Did NASA know there was a problem? PIC and Excerpts from an Israeli Article

Maariv ^

[Ichneumon]

I think it is a photograph taken from the video of the External Fuel Tank showing some of the peeling

Can't be, the external fuel tank is jetissoned at a much lower altitude than that shown in the photo, which is obviously already at orbital distance from Earth.

[cardinal4]

If it turns out that NASA folks knew there was a major FU on launch (which should have been kickoff time for any rescue effort if true) then heads should roll

What could have been done? Its not like aborting a takeoff in an airliner. If they knew something happened on liftoff they couldnt have just stopped it.

[Ichneumon]

I just don't understand the mentality of not going into orbit with a full tank of gas.

It *did* go up with "a full tank of gas" -- that's what the giant, cylindrical, external fuel tank is.

However, all the fuel is burned getting to orbit. Once it's burned, the tank is empty, and it's jettisoned.

Now the only fuel left is the fuel in the OMS module, which you need to use to get back home and for minor orbital corrections, and the fuel for the various "retro rockets" which have a very minor amount of fuel, just enough for rotating and aligning the orbiter.

Once you're in orbit, there's simply no spare fuel to drastically change your orbit (which takes a *LOT* of fuel) and go somewhere that wasn't originally planned for in the mission. Nor could the orbiter ever carry enough fuel to do so even if extra tanks were installed. Orbit changes require a HUGE amount of fuel. That's why they're not done, and not provided for. It's quite simply impractical.

The shuttle goes to its preplanned orbit, wherever that may be (including mating with the space station) by virtue of exactly when it originally launches, and what angle it uses to rise above the atmosphere. That trajectory predetermines where it ends up, using its "full tank of gas". Once there, there's really no way to "change directions" and go somewhere else, like the space station in another orbit entirely, unless that was the orbit you were aiming at *originally*.

If you fly a plane you make sure you have more than enough fuel to get where you are going.

The shuttle *does* have "more than enough fuel to get where you are going". But that's not nearly enough fuel to go *somewhere else entirely* after you get there.

If you go scuba diving, you make sure your tanks are full of air.

In this case, it's like expecting someone to have enough air to get from the surface to the ocean floor spot they had originally planned on exploring, and *then* having enough air to also swim 50 miles down the coast to another coral reef entirely, *then* surface where another boat is waiting to pick them up... Not doable.

COMMON SENSE.

When it comes to properly intuiting the math of orbital mechanics, common sense is usually neither.

NASA screwed the pooch on this one.

Not at all, and I wish people would investigate things more carefully before they start casting undeserved blame.

[KneelBeforeZod]

so which window did they take this picture from?

and how did they get that high that the curvature of the earth is so great???

[Ichneumon]

In space I am not sure but I thought things were weightless.

Weightless yes, massless no.

At zero-G you can lift a 5-ton weight because it has no weight trying to pull it back down to the "floor" (although it's still a strain to get it moving), but you can't throw it like a baseball -- it's still just as hard to get moving. And if it's flying towards you, it can still crush you just as well as it can on Earth.

[Ichneumon]

Are there windows towards the rear of the shuttle, in the cargo bay?

Yes there are, two of them side-by-side. But someone on this thread has alread posted a view of the shuttle/tail/wings from that angle, and it's drastically different than the view alleged in the photo that started this thread.

[KneelBeforeZod]

The picture is called "columbia0302034.jpg" so obviously its totally real.

so is this by nostradamus:

In the mission of the first blue star,
a child of the holy land among the seven shall perish,
as the ship descends heavens sky,
the lone star bescattered with wreckage.

[KneelBeforeZod]

cool I used to live in Upper Marlboro. We had a NASA guy behind us. My frat brother worked out here at Moffett for a contractor who made tiles. He would burn them...write stuff down...burn them...write stuff down.

[Lancey Howard]

No hope, forget about it, you astronauts are dead meat, there's nothing we can do, etc.

Nothing personal or anything, but I wouldn't want you in my foxhole.

Regards,
LH

[TheBattman]

Sure looks like a bad Photoshop job to me....Not that I necessarily trust what the Government will conclude, but this picture looks like a terrible fake....

[lstanle]

"No hope, forget about it, you astronauts are dead meat, there's nothing we can do, etc. Nothing personal or anything, but I wouldn't want you in my foxhole."

We can't "unring" the bell. Sometime reality sucks. Sorry about that. I don't see the connection to foxholes. Anyway, I was in the Navy.

[eabinga]

I believe the picture might be real.

BUT, it is NOT a picture of the Wing and it doesn't show damage.

Having watched a lot of NASA TV footage during the mission, there are external cameras inside the cargo bay. Also there are windows inside the spacehab module from which the footage could have been obtained.

I have no idea what it is, but it seems the surface of whatever it may be has a wave (curved) shape to it and the lines may be shadows.

Here is another picture being shown on a major German Newssite (like CNN)

We need to look at photos of the cargo bay of this mission and try to locate that "top hat" or "stove pipe".

[Swordmaker]

The shuttle and the ISS "passed within a few hundred miles of each other several times". If it was a known life or death situation, NASA would have found a way to "limp" the shuttle over there. Likewise, if it was a known life or death situation, NASA would have concentrated all efforts on getting Atlantis up there.

The ISS was a hundred miles FARTHER UP, going in a different direction.

Everyday Boeing 747s probably pass within 10 miles of you... can you find a way to "limp" over to one of them?

Some things ARE impossible.

[Swordmaker]

Can't be, the external fuel tank is jetissoned at a much lower altitude than that shown in the photo, which is obviously already at orbital distance from Earth.

I think it IS a picture of the external tank falling away from the orbiter that has been mis-interpretted by the reporters at the paper.

We know that NASA had the crew take pictures of the tank departing the Orbiter (SOP, I hear). The tank IS jettisoned AFTER the orbiter reaches space, not lower in the atmosphere). I think the "top hat stove pipe" is either the 17 inch LOX port to the shuttle (the 17 fuel port is located at the bottom) or one of the Solid Rocket Booster thrust mounts. The 'cracks' are the evidence of the insulation foam sloughing off. The color of the object in the photo is consistent with the color of new insulation which is much lighter than the older orange.

If the photo is a genuine photo taken from the Columbia (and no one can come up with a logical reason why the Israeli Paper would publish an obvious fake, then the ONLY candidate for what is outside that port IS the jettisoned External Fuel Tank as it is falling away from the orbiter.

[deport]

Just linking your thread to this one in case you didn't link it. I haven't checked so if you have then it will be linked twice....

Debunking the Israeli tabloid "shuttle wing" photo

[Prodigal Daughter]

I vote cargo bay because since it was a video feed, wouldn't it have been a picture of something static vs. something moving away?

But here's something strange: I think it was on Greta van Sustern's show tonight, an expert saying they were reviewing all of the film they had, but they only had videos taken from the ground. He said that although they filmed from cameras placed on the surface of the shuttle on prior missions, on this one there were no such cameras. Huh? Don't the astronauts always have to have a view of the cargo bay? And what about the contradiction that the video feed was shown during the Israeli Channel 1 interview with Ilan Ramon?

[yonif]

I will repeat. This paper is not a tabloid.

[Howlin]

Give it a rest. This photo is a fake.

[deport]

Did I say it was........? But they've not documented their photo as that of the Columbia wing, now have they? Thus what is it you would call their printing of that photo?

[Axenolith]

Actually they can, they can blow off the tank and abort for a glide back. They wouldn't have done that though in this case because I don't believe they had a good handle on the object striking until next day.

I was primarily focusing on a rescue\transfer mission, the prep to have begun as soon as they noted damage.