Posted on 02/03/2003 9:34:25 PM PST by 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."
Fred stated: I believe Todd posted the Don Nelson letter as documention that a 36 year NASA engineer wrote a letter to President Bush not too many months ago, pleading for attention at what he perceived were lapses at NASA. I believe he provided this alert on Saturday evening with the intent to prepare us for the onslaught which was to come on Monday. He was correct.
TLB provided an alert to FR and its readers to the fact that the Don Nelson letter was out in the public domain. To accuse TLB of throwing a smear at the president is a despicable tactic.
And NOW we're back to the ORIGINAL claim.
If you're going to spin.....PLEASE stick to ONE story.
Let's hypothesize that a shuttle goes up and a very serious flaw is detected. Let's say it bumps a meteor and incurs a serious gash. The craft is still stable but a section of the wing and the heat-resistant tiles are clearly damaged. Are they trying to tell us that they have no backup plan *at all*??
When they went to the moon, took their first spacewalk, etc., they knew they were pushing the envelope and could run into a catastrophe with loss of life because they were taking risks that had never been taken before. But this was something they'd sent up dozens of times and I would have assumed they would have anticipated this situation happening *sometime* and come up with a backup plan. Otherwise, what were they thinking sending up teachers and congressmen, poster children for diversity and the sort? Seems darned irresponsible for them to send up a ship that they can't retrieve if it gets anything beyond minimal damage.
You can criticize all you want about the whistleblowers who complain about cutting corners on safety regs but, it doesn't cost money to have contingency plans in place should an event happen which the odds say was going to happen at some point. What I'm learning is that NASA had none for this and that's as startling to discover as the ship itself disintegrating on Saturday.
Having said that, I feel that it is counterproductive for some to react as defensively and dismissively as they sometimes seem to toward questions and comments by the latter, for the simple reason that every American is a stakeholder of sorts in the space program and has a direct financial interest in it (that is, if you pay taxes).
It is not a requirement to be a rocket scientist to ask questions and make suppositions about this horrible tragedy, and you do not have to have a working knowledge of orbital mechanics in order to hold an opinion on the subject. To paraphrase Sen. William Smith, the committee chairman of the government inquest into the Titanic disaster, "How do you trained, professional mariners and seamen manage to keep doing this sort of thing?"
LOL, buy your own.
As for me, you won't see me getting on any plane.
Oh....for sure. It's worth lookng into. ; *)
It certainly seems to be pointing in this direction. I keep saying wait until all the facts come out, but the more facts that do come out keep pointing to this conclusion.
If the only content being discussed here was from experts, we would be at a joint NTSB/NASA session behind a microphone. Our place is here, and you will have to accept that, and my apology if any of my questions or comments over what to me is a serious tragic matter which may illustrate my lack of expertise, but also my desire to be involved in a way other than listening to what Dan Rather has to say.
Let me tell you about TPS reports....
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.