Author
|
Topic: I just don't understand...
|
mensax Member Posts: 861 From: Virginia Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted 02-02-2003 07:55 AM
I just don't understand...1) Why it is that we don't have the capability to get out of the shuttle and "look her over". Why is it that after over a hundred flights we can't leave the shuttle bay? 2) Why is it that NASA never asked any ground bases, or satellites, to look at the shuttle for damage due to the loose debris hitting the shuttle at liftoff? 3) Why does the shuttle contains no "black box"? 4) Why is there is not contigency for rescue in a situation like this... That is, If there was concern the shuttle was damaged and suspected that it might not survive return. Why aren't there contigencies, and capabilities, for the crew to be transfered to another shuttle or to the space station? The American space program has always prided herself in having triple redundancies for every system. I would imagine that if there are any changes made as a result of the tragedy that these these four will be included... and, maybe, a new launch platform. Noah
|
WAWalsh Member Posts: 809 From: Cortlandt Manor, NY Registered: May 2000
|
posted 02-02-2003 11:53 AM
Noah,Two comments -- there is no black box because there is no need for one. The vehicle is in constant communications and providing telematry throughout the mission. No black boxs would have recorded more than the information that NASA already possesses. There was no ground effort at observation because there was no perceived need. Mike Mullane drew the parallel this morning of you driving along in your car on a highway at 70 mph, when a cheap styrofoam cooler falls off of the pick-up in front of you and hits your car. It might be startling, it might be a concern, but you know the thing is not going to damage the car. Apparently, the insulation off of the external tank is just about as light. Further, even if you presume that the foam knocked a tile or two loose it seems to me improbable that a spyplane photograph would have been able to discern the missing or fractured tile. With respect to a visible inspection of the vehicle in orbit. It would probably make sense to have the capacity to look, but nothing could have been done to repair the damage. The orbiters lack any place for an astronaut to gain a grip beneath the vehicle and one cannot carry the spare parts for each individual tile. |
spaceuk Member Posts: 2113 From: Staffs, UK Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 02-02-2003 04:37 PM
Although ET tank foam may have damaged the left wing it wuld have needed to have been a substantial impact to not only dislodge tile/s but cause significant damage underneath.Several flights have returned with tiles missing during entry. STS-1 was the "classic" where tiles were seen quite clearly missing fom the OMS pods at rear. Just before entry the STS-107 cycled through the entry systems (elevons,APus etc) and seemingly went through OK. However,during the descent to the 202,000 ft mark they were obviously having some problems with an APU.As this used to control elevons,rudder and other similar systems, this would not be welcomed at all. Also,part of that system contains a water boiler and many hydraulic pipelines. If there were problems here it is feasible - that the boiler could have exploded through overheating .This caused lack of hydraulics to be available during the left hand roll maneouvre (?) . The lack of control would have left Shuttle 'gyrating' and thus become unstable causing aerodynamic overloads and breakup of shuttle.The possible explosion would have severed cables and caused hydraulic lines to become overheated since no coolant available? [Almost a Apollo-13 scenario] I'll leave NASA Investigators to determine correct cause ,however,but this is one area I would definitely hone in on. Phill UK
|
Rick Mulheirn Member Posts: 4167 From: England Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 02-02-2003 07:25 PM
It is quite true, individual tiles could not be replaced in flight, even if the crew could have somehow accessed the damaged area. But NASA did develop and test a "goo gun" for the want of a better term (prior to STS-1) that "squeezed" material toothpaste like into areas stripped of tiles.If as seems likely the ET foam did impact and penetarte the tiles, the aerodynamic loads and pressures on the vehicle at that instant would almost certainly induced further tile loss in a "zipper" like fashion. New enhanced tv pictures on the news this evening clearly show the debris falling off the tank and a subsequent plume of dust emerging from underneath the left wing. In my opinion the plume appeared greater than one might have expected from the apparently small piece of tank debris or just one or three damaged tiles. If the tile damage at launch was the cause of the Columbia break up I would consider it inconceivable that NASA would launch again without some inspection and repair option onboard, regardless of how limited that option may be. |
mark plas Member Posts: 385 From: the Netherlands Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 02-03-2003 05:10 AM
I have a picture in my book called space shuttle were bill lenoir in spacesuit is practicing repairement on the tiles with some yellow brown kit. under the pic is stated that the crew always have an repair set with them.Mark |
Rizz Member Posts: 1208 From: Upcountry, Maui, Hawaii Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 02-03-2003 01:23 PM
I believe that attempting to go beneath the orbiter in space to repair/replace missing tiles would surely do more damage than good.And with all due respect, regarding the foam cooler at 70 mph, I'm no physics expert, but 16 square feet of foam traveleing at perhaps 700 mph, just might impact those fragile silica tiles, and shatter them to dust, and perhaps even structurally damage whatever the tiles were adhered to. If the hood of the car was 4 ft square, and made of foam, and the windshield was covered with silica tiles, at a speed of Mach 1, when the hood flies off I would suspect there would be considerable damage done to the tiles.
Rizz [This message has been edited by Rizz (edited February 03, 2003).] |
tegwilym Member Posts: 2331 From: Sturgeon Bay, WI Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 02-03-2003 01:45 PM
quote: Originally posted by Rizz: I believe that attempting to go beneath the orbiter in space to repair/replace missing tiles would surely do more damage than good.Rizz [This message has been edited by Rizz (edited February 03, 2003).]
True, they wouldn't have anything to hold onto under the orbiter so they could work. I do remember a picture in an old National Geographic magazine (I think it was the issue before the first Columbia launch) where they showed an astronaut with some repair kit that would fill a tile hole with some patch "goop".
|
Rizz Member Posts: 1208 From: Upcountry, Maui, Hawaii Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 02-03-2003 03:19 PM
Noah, In response to question #2 http://www.msnbc.com/news/867770.asp There are a few National Assets that have imagery of 107 during its mission. “…two sophisticated ground cameras in Florida and Hawaii, operated by the Air Force Space Command, have taken snapshots of the shuttle to help NASA assess safety concerns, primarily on Columbia’s first mission in 1981, when tile damage was a major concern.” “(telescopes) atop Mt. Haleakala in Hawaii — did take snapshots of the Columbia on that first mission. The cameras have long imaged satellites and orbital debris using sophisticated laser and electro-optical devices.” “(the optics) are so good they were used to scan the Columbia on her maiden flight in April 1981 in an effort to determine the extent of tile damage.” This was accomplished with impressive results. “Recall a year or two ago, we lost the drag chute door. Right at liftoff, it fell off. And we actually tried to take some pictures of the back end of the vehicle ... and those pictures that we received were not very useful to us,” said Dittemore in a NASA press conference Saturday.” This comment I’m afraid I have to differ with. Images of Glenns flight that were taken from Hawaii proved to be very valuable in deed. Rizz
[This message has been edited by Rizz (edited February 03, 2003).] |
BLACKARROW unregistered
|
posted 02-03-2003 05:23 PM
Just as commercial satellite launches were abandoned after the Challenger disaster, I can see most "free-standing" shuttle flights being abandoned as part of the post-Columbia recovery. If Columbia's mission had been to the ISS, it would have been a simple matter to do a slow rotation to let the ISS crew look for any tile damage after the insulation strike. Repairs would be far easier to mount by ISS astronauts, and if a close-up EVA inspection showed irreparable damage to the shuttle, the ISS would provide a safe haven until another shuttle or a Soyuz is ready to launch. In future (if they don't already do it) it should be made standard practice for a shuttle docked with the ISS to undergo a tile inspection by a spacewalking astronaut. If NASA can figure out ways to rescue stranded satellites, they can figure out how to check a docked shuttle's tiles. |
Rizz Member Posts: 1208 From: Upcountry, Maui, Hawaii Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 02-03-2003 05:56 PM
It's going to be very difficult to make a repair on the tiles even if docked to the ISS. On an EVA, if you 'bump' against the tiles you've just multiplied the problem.I'm sure NASA will come up with a solution. There are alot of great minds all working together. Rizz |
eurospace Member Posts: 2610 From: Brussels, Belgium Registered: Dec 2000
|
posted 02-04-2003 08:56 AM
>>>1) Why it is that we don't have the capability to get out of the shuttle and "look her over". Why is it that after over a hundred flights we can't leave the shuttle bay?>>> Because Columbia did not have a manipulator arm onboard, because the bottom of the shuttle is not a place where handrails allow to move over easily, and because anyway there is no way of repairing such kind of damage inflight. Do you know of any spaceship where you can repair heat insulation inflight?>>2) Why is it that NASA never asked any ground bases, or satellites, to look at the shuttle for damage due to the loose debris hitting the shuttle at liftoff?>> They did, on previous missions. The imagery did not have any usable quality. The distance is just too large. >>3) Why does the shuttle contains no "black box"?>> It does. Only that it is unlikely it wuold have survived an impact of that magnitude. >>4) Why is there is not contigency for rescue in a situation like this... That is, If there was concern the shuttle was damaged and suspected that it might not survive return. Why aren't there contigencies, and capabilities, for the crew to be transfered to another shuttle or to the space station? >>> What other shuttle? Columbia had a different orbit than the space station and changing this orbit in-flight would have required about the same energy to get her into space into the first place - where would you store this amount of combustible? I think we just have to accept: death can happen, and will happen, and we have to live with it. There are far more dead people in traffic accidents, there is far less system redundancy too, still you board your car, or do you not? ------------------ Jürgen P Esders Berlin, Germany http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Astroaddies |
Cliff Lentz Member Posts: 655 From: Philadelphia, PA USA Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 02-04-2003 09:04 AM
It's my understanding that Columbia did not have a docking port for the ISS. Furthermore it was in a 30 degree orbit to the equator whereas ISS is 51 degrees so getting there would have been unlikely. STS 107 did not carry the remote arm or as far as I can gather, any way to exit the craft other that the main hatch which would mean depressurizing the crew compartment. There was a lot of things going against STS 107. Hopefully they will find ways to better back up these systems, but this just supports waht I've always said that the shuttle has major design faults and we've better lucky all these years |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 42981 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-04-2003 09:04 AM
Early during the briefings, it was explained that the shuttle does not have a black box because unlike commercial airlines that are not in constant contact with the ground, the Space Shuttle avionics system transmits the data to the ground at all times the bird is in flight. A black box would therefore be redundant. |
music_space Member Posts: 1179 From: Canada Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 02-04-2003 11:44 AM
Yes... They might think of putting a black box now, considering they could have catastrophic failure and radio breakdown at the same time... |
BLACKARROW unregistered
|
posted 02-04-2003 05:56 PM
RIZZ, I take your point that a spacewalking astronaut could bump against the tiles and make matters worse - but I stand by my point that it should become standard practice on every ISS mission to give the shuttle a close inspection. If the shuttle does a slow roll, ISS occupants could examine every part of it through binoculars, looking for any sign of damage. Not a foolproof solution, but better than nothing. Cracked tiles might not be spotted, but if the ISS occupants spotted several missing tiles on critical parts of the shuttle's underside, at least NASA could consider the options. An EVA (in spite of the risk of making matters worse) might be the best available option. And if all else fails, the ISS is a better refuge than a fatally holed shuttle. |
uzzi69 Member Posts: 181 From: Richmond, IN USA Registered: Jun 2001
|
posted 02-04-2003 07:17 PM
It's just a matter of time...I'm waiting for the first conspiracy theories to come out. I see this headline in the National Enquirer... " NASA's big secret...knows shuttle astronauts were doomed from start " or.... " Satan seen in space shuttle lift-off cloud " It's just a matter of time. Regards, Bill uzzi69 |
mensax Member Posts: 861 From: Virginia Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted 02-05-2003 04:12 PM
So, I wonder...1) If NASA could make a remote controlled, beachball sized, camera that could be taken on each mission that the crew could use to inspect the outside of the shuttle? 2) If all future missions to the shuttle could have the needed docking equipment so that they could dock with the space station, or another shuttle? 3) If the shuttle could always be put in the same orbit with the space station that in case of emergency it could be nearby? 4) If a second shuttle could always be ready to launch and rendevous with a shuttle that finds itself in trouble? 5) If a carrier pod could be installed on the space station that would serve as a life boat to get shuttle passengers and bring them to the station or back home to earth? 6) If a shuttle can land unmanned if the crew abandoned it for fear that it might not make it home? 7) And finaly, if all future science experiments wouldn't better be handled on the space station anyway... that is it's intended purpose. If a space lab had been attached to the space station and they had done their work there during this mission... Noah |
mensax Member Posts: 861 From: Virginia Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted 02-07-2003 08:44 AM
It appears that someone did take pictures of the shuttle in orbit... http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts107/030207avweek/ |
WAWalsh Member Posts: 809 From: Cortlandt Manor, NY Registered: May 2000
|
posted 02-07-2003 10:20 AM
Actually, the photo was not taken while Columbia was in orbit but, as the news is reporting today, as the orbiter passed over (or near) White Sands in New Mexico. The aspect that I continue to wonder about is the suggestion that the crew was unaware of any problem up to the last moment. If significant structural failure had occured by this point, sufficient for the yaw thrusters to fire to attempt to correct, why wasn't there any telemetry indications? Too many unknowns remain at this time. |