Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Columbia Was Beyond Any Help, Officials Say
New York Times ^ | 2/03/03 | KENNETH CHANG

Posted on 02/03/2003 9:34:25 PM PST by kattracks


HOUSTON, Feb. 3 — Even if flight controllers had known for certain that protective heat tiles on the underside of the space shuttle had sustained severe damage at launching, little or nothing could have been done to address the problem, NASA officials say.

Virtually since the hour Columbia went down, the space agency has been peppered with possible options for repairing the damage or getting the crew down safely. But in each case, officials here and at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida say, the proposed solution would not have worked.

The simplest would have been to abort the mission the moment the damage was discovered. In case of an engine malfunction or other serious problem at launching, a space shuttle can jettison its solid rocket boosters and the external fuel tank, shut down its own engines and glide back down, either returning to the Kennedy Space Center or an emergency landing site in Spain or Morocco.

But no one even knew that a piece of insulation from the external tank had hit the orbiter until a frame-by-frame review of videotape of the launching was undertaken the next day. By then, Columbia was already in orbit, and re-entry would have posed the same danger that it did 16 days later.

Four other possibilities have been discussed at briefings or in interviews since the loss of Columbia, and rejected one by one by NASA officials.

First, repairing the damaged tiles. The crew had no tools for such a repair. At a news conference on Sunday, Ron D. Dittemore, the shuttle program manager, said that early in the shuttle program, NASA considered developing a tile repair kit, but that "we just didn't believe it was feasible at the time." He added that a crew member climbing along the underside of the shuttle could cause even more damage to the tiles.

Another idea, widely circulated on the Internet in the last few days, was that the shuttle could have docked with the International Space Station once the damage was discovered. But without the external fuel tank, dropped as usual after launching, Columbia had no fuel for its main engines and thus no way it could propel itself to the station, which circles the earth on a different orbit at a higher altitude.

"We have nowhere near the fuel needed to get there," said Bruce Buckingham, a spokesman at the Kennedy Space Center.

Another shuttle, Atlantis, was scheduled for launching on March 1 to carry supplies and a new crew to the space station, and it is possible to imagine a Hollywood-type series of events in which NASA rushed Atlantis to the launching pad, sent it up with a minimal crew of two, had it rendezvous with Columbia in space and brought everyone down safely.

But Atlantis is still in its hangar, and to rush it to launching would have required NASA to circumvent most of its safety measures. "It takes about three weeks, at our best effort, to prepare the shuttle for launch once we're at the pad," Mr. Buckingham said, "and we're not even at the pad." Further, Columbia had enough oxygen, supplies and fuel (for its thrusters only) to remain in orbit for only five more days, said Patrick Ryan, a spokesman at the Johnson Space Center here.

Finally, there is the notion that Columbia's re-entry might have been altered in some way to protect its damaged area. But Mr. Dittemore said the shuttle's descent path was already designed to keep temperatures as low as possible. "Because I'm reusing this vehicle over and over again, so I'm trying to send it through an environment that minimizes the wear and tear on the structure and the tile," he said at his news conference on Sunday.

Today he added that he did not know of a way for the shuttle to re-enter so that most of the heat would be absorbed by tiles that were not damaged, on its right wing. "I'm not aware of any other scenarios, any other techniques, that would have allowed me to favor one wing over the other," he said.

Even if that had been possible, it would probably have damaged the shuttle beyond repair and made it impossible to land, requiring the crew to parachute out at high speed and at high altitude. He said there was no way managers could have gotten information about the damaged tiles that would have warranted so drastic a move.

Gene Kranz, the flight director who orchestrated the rescue of astronauts aboard the crippled Apollo 13 in 1970, said that from what he knew about the suspected tile damage, there was probably nothing that could have been done to save the flight. "The options," he said in a telephone interview, "were just nonexistent."



TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 261-277 next last
To: All
Crew Escape Module

A crew escape module was considered in the original design trades for the Shuttle. The original escape module would have weighed up to 10,000 pounds, depending on the number of crew required. Placing this much weight in the crew compartment of the Shuttle moves the center of gravity to a point so far forward that the aerodynamic control surfaces could not control it. In other words the vehicle was nose heavy and could not maintain stable flight. At this time the crew escape module was abandoned and the vehicle was flown with aircraft ejection seats for the two astronauts conducting the test flights. As the Shuttle flights proceeded, NASA made the erroneous assumption the vehicle redundant flight systems made it safe enough to remove the ejection seats.

After the Challenger accident crew modules were again studied. The results were the same; the escape module was just too heavy to be placed in the crew compartment area. The issue was again reviewed in 1994 for the Access to Space studies and with the same conclusion. In July of 2000, another crew escape module study group was formed to study the problem. They were told that the crew module could weigh no more than 5000 pounds, but the crew size could be reduced to six. Their study resulted in a module weighting 10,000 pounds. History does repeat especially when all the conditions are the same. The problem can be solved, but NASA management must be willing to change the conditions.

There are two options for solution to the problem. Both options require that Shuttle management give up its unjustified position requiring piloting for Shuttle flights. Removing the flight deck piloting function systems will allow that weight to be used for the escape module. This will include the weight of the commander and pilot, their seats, forward flight deck displays and controls systems, escape pole system, forward windows, and other non-required items. The first option places the crew escape module(s) in the payload bay nearer the vehicle center of gravity. This solution solves the aerodynamic stability problem. However, the volume of the escape module must be charged against the payload carrying capability.

The second option is to install the escape module (seats) on the flight deck. A seat ejection system would eject four crew members from seats on the flight deck. Two additional crew members could be ejected from the lower middeck on rails connected to the seat ejection rails on the flight decks. The weight of this ejection system is approximately 3700 pounds. Removing the piloting sub-systems (commander and pilot weight, their seats, forward flight deck display and control systems, escape pole, forward windows, etc.) would provide the weight saving to install the 3700 pound ejection crew escape system without violating the aerodynamic stability limit. This is the preferred option. The ejection seat concept was developed and flown on the Columbia OV-102 Shuttle. The ejection trajectory is shown in the following NASA image:





NASA management will not consider either option because both require that their irrational requirement for piloting be deleted. Piloting is a non-mandatory requirement. It is an emotional and political issue. Deleting piloting and automating flight control would show that it does not take a "marching army" government jobs’ program to fly Shuttle missions. It is not a technical issue because all phases of space flight have been successfully demonstrated with automated control systems. With all the technology advancements made in autonomous flight control, this has become a ridiculous requirement, a requirement that places the lives of Shuttle crews in great danger.

It is ironic, that NASA, a leader in advance technology is so opposed to accepting advance flight control technology for the Space Shuttle.

141 posted on 02/03/2003 11:08:09 PM PST by TLBSHOW (God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Southflanknorthpawsis; Howlin
A picture of Susan McDougall popped into my head as soon as I read "jail".

Yep they are now using this is psych 101....

Say the next thing that comes into your mind
Susan Mc Dougal ....jail

Bill Clinton....
Hillary.....
OJ....
Gary Condit...

It really allows people to get in touch with themselves

142 posted on 02/03/2003 11:08:54 PM PST by woofie (old age aint for sissies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: strela
It is not a requirement to be a rocket scientist to ask questions and make suppositions about this horrible tragedy

While it is tragic, it is not a "horrible tragedy". It was an accident. Accidents happen. Sometimes people make mistakes. NASA has a very good safety record over the years. This is definitely a situation where we must move on.

143 posted on 02/03/2003 11:08:57 PM PST by altair (I'll gladly fly on a shuttle tomorrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: All

144 posted on 02/03/2003 11:09:09 PM PST by TLBSHOW (God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: blackdog
I understand. Thanks.
145 posted on 02/03/2003 11:09:12 PM PST by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW

146 posted on 02/03/2003 11:09:52 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
It would be interesting to see if a crew ejection module would have worked at mach 18, at 200,000 feet... especialy when this tragedy took only mere moments to occur...

Be realistic...
147 posted on 02/03/2003 11:10:50 PM PST by Chad Fairbanks ('I WISH, at some point, that you would address those damned armadillos in your trousers." - JustShe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Umm, that's pretty, but you forgot to factor in that they would be flung from a shuttle traveling 12,000mph.
148 posted on 02/03/2003 11:11:59 PM PST by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Man... what a ride THAT would have been... ejecting at Mach 18 woo-hoo! What a rush!
149 posted on 02/03/2003 11:12:07 PM PST by Chad Fairbanks ('I WISH, at some point, that you would address those damned armadillos in your trousers." - JustShe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Funnier than the parrot, even...
150 posted on 02/03/2003 11:12:15 PM PST by Doohickey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Chad Fairbanks
1 stone = 14 pounds

Empty weight of orbiter Atlantis (with SSMEs installed) = 171,000 pounds

12,214 stone ;)

151 posted on 02/03/2003 11:12:16 PM PST by strela (If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you oughta go back home and crawl under your bed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
How about a picture of a toaster?
152 posted on 02/03/2003 11:13:01 PM PST by woofie (old age aint for sissies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: strela
Thanks! it's nice to have some info that is as relevent as what TLBShow is posting ;0)
153 posted on 02/03/2003 11:13:16 PM PST by Chad Fairbanks ('I WISH, at some point, that you would address those damned armadillos in your trousers." - JustShe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
I just caught a clip of one of the astronaut's parents on the news. They said all he ever wanted to be was an astronaut and had said when his time came, he hoped it was in a plane or spacecraft. Even in their sorrow and pain, they are proud and obviously supportive of NASA.

Yep.........heroes to the last man is right.

154 posted on 02/03/2003 11:14:12 PM PST by Southflanknorthpawsis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: altair
While it is tragic, it is not a "horrible tragedy".

I disagree.

155 posted on 02/03/2003 11:14:22 PM PST by strela (If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you oughta go back home and crawl under your bed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: All
Countdown to Another Space Shuttle Disaster?

In 1992, the prediction for a Space Shuttle catastrophic failure was 1 in 72 flights. After seven years of safety upgrades the prediction decreased by only 1 in 423 flights. Even with these upgrades, the fleet was grounded for most of 1999. The Shuttle is still sending warnings that it is a very dangerous launch system. Considering the following:

May 1999—Space Shuttle Discovery had a launch delay caused by hail damage to the external fuel tank.
July 1999—Space Shuttle Columbia had a hydrogen gas leakage scare.
December 1999—Space Shuttle Discovery on a mission to repair the Hubble Space Telescope had a record nine launch delays spread over two months. Delays were due to damaged wiring, a contaminated engine, a dented fuel line, concern over fuel line welds, a nicked cable, and paperwork errors.
January 2000—Space Shuttle Endeavor launch is delayed by computer trouble. Damaged wiring had already delayed its launch four months.
March 2000—Space Shuttle Atlantis must have one main engine replaced because of another paperwork snafu.
August 2000—Inspection of the 20 year old Space Shuttle Columbia revealed about 3,500 defects in wiring.25
October 2000—The 100th flight of the Space Shuttle was delayed twice because of safety concerns with the external tank and a misplaced safety pin.

Tick-tock . . . tick-tock . . . is time running out for another Shuttle crew?

http://www.nasaproblems.com/#Book
156 posted on 02/03/2003 11:15:43 PM PST by TLBSHOW (God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Chad Fairbanks
LOL. (Do they weigh the Irish space shuttle in drams)?
157 posted on 02/03/2003 11:15:59 PM PST by strela (If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you oughta go back home and crawl under your bed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat; Chad Fairbanks
That looks like it would leave a mark.
158 posted on 02/03/2003 11:16:14 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Mr_Magoo
Yes I agree on the physics.
In my earlier post this thread..other shuttles have suffered damage from debrie strike..cosmic..even one admitted by Nasa which had the rocket booster seperate and rake the underside....this STS returned safely..allthough Nasa moved the orbiter near a satillite which was assigned to image the damage.

as mention..and this has my focus,..Columbia had one mission since its re-fit with new electrical trunk to new monitors and a new computer suite.
On STS 109 prior to de-orbit test cycle..STS 109 had a thruster /yaw/pitch failure in the 4 port package.
1-1/2 years of re-fit...Columbia lands...then Nasa discovers cracks in Columbias flow system to engine.
They missed this over 1-1/2 years?...Columbia suffered Harmonic damage..energy distortion in one flight?.

As per the many posts where we are beginning to think outside the box as per tile reality..many here are forwarding excellent thinking for novices.

I work in the steel fab/oilfield sector..an American firm out of Houston in Canada.
Primary duty is operating a CNC Plasma..underwater cut...50 ton remote cranes..steel..biggy huge scale.
The Plasma is Cryogenic nitrogen..100,000 volts.
It screws up...German techs fly in when locals cannot fix computer problems.
After Helmut leaves..the machine fails again...because of human error.
Columbia has human error potential..**Note potential** written all over it.
Columbia has one flight after being gutted nearly 2 times in re-fit...im thinking something in the way of computer systems failure..or human.

159 posted on 02/03/2003 11:16:21 PM PST by Light Speed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Southflanknorthpawsis
Agreed, you have to go somehow.. Our heroes realized this and didn't care.

Mortality remains steady at 100%

160 posted on 02/03/2003 11:16:53 PM PST by Jhoffa_ (Jhoffa_X)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 261-277 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson