Astronauts doomed from the start

.heraldsun ^ | 2/3/2003 | PHILLIP COOREY and ANNA COCK

[billhilly]

" Space is a dangerous place. Just like military aviation there are situations which you cannot recover from. NASA has done an amazing job considering the complexity and danger involved in this area of exploration."

A friend of mine, himself a captain on a major US airline, said essentially the same thing to me this morning.

[spokanite]

Even with my limited knowledge and, with my own eyes in the past, you can exit the space shuttle while it's in orbit! If they could have, at least, taken a look at the damage made from the liftoff, they could have come to some kind of conclusion on how to deal with it. It's obvious NASA doesn't have any kind of backup plan if things ever go wrong in space.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

The article in question is from an Australian newspaper.

[Willie Green]

Actually, the report is much more sinister than a simple wear and tear issue. The guy in charge of inspecting these parts of the Shuttle makes that clear that this was a huge amount and that the amounts had been increasing. (Since the Freon-less formula had been used.)

Sinister? Well, I suppose you might use that word since the report is more subjective and speculative than it is quantitative and analytically objective. Not that there's anything inherently "evil" about subjective and speculative analysis when 1 data point (the wear and tear experience on 1 flight) is all you have to go on.
As stated previously, there was a passing comparison to the previous flight that the damage was "greater". But that really doesn't supply any quantitative comparison as to the degree it was greater, or to what quantitative level it may or may not have impinged upon the level of acceptable wear and tear.

Naturally, "zero" wear and tear is desirable, but that doesn't happen in a complex and imperfect world. Some level of wear and tear must be expected, and maximum acceptable limits established. We, out here on the Internet, simply don't have the information to know whether or not the damage exceeded the maximum limit for acceptable wear and tear.

It is certainly worth knowing that a change to freon-less foam occurred for the data collected on flights STS-86 & 87, but that doesn't supply answers. It only raises additional questions for analysis. What type of foam was used in the subsequent flights and what quantifiable damage levels where experience then? Where there any other changes, trends, etc. etc.???

Heck, I can think of several ways I'd like to see some quantitative data accumulated and analytically presented that may be helpful. Not that the info in the report that Jael has posted isn't of interest. It is. It just isn't sufficient information upon which to draw any conclusions.

[TheDon]

No problem. Best wishes for your daughter.

[tacticalogic]

Depending on the nature and extent of the damage, another option might have been to leave the payload in orbit, and bring the shuttle back down empty. In the interviews on TV, one of the astronauts mentioned that this would have been the heaviest shuttle that had ever attempted a landing.

[snooker]

>>>But I believe that the damage on launch was extraordinary damage due to the size of the

I agree. The piece of ___Al Gore foam___ insulation that hit the shuttle was about 18 square feet, according to NASA reports.

Looks like it was bad from the start. No point in telling the crew and public if there was no way out. The chance for a safe re-entry was still there.

There was no sure way of knowing how much damage there was, once the shuttle was in orbit. Second guessing is all there is. 20-20 hindsight is much clearer.

snooker

[Jael]

Some level of wear and tear must be expected, and maximum acceptable limits established. We, out here on the Internet, simply don't have the information to know whether or not the damage exceeded the maximum limit for acceptable wear and tear.

"Damage numbering up to forty tiles is considered normal on each mission due to ice dropping off of the external tank (ET) and plume re-circulation causing this debris to impact with the tiles. But the extent of damage at the conclusion of this mission was not "normal."

The pattern of hits did not follow aerodynamic expectations, and the number, size and severity of hits were abnormal. Three hundred and eight (308) hits were counted during the inspection, one hundred and thirty two (132) were greater than one inch. Some of the hits measured fifteen (15) inches long with depths measuring up to one and one-half (1 1/2) inches. Considering that the depth of the tile is two (2) inches, a 75% penetration depth had been reached. Over one hundred (100) tiles have been removed from the Columbia because they were irreparable. The inspection revealed the damage, now the "detective process" began.

During the STS-87 mission, there was a change made on the external tank. Because of NASA's goal to use environmentally friendly products, a new method of "foaming" the external tank had been used for this mission and the STS-86 mission. It is suspected that large amounts of foam separated from the external tank and impacted the orbiter. This caused significant damage to the protective tiles of the orbiter."

Keep in mind that NASA had this article posted as part of a Kid's Quest Science project. It's not written with a lot of highly technical information, but it does illuminate some startling facts for us.

[Jael]

Thanks for your reply. :-)

[Concerned]

KOZAK WROTE: "The shuttle Columbia COULD NOT GET to the ISS because the space station is at an orbital distance greater then Columbias engines could reach. It was an IMPOSSIBILITY."

I did not get to see the NASA news briefing yesterday which supposedly addressed the issues I brought up so forgive me for trying to clarify.

Did they say how MUCH farther out the ISS orbit is than what the current ability of the Shuttle is? Could they upgrade the engines for future missions or would larger engines weigh too much?

Obviously, it is a moot issue for the Columbia, but I seem to remember that when the Space Shuttle was first being "sold" to us, astronauts were going to be able to be just "shuttled" back and forth, e.g. with the "Shuttle" planes. If not these "Shuttles," which ones were they talking about? I don't recall what vehicles got the current astronauts to the ISS. Do you know?

KOZAK WROTE: "Repairing the tiles? Each tile is a custom fit. Do they carry spares for the entire heat shield?"

I understand that each tile is a different shape, prohibiting them from taking enough individual tiles for complete replacement.

My thought, however, is that since they typically only lose a "few" tiles, and since they are made of EASILY-CUT, light-weight STYROFOAM which has a heat-shield coating, they could take a sheet or two or three of it with them (e.g. 3-2x4 foot sheets) to CUSTOM CUT them down as specifically needed.

With an ABILITY to EXAMINE and REPLACE the heat-shields via an EMERGENCY SPACE WALK, they could look up the size they needed (or make templates) and cut and glue them on as needed. As easily as the styrofoam heat-shields come off, having that EMERGENCY SPACE WALK ABILITY IS CRITICAL.

KOZAK WROTE: "A Soyuz rescue mission would actually take at LEAST 4 missions as the Soyuz carries 3 passengers at a time. Thats 1 pilot and 2 shuttle crew at a time. Since there were 7 shuttle crew do the math. Do you think the Russians have them on the pad in six packs?"

It is my understanding that the Soyuz is bringing up supplies to the ISS wihin a day or two---UNMANNED. If so, it seems that it could have brought back three at a time (and might have EMERGENCY SPACE for more). Maybe we should have a BACKUP Shuttle (capable of reaching the ISS, e.g. the Shuttle "sold" to us as mentioned above), ready to go in an EMERGENCY (or one which could could be QUICKLY CONVERTED from a scheduled future mission).

KOZAK WROTE: "Space is a dangerous place. Just like military aviation there are situations which you cannot recover from. NASA has done an amazing job considering the complexity and danger involved in this area of exploration."

I understand and agree, EXCEPT that, who would have ever thought Apollo 13 could have recovered from so MANY problems---all with "SPARE PARTS" engineered out of ordinary and unrelated items?

[Concerned]

SPOKANITE WROTE: "Even with my limited knowledge and, with my own eyes in the past, you can exit the space shuttle while it's in orbit! If they could have, at least, taken a look at the damage made from the liftoff, they could have come to some kind of conclusion on how to deal with it. It's obvious NASA doesn't have any kind of backup plan if things ever go wrong in space."

EXACTLY!

Also, does anyone know if GPS would work in space? I would think it would, but I don't know that much about it. I understand it works via getting satellite positioning readings. It SEEMS like it would work in space as well, EXCEPT that it might need a FORTH satellite reading since the element of height above the earth's surface is introduced. Anybody know enough about GPS to answer?

[A Citizen Reporter]

Tell you what, why don't you apply for a position at NASA. That way you can solve all their problems for them!

[Illbay]

So you're saying it's IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to buy off a NASA technician (let's say), and have them perform a bit of sabotage?

Oh, that's a relief.

I guess we can forget about being worried that anyone from the CIA might sell out the country for a princely sum, as well.

Right?

[Willie Green]

But the extent of damage at the conclusion of this mission was not "normal."

Yes, I read all that before in your previous posts.

It really doesn't matter how frequently you repost the same information over and over again. It STILL doesn't tell us how the damage relates to maximum acceptable limits, as deviant from "normal" as it may have been. Remember, despite the damage, flight STS-87 landed SAFELY, and inspection occurred AFTER the additional wear and tear incurred during reentry.

[GreyWolf]

Do you think it was terrorism then? If so, how, in your theory?

I don't have my tinfoil hat with me but I think they were entirely too quick to rule out terrorism/sabotage as the possible cause. They focused entirely on the shoulder fired missle thing and completely ignored the possibility of sabotaged parts. The shuttle is actually literally hundreds of separate components (many not built domestically) many of which are mission specific and replaced or installed long before flighttime.

It would not have been inconceivable that plastik explosives could have been sealed into one of these "black boxes" and not be examined before the unit was installed. I doubt seriously if they open up every box and check for explosive material. I don't care how tight security is around the launch site, if you are carrying the bomb with you, you are doomed. Any number of triggering devices could have been employed, pressure, heat, RF energy. The re-entry is very critical and a very small charge could upset the balance and start the chain reaction to disaster. The shuttle is flown by the computer which relies heavily on input from hundreds of sensors, many of them very tiny and fragile. Even though there is redundancy galore, loss of critical sensors could throw things out of kilter.

The other possibility is a software bomb (software is also developed in many places) triggered to disrupt computers at a vulnerable period in the flight i.e re-entry or takeoff. Like all viruses, it could sit dormant until the need to run the re-entry code and then rear its ugly head and do its terrible deed.

I am not saying that the event WAS terrorism. All I am doing is pointing out the possibilities and I am sure they could not have begun to check all this out in the time since the mishap. If anyone wants to shoot holes in this logic, I would like to hear from you.

[Kozak]

It is my understanding that the Soyuz is bringing up supplies to the ISS wihin a day or two---UNMANNED. If so, it seems that it could have brought back three at a time (and might have EMERGENCY SPACE for more). Maybe we should have a BACKUP Shuttle (capable of reaching the ISS, e.g. the Shuttle "sold" to us as mentioned above), ready to go in an EMERGENCY (or one which could could be QUICKLY CONVERTED from a scheduled future mission).

It's not a "Soyuz" bringing supplies it's a "Progress" thats an UNMANNED cargo hauler. Not sure exactly what special equipment is needed to guide it to the ISS, but I am sure it wasn't on the Columbia.

The Columbia is (WAS) the only shuttle that couldn't make the orbit of the ISS. But my understanding is only Atlantis has the proper docking equipment.

Repairing the tiles is not as simple as cut and paste. The process in which the tiles are mounted is a multistep process and not something that can be done. If it were that simple don't you think NASA would have thought of it? Or do you think they don't give a rats ass about the crew and 2 billion in space assets??????

IN aviation as in other areas of life some events ARE NOT SALVAGABLE.

[Concerned]

THEDON WROTE: "No problem. Best wishes for your daughter."

Thanks and thanks. I'm hoping she (we) will get out of the hosital soon. She has been sick with respiratory problems for about 10 days and in the hospital since last Monday.

Unfortuantely, since she is severely mentally and physically disabled, she can't tell us what/how she feels when she is starting to get sick. Thanks again!

[TLBSHOW]

BUMP

[SerpentDove]

I don't know if it exploded or not, but it sure as hell was loud.

I live in Dallas, and the noise was not "Did I hear something?" but "WHAT was THAT?!"

Three people in my house heard it, including myself.

[Howlin]

Oh, I have no doubt about that.