posted 02-02-2003 07:55 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?

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

posted 02-02-2003 11:53 AM               

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.

posted 02-02-2003 04:37 PM            

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

posted 02-02-2003 07:25 PM               

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.

posted 02-03-2003 01:23 PM            

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

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.

posted 02-03-2003 03:19 PM            

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

posted 02-03-2003 05:56 PM            

I'm sure NASA will come up with a solution.

There are alot of great minds all working together.

posted 02-04-2003 08:56 AM               

>>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?

posted 02-04-2003 07:17 PM               

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.

posted 02-05-2003 04:12 PM               

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...