"...and slip the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God."
NASA did not know of this debris incident until the day AFTER launch, when they completed a routine frame-by-frame review of their high-speed film of the launch. By then, even if they determined that the incident was a threat to the shuttle, THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO. Columbia was not outfitted with a means to dock with the ISS. This mission was scheduled for a short duration, so there were not enough supplies on board to wait for another shuttle.
IF
1 posted on
02/03/2003 4:43:52 PM PST by
Wolfstar
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
To: Wolfstar
THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO
Excellent point. I hope everyone can see past the talking heads and the finger pointers out there and realize that despite all of the technology involved, there are still accidents that can and do happen.
2 posted on
02/03/2003 4:51:00 PM PST by
zingzang
To: tazman3; rooster1
ping
3 posted on
02/03/2003 4:52:16 PM PST by
tazman3
To: Wolfstar
But they could have assumed that this was serious and prepared the Atlantis Shuttle for a possible rescue mission. They have the capabilities of getting Atlantis ready for such a mission in a week. They had the time. They could have rescued all but the pilot of the Columbia before they attempted to bring it back to earth.
If they thought this was serious they should have done something. Let's hope that they truly didn't think it was a big deal. Let's hope that they didn't deliberately risk the lives of those seven people. Lets hope they didn't know this was going to happen when they had time to try to save them.
4 posted on
02/03/2003 4:55:37 PM PST by
P-Marlowe
To: Wolfstar
They would have weeks more if they had visualised the damage right away. I won't accept there was nothing they could or would have tried, either.
If there was nothing they could do in this kind of event. maybe we *should* have managed to go for a few years without the spiders in space while they figure out how to develop a backup plan.
5 posted on
02/03/2003 4:56:40 PM PST by
SarahW
To: Wolfstar
Why is not every mission equipped with the ability to dock with the ISS and why is not every mission required to have an additional shuttle in backup role in case of the need to rescue a crew. That would limit the crews to about 4 persons so that any rescue ship would return with a crew of 8....4+4.
6 posted on
02/03/2003 5:00:15 PM PST by
xzins
(Babylon - You have been weighed in the balance and been found wanting.)
To: Wolfstar
NASA did not know of this debris incident until the day AFTER launch, when they completed a routine frame-by-frame review of their high-speed film of the launch. During Columbia's launching Jan. 16, long-range tracking cameras showed a relatively large piece of foam debris falling away from the shuttle's external tank and striking the underside of the orbiter's left wing. The debris is believed to have measured about 20 inches in its longest dimension. http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts107/030203analysis/
You folks have to remember that ever aspect of the flight is monitored. There isn't any kind of "looking at the tapes the next day" except to re look. They are watching it when it happens. They know when it happens.
That having been said, I do not think that what they saw was abort worthy. And that's the bad part. They had become accustomed to the foam falling off the tanks. But they did see it when it happened.
http://ltp.arc.nasa.gov/space/team/journals/katnik/sts87-12-23.html
"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 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.
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."
http://www.arnold.af.mil/aedc/newsreleases/1999/99-041.htm
"According to NASA, during several previous Space Shuttle flights, including the shuttle launched Nov. 29, 1998, the shuttle external tank experienced a significant loss of foam from the intertank. The material lost caused damage to the thermal protection high-temperature tiles on the lower surface of the shuttle orbiter.
7 posted on
02/03/2003 5:01:47 PM PST by
Jael
To: Wolfstar
To my untrained eye, in the second image the piece of insulation appears to be about to impact the underside of the shuttle wing in an edge-on configuration. If this is the case, the energy of the impact might have been concentrated over a fairly small surface area of the wing. The potential for significant localized damage would seem to be much greater with an edge-on impact. I wonder what assumptions the NASA engineers made regarding the orientation of the insulation at the impact point when they simulated its effect on the tiles. I'm sure they'll be looking at this more carefully.
12 posted on
02/03/2003 5:04:20 PM PST by
jpthomas
To: Wolfstar
Thanks for this.
13 posted on
02/03/2003 5:04:39 PM PST by
Howlin
To: Wolfstar
I disagree that nothing could have been done. The shedding of debris during takeoffs was a known issue for years. NASA just didn't see the need to pursue it seriously until they finally got hit with an orbiter loss and have to deal with 7 dead people, their familes, and a public asking what the hell happened.
I have just one question for Dan Goldin: Now that 7 of your astronauts are dead and you're ass is in the hotseat, do you think it was a good idea to fire 5 of your 9 safety board members (and 2 consultants) that had the guts and integrity to voice grave concerns over safety problems?
Dan Goldin should be in prison.
To: Wolfstar; All
"THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD "
They could have tried then cross their fingers on reentry. Nothing is impossible. Rescue is always possible. Just like they worked to get Apollo 13 back, they could have spent time working on getting them back as well.
20 posted on
02/03/2003 5:08:36 PM PST by
yonif
To: Wolfstar; zingzang
I am glad that you and those currently in charge at NASA were not in charge during g. If you were we would have 3 more dead astronauts because they would just have been written off as "NOTHING COULD HAVE BEEN DONE".
21 posted on
02/03/2003 5:09:30 PM PST by
Karsus
(TrueFacts=GOOD, GoodFacts=BAD))
To: Wolfstar
What bothers me about NASA in all of this is the admonition that there wasn't anything they could have done about damaged tile AFTER lift off.
First, that is a defeatist attitude.
Second, that is not the American way.
Third, why not ?
The shuttle has been operational since what, 1981 ?
An escape pod or a vehicle incorporated either onboard or launched, in order to rescue a crew from a stranded ship is conceiveable.
Why isn't there at least two tethered space suits available on board each shuttle for external repairs ?
Why isn't there a repair procedure for damaged or missing tiles, when their loss could be catastrophic ?
Granted, hindsight is 20-20. There are highly qualified, highly paid people employed at NASA, where their primary job function is to solve problems such as what took place during this mission.
22 posted on
02/03/2003 5:10:04 PM PST by
freepersup
(Put That Bur qa On ! Put That Bur qa On ! Put That Bur qa On !)
To: Wolfstar
I hope that the monies NASA is getting is spent on newer and better space craft (look at our military's stealth technology, we will endeavor into the Jetson's era!)An emergency space station,loaded with supplies and equipment for repairs would be wise if feasible at this time.
To: Wolfstar
THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO... Stuff and Nonsense. If NASA doesn't have a contingency plan to bring astronauts down from a disabled shuttle, then they ought to get out of the space business.
32 posted on
02/03/2003 5:15:08 PM PST by
Plutarch
To: Wolfstar
I would like to learn more about any contingency plans. Surely NASA had contingency plans. Leaving dead people in orbit or taking a chance of re-entering with a disabled shuttle does not seem like a viable option for NASA in consideration of adverse publicity and Challenger.
I think error tolerances must have been smaller in the Apollo era. There is an often told story about Mercury software: there were no bugs, because everyone understood that no bugs could be tolerated.
What were the NASA shuttle contingency plans for failures once in orbit, if any existed? Anyone know?
134 posted on
02/03/2003 6:04:56 PM PST by
SteveH
To: Wolfstar; Jael
Thank you very much for posting this.
Now, can you answer a question for me?
What kind of time frame, that is, what is the elapsed time over which this event spans?
We have one poster who is insistent that NASA personnel, in real-time (without benefit of studied frame by frame analysis) could have deduced that an object/material dislodged from the main fuel tank and struck the orbiter, doing damage.
137 posted on
02/03/2003 6:06:12 PM PST by
_Jim
(//NASA has a better safety record than NASCAR\\)
To: Wolfstar
IMO, the real problem comes down to money. We allocate 14.5 billion dollars - out of some 2 trillion - and yet we expect complete safety.
Why doesn't the shuttle have an escape pod? Money. Why doesn't the shuttle have jet engines so as to accomplish powered landings? Same reason. Why is the International Space Station designed for three astronauts instead of twelve? Money.
But we have 15 billion over 5 years for AIDS in Africa. (Sigh)
159 posted on
02/03/2003 6:19:50 PM PST by
neutrino
(Audaces fortuna juvat)
To: Wolfstar
"By then, even if they determined that the incident was a threat to the shuttle, THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO. "
Nothing?
How about
1) Let the crew know they may die
2) Give the crew chance to record their goodbyes
3) Extend orbit as long as possible while thinking of solutions
4) Download results of all scientific experiments
5) on and on and on
People who are using the "nothing we could have done anyways" excuse are completely insane.
To: Wolfstar
"even if they determined that the incident was a threat to the shuttle, THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO..."Nothing they could do to prevent the inevitable, if this turns out to be the cause.
But if someone did know, and did not inform the crew, and did not inform the President, and did not let the crew know of the risk, giving them an informed, final opportunity to talk to their families about the situation, they should be ashamed, if not hung.
If someone decided not to tell the crew, I would withdraw my support for the eintire space program, and encourage everyone to do the same, until such arrogant weasels are purged.
Please, God, let this not be the case, where they knew, and did not tell them. Please let this be not the case.
233 posted on
02/03/2003 7:07:40 PM PST by
MonroeDNA
(What's the frequency, Kenneth?)
To: Wolfstar
"THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO"
This seems to be some kind of mantra to absolve NASA and to place this accident in the category of the acceptable risks of space flight. To me it always begs the question, "Why are we sending up shuttles with no hope of survival for the crew if the tiles become damaged during launch?" This is the question that needs to be answered. There are various means of saving the crew, but they all require preparation before the launch, and, obviously, none of them were done on this mission. A rather sad way to treat such brave souls. May the Columbia crew RIP.
234 posted on
02/03/2003 7:08:06 PM PST by
TheDon
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson