NASA Prepares for Space Rescues

wallstreetprodigy23 copies and pastes "Space shuttle commander Steve Lindsey is preparing for a mission he hopes will never launch: the rescue of other astronauts in orbit. If a crisis arises during shuttle Discovery's planned return to flight in May, Lindsey and a crew of three could be called upon to lift off aboard sister ship Atlantis on an emergency mission that would be the first in the history of human space exploration. Rescue flights were hotly debated at NASA after shuttle Columbia broke up in the skies above Texas two years ago this Tuesday. Questions arose about whether Columbia's seven astronauts could have been saved. Because of the accident, NASA will have a backup shuttle and rescue crew ready for at least the next two flights in case another ship suffers damage similar to what brought down Columbia."

Spot the problem first

If Columbia is used as an example, shouldn't NASA be looking at policies that allow them to delay a launch and/or return, and conduct a thorough inspection of the craft? From what I have read (from the transcripts), it was too late for Columbia to do anything by the time they realized something was wrong. Catching Genesis mid-air with a helicopter didn't work.

Re:Spot the problem first

People at NASA were aware that the foam hit the shuttle wing though, and simply dismissed it.

You can bet your ass if something similar happens on the next few flights, they're going to inspect the damage, rather than ignore it.

Re:Spot the problem first

If you smacked the rabbit with a suitcase-sized piece of the foam at ~700 MPH you sure as hell could....

Re:Spot the problem first

You are right, actually. The foam virtually stands still in the atmosphere... but the Shuttle rams it at 700 mph (since it has an engine.) The end result is the same.

Re:Spot the problem first

I heard a very sensible sounding option just after the Columbia accident which has since faded away, which would seem to give the best of both worlds: it leaves the door open for an orbital rescue, without the expense & bother of having a 2nd shuttle prepped to go.

Instead of either having a shuttle on "warm standby" (which must cost millions per day) or skimping on the normal procedures to get rescue mission up there before food, air & power run out (playing double or nothing really), isn't it more practical to have an unmanned rocket stocked with supplies standing by that can be lifed off with just a few days preparation.

This rocket could be fueled and match orbits with the damaged shuttle, and the shuttle could dock and take the supplies onboard, and then the astronauts major problem before a properly propared rescue mission arrives would be boredom.

Maybe chuck a few gameboys onto the supply rocket ;)

How about rescuing Hubble ?

be good practice for them and the whole world benefits at the same time

all for less than the price of a months war in Iraq [costofwar.com]

Rescue?!

Thunderbirds are GO!

Great timing.

I'm not a rocket scientist, so let me make sure I have this right:

1) Build space station.
2) Send astronauts to space station.
3) A few years later, start brainstorming a rescue plan.

Manned spaceflight?

> ...because of the accident, NASA will have a
> backup shuttle and rescue crew ready for at
> least the next two flights in case another ship
> suffers damage similar to what brought down
> Columbia."

It took a hundred flights for the Columbia failure mode to occur. There has been no other flight where an in-flight emergency occured such that rescue might be considered.

Bearing this in mind, what's the point in having a rescue shuttle ready for the next two flights only?

Always having a rescue shuttle available would be useful, but which probably isn't practical, since there are now only three Shuttles.

It seems to me there is a lack of proper vision in the space programme.

We have manned spaceflight, but being used in a way where unmmaned spaceflight could be perfectly well used instead (probably at lower cost, and certainly with zero risk to human life).

Manned spaceflight *is* vital, but not for Shuttle flights! manned spaceflight is necessary to establish colonies on other moons and planets.

Humans will not really start colonizing other worlds, though, until the Space Elevator is built; then it will become practical.

I expect this to occur within my lifetime, assuming we don't destroy the planet first.

--
Toby

Re:Manned spaceflight?

It took a hundred flights for the Columbia failure mode to occur. There has been no other flight where an in-flight emergency occured such that rescue might be considered.
>
>Bearing this in mind, what's the point in having a rescue shuttle ready for the next two flights only?

The point is - like all Generals more concerned with keeping their stars than the welfare of the troops under their command - to fight the last war.

To understand NASA, you need to stop thinking like and engineer and start thinking like a bureaucrat or politician.

I advise reading the last Slashdot thread on "Political Software Development" while under the influence of large quantities of alcohol. (And if you're a NASA administrator and something goes wrong on your watch, re-read the thread while switching to Valium.)

Re:Manned spaceflight?

Is this reliance on a back-up plan not just another example of a lot of Western society becoming increasingly risk-averse?

During an age of exploration, deaths were treated as a hazard of the job - Amelia Earheart's disappearance did not stop the aviation industry from developing. If the same thing happened today, there would be public outcry about how to make {fill in transportation mode} "safer" (= find someone to blame when things go wrong)

Keeping with the aviation parallels, Lindbergh would probably not have been allowed to take off today - single engine, no radio, no forward visibility and so on - and yet he is (rightly) credited with pulling off an amazing feat*, rather than "doing something foolhardy and dangerous"


* being picky, the amazing part was landing at his chosen destination (Paris), rather than flying non-stop across the Atlantic, as that had already been done back in 1919 by Alcock & Brown [aviation-history.com]. Or that he did it solo.

Next Two?

Woudn't it make more sense (humanly and logically, not necessarily financially) to always have a backup shuttle ready? Sure as hell, there won't be a screwup so soon after restarting flights; NASA won't allow anything to get off the ground this early with any problems at all; it would look bad for PR. But later, like in a few years, they'll have slacked up, and something could go wrong. Hopefully, they'll have a backup flight ready to go if/when that happens.

Why not an escape capsule?

Look at the size of the original orbital capsules. Excape capsules could be created that take up 1/2 the space, could survive re-entry, and easily fit within the cargo area. Wouldn't that be much cheaper than a sister shuttle at the ready?

the shuttle program from the start, in a nutshell

The whole thing was an overengineered government boondoggle. It didn't make sense then, and doesn't make sense now, while looking at it logically.

The motivations of the various parties are clear enough.

-NASA was politicking, they didn't want to have a situation like Apollo where the last few flights were eliminated because of changing conditions and or national boredom. A reusable craft almost demands use. They also wanted to create a consistent work environment rather than running a constant R&D shop. Government employees are not good at R&D, in general. Most R&D establishments in the military, for instance, morph into bureaucratic wastes of money over time due to the fact that government oversight doesn't lend itself to dynamic activity. If the unique, dynamic overseers of the project, those exceptional people who have drive and ambition within government, leave their posts - the project stagnates. NASA is no exception.

-The pilots wanted something aircraft-like to fly, damn the fact that it's not a useful shape for a spacecraft. That was the design spec, and safety was compromised to meet it.

-The politicians were throwing a bone to NASA and appropriated the funds based on the successful lunar missions. Oversight on this was near-nil, except for the dollar figure which was chopped in half, exacerbating the problem.

So they seized on an Air Force requirement regarding the capability to return payload from orbit, which ultimately has been used very infrequently, and used that as a justification to achieve all their other disparate goals.

They promised all kinds of capabilities such as quick turnaround which are bogus in reality. They promised cheaper per-flight costs. They promised greater safety. A lot was promised that never materialized.

Note that none of the real justifications for a reusable, aircraft shaped spacecraft had anything to do with science, advancing human exploration, or efficiency. Pretty much tells the whole story, no?

Re:Why not an escape capsule?

Have a look at the orbital mechanics - you can raise or lower your orbit by changing your speed a little. That's a mostly-scalar operation. You go up and down, but stay in the same orbital plane (please forgive the obvious simplification.) Now think of your orbital path in terms of the velocity vector. Rotating your orbital plane 90-degrees, for example, requires that you reduce your vector velocity in one axis to zero, while raising the vector velocity in the perpendicular axis to the original amount. So, how much energy did it take to get your original vector velocity? That's right, the whole launch amount. So to turn 90 degrees, you'll need two complete launches worth of fuel and expendibles. That's oversimplified too, because you need to haul that two-launches-worth of booster and fuel up with you in the initial launch. The Rocket Equaiton [mit.edu] makes that scenario prohibitive.

Similarly, hauling the rescue capsule around on every frickin' launch has similar implications. It's tremendously wasteful to haul extra weight around "just in case."

I'd propose a "tow truck" kind of solution. To pose an analogy, how often do you use the spare tire in your car? Maybe never? (Automakers won't sell a spare-less car mostly due to negative market perception.) If you don't have a spare tire, what will you do? You'll get on the cell phone and call a tow truck. (I realize you can't just pull over to the curb in space, but bear with me.) The cell phone and tow truck represent elements of a repair (i.e. rescue) infrastructure we have in place. The better the infrastructure, the less you need to haul around the materials to be self-sufficient. I'd rather see a Delta 4 Heavy (or equivalent) equipped with a Crew Extraction Vehicle (CEV.) Yep, it's a capsule that fits a crew of N in horrible discomfort just long enough to return them to earth. I'm thinking extreme Spam-in-a-Can. They wedge inside however they must. There will be rudimentary water and food aboard - think a couple of bottles of Aquafina and some granola bars. They soil their undergarments, if necessary. A shower will be waiting for them when they return. Feces washes off.

The "infrastructure" part involves doing all the pre-flight coordination with the manned mission, and would require that the tow truck could be prepped and launched within 2 days or so of declaration of an emergency. Since it's on the ground, the CEV only has one orbital insertion to deal with. It'd need to mate up with the manned mission, but that's part of the infrastructure too.

Since the CEV is unmanned on launch, it can be configured to use solid boosters. That's going to mitigate liquid-fuel handling issues. It also mitigates flight profile problems - high G-loading tends to do bad things to ugly-bags-of-mostly-water. But the meatbags don't board the CEV until it's already on-orbit, so you only have the human-friendly (re)-entry profile to deal with, right?

The Crew Return Vehicle (not to be confuced with my CEV, above) is a boondoggle. Passengers are seated in relative comfort. They get all sorts of space to move around. The CRV even has wings and a pilot. And it's supposed to be reusable. What a bunch of crap. My CEV, on the other hand, is horribly cramped and has exactly one job to do - return the crew to earth safely. Once. Period.

In writing this, I'm thinking that "tow truck" is the wrong term. The CEV is more of a taxi. We abandon the original damaged spacecraft.

Hotly debated?

Rescue flights were hotly debated at NASA after shuttle Columbia broke up in the skies above Texas two years ago this Tuesday. Questions arose about whether Columbia's seven astronauts could have been saved.

No, not unless rescuers were launched by a full-speed ICBM the very instant the shuttle broke up. Unless Houston can immediately get news of a wing break, this is a non-starter. Space travel is an inherently dangerous business--going into harsh atmospheres (if any atmosphere at all), lack of gravity and air pressure to keep you in shape, old and tough-to-maintain equipment in space shuttles, etc; I'm shocked there's any debate.

If I was an astronaut I'd be thinking about my two choices during any mission:

1. I return alive after a perfect launch and mission.
2. I'm fucked.

Expensive Boondoggle

Isn't this a lot like retrofitting a rusted, worn-out '89 Ford Escort with front and side airbags, chrome wheels, and Corinthian leather seat covers? Pimp My Ride is fine for MTV but should not be practiced as US space policy.

The Shuttle has had its day. Stop sinking so many dollars into this antiquated, fragile, expensive money pit and design and build a space transportation system that belongs to this century, not the last.

Twice the Problem

So, let me get this right. If, by some chance, the horribly overcomplicated shuttle breaks in orbit, we'll launch another horribly overcomplicated shuttle that *probably* has the same design flawas the first?

This is a perfect example of people trying to solve a problem that does not exist.

Since its introduction, two shuttles have been lost. That's about 15 years of operation per accident. I'd take thoes odds any day. But one fucking shuttle blows up because of a freak accident and then we have to spend millions of dollars to ensure the sound-byte-informed public that it won't happen agian.

It's just like that fucking terrorism thingy. We send billions on crap while more USians died on the roads in Sep 2001 ever died in terrorist attacks.

Pull your fucking heads out and spend the money where you can actually see some return.

But...

But who is going to rescue the people on the rescue-mission?

CAIB Recommendations

The Columbia Accident Investigation Board Recommendations [www.caib.us] say nothing about a rescue plan:

Recommendation One:

Prior to return to flight, NASA should develop and implement a comprehensive inspection plan to determine the structural integrity of all Reinforce Carbon-Carbon (RCC) system components. This inspection plan should take advantage of advanced non-destructive inspection technology.

This recommendation was issued because of the board's finding that current inspection techniques are not adequate to assess structural integrity of RCC, supporting structure, and attaching hardware.

Recommendation Two:

Prior to return to flight, NASA should modify its Memorandum of Agreement with National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) to make on-orbit imaging for each Shuttle flight a standard requirement.

This recommendation was issued because of the board's finding that the full capabilities of the United States Government to image the Shuttle on orbit were not utilized.

Recommendation Three:

Before return to flight, for missions to the International Space Station (ISS,) develop a practicable capability to inspect and effect emergency repairs to the widest possible range of damage to the Thermal Protection System (TPS,) including both tile and Reinforced Carbon Carbon (RCC,) taking advantage of the additional capabilities available while in proximity to and docked at the ISS.

Before return to flight, for non-station missions, develop a comprehensive autonomous (independent of station) inspection and repair capability to cover the widest practicable range of damage scenarios.

An on-orbit TPS inspection should be accomplished early on all missions, using appropriate assets and capabilities.

The ultimate objective should be a fully autonomous capability for all missions, to address the possibility that an ISS mission does not achieve the necessary orbit, fails to dock successfully, or suffers damage during or after undocking.

Recommendation Four:

Upgrade the imaging system to be capable of providing a minimum of three useful views of the Space Shuttle from liftoff to at least Solid Rocket Booster separation, along any expected ascent azimuth. The readiness of these assets should be included in the Launch Commit Criteria for future launches.

Consideration should be given to using mobile assets (ships or aircraft) to provide additional views of the vehicle during ascent.

If they implement everything as recommended there is no need for a rescue plan and I doubt such a plan would actually work, it seems more like a publicity stunt to reassure the masses.

Rescue plans in place long ago?

I'am quite sure I have read something long ago that there is in fact an agreement between the various space agencies in the world that if a crew is in danger, any agency with an available spacecraft will make a rescue attempt. I might be wrong. But it would make alot more sense to have an inter-agency cooperation regarding space rescue then for each agency to have backup spacecrafts and crews ready at all time.

Rescue of Columbia's crew as discussed by CAIB

The Columbia Accident Investigation Report [nasa.gov] listed one permutation of a rescue mission that could have been launched to save Columbia, if anyone had realized the true severity of the damage to her wing. According to the report, a second shuttle (I believe it was Endeavour, but it's been a while since I read the report) could have been rolled out and launched in a matter of days, skipping the normal three-month pre-launch safety checklist.

The second shuttle could have rendezvoused with Columbia and brought to station-keeping directly below her, such that the two shuttles' cargo bays were facing each other (Columbia would have been orbiting upside-down and backward relative to the ground, as is standard). Columbia's crew could then have transferred to the rescue shuttle via tether.

All of this could have been done inside the week-long window before Columbia's consumables were exhausted; after the rescue, Columbia would have been de-orbited into the ocean.

One of the things that will be mandatory on all remaining shuttle launches will be for all shuttles to be able to rendezvous and dock with the ISS, in the event something like this happens again. This was not an option for Columbia, for a couple of reasons--she was unable to boost to the ISS's altitude, and she lacked the correct docking mechanism to couple with the ISS.

Re:it seems good news

Problems in space shouldn't need a fully stocked shuttle ready to go in 24 hours, they should have some method of getting astronauts back onto earth without needing to waste time at this end.

Escape modules or 'lifeboats' would be a much nicer solution. Especially if (I saw this on one of the comments further down) the lifeboats are sitting idle in orbit anyway and can propel themselves to the shuttle.

Hell, even ready-to-go unmanned rockets with lifeboats could be launched from points on earth to almost any orbit very quickly. I would rather be climbing into a re-entry ready pod than wait for another shuttle to rendezvous with me. Notice the ISS has an escape pod and doesn't rely on Thunderbirds.

Re:Speed

Why not just slow down a bit before entering the atmosphere?

Have you seen the rocket boosters they use to launch the shuttles? They'd need the same boosters to slow it down again. And then they'd need way, way bigger rockets just to lift those boosters into orbit in the first place. The total amount of fuel required is staggering.

Let me tell you the two most important things you need to know to get some idea of how staggeringly hard your proposal is to implement.

The first thing is the speeds involved. These guys are going 17,000 miles per hour. That's 7 times faster than a rifle bullet, and it weighs as much as 30 big SUVs. How do you propose to take this monster and make it "slow down a bit"? If they can't brake in the atmosphere, then need to use rocket power to slow back down to, say, 1,000 miles per hour (the speed of Earth's rotation at Florida plus a couple hundred mph) so they can land.

The second thing is even worse: the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation. It tells us how much propellant is needed to achieve a given speed change (impulse). This is not based on any particular rocket technology; it's a fundamental law derived directly from Newton's third law of motion (the equal-and-opposite-reaction one).

Tsiolkovsky's equation is calibrated to the exit velocity of the propellant. If you want your rocket's velocity to change by N times the propellant's exit velocity, its mass must reduce by a factor of e^N. In the case of the Shuttle going to orbit, N=2.7, and the "mass ratio" e^N=15.5, meaning that only about 1/15 of the vehicle makes it to orbit. The other 14/15 was rocket fuel.

If you want to deorbit the Shuttle using rockets, then you'll need to double your delta-V, because you must first go from zero to 17000, and then from 17000 back to zero. This gives N=2x2.7=5.4. However, this is too high, because you're not fighting air resistance and Earth's gravity when you're re-entering like you are when you're taking off. So let's be conservative and say it's only N=4.5. Then your mass ratio becomes 90, so the fuel tank needs to be 6.4 times larger than they already are! If you have seen the Shuttle's fuel tank, you know this is absurd.

The best thing about deorbiting in the presence of an atmosphere is that it costs no rocket fuel. However, it does have its dangers.

Re:Speed

Have you seen the rocket boosters they use to launch the shuttles? They'd need the same boosters to slow it down again. And then they'd need way, way bigger rockets just to lift those boosters into orbit in the first place. The total amount of fuel required is staggering.

Not necessarily. Electromagnetic braking against the earth's field is possible. There are some practical limitations to the technology right now... but we've only tried it once! The biggest barrier is making it efficient enough to make a big difference in the entry velocity. The second biggest is figuring out what to do with all that energy you're creating, though since it's already high voltage a forward-pointing ion engine might be a possibility.

The third problem is resistive wire heating. If we could make a spoolable paintable superconducting wire, we could solve that easily too. Why paintable? Give it white paint to reflect sunlight and you can probably keep it at liquid nitrogen temperatures with a moderate heatsink system...