Columbia Was Beyond Any Help, Officials Say

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

[kattracks]

OUSTON, 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."

[VRWC_minion]

Then that is the problem. It's 2003, and there should be "options" for a shuttle which is damaged and at peril

I should be issued a parachute and a spare plane with me carry-on when I travel commercial next time.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Not new information, it's common sense. if the souz is mated with the ISS docking collar, and the Columbia is NOT, they cannot therefore dock together. Pretty simple.

Secondly, the soyuz seats three. So, one would pilot it ot the shuttle, and can bring two back to the ISS. That is, if there is enough fule for several trips, it could have worked. However, the capsule, I am guessing had enough fule to get it going into an earth-bound trajectory, and probably not much more...

[VRWC_minion]

I think the larger problem is that the shuttle was operating in 2003 with a 1978 design.

It works for 747 commercial aircraft designed in the 70's, it should work for the space shuttle.

[Doohickey]

It's not really new - it's common sense. Let's say our docking collars are round ISS docking collars are square (work with me here). Soyuz goes up and uses it's square collar to dock with ISS. Since Soyuz has a square collar, it stands to reason it ain't getting any rounder on it's way to the shuttle.

[Fred Mertz]

I am aware they didn't know the foam had fallen off until they reviewed the film the next day.

You don't really believe that, do you? That's their fig leaf for now, and too many freepers are buying it.

[justshe]

Well that a big whoopsie on TLB, I guess.

[Chad Fairbanks]

And let me guess... that 'fig leaf' is hiding one of NASA's Rockets, and a few rescue bubbles????

[chaosagent]

"my idea would have been to transfer Columbia personnel in suits or those spiffy rescue bubbles I heard about years ago (but they probably didn't have aboard Columbia either) out Columbia's rear airlock to Soyuz"

It has been the practice in past not to fly the airlock module on non-EVA flights. I have not heard any thing different on this flight. There would be no way to exit the Shuttle.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

I don't know about you guys, but I think it's time to buy some stock. After reading all the imaginative thoughts of the wannabe Einstein's here, this could be a hot seller next Christmas season.

[TLBSHOW]

I know where this leeds and with this report and the one yesterday so be it. It should never of gone up. NASA is the problem. They did not do their duty for these people. With Don Nelsons warning, the Garcia warning and all the other warnings someone should of gotton their head from out of their behind and listened. And then solved the problems before allowing another shuttle to go up so we could study spiders!

[VRWC_minion]

NASCAR didn't do as well.

Neither does my wife. she has totaled two cars in the past 5 years.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Besides, I believe (I could be mistaken here) that the airlock module was not there because the double lab module was on board....

[Timesink]

Does anyone find a basic flaw in the argument that a spacewalk in ZERO GRAVITY is going to damage tiles?

No. To say nothing for the fact that there are no handles on the underside of the shuttle, and thus any spacewalking astronaut stood a very good chance of simply floating off into space.

[Chad Fairbanks]

I still dont' see the connection between Don's report, and what actually happened... how is this report even relevent?????

[TLBSHOW]

It was Don Nelsons house!

[John Jamieson]

I think the astonauts had the best opinions of the engineers on the ground. These people make 100's of life and death decisions before and during each launch. Each decision is made with crew safety first, vehicle safety second and schedule third. They seem to make a misstake every 10 years or so. Your uninformed critisism is just piling on, on people who have just lost dear friends.

And yes, these ARE the most highly trained professionals in the world.

[Light Speed]

To: DoughtyOne

Nasa confirmed today during a segment on CNN that a solid rocket booster on a previous STS flight had impacted the shuttle when it detatched...it raked the bottom of the shuttle...so much so, they assigned satillite to observe the damage via photo imaging.
Damaged..this STS mission returned safely.
Other shuttles have returned with numerous tiles missing..some shuttles have had over 50 impact strikes from debrie and cosmic..returning safely.


On STS 109...Columbia March 2002...Columbia suffered a pitch/yaw thruster failure...thruster pack is 4 ports..this occured on pre-test prior to de-orbit burn.
Columbia had its guts ripped out,,,re-wired..new monitiors..computer suite...electrical trunking.
After STS 109 in March..Nasa discovered that Columbia had cracks in flow system to engine.
Again..Columbia is torn apart for complex Tungsten weld on flow system cracks.
Columbia had been exstensively re-fit for 1-1/2 years prior to STS 109...too heavy for Space station dock..Columbia was mod to low orbit insertion ..Space hab and Micro Gravity test.
Columbia is in Com link..she is in process of cycling to compensate for wing drag..some sensor activity..then gone.
Hypothetical
Columbia suffers catastrophic system failure which silences the com link..either detonation..or
Columbia is pitched into configuration..either by computer error as per cycling on drag..or is sent into wrong configuration on s turns.
Columbia could have been rolled..inverted by computer ..the shuttles crew cabin facing the earth on descent into the heat barrier....ionization terminating com link.
something happened suddenly.
Un less an explosion took place in Columbias wing..throwing it over..the shuttle should still have been in com link as wing deteriorated...some comment from crew as wing began to fail and send Columbia into a different return configuration.
Nasa said the Columbia was like a new shuttle...having only one flight prior.
Its my opinion Columbia's computer failed in the wing drag cycling..inverting Columbia..or failing to put her into a recoverable mode during turns.
The fact she dropped out of com link is the highest information point..unless Nasa has other com link timeline they have not released to the public.
I am by no means an engineer..so the question remains..would Columbia be silenced by a wing breaking up..with not a few seconds more com ..or did something more catastrophic occur...suddenly ..unrecoverable.


199 posted on 02/03/2003 6:43 PM PST by Light Speed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[Lancey Howard]

I claim no expertise whatsoever in the matter, so my opinion is worth little. But in general, does anyone think this is an idea that might have some merit?

I like your thinking. You are at least trying to come up with some ideas, options.

Your post is very refreshing in light of so many other posters I have read around here recently. The "give-it-up-it's-hopeless-there's-nothing-they-could-do" crowd - - people I definitely would not want in my foxhole.

Regards,
LH

[Diddle E. Squat]

Excellent post.

I've also noticed over the last few days some posters argue that we should spend whatever money it takes to rescue the 7 astronauts(because their lives are priceless), but then turn around and demand that not a single cent go to fight AIDS in Africa.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Leave Don Nelson alone, he's busy coaching the Mavericks.