NASA Press Conference LIVE THREAD

Fox, CNN, networks, NASA TV | February 2, 2003 | NASA

[snopercod]

Any time now...

[Ramtek57]

NASA could alway develop something so they could do a spacewalk to check for damage. Thruster suit, whatever. If there is a will there is a way to get our pilots home safely.

[snopercod]

Switching to NASA HQ...

[Karsus]

I am almost positive the military has some sort of ground based scope that could track it. Some say such systems are used to follow other countries spy sats...

Look at http://www.hobbyspace.com/SatWatching/#SatPhotos for pictures of what a amateur 12inch scope can do.

Also look at http://satobs.org/telescope.html

[_Jim]

and will match their credentials with you any day of the week!

YOU have a problem, lady ...

[Jim Noble]

>>Buy a clue<<

Ramtek got to the station after the clue train left.

Didn't even catch a glimpse. Bummer.

[alancarp]

What is MORE likely here is the the flight control system was performing correctly to compensate for the wing drag...

Which is why I suspect the answer to my own question is that the heating came first: you don't compensate unless there's a reason to do so. That reason would have been a left side drag that would have generated excess heating. I gotta think through these things....

[Judith Anne]

I'll leave it to the others more knowledgeable on this thread to challenge your assertions, but I think you are misinformed. Life is not like the movies.

[sonofatpatcher2]

Re: Yep. That explains why we lost the crew of Apollo XIII.

What timeline are you from? Apollo 8 circled the Moon and returned.

[Karsus]

Please see http://www.hobbyspace.com/SatWatching/#SatPhotos

[Mo1]

Thanks for clearing that up and yes I did read there were prior problems with this foam

I am not expert, far from it .. but if the foam broke of and damaged the tiles or knocked them off .. would that not cause the shuttle to heat up and melt upon re-entry??

[snopercod]

They have no way to repair the tiles even if the astronauts could get to them. NASA has not been able to find a "patch kit" that will work in the vacuum of space.

[Magnum44]

I realize contingency space walks are risky (particularly untethored or outside the payload bay), but I heard the comment that inspection of the underside was not possible in the briefings yesterday as well. It seems like a major design/safety oversight that the robot arm (which has a camera) could not be manipulated to view the under belly, or provide a platfom for a crewmember to view the wing edge and underside from. IIRC the robot arm is even on the port (left) side of the orbiter.

Anybody familiar with shuttle robotic arm limitations? Maybe with the science lab you cant even use it? I don't know.

[alancarp]

I am almost positive the military has some sort of ground based scope that could track it.

I sure as heck would routinely try it -- and have had SOMETHING in place before 113 missions.

[DoughtyOne]

They were much lower than the ISS from what I understand. Part of the timing for the next shuttle lauch would be loading things into it. In an emergency it seems to me they could work 24/7 and get a crew up there sooner.

Didn't we have a shuttle that stayed and extra week or two due to weather and other problems? Can't remember exactly what the deal was, but they stayed significantly longer than initially planned. I believe it was a week or so.

[Judith Anne]

Thanks. I thought that's what I had heard.

[Karsus]

They were not lost. That was the point. Everyone is saying that NOTHING could have been done. I do not believe that and what happened on Apollo 13 shows what we can do when we know the results of failure are too much.

[Don Munn]

Don't waste your time with this new poster.

He was pulling this stunt yesterday.

[William McKinley]

It is my understanding that there was no robotic arm installed in the cargo bay for this mission.

[Jael]

He now seems rather dismissive of questions regarding inspecting or viewing the wing closely to see if there was damage.

In light of this catastrophic failure, the comment "we didn't think" it was a problem kindof leaves me cold.

Especially in light of the fact that they had observed this problem with Columbia in 1997.

"After inspection of the SRBs, no clues were found. In fact, the solid rocket boosters looked to be in great condition. Where to now? The external tank photographs were magnified and reviewed once again. This time some material loss was noted, but not in a significant degree. The attention was now focused on the crew cabin cameras. These cameras gave more of a side view of the external tank as it tumbled back to Earth. These photographs revealed massive material loss on a side of the external tank that could not be viewed by the umbilical cameras!

Where are we now? One of the questions had now been answered. The ascent phase of flight was when the damage occurred. With the information provided by the photography and the mapped flow of damage, a logical reason could be established as to "what" happened. It was determined that during the ascent, the foam separation from the external tank was carried by the aerodynamic flow and pelted the nose of the orbiter and cascaded aft from that point.

http://ltp.arc.nasa.gov/space/team/journals/katnik/sts87-12-23.html