Columbia Was Beyond Any Help, Officials Say

New York Times ^ | 2/03/03 | KENNETH CHANG

[bonesmccoy]

Easy for you to say with 20/20 hindsight.

The reality is that there was no photographic data on the impact.

If the orbiter TPS was significantly damaged and stripped away due to the ET insulation hit, the orbiter temperature sensors might have detected fluctuations on orbit. JSC MOCR would have had that kind of data, but I doubt the data actually shows such a fluctuation.

The original essay suggested that NASA could have performed a TAL abort trajectory upon realizing that the vehicle had been damaged at T+80. The reality is that the heating may be GREATER on the vehicle during a TAL trajectory because the vehicle pancakes through a greater amount of the atmosphere in flying across the Atlantic rather than punching up and out of the atmosphere on an Abort-to-orbit or Abort-once-around trajectory.

[strela]

The undeniable fact is the Astronauts have a one in fifty chance of being blown to bits.

You have a better chance of getting squished on the interstate by a rock hauler driving to work. And, if asked, I would ride the next orbiter into space tomorrow.

[TLBSHOW]

Because if this is the finale story that it was doomed from the start then Don Nelsons letter is all the more important and the events that have been going on at NASA are all the more important. And then the letter isn't a liberal issue at all but a safety issue about NASA. And it is not a Bush bashing issue either, it has to do with who read the letter and it wasn't the President but someone else that dismissed it. Hell he wasn't even in DC in August. But someone else was and that someone needs to explain just why he took it on himself to make the decision to dismiss it.

[Howlin]

And, if asked, I would ride the next orbiter into space tomorrow.

I have noticed that every single NASA person -- in fact, anybody -- who has been on TV has said the exact same thing.

The Last Frontier.

[altair]

The shuttle is already cost ineffective at putting things into orbit. Adding the kinds of emergency supplies you suggest would only make the problem worse. For example, with the same money we used with the shuttle to get the Hubble space telescope functional, we could have built and launched (unmanned) three new ones.

[Mr_Magoo]

If tiles failed, excessive heat would build in the wing. The crew would have no indication of this happening. The alum. wing assembly and the alum. wing struts melt at about 300 degrees. At 12,500 mph, a wing starting to melt would get soft and the forces from the airstream would tear off the wing suddenly.

Loss of 1 wing results in an aircraft tumbling. If you tumble out of control at 12,500 mph, the craft tears itself apart real quick like.

[Jhoffa_]

We could probably get in cheap now, don't you think?

Can we change the name to "NASA_X"

?

[Diddle E. Squat]

I just love your Freep name...

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Martha Stewart gave me a hot tip on it weeks ago

That's good enough for me. ; *)

[Howlin]

LOL........I imagine so!

[Chad Fairbanks]

I'd like to give Martha Stewart a hot tip...

[strela]

The next ride will likely be the safest in the history of the program. I play the odds ;)

[Howlin]

We're all going to jail!

[Howlin]

Oh, I see now. I watch NASA TV......what IS that feeling?

[strela]

I'd like to give Martha Stewart a hot tip

Get in line, bruddah.

[woofie]

We're all going to jail!

not me...Mark Geragos is my friend

[Doohickey]

False. The initial HST cost 1.5 billion. It costs about 470 million to launch a shuttle.

[bonesmccoy]

I appreciate your sentiment, but truly there were no options for the crew.

An orbital fuel source is unworkable because the long-term storage of hypergolic fuels is difficult. More importantly, the orbital trajectories would be unlikely to match the trajectory. On the other hand, having an expendable rocket with rescue supplies might be another solution.

Having a rescue vehicle on the launch pad during all LEO missions could be a solution. However, this scenario would require construction of a new launch pad, a new vehicle, and new procedures for emergent launches and crew transfers.

I have always thought that it would be safest to have a rescue vehicle always available during any LEO manned space presence.

Soyuz became that capability for ISS.

Now, Soyuz is the only flight capable manned space vehicle on Earth.

[Light Speed]

Yes...the last wink of telemetry.

They would have sensor relay from tail section...multiple.

They would have last cycling info on computer systems...heat info...termination of signal values on sensors.
.... my gut instinct says catastrophic event which terminates electrical feed.
A computer cascade event?
Columbia sent into a angle which termiantes com transmission ability in ionization.....inverted?...sideways[Shearing]?...tumbling?
Columbias computer suite is said to have redundant back up to adjust in descent if profile angle is off...they have time to correct.

Did they?
Where they trying..except ionization prevent com link with Houston.
Unless a cascade event occure with computer..even if Columbia was out of descent profile..you still have cockpit awareness...telemetry with Houston..and com link.
Com link drops out..yet Columbias profile is nominal as per Nasa's breifing to us.

Something unrecoverable occured.

[TLBSHOW]

Since 1999 the launch system has experienced the following potential disastrous occurrences:

July 1999 - Space Shuttle Columbia delayed by hydrogen leak.

December 1999 - Space Shuttle Discovery was grounded with damaged wiring, contaminated engine, dented fuel line, and paper work errors.

January 2000 - Space Shuttle Endeavor is delayed because of wiring and computer failures.

March 2000 - Space Shuttle Atlantis main engine must be replaced because of paperwork errors.

August 2000 - Inspection of Space Shuttle Columbia reveals 3,500 defects in wiring. Wiring defects plague entire fleet.

October 2000 - The 100th flight of the space shuttle was delayed because of a misplaced safety pin and concerns with the external tank.

April 2001 - NASA failed to keep adequate watch on safety operations of a major contractor.

July 2002 - The inspector general reports that space shuttle safety program not properly managed.

April 2002 - Hydrogen leak forces scrub of the Atlantis flight.

August 2002 - Shuttle launch system grounded after fuel line cracks are discovered in all the fleet!

Dec. 12, 2002 another Shuttle propellant leak found!