have to consider what'll happen if they go to contigency and send it down empty and it lands perfectly, major face-egg.

[Swordmaker]

With all due respect, that is bull... or was Appolo 13 staged on a sound stage in Hollywood?

So you think that the magicians in Florida and Houston with the help of seven astronauts could have "found" a way to get Columbia to the ISS by "lightening the load" enough so the available Delta V would be sufficient. That kind of magic only takes place in Hollywood or Disneyland.

The Apollo 13 team worked with what was at least theoretically possible. Getting Columbia from its planned orbit and docking it with ISS was not even theoretically possible. It is not "bull..." it's reality.

[jenny65]

What orbit do you put it in?

I realize space is a pretty big place. But don't all the orbiters have to eventually get into the same orbit/position before they prepare for reentry? Maybe the lifeboat could be moved around by remote control if needed to adjust its orbit. If nothing else, maybe the shuttle could meet it half way.

Sorry, I don't want to start making crazy suggestions that aren't practical. I'm just thinking out loud. Tell me if I'm off base.

[John Jamieson]

I doubt it, but I've been retired for 8 years. These managers work on list of several 100 problems per flight. This was just another one to be rationalized (It worked the last N times). Like the Challenger O rings. This is not a Cruise Ship, a certain level of risk must be accepted as it is in any adventure.

[Swordmaker]

I find this hard to believe. 300' of rope tied to an astronaut's leg, with a partner available to pull the spacewalker back in, doesn't seem that much of a technological hurdle to overcome. Don't the MMUs (Manned Maneuvering Units) they wear on spacewalks have their own power sources as well?

Rope? What rope? I would be very surprised if a rope was included on the mission manifest.

MMU? What MMU? This mission did not include any EVA plans. NASA would have not launched an MMU on Columbia if an EVA was not on the agenda... Too expensive and too wasteful of payload space and delta V needed for other necessary items.

[OReilly]

I heard something in the news conference about deeming the launch incident as not being of concern. In light of today's events (they're now not ruling out anything, duh), that sounds haunting like the 'Go' for launch given on a 38 degree morning to a certain Challenger crew.

This thread seems to be moderated by pro-NASA types... I heard the same press conference but the reason given for no concern was that they had no capability for in-orbit tile repair. I have said several times, that GIVEN that FACT I'll bet even some FRers could have come up with some suggestions. I know that sounds like heresy to Auranautical Engineers... but deal with it!

[John Jamieson]

It could be done at a very high cost. It still doesn't solve any problems that start and finish at the two most crutial times: liftoff and reentry.

[r9etb]

Seems to me the most practical solution in the future would be to send up a "lifeboat" vehicle and let it sit in low orbit until needed. Or maybe a sort of "service station" that has essential repair supplies, oxygen, etc. Wouldn't have to cost much.

Not practical. The propellant requirements for such a craft would be prohibitive (many tens of thousands of pounds of prop), due to the requirement for this rescue vehicle to perform huge orbit plane changes. This mission was flying at 39 degrees inclination. An 30 degree plane change requires about 4100 m/sec of propellant -- which, for a re-entry- and rendezvous-capable satellite (about 50,000 kg) translates into about 40,000 kg of propellant, just for plane changes. All told, you'd be talking about a Shuttle-sized vehicle, or larger.