Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science Technology

Inspection Microsat Tested In Orbit 89

Posted by timothy from the but-does-it-have-a-micro-microsat dept.
727scotty writes " Aviation Week magazine reports (Feb 3, page 39) that a 70 lb microsatelite designed to inspect its "mother ship" was successfully tested in orbit on January 29. The XXS-10 was launched on a Boeing Delta II , piggybacked on a GPS IIR-8 payload. The Microsat was maneuvered around the orbiting Delta upper stage, using video cameras to inspect it from all angles and various distances. Would have been nice to have on the Columbia mission."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Inspection Microsat Tested In Orbit More

Inspection Microsat Tested In Orbit

Comments Filter:

  • No, it wouldn't... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by docbrown42 ( 535974 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @04:44PM (#5225910) Homepage
    Would have been nice to have on the Columbia mission.

    No, it wouldn't. Even if the astronauts had found the problem before they re-entered the atmosphere, there wasn't anything they could have done about it. They weren't set up for extended space walks, and they didn't have the equipment to repair the tiles anyway. And, they weren't in the right orbit to make it to the space station.

    It wouldn't have made much of a difference.

    • Re:No, it wouldn't... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by 727scotty ( 633710 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @04:56PM (#5226007)
      It wouldn't have made much of a difference.

      Not to Columbia, but I bet the investigators would love to have detailed pictures...

    • So you already know, without knowing the actual extent of any theoretical damage that a minimal approach rather than the normal one would have made no difference? What would have stopped them from, e.g. getting another shuttle up, stopping by the space station, etc.?

      • Re:No, it wouldn't... (Score:3, Informative)

        by joshuac ( 53492 )
        ---snip
        So you already know, without knowing the actual extent of any theoretical damage that a minimal approach rather than the normal one would have made no difference? What would have stopped them from, e.g. getting another shuttle up, stopping by the space station, etc.?
        ---snip

        I doubt there is a much more "minimal" approach than what is already used by the shuttle. As for getting another shuttle up, the soonest an emergency launch of atlantis could be performed would be a week, assuming everything went well. Considering how often launch dates have to be pushed back even under ideal conditions, actually pulling off an emergency launch in a week is a long shot.

        And no, stopping by the space station was not an option, Columbia was in a much lower orbit than the iss and orbiting at a different angle (I know there is better term for that, anyone?).

        There might have been _something_ they could have done, but those three options can pretty much be ruled out.
        • The main point was that saying that there was nothing to do seems a bit foolish. NASA has pulled some pretty significant rabbits out of the hat in cases of having to deal with unexpected but non-catastrophic failures before. This one was not definitively catastrophic until reentry.
          • In that case, I totally agree with you :)

            If they had the ability to inspect the shuttle from outside, and they thought it necessary (remember, the insulation torn off the main tank was ruled unimportant, and nothing else went visibly wrong with the launch), then maybe (assuming the problem was damaged tiles and was visible from outside) they might have found the problem before attempting rentry, and would have been able to figure out some miraculous Apollo 13-style save.

            But then just lugging the already existing robotic arm (which wasn't taken on this trip) along would have accomplished the same self-inspection tasks easier and better than this microsattelite could. The microsattelite is pretty cool in itself tho, but on the orbiter, just take the arm with a camera.

          • Re:No, it wouldn't... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by AndyDeck ( 29830 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @06:05PM (#5226609) Homepage Journal
            The main point was that saying that there was nothing to do seems a bit foolish. NASA has pulled some pretty significant rabbits out of the hat in cases of having to deal with unexpected but non-catastrophic failures before. This one was not definitively catastrophic until reentry.

            THANK you. This has been my biggest issue with the way things are sorting out. Yes, the orbital mechanics were all wrong for approaching the ISS. Yes, the lab module was blocking the airlock. Yes, there was no robot arm. Yes, there is no procedure to repair tiles in space.

            But why in the name of all that is holy did they decide to not even look for damage? I saw a comment from last week that the damage was judged by the analysts to be minor, and thus no changes in re-entry were planned. This says to me that if damage was judged to be major, an alternative re-entry could have been planned to reduce heat and stress. No magic tile repair necessary, no emergency launch of supplies or rescue craft, just an alternative landing approach - and the astronauts could have been saved.

            Damn hindsight - let's have some foresight!
        • I doubt there is a much more "minimal" approach than what is already used by the shuttle. As for getting another shuttle up, the soonest an emergency launch of atlantis could be performed would be a week, assuming everything went well. Considering how often launch dates have to be pushed back even under ideal conditions, actually pulling off an emergency launch in a week is a long shot.

          So, they can launch a shuttle in a week or two in the event of an emergency? How long was the actual mission and how long would it have taken them to inspect the craft? If they thought that something was wrong right after lift-off, the shuttle could have been checked as soon as it was in orbit. If any damage was found NASA could work out an alternate re-entry, prep and launch a rescue mission, all whilst Columbia continued its mission.

          • Yes, if they thought something was seriously wrong right after liftoff (which they checked, and concluded nothing serious had happened), it is possible to get a second shuttle up in the time of the mission if everything went on schedule with that second launch.
        • As I understand it, the shuttle always comes in at the "minimal" approach in a normal re-entry.

          I did recently learn that there is one more option in NASA's toolkit, and that is to bring the shuttle down sideways.(!) Unfortunatly, this is expected to render the shuttle unlandable, requiring the astronauts to bail out, and leaving them with little chance of survival.

          Obviously, this is a tough call to make for ground control. Maybe a visual inspection would have caused them to make that desision. Maybe not. (I wouldn't want to second guess any descisions made by ground control.)

      • What would have stopped them from, e.g. getting another shuttle up,

        Lack of time. The time necessary to get one of the other shuttles put back together and on the launchpad would have been longer than Columbia's atmospheric systems could have lasted.

        stopping by the space station, etc.?

        Lack of fuel. You can't just point the nose to the left and coast over to another orbit.

    • You mean they couldn't have sent another shuttle up to get them?

      Or had them come back with the Russians from the International Space Station?
    • And, they weren't in the right orbit to make it to the space station.

      Not only that, but they didn't even have the docking adapter to connect to the ISS if they could have reached it. So even if they did know about the damage, the choice would have been, stay in orbit and suffocate as tha air ran out, or attempt re-entry and risk rapid incineration.

      Two bad choices is as bad as no choice at all.
      • OK, I've not seen the numbers on what sort of delta-v was required for a rendevous, and what was available, has anyone actually got hard number on this?

        Secondly, docking isn't necessary to transfer crew, there's always 2 EVA suits on board and since challenger every crew member has an Advanced Crew Escape suit which is a partial pressure suit designed to work at 'up to 100,000 feet' - that's 1% of sea level pressure. In theory a fast transfer through a vacume could be made with the assistance of an astronaut in an EVA suit.... oxygen starvation is the main problem here.

        So... if someone has a nice dynamic analysis which shows that the navigation for a rendezvous would be impossible then I'd be happy.
        • Partial Orbital Elements for the ISS:
          Semi-major axis: 6763km (alt. ~392km, or 250mi)
          inclination: 51.55deg

          Orbital data for SS (from press release):
          Altitude: 178mi
          inclination: 39deg

          So, we have a LOT of altitude to make up and an orbital inclination change of 12.55 deg is going to take a LOT of oomph! (a 1deg change of inclination costs you fuel equal to 9% of your mass). At first glance, that just wouldn't work. Not the nice analysis you were looking for, but it seems like a waste of effort.
          • Yep the OMS has a total mission delta-v of only 1000 fps, so definately out of luck.

            Really the various space agencies shold get together and create a number of standards for inter-vehicle supply transfer. You know - standardised fittings and transfer pressures so that you can take a standard pump and transfer oxygen and other 'standard' supplies from one vehicle to another.

            So.... in the case where it was decided that a vehicle was too damaged to survive reentry it would be possible to send up something like a progress module and at the very least restock essential supplies. Of course... without a manipulator arm it would be extermely hard to rendezvous.... just not impossible.

            Fuel would probably not be a good idea simply because there are many different propellant types. but at the very least you cover hydrogen, oxygen and water - so at least you can keep the crew alive and the fuel cells running. Then the crew settles down for a month or so that it takes to put a full rescue mission together. For a crew of 7 you'd need at least russian launches

            It's probably cheaper to keep a russian (or european) rocket on standby than it is to keep a shuttle tooled up.

            They've already agreed on a standard docking mechanism. Then again maybe the extra weight of the umbilical connction points would add too much weight to justify it.

    • It's about increasing options. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @05:43PM (#5226417)
      The Progress cargo vessel that docked with the ISS was sent up 1 day after the Shuttle crash with supplies.

      If they had known a *week* beforehand that the shuttle was not going to survive re-entry, is there not a *POSSIBILITY* that an emergency cargo / docking ring change could have taken place, the launch recalculated and sent into a Columbia-compatible orbit? Bring at least some of the shuttle crew down in Progress (maybe all if possible) then attempt to bring the Shuttle in on autopilot?

      The shuttle would have had enough supplies to last for another couple of days for this rendezvous to take place - landing delays are frequent events anyway because of bad weather.

      Anyway, it's something to think about for the future - it's obvious that there is a need for emergency response options with any future space travel.

      Also: WHY are all docking rings on manned spacecraft not compatible? Standards like that will save lives in future, dammit.
      • Jeez man, this isn't Star Trek. How would progress have made it back to Earth? It doesn't have a heat shield. How would progress have docked with the shuttle? No docking ring. How would the astronauts have changed the docking ring? No tools or training. It takes a whole crew of people a long time on the ground to do it.

        And even if all that stuff had been made available, how would you have fit the progress into the shuttle? Solar panels can't fit, plus you had a cargo bay full of experiments that can't be released from the shuttle.

        Even the most spectacular rescue in space - Apollo 13 - had the benefit of some planning before the launch of the mission. The use of the LEM as a contingency lifeboat had been considered before. With Columbia, there's nothing at all that could be done.

        BTW, if you had put a big barge of superglue and tinfoil out in the middle of the Atlantic waiting for the Titanic to hit the iceberg, it still would have gone down. Just being sarchastic there.

        • I'm sure with lives depending on it, they'd have figured out a way to offload supplies from progress, even if it required spacewalking and carrying them in by hand, no docking required. It might even be possible to grapple progress with the arm. I'm certain that the worst possible outcome of trying would be better than certain death.

          The real problem is that there may have been no visible sign of trouble whatsoever.

          • Supplies carried inside won't help the shuttle at all. The reaction control thrusters couldn't be refuled from inside. The hydrazine for the APU's can't be refueled. The hydrogen and oxygen that power the fuel cells can't be replaced except on the ground. The progress can't carry those types of consumables on board.

            So, with lives depending on it, they wouldn't have been able to figure out anything at all. The supplies that they needed to live weren't coffee and boxes of twinkies.

            • Never underestimate the importance of coffee and twinkies!

              More seriously, I was thinking of oxygen candles and hot packs like they used on Mir when it's systems were down. Extreme power conservation, allow the attitude to go out of normal tolerance to conserve the thrusters, that sort of thing. I'm not claiming that it would have been easy or at all pleasant, but things could have been done to buy time.

              • I repeat: the things in orbit that needed the supplies weren't people. The things in orbit that need supplies are spacecraft. Oxygen candles won't keep your fuel cells fed, and the thrusters don't even use oxygen.

                • I am aware of that. If the objective is to keep the crew alive until a rescue can be performed, providing them with enough oxygen and heat is a good idea. By the time you get to that point, the craft itself is already written off.

          • If the Progress could be given enough fuel to reach the orbiter, they could not have used the arm to grapple it, or to ditch the science modules. They didn't anticipate needing the arm, so, just like the docking rings, they didn't mount it this time around.

            It was at a lab in Southern Ontario, getting preventive maintenance.

            • I had only realised that later. In that case, they would have needed another way to get the supplies in. It would come down to tethered spacewalk after depressurizing the cabin (with non eva crew in the rescue balls (presuming they still carry those). Hardly ideal, but given the alternative, even unattractive options start looking good.

        • I think there are such contingency plans now as well. Maybe none would have worked. However, CNN and MSNBC are reporting a 1994 report anticipating this exact problem with the insulation causing loss of ship and crew. I'm sure the chances were better if they had tried. It sounds like perhaps the best thing would have been to change the reentry path, to relieve pressure on the left side. The temperature in the tire well had raised 30-40 degrees, instead of the regular 15 or so, but that's still not much. If there was no protection at all it would have been a lot hotter. So we are talking a crack perhaps? So maybe they had a chance by taking it easy on that wing. (?)
          • The reentry path is already optimized to minimize heat loads on the vehicle. It cannot be optimized more to lessen the heat, so that option is right out.

            The temperature in the wheel well did go up about 60 degrees in the last 5 minutes, but nobody believes that caused the disaster. The 60 degree rise in the wheel well was just a symptom of a far greater rise of hundreds or thousands of degrees somewhere else, close by. That's what caused the structural damage.

            This whole thread is all about people saying "NASA could do this or that and pull off a miracle". Very sadly, there were no more rabbits left in the hat. I am a little dismayed that people don't seem to know as much as they should about how our spacecraft work. I'm by no means an expert, but shooting holes in these crazy rescue theories is easy work. Too easy - it shows that people just don't take enough of an interest in one of the most important things we do to learn about the technology. At least nobody in this thread has suggested that instead of landing on Earth where there's an atmosphere, they should have landed on the moon instead, where Buzz and Neil could have picked them up...
            • This sort of defaitism is certainly not what is needed to keep us going for the stars. Why do you feel the need to shoot holes in rescue theories? With the long mission time, if the shuttle would have been checked for damage right away, NASA would have had a long time (two weeks + how long spare oxygen/supplies would have lasted) to get a shuttle up to rendezvous with Colombia: 1: evacuate the crew by making an opening (yes, cutting up the hull to get the astronauts up is a viable option, despite your follow-the-book attitude) and before you mention missing space-suits, a vacuum proof tunnel would surely have been able to be constructed in a few weeks, not to mention the protection given by the evacuation suits. 2: repair the damages More options: yes, there was no robot arm to attach a tether to, but once again, ever heard of improvisation? glue hooks to attach the tether to in order to reach the damaged area or make the re-entry at an even lower angle, interrupting research projectsand use friggin two weeks to lower speed and drop altitude --- People like you make me depressed, you troll through positive ideas that might, if implemented, save lives in the future. Instead you shoot them down with your theories that are even more far-fetched than many of the ideas suggested. I am sorry, the book can not be followed in all situations.
              • This sort of defaitism is certainly not what is needed to keep us going for the stars. Why do you feel the need to shoot holes in rescue theories?

                Defiatism? It's called opposing complete stupidity born of ignorance. Opposing stupidity will get us to the stars.

                I'm not shooting holes in rescue theories, I'm demolishing speculation that is based on people's ignorance of how the space shuttle works. In a technical forum, I think it's a bad sign that in this entire thread, there's only one person who came up with a good argument, which obviously is the result of his understanding how space vehicles work. That was the person who suggested that the shuttle could fly in a way that could favor the left wing, at the expense of the right wing. It might be possible, and I think it was an intelligent suggestion.

                Here's what's wrong with your ideas:

                NASA would have had a long time (two weeks + how long spare oxygen/supplies would have lasted) to get a shuttle up to rendezvous with Colombia

                This flabbergasts me completely. The next shuttle couldn't have been launched less than a week later, no matter how many people you put on it.

                evacuate the crew by making an opening (yes, cutting up the hull to get the astronauts up is a viable option

                This shows ignorance of the spacecraft. Get a photo of the shuttle that shows the door under the cabin. It has a big sign on it that says "rescue". You wouldn't have suggested cutting a hole in the hull if you knew that the rescue hatch has an explosive to blow it off the shuttle. No need to cut anything. And you also didn't seem to know that the hatch can just be opened up the old fashioned way.

                follow-the-book attitude

                Whatever. I'm following reality. Some things are possible, and some things are not.

                vacuum proof tunnel would surely have been able to be constructed in a few weeks

                Where would the tunnel mount to? And the shuttle didn't have a few weeks of supplies either.

                two weeks to lower speed and drop altitude

                This shows ignorance of orbital mechanics. Lower orbits are higher speed.

                People like you make me depressed, you troll through positive ideas that might, if implemented, save lives in the future. Instead you shoot them down with your theories that are even more far-fetched than many of the ideas suggested. I am sorry, the book can not be followed in all situations.

                And people who are ignorant of how our most important space vehicles work depress me. You call me a troll, then you say that I have far-fetched theories. Well, what theories have I put forward? None. I'm just pointing out that a lot of people here are flashing their ignorance all over the place every time they open their mouths.

                Except for that one person that I mentioned above.

                • I do not claim to be an expert on anything. Most self-proclaimed experts tend to have something to hide, so I avoid it. Flabbergasted? I do not know all facts, but what I have read NASA would have had Atlantis ready in that time, judging from the answers from the recent Q/A sessions. I guess you know better than NASA, in which case I give up. The shuttle didnt have a feew weeks of supplies? So they starved during their entire mission and all missions start with no extra supplies? Give me a break. I almost do not want to discuss your other "facts", including, i quote "Lower orbits are higher speed." the point is not to maintain orbit, but to lower speed. There are different angles of ascent, and the ascent used by Colombia is most likely a compromise of many factors. If you can prove that it was the one that would have caused the absolutely least heat and stress, then you have taught me something. meanwhile i believe that given a longer time, the ascent would have been less stressfull to the wing. And you are entitled to your opinion or knowledge. I would very much like to learn, if you have the facts straight :)
                  • I am skeptical of your desire to learn, given the little jabs you put into your reply.

                    The shuttle didnt have a feew weeks of supplies? Give me a break.

                    I will not. Ignorance deserves no break.

                    i quote "Lower orbits are higher speed." the point is not to maintain orbit, but to lower speed

                    Your suggestion was to reduce speed and orbit over a two week period. That's an orbit. If you're not maintaining an orbit, then you're on the ground in about 1 hour. Therefore, if you said that you were reducing speed over a two week time period, you are talking about an orbit.

                    There are different angles of ascent, and the ascent used by Colombia is most likely a compromise of many factors.

                    Everytime you open your mouth... nevermind. Ascent is when you go up.

            • defaitist quote: > The reentry path is already optimized to minimize heat loads on the vehicle. > It cannot be optimized more to lessen the heat, so that option is right out. On what do you base this? Given two weeks of braking at a lower angle, turning the shuttle around to fire main engines in the reverse direction etc, do you not believe the speed would have been reduced? This in combination with a lower angle ascent would have taken load off the wing. You are probably basing your arguments on an earlier NASA statement that the shuttles are already brought down at an angle that optimizes their life-time. That angle is most probably based on an economical, safety and mission-time compromise. I am sorry, but I would skip all economical aspects, ignore the experiments and start the slow ascent. And by skipping the experiments, and using the spare supplies, I could not care if I stayed in space 3 weeks instead of 2, as long as I get home safely. I am sorry if this doesn't follow the book, but YOU are right out.
              • The other person who responded to this came up with some good arguments, so I left his intelligent comments stand at that.

                Now, let's get to yours:

                Given two weeks of braking at a lower angle, turning the shuttle around to fire main engines in the reverse direction etc, do you not believe the speed would have been reduced?

                A 60 second burn of the OMS reduces the shuttle speed by 50 miles an hour. The idea that the shuttle can fire the main engines in orbit is absurd, because there's no fuel for them. Furthermore, the more you slow down, the *greater* the angle into the atmosphere will be. That would cause the energy of orbit to be dissipated in a shorter amount of time, causing heat loads to be even greater. If you slow down too much even a perfect orbiter will burn up.

                Also, two weeks of braking wouldn't do anything. Do you know orbital mechanics? Things in a lower orbit require a higher speed, not a lower one. Either you're going to lower your orbit, or you're going to re-enter. You are implying that the shuttle will go into a lower orbit over two weeks time to reduce energy, but that would have the opposite effect.
                • Yes, a lower orbit requires a higher speed, obviously. But I am not talking of maintaining orbit, I am talking of reducing speed gradually over a extended period of time. There are alternatives to pointing the nose down. I quote you: "Things in a lower orbit require a higher speed, not a lower one." Ehh, I was talking of lowering the speed. "Either you're going to lower your orbit, or you're going to re-enter" Lowering orbit gradually at the same time as letting the drag lower the speed over time would reduce the speed without having to lower the speed where the atmosphere is dense, in a shorter time = less heat, less stress.
                  • Will you do me a favor and look up the delta-V on the Shuttle OMS engines? What you'll find out is that the difference between maintaining orbit and reentering is very very small.

                    Once you drop about 200 miles an hour from your speed, you're going to be on the ground in one hour. The idea that you can lower your speed over a long period of time by atmospheric braking just shows ignorance of how orbits work.
            • The reentry path is already optomized to minimize heat loads on the vehicle. It cannot be optimized more to lessen the heat...

              Is it possible to choose a different reentry scheme when you suspect the orbiter has sustained life-threatening damage?

              Just because I heard some guy on TV assert this doesn't make it true. But you seem to be dismissing the idea too easily.

              IIRC he said the current reentry program is optomized land the orbiter in a way that prevents as much wear and tear on the shuttle as possible.

              He suggested that if someone in authority had decided that the orbiter had passed some damage threshold that it presented too much danger to the crew to follow the standard program, then it should follow a program that designed to try to preserve the lives of the crew, even if it ruined the shuttle.

              The standard program was designed to equalize the wear and tear on the two wings. As the left wing slowly started to fail, it experienced more drag. Uncorrected, this would have made it trail the right hand wing, subjecting it to more than its share of friction. Under the standard program, this was a condition that needed to be corrected. The orbiter first used its elevons to shove that lazy left hand wing back to receive an equal share of friction. And when that didn't prove sufficient, the orbiter used its maneuvering and orientation jets.

              In retrospect, let me suggest, this was a mistake.

              Let me suggest there is an envelope of stability for the shuttles orientations. The talking head on the TV suggested it would be possible for the shuttle to enter in a slightly skewed orientation that favoured the left wing and had more stress put on the undamaged right wing.

              We don't know how badly damaged the wing was. We don't know whether this would have saved the crew. In retrospect, wouldn't it have been worth trying?

              I heard someone talking about the tiles, and "soak-through". If I understood him properly the tiles are rated to protect the underlying skin of the shuttle from the heat of re-entry for a specific maximum duration. If I understood him properly a re-entry prolonged beyond this point would allow heat to soak through to the aluminum, eventually damaging it. I think he said this damage would occur after the shuttle landed.

              Well shit, that would have been worth it, wouldn't it? Maybe you could spray the tiles with fire hoses, to cool them off, even if heat shock made them shatter. If the underlying structural elements don't warp too much, you can always glue on another $100,000,000 worth of tiles.

              No, we don't know if this would have helped. We don't even know, for sure, why the orbiter failed. But, I hope that if they don't abandon the shuttles, they change the rules to allow for emergency re-entry programs.

              With the puny processing power of the time it didn't seem feasible to have a sensor for each tile. But wouldn't it be possible today?

              • I was just going to let this comment stand all by itself, but the sheer ignorance on this thread compels me to point out that YOUR comment stands apart from the others. It's intelligent and shows an in-depth understanding of how the space shuttle works. I've been pointing out silly ideas, and it's only fair that I point out that your idea has some good thought behind it.
      • It's theoretically possible that they might have been able to send supplies up to the Shuttle to last till they could send the next Shuttle up.

        However, the Progress is designed to go to the orbital plane of the ISS, not the Shuttle, and it is unclear whether enough supplies could have provided to last till the next Shuttle could have been sent up.

        The Progress has no heat shield, and is not manrated.

        But there didn't seem to be any significant problem, no measures could be taken.

      • Columbia, if i recall correctly, had no docking ring for the space station anyways - there would have been spacewalks involved, at high speeds, and im not sure how much fuel, if any, the shuttle has after the EFT seperates, but i'm sure it's not enough to switch orbits. It's nice to theorize though..

      • WHY are all docking rings on manned spacecraft not compatible? Standards like that will save lives in future, dammit.
        Actually I believe there is a de facto standard. In fact, that's how our shuttles were able to attach to the Mir a few years back without much modification. It turns out that the Russians had stolen some designs from us and used the exact same docking mechanism. :)

        Anyway, the problem was that Columbia wasn't fitted with the docking ring because there was no need to dock with the ISS.

        • Did you ever see the movie Marooned? [imdb.com]

          An American spacecraft breaks in LEO. The can't initiate re-entry. Big rush-rush at Kennedy to ready a rescue mission. But it looks like all is in vain, bad weather prevents the launch. However, a plucky cosmonaut passes by, just in time, and silently tosses them some extra oxygen.

          At the time the Russians and the Americans couldn't dock with one another.

          My recollection is that Nixon and Breshnev, or reasonable equivalent, discussed the film, and not-only agreed on the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz mission mentioned on the movie's web-site, but that they also agreed to co-operate to retain the ability to dock with one another's vessels.

          So, are you sure the Soviets stole the design?

    • If it wouldn't have helped at all to have visuals of the damage in orbit, why on earth are we spending millions gathering debris to reconstruct what happened? A visual inspection, if it had been possible, could have potentially removed a lot of doubt about what really happened, even if it couldn't have saved the shuttle. It could have also given the astronauts a chance to assess their odds of survival and given them more time to say farewell to their families. Depressing maybe, but certainly pragmatic and humane.
      • It wouldn't have helped since that shuttle was already in orbit and had nowhere else to go.

        Figuring out the cause of the problem allows NASA to fix any design or procedural problems which led to the crash BEFORE another shuttle goes up.

        Doug
        • > Figuring out the cause of the problem allows NASA to fix any design or procedural problems

          Drumroll please, he got it. Now wouldn't it have been nice to have actual pictures of the wing damage, so that we can reduce the amount of speculation about whether it was the wing or the computer or whatever. No, it wouldn't have saved the shuttle or astronauts, but that's not what we're talking about here at all. As it is we may never know the cause, and chances of deducing anything from any remaining wing shards are pretty slim.
    • I think the main issue theyre trying to convey is the fact that it would of been nice to find out what really happened soas to plan to make it NEVER happen again. A screw up re-entering earth's atmosphere is a death sentence, at least you can send some data back to relay what went wrong to save a bunch of people time in the aftermath.

    • Re:No, it wouldn't... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MonopolyNews ( 646464 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @05:50PM (#5226482) Homepage Journal
      Apollo 13 didn't have the right materials to survive either.

    • Re:No, it wouldn't... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by adolf ( 21054 ) <flodadolf@gmail.com> on Wednesday February 05, 2003 @04:23AM (#5229818) Journal
      My girlfriend's car has some sort of suspension problem. I haven't found what it is because I haven't looked, but I hear it clunking somewhere near the right-front wheel sometimes on bumps and ABS stops on snow. It started sometime after she pinwheeled off the road, through a shallow ditch, and into someone's front yard, some months ago.

      I just tell her to ignore it. After all, I don't have a garage, let alone equipment and supplies to repair it. There's a good chance that it's just something rather benign, like a sway-bar mount, anyhow. Besides, the car drives just fine - it's just got some new noises.

      OTOH, there's also a chance that it's a ball joint or other critical, non-redundant component. A part which has catastrophic failure modes that include loss of power, braking, and steering, and present an opportunity for a screaming, cartwheeling death.

      But, like I said: Since I don't know for sure that it's something important, I'll just assume that it's not and hope things turn out OK for her and our 2-year-old.

      It won't make much difference. Out of sight, out of mind - it's a Zen thing. Everyone really is better off by not looking at it and identifying the problem - ignorance is blissful like that.

      [Translation for the sarcasm-impaired: If the combination of a crew of bloody astronauts (already proven to be some of the most capable people in existance) and a multinational fleet of fucking rocket scientists can't figure out a way to hang 10 long enough to fix what was probably the spaceflight analog of my girlfriend's simple automotive suspension problem, I'll eat my hat.

      But first, they need to be able to identify potential difficulties; this microsat gizmo might be just the ticket to avoid doing a spacewalk equivilent of the terrestrial walkaround that everyone's supposed to do before they get in their car and start driving.

      They go over everything with a magnifying glass, fine-tooth comb, and sliderule before liftoff. How much would it really cost to give a cursory look at stuff before re-entry, especially when potential problems are already known to exist?

      Worse case is that it's really, really unfixable and they end up ditching the shuttle by burning it up over the Pacific, but that's really no big deal - simple money will build more of them. Things might get cramped, but I'd bet there's enough room and food on ISS for a few extra bodies to get cozy and play blackjack for a couple of weeks as the Russians figure out how to caravan the extra heads back home, and we scratch our collective asses, wondering why we didn't send a couple of tubes of JB Weld along on the last mission.]

    • ...now NASA is developing pretty decent theories about what happened, but they anticipate that it may be impossible to get to the root cause. The pieces of debris they need most may be either burned up or hopelessly lost between Eastern California and Texas. So the shuttles are grounded awaiting a much more difficult root cause determination.

      OTOH, had Space Station construction gone more according to plan...

      * There were plans for a Hab module, so that they could accomodate more than the three people necessary for bare maintenance. They might've even been able to do some decent science work.
      * There were plans for a crew rescue vehicle, to overcome Soyuz lifetime problems and get the larger crew down.
      * There were plans for an 'orbital tug' that was meant to do short intra-orbital missions based from the space stations.

      All were cut. The combination of all three just might have made a difference, in the current situation. To temper that, I don't know what schedule those three pieces were on. They might not have been in place by now, even with funding.

      As-is, the space station is essentially useless. The only good we get out of it is that we are learning something about space construction and maintenance, and maybe someday we can send the goodies up and make the thing really useful. That future hasn't been ruled out, which it would be if we shut it down
  • My understanding (from a NY Times article if I recall right) is that NASA did not even try to inspect Columbia with several powerful ground-based telescopes (which had been used to inspect some earlier shuttles).

    A better tool ain't no cure for "talked yourself out of bothering to try".
    • ground-based telescopes (which had been used to inspect some earlier shuttles). Those pictures had very poor resolution, so they were useless. This little bird takes pictures from a fe feet away. BIG difference!
    • ...that's what's suspicious to me as well, their failure to inspect from the ground, despite knowing that chunk 0 crap blew off and smacked into the wing. I don't think it was an oversight. Granted, I have a suspicious nature as well. The whole thing smells to me.

      And I have zero confidence in any government "investigation", not after the OKC blast, the TWA 800 dog and pony show CIA cartoon "science", and especially the WTC 9-11 attacks. Especially those.

      I originally started questioning government "reality" after kennedy (JFK) got whacked and the warren commission report. I was a teen then and it just stank, it was dismal, no idea why most adults back then swallowed that fairy tale tripe. Since then, I take government official pronouncements (tonkin gulf attack is another biggee) with several large handfuls of salt. For a lot of historical reality, it takes decades for any sort of "true facts" to come out, by then, it's on to new stuff, no one cares that much. The Pearl Harbor "sneak attack" is another one that if the reality of the situation was known back then, would have greatly changed history.

      Anyone's MMV of course.
      • I don't think that terrorist investigations have any relevance to this. The relevant study to compare it is the Rogers commission from when Challenger blew up. And that definitely was quality work, and I have confidence that this one can be the same.
        • > And that definitely was quality work, and I
          > have confidence that this one can be the same.

          Yes indeed, autopsy over prevention. Helps every time.
          • Autopsy leads to prevention, moron. Or don't you think they fixed the O rings back in '86?
            • They did not "FIX" the O-rings, they decided that they can't launch in cold weather. The fix is to spend millions of dollars holding up the launch of a multi Billion spacecraft over a 50 dollar piece of rubber. Nothing was "fixed" because of the Challenger, we just adjusted our capability to our technological weakest link.
              • Actually, there were innumerable changes and improvements to the shuttle design made after the Challenger disaster, especially to the solid boosters. The old booster joint was a simple tongue-in-groove construction that depended entirely on its two O-rings to contain the products of combustion. The new design is tongue-in-tongue with, as I recall three O-rings. In addition there is a flexible "flap" that covers the joint internally so the hot combustion gases don't impinge on the O-rings. As for the cold problem, there are now heaters in the SRB joints, precisely to ward off freeze damage.

                Here's a link [nasa.gov] to some SRB technical documentation, very good reading for the engineer types.

                There is much more documentation available at this site pertaining to all of the shuttle's systems for the those interested.

                • I didn't notice that I wrote tongue-in-tongue, which makes no sense whatsoever:-) That should read clevis-in-clevis, I guess I was thinking tongue-in-groove construction.

                  Here's another link [nasa.gov]detailing the booster improvements.

                • I was reading this thread a week late but was hoping that someone would counter the claim that no changes were made. Thank you for trying to stomp out the little fire of un-truth in that post.
            • > Autopsy leads to prevention

              Obviously not in the case of NASA. Autopsy seems to be an end all of its own.
        • --that was the point of my post, to show that commonly held beliefs have oft times been proven to be quite wrong after a large amount of time has passed, effectively neutralising what effects the real data might have cuased had said data been available at the time. "thinking and knowing"-two different things. Like my reference to pearl harbor, I'd say well over 99.999% of the US people thought we had "no warning" and it was a "sneak attack" so we had to "go to war" based on that. Now that that "data" and "thinking" can be shown to be mostly false, you have to wonder what would have changed.

          Similar to what is "terrorism" and who is responsible for what. You won't really know with more certainty until perhaps decades from now who was telling the truth and who wasn't, and how events really came about. You and I may "think" something now, or that event A is not in any way related to event B, or it is, no matter, but we won't KNOW for perhaps a long, long time.

          When you are talking about global geopolitics,control over billions of people and trillions of dollars, merely telling lies and backing them up "officially" is the smallest act "governments" and large institutions do. The smallest. Obfuscations and linkages might not be evident at first, maybe only very small clues or hints.

          I take a very broad and large view of history and politics and the continuuing struggle of humans and their domination over one another. I tend to think we are all a lot more "predatory" and "not good" then what people are comfortable admiting to, from a personal scale to a global scale.

          History shows me that's a safe bet and viewpoint to take, it's so safe you can almost call it the default house odds.
      • I know that Slashdot is rife with conspiracy theorists but, I don't think I've seen a single one lay out quite so many conspiracies at once. It seems that you live in a frightening world. I for one would be paralyzed with fear.

        Remember, just because you are paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you.
        • --if you will re read my post, you'll see that what was "theory" turned out to be "data" after historical inspection. That's why I used those examples. What you may make of that is your business. What's "freakier" is that so many people-yourself for example-refuse to learn from history, and refuse to consider that you might have an incorrect belief system that might be based on purposeful actions and manipulated media press releases and pronouncements. If the concept of the "big lie" didn't work, there wouldn't be so many examples of it in past history to reflect upon.

          How the latest shuttle disaster might play out in the long run, I do not know, no idea whatsoever. But I reject the notion that you, or anyone else posting on this website, has all the data on which to base an immediate assumption as to "the facts" surrounding this case.. I don't, nor do you, other than there's dead people and a large craft smashed on the ground.

          Like I said, my default position is that when it comes to matters of extreme importance, that governments more often than not will lie, and lie so quickly and casualy that it is an endemic and ingrained part of their "jobs". You or anyone else may go blithely along and "believe in" each and every official government pronouncement, I will remain content to wait and see how matters shake out, and add to the data mix and adjust my position accordingly as new data gets added. The only thing I hold as carved in stone is that nothing really IS carved in stone, especially on very recent occurrences such as this disaster. I learned my lesson on "trust" with government and the media and "popular opinion" a long time ago.
      • Anyone's MMV of course.
        No, EVERYONE'S MMV.

        -1, Dork
    • According to this article [space.com]:

      "NASA did not attempt to examine Columbia's left wing with high-powered telescopes on the ground, 180 miles below, or with spy satellites. The last time NASA tried that, to check Discovery's drag-chute compartment during John Glenn's shuttle flight in 1998, the pictures were of little use, [shuttle program manager Ron] Dittemore said. Besides, he said, `'there was zero we could have done about it.' "

      The article discusses other options and why they wouldn't have worked. Recommended reading....

  • Yeow (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Bob Vila's Hammer ( 614758 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @04:51PM (#5225969) Homepage Journal
    Yah, there's nothing like hindsight is there...
  • Seven brave, doomed astronauts orbiting the Earth, the trearful public farewells, the painful choices between risking near certain death in re-entry, eventual suffication in orbit, or volentary suicide. I can't imagine anything worse. At least they died happy.

  • Yes. (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Anybody ever see that show on Discovery three years ago, before they turned into the 'boring repeat channel'?
    They had a one hour show on cold war technologies, one segment on powerful lasers for launching small devices. This laser had a square output beam, was focusable, and was used to launch this little metal top.
    Anyways, I'm just rambling because I don't remember the name of the show, but one of the other things on that show was this *amazing* little device demonstrating an exotic propulsion system.
    This device was about a foot long, and had little rocket nozzles all over it. It used some sort of engine that works in bursts. The device was in a net, and there was a countdown. Suddenly, the thing rises on tiny bursts of flame, stabilizes at some altitude. Just watching this thing rise with the tch-tch-tch-tch-tch-tch sound was amazing enough, but suddenly more jets activate, and the thing just ROLLS and floats sideways in the air.
    This thing was the most maneuverable thing I'd ever seen. It had been designed to float in space and ram itself into enemy satelites.
    It must have been very light. Just slap a camera on one of these and keep one on every Shuttle mission. I can't imagine anything being smaller and cheaper than this.
    Oberg's idea of getting an astronaut out there, have the Shuttle maneuvre and have the astronaut basically in free-fall next to the Shuttle is last-ditch, IMHO.
  • Let's look at this on its own merits. This is really cool and could lead to great stuff. Imagine doing on-orbit inspection, repair, refueling and upgrades to other satellites!
  • At the first quick glance, I though the title read "Microsoft Tested in Orbit"... Now there's a frightening thought, especially after what happened to the shuttle; Gives BSOD a whole new meaning -_-|||

  • they weren't in the right orbit to make it to the space station. colombia couldnt go to the space station, because its heavier then the later space shuttles it was deemed that comumbia couldnt and shouldnt go, it'd probably damage it or something, and i think also becuase it was never supposed to go there is no way of connecting to ISS but i could be wrong there. sorry but columbia was f%cked, and there is nothing a mini satilite could have done to stop it now is not the time for what if, it happend, 7 excellent human beings lost there lives in the shit scariest job going. hats off to them

Slashdot Top Deals

"Money is the root of all money." -- the moving finger

Close