NASA Could have aborted the flight before it reached orbit!

NASA Website ^ | 02/03/03 | self

[Preech1]

According to NASA's own websites, the shuttle has 25 minutes to abort a launch before the shuttle enters orbit. Had NASA considered the damage to the wing to be a danger to the crew, they could possibly have saved the lives of the 7 astronauts and we would today be speaking of that dramatic event rather than mourning their deaths.

I am in no way blaming NASA for the deaths of these crew members, but instead I am trying to answer the MANY posters who have said the crew was doomed from the start.

While it is true that the crew was doomed once they attained orbit, there was a 25 minute window after launch in which the shuttle could have aborted the mission.

Here's how I see it. The main reason for the break-up appears to be structural failure due to the combined factors of a damaged wing and the heat and stress of re-entry. Had the shuttle aborted the flight at launch, there would still have been a risk with the damaged wing, but speed and re-entry heating would not have factored in. It would have been a bumpy landing to be sure, but they would have landed.

I only write this article to suggest that NASA consider this possibility in future flights. We can do nothing about the past.

May the souls of the Columbia Rest in Peace.

[Preech1]

No, but it would be something to watch for on the NEXT flight. People, I am not saying the folks at NASA could have done anything by the time they found out about the damage, I am just trying to suggest a solution for next time.

[George from New England]

I appreciate your posting this thread. It's a shame...they flamed you anyway.

I hope you'll stay on free republic.

I almost never post anymore because of the flaming that is infesting the forum.

[Orangedog]

Even if they did notice the impact on the left wing of the shuttle, they mission control would have had to make a snap decision to abort. Not an easy or clear-cut call to make, considering that they have never seperated from shuttle from the external fuel tank and SRB's, instead of the normal process of the SRB's seperating first, then dumping the tank several minutes later.I'd hate to think about the timing and logistics of either (1) getting the shuttle clear of a large liquid fuel filled tank, strapped to 2 humungus bottle rockets, since the tank and rockets would have zero navigational control once the shuttle was detached. Does anyone know if there was sufficient time to dump the SRB's and then the tank before reaching a speed fast enough to approach the re-entry speed that the shuttle came apart at? Whole lot of variables to make a decision on.

[genefromjersey]

I suspect, if they had aborted, the same thing would have happened-with even more disatrous results. Picture a shuttle, with a full load of fuel on board,breaking up as it came down, and then exploding near a population center...

[MrConfettiMan]

Assuming NASA is reporting the truth....

Insert Twilight Zone television show theme song music here.

[mhking]

Christopher Columbus could have aborted before leaving Spanish coastal waters, too...

[aquitaine]

25 minutes is not alot of time to detect the problem, try to figure out if it is serious enough, make the decision to abort, initiate the abort. This 25 minutes is there for major immediately know failures. Not there to comtemplate issues.

[ContemptofCourt]

And just who is going to make that $500 million dollar call? Can't imagine any NASA employee that wishes to work in the space industry would...

[TomServo]

I look forward to seeing you attend the next NASA press conference.

[Robe]

I think they will always have a problem with a tile damaging lift off, there are too many things that could cause the damage, from insulation to a bird strike.

That said however they may be a solution.... they have already launched with a camera attached to the Main Tank, with the very purpose to monitor tile damaged from insulation.

That view proved interesting until the boosters separated and fogged up the lens.

It may be possible to have a additional Flight Safety Officer monitor that camera and call for the appropriate abort if he sees something of a catastrophic nature.

[Preech1]

25 minutes is not alot of time to detect the problem, try to figure out if it is serious enough, make the decision to abort, initiate the abort. This 25 minutes is there for major immediately know failures. Not there to comtemplate issues.

Sadly, I hope this will now become a criteria to abort a flight since this disaster.

[Preech1]

Good point.

[RossA]

Why didn't they know about this sooner? They easily could have. It is actually seen fairly easily (2 or 3 replays in slow motion suffice) in the launch video.

Why didn't they inspect the wing by telescope while in orbit?

They say there was nothing they could do...I say they didn't want to know. We had a different type of manager on the Apollo XIII mission!

[Fred Mertz]

I'm very sorry about what happened on Saturday morning. What a tragic loss of life.

With NASA controlling the information flow, pardon my skepticism, but I will continue watch how the 'the facts' are released by them.

Fortunately, I'm not the only one who is watching.

[Robe]

As for having a NASA offical with his finger on the trigger... Do you realize that THE IS AT THIS TIME a RANGE SAFTY OFFICER which can command DESTRUCT the orbiter if if gets off course and heads towards a populated center

[Orangedog]

I can't think of anyone who could do that, especially with little to nothing to back that up with. I'm sure they do alot of abort simulations on the ground, but there has to be a lot of unknown variables to do it in real life. Even given that, I'll bet that after this accident that we see a pre-orbit abort happen at least once for the remainder of the shuttle program.

[RossA]

So many superificial posters. 25 minutes is loads of time to review tape of the lift-off and see the damage - IF you appoint someone to do this. Gosh - even NFL referees manage to review tape in 2 minutes.

IF you review the tape the next day, you won't find the damage quick enough to abort the mission.

IF you don't look at the wing, you won't be able to prevent a disaster on reentry.

Do you guys see a trend here? NASA is assuming perfect missions and skipping simple, (cheap even) steps that a prudent man would take. So far, I see 2 strikes...

[chimera]

According to NASA's own websites, the shuttle has 25 minutes to abort a launch before the shuttle enters orbit.

Timelines don't match up. Ascent to orbit is much shorter than this. Once you've got that thing moving really fast, the laws of physics say the books have to be balanced. The energy necessary to get it going really fast has to be dissipated. Once they were going at a speed close to that required for orbit, there was no choice but to rely on the heat shield, or just stay in orbit until...something else happened.

For your idea to work there would have to be observers watching the entire launch sequence looking for events that had the potential to cause damage, and each of these observers would have to be able to make an instant judgement that the observed event compromised the shielding integrity, and had the authority to effect a launch abort. All of this going on in real time. That is a risky proposition. Aborting the shuttle launch is not a trivial process. It carries its own set of risks. Do you want to place the weight of making such a decision in the hands of a single person with limited time to make the call, not being able to perform any kind of analysis, just going with visual observations and a gut feeling? Not the kind of job everyone can handle.

Here's how I see it. The main reason for the break-up appears to be structural failure due to the combined factors of a damaged wing and the heat and stress of re-entry.

Way too early to speculate. The scenario you outlined is certainly a possibility and is being looked at. It perhaps appears at this point to be the most obvious, and I suppose it is human nature to jump to the most obvious solution when faced with analyzing a complex process. But if this business teaches us anything it is that the simplest explanation isn't always the correct one. There are any number of other plausible causes for this accident. I for one am not going to get on Dittemore's case, or anyone at NASA, because they need time to do their jobs and analyze the information. They're under the gun and we need to give them a break, at least for now...

[Orangedog]

Does anyone know where the explosive charges are positioned on the orbiter to detonate it if it looked like if was going to crash into a populated area?

[carton253]

Fred thinks everybody lies. It's easier to keep track that way! LOL!