Freethought & Rationalism Archive

B. H. Manners · 02-01-2003, 02:54 PM

They just found parts of a body.

Primordial Groove · 02-02-2003, 09:27 AM

When Columbia was being propelled to space, a piece of the solid rocket booster (insulation) was ripped off and subsequently nailed the left wing. I don't believe it was a coincidence that the left wing is where the sensors started failing.

More on that here .

Quote:

Just a day earlier, on Friday, NASA�s lead flight director, Leroy Cain, had declared the launch-day incident to be no reason for concern. An extensive engineering analysis had concluded that any damage to Columbia�s thermal tiles would be minor.

Keep in mind that the investigation is ongoing (of course) and this all speculation on my part. This is because I do not believe in coincidences.

I have read that the robot arm was not on this shuttle flight so it could not be used in conjunction with a camera to inspect the wing up close. My question is why didn't one of the astronauts utilize the jet pack (if available) and go check it out?
I'm sure ground control informed the 'nauts of the wing getting hit with debris. My understanding of the tiles is that although good for dissipating heat, a direct blow would cause damage due to their fragile makeup. Knowing this information would have sent alarm bells ringing in my head.

Also from the article:

Quote:

If the liftoff damage was to blame, the shuttle and its crew of seven may well have been doomed from the very start of the mission..... Dittemore said there was nothing the astronauts could have done in orbit to fix damaged thermal tiles and nothing flight controllers could have done to safely bring home a severely scarred shuttle, given the extreme temperatures of re-entry.

Perhaps there would have been nothing to repair the problem (if there was one) with the tiles on the left wing, BUT, a space station makes a good Hotel 6 until another shuttle arrives to take them home.

Anyway, I take issue with the fact that there was not a thorough physical inspection while in space and the fact that NASA officials said there was nothing that could be done even if there was a problem. With a multi billion dollar space station down the street they wouldn't have had to fix it.

Abacus · 02-02-2003, 10:13 AM

The Columbia never made a rendezvous with the ISS. Since no docking with the space station was scheduled during the mission, I suppose it is quite possible that Columbia's orbit was such that it didn't have enough fuel to make a rendezvous. Also, it may not have been equipped to make a docking with the station.

Mageth · 02-02-2003, 12:43 PM

...and must have been going pretty damn fast by that time. I heard that it was "determined" that this incident didn't cause any damage to the shuttle. I'm probably just armchair quarterbacking here, but I can't imagine something striking the craft during launch and not sending someone out to look or otherwise actually inspecting that section once in orbit.

If the vehicle was actually damaged, and that damage caused today's tragedy, it would be sad to discover that somebody decided to skip an actual inspection because it might impact a timeline or something. If I recall correctly, that's why the Challenger was launched despite it being so cold that day...it "looked bad" for the timeline slip again.

and...

Perhaps there would have been nothing to repair the problem (if there was one) with the tiles on the left wing, BUT, a space station makes a good Hotel 6 until another shuttle arrives to take them home.

Anyway, I take issue with the fact that there was not a thorough physical inspection while in space and the fact that NASA officials said there was nothing that could be done even if there was a problem. With a multi billion dollar space station down the street they wouldn't have had to fix it.

Abacus is right. Due to its orbit, there was no way the Columbia could have rendezvoused with the ISS.

Here is the primary orbital info for STS-107:

Altitude: 150 nm
Inclination: 39

Here is the primary orbital info for recent ISS rendezvous missions (e.g. STS-112 and STS-113):

Altitude: 122nm
Inclination: 51.6

Once you're in a particular orbit, it takes a lot of fuel to reach a drastically different orbit, which the shuttle doesn't have. And since the Columbia was not scheduled to dock, it was not outfitted to dock.

As far as going out to investigate the damage, space walks to the underneath side of the shuttle aren't exactly standard and wouldn't be easy; space walks are typically performed in or near the payload bay. if the damage was discovered to be bad enough to mean almost certain catastrophic failure on reentry, it would have just meant that the astronauts would have known they were going to die, and we would now know almost certainly the cause of yesterday's disaster. There would in all probability be nothing that could be done about it.

Further, we don't yet know if damage from the insulation during launch (which was from the main fuel tank, not the SRB) was actually the cause of the deorbit failure. The tiles have taken a beating in several previous misssions, and have held up admirably up to this point. I think there's a good chance it was, and that the mission was doomed from launch, but we'll just have to wait and see.

And there's no way in hell this was a terrorist act.

Mageth · 02-02-2003, 12:49 PM

Totalitarianist said:

Ugh! I was not therein speaking of the people inside, but the shuttle itself! Goodness! Yes, what happened to the people inside was not a desirable event and all; however, I was talking about the space shuttle itself. Quite a lot of money went into it. What I meant was, if it were some other company other than NASA that had all that cash put to waste, I might care. Nothing against the people in the shuttle.

You can't separate the astronauts from the shuttle. One can't fly without the other, and one dies with the other. So if you don't care about the catastrophic loss of a shuttle, you by definition do not care about the loss of the astronauts inside the shuttle.

Primordial Groove · 02-02-2003, 07:54 PM

Quote:

As far as going out to investigate the damage, space walks to the underneath side of the shuttle aren't exactly standard and wouldn't be easy; space walks are typically performed in or near the payload bay. if the damage was discovered to be bad enough to mean almost certain catastrophic failure on reentry, it would have just meant that the astronauts would have known they were going to die, and we would now know almost certainly the cause of yesterday's disaster. There would in all probability be nothing that could be done about it.

So, just because it wasn't easy, an inspection is out of the question? I disagree. (not saying this is why it wasn't done in the first place). But degree of difficulty just means 'a challenge' to astronauts...especially if their life is in the balance.

Now, let's say they performed the spacewalk when they arrived in space, per a request by ground control. During the walk it is discovered there is damage to the tile(s) which could pose problems on reentry. At that time, would there have been enough fuel to get to the space station? How much fuel was used during the days they were there? And surely there would be a way into the station other than direct station to transport contact. Escape hatch or a hatch used for checking the exterior of the station?

satanka · 02-02-2003, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Abacus
The Columbia never made a rendezvous with the ISS. Since no docking with the space station was scheduled during the mission, I suppose it is quite possible that Columbia's orbit was such that it didn't have enough fuel to make a rendezvous. Also, it may not have been equipped to make a docking with the station.

You may be right, abacus. I certainly dont know. However, I would bet that NASA could have done some adjustments or secondary plan by dealing with the forces of gravity and remaining fuel to achieve a rendezvous, if not a docking with the ISS. After that, it is a matter of a space walk.

Shadowy Man · 02-02-2003, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Primordial Groove
So, just because it wasn't easy, an inspection is out of the question?

At that time, would there have been enough fuel to get to the space station? How much fuel was used during the days they were there? And surely there would be a way into the station other than direct station to transport contact. Escape hatch or a hatch used for checking the exterior of the station?

I think that an EVA outside of the shuttle bay without the arm would have been considered very risky. At the time I don't think they believed there was a life-threatening problem.

Someone posted on one of the Shuttle threads the differences between the altitudes and inclinations of the Shuttle and ISS orbits. Making that kind of orbital transfer is extremely difficult if not impossible for the Shuttle (probably even if they had a shuttle bay filled with fuel!!).

Tharmas · 02-02-2003, 08:29 PM

It has been stated several times in news reports yesterday and today that Columbia, the first shuttle, was also by far the heaviest and therefore it was incapable of achieving the ISS orbit, and could never have been used to rendezvous with the ISS.

satanka · 02-02-2003, 08:37 PM

I missed that Tharmas, but it makes absolute sense now that you mention it. Columbia was over 20 years old and had 70's technology.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-01-2003, 02:54 PM	#41
B. H. Manners Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,213	They just found parts of a body.

02-02-2003, 10:13 AM	#43
Abacus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: South Dakota Posts: 2,214	The Columbia never made a rendezvous with the ISS. Since no docking with the space station was scheduled during the mission, I suppose it is quite possible that Columbia's orbit was such that it didn't have enough fuel to make a rendezvous. Also, it may not have been equipped to make a docking with the station.

02-02-2003, 12:43 PM	#44
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	...and must have been going pretty damn fast by that time. I heard that it was "determined" that this incident didn't cause any damage to the shuttle. I'm probably just armchair quarterbacking here, but I can't imagine something striking the craft during launch and not sending someone out to look or otherwise actually inspecting that section once in orbit. If the vehicle was actually damaged, and that damage caused today's tragedy, it would be sad to discover that somebody decided to skip an actual inspection because it might impact a timeline or something. If I recall correctly, that's why the Challenger was launched despite it being so cold that day...it "looked bad" for the timeline slip again. and... Perhaps there would have been nothing to repair the problem (if there was one) with the tiles on the left wing, BUT, a space station makes a good Hotel 6 until another shuttle arrives to take them home. Anyway, I take issue with the fact that there was not a thorough physical inspection while in space and the fact that NASA officials said there was nothing that could be done even if there was a problem. With a multi billion dollar space station down the street they wouldn't have had to fix it. Abacus is right. Due to its orbit, there was no way the Columbia could have rendezvoused with the ISS. Here is the primary orbital info for STS-107: Altitude: 150 nm Inclination: 39 Here is the primary orbital info for recent ISS rendezvous missions (e.g. STS-112 and STS-113): Altitude: 122nm Inclination: 51.6 Once you're in a particular orbit, it takes a lot of fuel to reach a drastically different orbit, which the shuttle doesn't have. And since the Columbia was not scheduled to dock, it was not outfitted to dock. As far as going out to investigate the damage, space walks to the underneath side of the shuttle aren't exactly standard and wouldn't be easy; space walks are typically performed in or near the payload bay. if the damage was discovered to be bad enough to mean almost certain catastrophic failure on reentry, it would have just meant that the astronauts would have known they were going to die, and we would now know almost certainly the cause of yesterday's disaster. There would in all probability be nothing that could be done about it. Further, we don't yet know if damage from the insulation during launch (which was from the main fuel tank, not the SRB) was actually the cause of the deorbit failure. The tiles have taken a beating in several previous misssions, and have held up admirably up to this point. I think there's a good chance it was, and that the mission was doomed from launch, but we'll just have to wait and see. And there's no way in hell this was a terrorist act.

02-02-2003, 12:49 PM	#45
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Totalitarianist said: Ugh! I was not therein speaking of the people inside, but the shuttle itself! Goodness! Yes, what happened to the people inside was not a desirable event and all; however, I was talking about the space shuttle itself. Quite a lot of money went into it. What I meant was, if it were some other company other than NASA that had all that cash put to waste, I might care. Nothing against the people in the shuttle. You can't separate the astronauts from the shuttle. One can't fly without the other, and one dies with the other. So if you don't care about the catastrophic loss of a shuttle, you by definition do not care about the loss of the astronauts inside the shuttle.

02-02-2003, 08:29 PM	#49
Tharmas Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Dallas Posts: 184	It has been stated several times in news reports yesterday and today that Columbia, the first shuttle, was also by far the heaviest and therefore it was incapable of achieving the ISS orbit, and could never have been used to rendezvous with the ISS.

02-02-2003, 08:37 PM	#50
satanka Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Texas, USA Posts: 359	I missed that Tharmas, but it makes absolute sense now that you mention it. Columbia was over 20 years old and had 70's technology.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.