Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Gracey
Unfortunately, there are a lot of Monday morning QB's around here who REFUSE to believe there was nothing that could be done. As if NASA was just being 'lazy' and not even thought about these things.
16 posted on 02/02/2003 4:20:22 PM PST by Trust but Verify
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: Trust but Verify
As if NASA was just being 'lazy' and not even thought about these things.

LOL. After Challenger, I sat through three years of Space Shuttle management meetings listening to "bottoms up" reviews of ALL shuttle elements. Obviously, you understand.

74 posted on 02/02/2003 6:02:36 PM PST by Gracey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: Trust but Verify
Unfortunately, there are a lot of Monday morning QB's around here who REFUSE to believe there was nothing that could be done. As if NASA was just being 'lazy' and not even thought about these things.

In the wake of Challenger, when NASA officials were fielding questions about various emergency procedures and abort scenarios, one reporter asked:

"In this accident, we saw a failure of a solid rocket booster. What is the contingency if say, one SRB fails to ignite?"

Answer:

"All of our abort scenarios assume that we have two good SRBs"

In other words: They die!

The Shuttle design exposes the astronauts to mortality without recourse more than earlier launch systems. The Mercury, Gemini and Apollo space capsules all had escape rockets that were designed to pull the capsule away from an exploding booster. The G forces might seriously injure the astronauts but at least there was a hope of survival. Some anonomous group in NASA decided that a similar approch wasn't worth the trouble with the shuttle.

The Challenger commission turned up many examples of single point of failure vulnerabilities in the shuttle. Engineering studies show that the all the main gear tires could fail catastrophically if the shuttle ever had to land with something as big as a TDRSS satellite that had failed to deploy. Again someone in NASA made these engineering decisions and they are anonymous. The folks who signed off on the clevis joint design of the SRBs were as guilty as the officials who pressed for launch in spite of warnings from lower level engineers. The SRBs that were recovered post launch often had evidence of blowby and sometimes there was extensive erosion of the secondary O rings. Challenger like events almost happened earlier and people ignored the warnings.

Fact: The tiles are delicate. Fact: Huge chunks of ice slough off the external tank during each launch.

What's wrong with this picture? If this isn't the cause of this calamity. It could easily be a cause in the future.

Even if the most recent loss has nothing to do with the tiles. It gives me pause to learn that there are no contingencies to deal with tile damage. It's been known for a long time that damage to certain tiles can lead to loss of the vehicle.

There is a betrayal of the public trust here even if Columbia was struck by a meteor during re-entry.

105 posted on 02/02/2003 6:43:34 PM PST by UnChained
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson