Columbia Was Beyond Any Help, Officials Say

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

[Chad Fairbanks]

They were already in orbit when it was discovered the take-off wasn't perfect...

[John H K]

Hey, there's a novel idea. If you can't bring them back in case of emergency then any takeoff that is less than perfect should be aborted immediately.

Ah, it's incident #542,431,787 at FR of "not reading the article."

They didn't know the foam had fallen off till the day AFTER the launch.

[Fred Mertz]

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.

The NYT is parroting the NASA lines. Why am I not surprised?

[DaGman]

I've no doubt NASA could put 6 months worth of food and oxygen on each shuttle. NASA could also load up a complete set of replacement tiles. NASA could do all the things people think should be done to plan for these contingencies.

One thing, though. It would add millions if not billions to the cost when the chances are at the worst 1/120 of something like this happening. Is that worth it? I don't think so.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Ah, it's incident #542,431,787 at FR of "not reading the article."

Is that ALL? Surely it must be mmore than that..

[TLBSHOW]

Astronauts doomed from the start

THE seven astronauts on space shuttle Columbia may have been doomed in the first moments after they were shot into space 16 days ago.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/834641/posts

Not if they had not gone up in the first place.

[strela]

OK, so the orbiter was in the wrong orbit/inclination to make it to the ISS. What about using the Soyuz docked at the ISS as a ferry between the orbiter and the ISS? It holds 3 bodies so it would have taken 4 trips (with pilot) to get everyone off the orbiter.

I've not heard this option discussed at all.

[Fred Mertz]

All of a sudden the NYT is a newspaper of fact....LOL.

[John Jamieson]

I'm one of the Apollo grunts (retired 10 years ago). Sorry that the facts don't agree with you. Nor does the man who saved Apollo 13.

Massive failure of the tile was always a loser.

However 17 deaths in 40 years is a pretty good record. NASCAR didn't do as well.

John

[TLBSHOW]

It all goes back to the Don Nelson letter and plea. O'Reilly is going to force him to talk.

[beckett]

As soon as they knew that foam had made contact with the wing, they should have sent one of the crew out to see if any damage had been done. Why didn't they?

[Chad Fairbanks]

Not if they had not gone up in the first place.

Yeah, let's just stop all attempts at advancement of knowledge because something bad might happen...

[John Jamieson]

Soyuz could not have saved even 2. It could not have made the orbit change required.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Because thwey had no EVA gear on board, no EVA-qualified atronauts on board.... Have you ever read ANYTHING related to this tragedy before????

[John H K]

One thing, though. It would add millions if not billions to the cost when the chances are at the worst 1/120 of something like this happening. Is that worth it? I don't think so.

The fundamental problem, and actually the crux of THOUSANDS of debates, is the fairly silly but almost universally-held belief that human life is priceless.

Of course, you mention that you believe that human life ISN'T priceless, and you're immediately subjected to a torrent of flames.

But even a cursory examination of how society spends its money, makes decisions, reveals there's a price on human life...I've seen various studies that actually attempt to calculate it....but problems come in when people try to pretend there ISN'T a price.

How does this relate to the Space Shuttle program? If we really believed human life was priceless, we'd put 7 people in the thing and never launch it and play movies of space outside the windows.

Obviously, that's one (unrealistic) extreme. But to accomodate the various fixes recommended in this thread (All flights being able to reach the ISS, having a shuttle always ready to make a rescue flight, etc.) SERIOUSLY degrade the ability of the Shuttle to do useful things, and also likely cost vastly more money. There's a balance point you try to reach but there's no obvious guidlines to find where it is.

[Chad Fairbanks]

ok... Orbiter couldn't get to ISS. Orbiter not fitted to dock with ISS. Soyuz fitted to dock with ISS... answer your question??? :0)

[John Jamieson]

Gosh, darn. I didn't know that flying in space was more dangerous than driving my pickup.

[TrappedInLiberalHell]

there should always be "options".

OK, this might sound hugely ignorant and far-fetched, but...would it be feasible to boost a fuel source to the approximate orbit of the shuttle, so that the shuttle could then have enough fuel to boost its orbit to that of the ISS? We can keep the Hubble in orbit indefinitely, right?

I'm about to hike the Pacific Crest Trail, which runs from Mexico to Canada. There are people known as trail angels, who will, among other things, leave water caches near the trail in particularly hot, dry stretches. This is what gives me the idea. I'm thinking of a 'resupply/emergency kit' in orbit. It could have fuel, a docking module, EVA suits, extra oxygen, food, etc. At the very least, it could supply the shuttle enough consumables to allow time to prepare a rescue shuttle, or so I would think.

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?

[Aaron0617]

I'll post here since I just heard this on the radio.

Japan had an astronaut planned to go on the March 1 shuttle flight. Japan has announced it will suspend all of their astronauts from US shuttle flights until they are deemed safe.

So, once again FreeRepublic has beaten Drudge on another story...Duh