Skip to comments.
A rescue of the crew was unlikely
Washington Times ^
| 2/03/03
| Marcia Dunn, AP
Posted on 02/02/2003 11:38:27 PM PST by kattracks
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:00:40 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-85 next last
To: a_Turk
yes, mass cancels
Comment #42 Removed by Moderator
To: Fitzcarraldo
Just use duct tape, bungee cords, bailing wire, super glue, shoe leather, bubblegum and rubber bands and equip every shuttle with several MMUs so the whole crew can go outside and do a "walk" around. Use the cargo bay doors like a big lobster claw. That's the ticket. Better yet, just make McGyver a member of every crew.
To: John Jamieson
I would have jetasoned the SpaceHab
exactly ... and take their chances perhaps with a less-steep entry ...
44
posted on
02/03/2003 12:32:12 AM PST
by
Bobby777
To: Bobby777
Read the story:
"In the early shuttle days, NASA considered a tile-patching kit that was essentially a caulking gun, but the gunk undermined the performance of the tiles and never flew."
To: Bobby777
"the basics get pushed aside for schedules"
No, they don't, I worked there for 27 years, where were you when you saw this problem?
Comment #47 Removed by Moderator
To: John Jamieson
well then, why was Challenger launched when the boosters were outside the design limits on temperature? ... they checked the vehicle with a hand-held gun but the Thiokol engineers said it was too cold to launch, and that the O-rings would not seat properly at that temperature ... there had already been more than 2 instances where the recovered boosters showed significant burn damage to the rings ...
so Vandenburg equipped their pad with jet engines to heat the shuttle after that accident ... why were the Thiokol engineers ignored?
48
posted on
02/03/2003 12:38:46 AM PST
by
Bobby777
Comment #49 Removed by Moderator
To: seamole
A Progess mission would not help, the crew could not safely dock with it, nor get anything off of it. Only two manned Shuttle flights could safely get everyone off (7 seats, no standing).
Comment #51 Removed by Moderator
To: Bobby777
One Thiokol engineer objected and his boss overrid his objection. The engineer was right and I have a lot of respect for him, but the temperature was probably not the issue, just the o rings. He was actual right for the wrong reason. People do the best they can. Perfection should not be expected when pushing the envelop. Atleast one person objects about every launch. The problem list that managers work is 100's long.
To: John Jamieson
Couldn't they have sent up Bruce Willis or something?
To: John Jamieson
are you conceding that potentially valid objections are overruled then, because of schedules or costs? ... that was my point ... there was some reason his manager overruled him ... and if I understand correctly, those barriers were ostensibly removed after the 1986 incident ...
54
posted on
02/03/2003 12:53:38 AM PST
by
Bobby777
To: Iwentsouth
Now your talking!
To: Bobby777
"there was some reason his manager overruled him"
Yes, he thought the guy was wrong. If he thought he was right, the launch would have been scrubbed. They might have waited two days, launched on a warm day, and the o rings might have rolled in their seats and let some exhaust out and ...... we'll never know.
Don't assume that these people want to take chances, they don't, but they would like to launch a rocket every once in a while. They make difficult decisions that you don't have to ..... be greatful.
To: Crossbow Eel
I don't know if God gets involved in the little details. He just gives us the stuff to do things, what we do after that is up to us.
Somebody just did not us the stuff right.
57
posted on
02/03/2003 1:02:54 AM PST
by
JSteff
To: John Jamieson
unforseeable problems, like Apollo 13 are a little easier for me to understand ... fortunately there was no loss of life ... the mission and the equipment mean nothing compared to the lives of the astronauts to me ...
of course, I would ask hard questions of airline mechanics too ... if you remember AA191 out of Chicago in 1979, the engine / pylon to wing assembly was done outside of design specs ... my buddy was there when it went down ... they attached the engine to the pylon and then the pylon to the wing, but they were supposed to put the pylon on the wing and then attach the engine to avoid damaging the pylon ...
BTW, it was William Burroughs who reported that Teal Blue or Teal Amber (don't remember which one) was used to image the orbiter back in the '80's ...
there's some info on Teal Blue and Teal Amber near the bottom of this page ...
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/track/overview.htm
58
posted on
02/03/2003 1:13:06 AM PST
by
Bobby777
To: JSteff
>>I don't know if God gets involved in the little details.
But that's exactly where God is, in the details.. Specifically in math and physics, IMO.
59
posted on
02/03/2003 1:13:45 AM PST
by
a_Turk
(You'll "liberate" them, and we'll "help" you..)
To: seamole; John Jamieson
Sure would have been nice to have seen what was damaged even if it meant the crew was, or was likely, doomed. The hypothetical jet camera would have answered the question of wing damage. Ignorance isn't bliss if the knowledge thus discarded can save a future crew, and I think the crew of the Columbia would have agreed.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-85 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson