Updated Information On Columbia Shuttle Tragedy 1321
Thanks to all the readers who have sent links related to today's shuttle disaster. An Associated Press story carried on Salon says that an independent board (with members from the Air Force, Navy, Transportation Department and other federal agencies) has been appointed to investigate the disaster. CNN is carrying official statement from President Bush. Rediff.com has an article on the life of Indian astronaut Kalpana Chawla. borisonanovitch points to "more info on the science aboard Columbia and links to other NASA research." fabel reminds us "Most of the media is focusing on the slight damage that ocurred at takeoff (that NASA discounted at the time) but STS-107 was *delayed* for 6 months (original launch date 19 Jul 2003) Update: 02/01 23:51 GMT by T : [Note, should read "2002."] because of
cracks in the propellant feed lines to the 3 main engines. A defect that could have caused catastrophic failure. Did the fix work or not?"
God Bless them all (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's not about God - it's the stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
I had this frined, in a wheelchair. People used to come up to him and tell him how "brave" he was. It really pissed him off. It's really self-serving to tell some poor guy whose legs dont work that he's brave. Even if he is. All it does is make *you* feel good that you have compassion for others. I think it's the same with calling (insert victims of tragedy here) "heroes".
But if you're gonna pick someone in today's world to call "hero", astronaut is probably a pretty good choice. They're very disciplined, highly trained, responsible people. It's really really hard to become an astronaut and they dedicate (sometimes) their whole lives to it.
Re:It's not about God - it's the stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
There's always the question of "fairness". What if no celebrity gets the disease YOU have? But Reeve has been piping up and making noise about the religious suppression of medical research, and this helps all sorts of disabled people.
Re:The commitment and risks makes them heros (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet you wouldn't drive your car much if those were the odds, and if you only had a 98% chance of surviving an airplane trip, you wouldn't see nearly as many business trips.
Assuming you'd die every 1 in 50 trips with your car, if you were lucky, you might make it safely through your daily commute for 2-3 months before the odds caught up with you.
I'm wondering if life insurance companies would even write a policy on an Astronaut. I'm betting the answer is no.
Astronauts work their asses off for most of their lives to get one of the hardest and most competitive jobs ever in human history. How many people have gone in to space? 100? That's a pretty elite club, demanding not only technical skills, intelligence, but a tremendous amount of patience and discipline over the course of several years.
In short, they are heroes, they risk their lives on a glorious adventure, and do real science that benefits all of mankind.
The fact that many people would be willing to go to space doesn't diminish the courage of those who do, there's a hell of a lot more to it than just hopping into the rocket, this is something these people have worked towards for decades.
Why'd This Get Modded Up? (Score:5, Insightful)
they were not "heroes" - they knew the risks
Soooo....Understanding the risks of your actions excludes your actions from being considered heroic? Wow, that's truly 'insightful.' And I thought most people would *define* heroism that way.
Yeah, lots of people say they would go, but these people have dedicated their lives to advancing the engineering and life sciences, and they did indeed know the risks that went with this.
*That's* the difference between the family of four that's killed on the way to church by a drunk and this disaster; these people knowlingly took the risk of dying for humanity. And don't give me crap about glory and money -- the Astronaut program pays a salary of approximately $40-$75k, the range of a decent sysadmin. And not everyone makes as much as Glenn on the tour circuit.
And yes, you could then argue that military deaths are equally as notable and noble, and at that point I would agree that the sensationalism of the vehicle and its history come into play. But for Christ's sake, these people were amongst the brightest and highest performing individuals on Earth--many would have articles and books written about them if they'd grown old and died of *natural* causes, let alone a horrific death at 200,000 feet. To say nothing of the loss humanity takes as we take one giant leap backward before crawling back to where we were yesterday.
As for cheap replacements, my dear god you must not be a design engineer. Why don't you go read about some fundamentals of aerospace and CMM level 5 coding practices, and THEN come back and talk with the big boys. This ain't no P2P software or Tivo hardware we're talking about.
Sorry to everyone else for the rant -- but jesus I'm so tired of ignorant people opining on topics of which they are clearly ignorant. 'Insightful' my ass.
Re:God Bless them all (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's the problem with news in America, and the attitude of most Americans:
Person 1: Did you hear about the space shuttle tragedy?
Person 2: Yes, I did, it was horrible, my heart goes out to them and I said three prayers for them and their families last night.
Person 1: Me too, and I watched all day on CNN as they tracked down the family members to interview them. One of them even cried it was so touching..
Person 2: Yes, it was.
Person 1:
Person 2: Oh yeah, did you see the last episode of "Friends"? Wasn't it great!
Person 1: Yeah, did you remember when Chandler...
The media wants quick answers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The media wants quick answers (Score:5, Insightful)
Nasa probably has good working hypotheses right now, but they're reluctant to do anything but gather data right now. I believe it was Dittemore who was saying that they're strictly in a data gathering mode right now. To make assumptions about what happened would taint the investigation.
I can see what they're saying. They don't want to look for evidence to support their hypothesis, they want to objectively discover what happened.
To put it another way, they've said that the possibility exists that the damage to the wing during takeoff could have been a contributer to the tragedy. But they're not willing to commit to that until they have all their data gathered. They said that the sensors went out starting at the back of the wing and worked their way forward. The life-off damage happened to the front of the wing, so to start at the opposite side of the wing and to head forwards was wierd.
So yes, I think your statement is correct.
Re:The media wants quick answers (Score:5, Insightful)
They also said that the order of the sensors failing was no indication that the wing was destroyed from back to front. Keep in mind, the sensors were reading "off-scale low", ie no connection. If the temp sensors went offline due to destruction of the sensors themselves, one might expect them to read abnormally high values just before dropping offline. Most likely, the damage was happening at a wiring harness elsewhere.
They have a *lot* of data here, compared to Challenger. I think we'll have answers very soon.
Re:The media wants quick answers (Score:5, Interesting)
It would seem more likely that at this point they don't know what happened. If they knew what happened that would suggest they knew enough to fix it.
The Challenger disaster O ring problem only came to light several months after the disaster. And it took Dick Feynman's demonstration with the ice water for the theory to be accepted as fact. Before that NASA was claiming that the O rings were fine. Feynman had been tipped off by engineers who thought otherwise. It was not an accident he had very cold ice water to hand.
I doubt the fuel lines would have anything to do with disaster on re-entry. The orbiter has no fuel at that point. It is the famous flying brick.
Re:The media wants quick answers (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, it wasn't Dick Feynman's thesis. Dick himself acknowledged that General Kutyna (another member of the commission) tipped him off to this (rather blatantly, too).
O-rings -- did we learn? (Score:5, Insightful)
The O-ring problem was more insidious and reflected terribly on NASA. The engineers knew about the design defect from actual twisted and scorched O-rings recovered from previous flights. The failure of the O-rings to seat properly on booster ignition was exacerbated not created by cold temperature. The Challenger launch was about 20 below design spec limit of 53F.
NASA repeatedly disregarded the advice of the engineers who designed the system and issued itself waivers to fly well below the design temperature cutoff. The booster design could have been better, and now is, but it is false that the Challenger accident was what brought it to NASA's attention.
Here [wa.gov.au] is a brief account of the history as I have come to believe it occurred. There are many more thorough accounts.
This is not to dismiss Feynmann's role -- his insistence brought O-rings to the fore -- but whistleblower MT engineer Robert Boisjoly was complaining loudly long before the accident.
Why bring this up now? Because we're still hearing the sound bite that Challenger "was due to faulty design" which is true but kind of like saying the drunk died because of his faulty seat belt that didn't save him on hitting his seventh tree.
Challenger was a matter of time. The complex failures of management often set the stage for disaster, and I'm sure Columbia will be far more complex that "act of God."
I predict.... (Score:3, Interesting)
You heard it hear first.
Re:The media wants quick answers (Score:5, Informative)
They also toss some juicy quotes like: "The shuttle was built as a space truck, and then the International Space Station was built to give it something to do. Both programs are likely to suffer as a result of this disaster. " and "it's unlikely that NASA will undertake any further shuttle missions or any other manned space flights for the next two years."
Re:The media wants quick answers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The media wants quick answers (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The media wants quick answers (Score:3, Interesting)
(It was published on www.washingtonpost.com they took it down around 6:30 PM)
Columbia Streaks Toward Florida Landing
By Marcia Dunn
AP Aerospace Writer
Saturday, February 1, 2003; 8:28 AM
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- With security tighter than usual, space shuttle Columbia streaked toward a Florida touchdown Saturday to end a successful 16-day scientific research mission that included the first Israeli astronaut.
The early morning fog burned off as the sun rose, and Mission Control gave the seven astronauts the go-ahead to come home on time. "I guess you've been wondering, but you are 'go' for the deorbit burn," Mission Control radioed at practically the last minute.
Ilan Ramon, a colonel in Israel's air force and former fighter pilot, became the first man from his country to fly in space, and his presence resulted in an increase in security, not only for Columbia's Jan. 16 launch, but also for its landing. Space agency officials feared his presence might make the shuttle more of a terrorist target.
"We've taken all reasonable measures, and all of our landings so far since 9-11 have gone perfectly," said Lt. Col. Michael Rein, an Air Force spokesman.
Columbia's crew - Ramon and six Americans - completed all of their 80-plus experiments in orbit. They studied ant, bee and spider behavior in weightlessness as well as changes in flames and flower scents, and took measurements of atmospheric dust with a pair of Israeli cameras.
The 13 lab rats on board - part of a brain and heart study - had to face the guillotine following the flight so researchers could see up-close the effects of so much time in weightlessness. The insects and other animals had a brighter, longer future: the student experimenters were going to get them back and many of the youngsters planned to keep them, almost like pets.
All of the scientific objectives were accomplished during the round-the-clock laboratory mission, and some of the work may be continued aboard the international space station, researchers said. The only problem of note was a pair of malfunctioning dehumidifiers, which temporarily raised temperatures inside the laboratory to the low 80s, 10 degrees higher than desired.
Some of Columbia's crew members didn't want their time in space to end.
"Do we really have to come back?" astronaut David Brown jokingly asked Mission Control before the ride home.
NASA's next shuttle flight, a space station construction mission, is scheduled for March. The next time Columbia flies will be in November, when it carries into orbit educator-astronaut Barbara Morgan, who was the backup for Challenger crew member Christa McAuliffe in 1986.
© 2003 The Associated Press
Re:The media wants quick answers (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The media wants quick answers (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The media wants quick answers (Score:5, Funny)
Iraqi reactor (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The media wants quick answers (Score:5, Informative)
Weather in Florida.
Human Remains Found ?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Human Remains Found ?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Completely? I doubt it. They were inside a structure designed to handle those temperatures.
Re:Human Remains Found ?? (Score:5, Informative)
No they weren't. The Orbiter is built largely from very normal aluminium. The thermal protection is provided by tiles. There are two types of tiles: black and white. Only the black ones can stand the full temperature of re-entry, and they are placed over the nose and flat bottom of the craft. The white tiles on the top and sides can only deal with the lesser temeratures that leak around.
The shuttle re-enters "bottom first", not in a glide like an aircraft (that bit comes later). The black tiles on the flat bottom create the same effect as an Apollo or Soyuz capsule, and cause an area of ionisation which actually takes the brunt of the heat like a buffer.
So it requires fairly precise alignment to make the whole thing work. Once a wing rips off, the structure will tumble and rapidly decelerate. If there are organic remains, it is because the temperatures were not very high for very long, not because the crew were encased in something that was designed to withstand that temperature from any orientation.
Re:Human Remains Found ?? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Human Remains Found ?? (Score:3, Interesting)
Cox News Service
An East Texas high school was turned into a morgue as authorities collected the remains of astronauts from the doomed space shuttle Columbia.
Authorities said remains were being collected in an area between Hemphill and Jasper and taken to Hemphill High School. A local funeral home was assisting officials from the FBI and Defense Department in the grisly work.
One official said investigators were using a global positioning system to record where the remains were being found.
The remains -- which included an arm and a hand found near Chinquipin -- were part of the debris scattered across East Texas after the shuttle broke apart Saturday as it made its way towards a landing in Florida.
A flight helmet landed on James Couch's property near state Highway 103 and F.M. 1751 in San Augustine County. Couch kept guard over the helmet by setting up camp five feet away.
Couch said he and his family were eating breakfast when he heard something -- it turned out to be a piece of pipe -- hit the roof of his house.
"It didn't really scare me," Couch said. "A lot of people around here dynamite stumps on the weekend
Mica Miller was working on some equipment at his farm near Etoile when he heard some rumbling and noticed swirls of smoke in the sky. About two minutes later, he heard a swishing sound and saw that a large piece of debris had landed on a flatbed trailer 30 feet away.
"I'm devastated to see the aftermath of what just happened," Miller said.
Not Air Resistance (Score:3, Informative)
In any case, air resistance isn't what causes the really high temperatures. It's air compression. It's the same thing that allows refridgerators to work. When a gas is compressed it will get hotter, if it is expanded it will get cooler. That's also why spray cans get cold when you use them.
Propellant fix obviously worked (Score:5, Informative)
The landing is largely unpowered. The OMS engines are fired to slow down the orbiter for re-entry, and the RCS engines are used to adjust the attitude. The OMS and RCS engines do not use the hydrogen propellant lines that had the problems; the OMS and RCS engines use nitrogen tetroxide and monomethylhydrazine, which are hypergolic fuels (mix them together and they burn with no ignitor necessary).
Re:Propellant fix obviously worked (Score:3, Informative)
NASA... (Score:4, Insightful)
You can bet your ass that NASA is not going to say anything until they know for sure what the hell happend. The last thing they want to do at this point is put out something and have it bite them in the ass at this point.
Anything they release from this point forward is going to be beyond reproach because they can afford for something to errode any credibility.
They are going to be very very careful and very clear. It is really the only way to move foreward.
Red herring? (Score:5, Insightful)
OMS and RCS for dummies (Score:3, Informative)
The primary OMS/RCS structures are the forward RCS section and the two OBS/RCS pods in the aft section which contain the two OMS engines and RCS thrusters. The two OMS/RCS pods on the aft fuselage contain the OMS engines, RCS thrusters, fuel, pressurization system and associated distribution and control systems.
What probably went wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow-- someone who knows the STS architecture
I think that there is a likely chance that what occured was that the foam which struck the left wing during launch probably caused enough damage to the ceramic tiles on the left wing to cause substantial structural heating, tire failure, and hydrolic failure. As this continued, the structure would have failed-- remember that aluminum does not survive well when being heated to 3000F.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What probably went wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm--- the reports on NPR say that the sensors were detecting:
1) Hydrolic failure in the left wing
2) Left tire losing pressure
3) Structural heating in the left wing.
This is the same place where the foam hit, so that is where I would start. As William of Occam said "one should not needlessly multiply entities."
She's AMERICAN, dammit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:She's AMERICAN, dammit (Score:5, Informative)
BTW, this is just in: Columbia crew remains found [abc.net.au]
Profiteers (Score:4, Redundant)
Pieces of the shuttle are expected to appear on Ebay before too long, I wish I were making this up
Re:Profiteers (Score:3, Funny)
Those Jack Asses!
Re: Profiteers (Score:4, Informative)
Some pictures (Score:4, Interesting)
weather radar image (Score:5, Informative)
Re:weather radar image (Score:5, Interesting)
Go to my blog [tinyvital.com] and scroll down to the "Shuttle Disaster on Radar" item and click the link at the end of the article (labeled "radar image loop").
Russia not shying away. (Score:3, Interesting)
NASA Asks for help (Score:5, Informative)
Video: Columbia's Last Transmission (Score:5, Informative)
Shawn Shephard discusses the potential "tire pressure problem". From the video:
Re: Video: Columbia's Last Transmission (Score:5, Informative)
> Shawn Shephard discusses the potential "tire pressure problem".
The spokesman at the extended NASA press conference this afternoon indicated that the "pressure problem" was simply a loss of signal from those sensors... just like all the other sensor failures. (He originally said that they had detected some high temperatures at the wheels, but during the questioning he explicitely corrected himself and said that the sensors went to zero rather than showing high.)
All the symptoms indicate a progressive burn-through of the wing. I suppose it could have been caused by an exploding tire, but other sensors had already died by the time the tire sensors did. Look for explanations elsewhere.
The order of the sensor failures will ultimately tell where the burn-through occured.
Last Message (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Last Message (Score:5, Informative)
He thought it odd that there was very little information being exchanged between the shuttle and ground, so Randy Attwood, an amatuer astronomer started recording around 9:00 Eastern Time. The realplayer video superimposes the tape with video of the shuttle's disintegration.
1:05 (On the RP video) Houstan: "End Columbia Houstan, we see your tire pressure messages and did not copy your last."
1:12 Shuttle: "Roger, ah b---"
1:25-onwards static
An old problem (Score:5, Informative)
However, this problem is nothing new. The insulation material on the external fuel tanks was changed in 1997 and immediately caused problems. Lockheed-Martin was recently contracted to provide an external camera to monitor insulation loss. I have not found any documentation of the insulation problems from late 1997 until the cameras were installed.
See:
http://spacelink.nasa.gov/NASA.News/NASA.
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/status/
http://ltp.arc.nasa.gov/sp
http://www.arnold.af.mil/a
http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/news
for details about NASA's work on the problem.
Re:An old problem (Score:3, Informative)
Ack, a back-seat astronaut!
Columbia didn't have the fuel to shift its orbit in synch with ISS. It is extremely difficult to change your orbital inclination. Much more difficult that merely changing altitude or phase.
FYI, the space station is in a very difficult orbit for NASA shuttles to hit. Getting there intentionally is hard enough. Don't expect them to be able to go there on a whim -- after they've already achieved orbit.
Oh, and never mind the fact that Columbia had a Spacelab in its cargo bay, instead of the required ISS docking module.
Re:An old problem (Score:5, Informative)
The Columbia crew didn't even know if there was any damage. There's no way to see that region of the craft; I'm not sure they could see it even if they had a remote manipulator aboard. NASA did an extended analysis of the debris impact, but didn't believe there was any cause for concern. Maybe they were wrong but if not there was nothing the crew could have done. Nothing. There's nowhere else to go. You bring the crew home and hope for the best.
As for NASA's "groupthink", what the fuck do you know about the people who work for NASA, or the way they think? The people that I work with in the shuttle program are some of the best and brightest people I've ever worked with, and that includes both the graybeards and the baby engineers. They bring a variety of viewpoints, experience, opinions, and creativity to bear on every problem NASA encounters. To suggest that these people don't think for themselves is the height of ignorance.
So now you post your solution to the problem even though you clearly don't have a clue about how the shuttle works. Hell of a way to do Slashdot.
--Jim
Frustrating. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush has, from day one, been all about, or so he says, cutting budgets. Everything but Defense, he says, is spending far too much. Education. Health and Human Services. AIDS research (his "broad" plan announced in the State of the Union address was a joke). NASA.
Time and time again, he has harped on cutting NASA's budget. He has forced [chron.com] the agency to abandon most all other programs, except extending the life of the shuttles.
Democrats [spaceref.com] and others [globalsecurity.org] have pleaded for Bush to reconsider. He hasn't.
One year ago, CNN discussed [cnn.com] Bush's plans to dramatically reduce NASA's budget, INCLUDING safety spending, in favour of learning more about nuclear technology in space.
This PDF [house.gov] from the House Democrats makes Bush's cuts clear, in terms of NASA and science in general.
Worse yet, a year and a half ago, people were warning [space.com] that these cuts were leading to an inevitable disaster in the shuttle program. A freaking year and a half ago.
And through all of this, the best Bush can say is "May God continue to bless America."
Oh, and Saddam is an evil, evil man.
Growl.
jrbd
Re:Frustrating. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd say Boeing should bear at least part of the blame.
In the real world, when you have a contract to do something and you end up going over budget, you have two options: Swallow the loss or swallow the loss. However, government contracts don't work that way. Contractors get to write clauses in the contracts that essentially say "If we go over budget, the government will pay us the difference." The original bids are nothing but ink on paper.
As an example, Northrop-Grumman recently purchased Avondale Shipyards in SE Louisiana. Currently, they're working on two projects. One is to build transports for the US Navy, and the other is oil tankers for what is now Conoco-Phillips. As with all US shipyards, they've grown fat and lazy with government contracts and the work they do is sub par (the private sector avoids US shipyards like the plague they are unless the Jones Act requires one).
Both contracts are way behind schedule and well above budget, but the Conoco-Phillips contract is the only one hemorrhaging money. The US Navy (ie. you and me) keeps on pouring good money after bad because the contract requires it. Sure, the GAO sniffed around a little a few months back, but nothing has changed because of it (it keeps people employed for the time being, which is all congresscritters really care about). The shipyard has already sworn off all future commercial contracts (like Newport News) and has actually offered to pay Phillips if they pretty please don't opt for the additional hulls in the contract.
NASA is over-budget because the ISS is over-budget. The ISS is over-budget because
- Boeing is over-budget, and
- NASA was dumb enough to sign the contract
Congress and the White House, for whatever reason, essentially told NASA "Too bad, you deal with the lost money," which meant NASA had to cut funding for other things (Pluto-Kuiper Express, shuttle replacements, ISS lifeboat, etc.).When all is said and done, you cannot place all the blame on either President Bush in particular or the Republican Party in general. If any one "thing" is to get all the blame, it's the whole God damned bureaucracy.
I hope this isn't the end of NASA (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe the USAF will get back it's leading role in space as a platform for new weapons. I mean has anyone read Steven Baxter? The Air force has wanted back it's jurisdiction of space back since Eisenhower created NASA and took space away from the USAF. This is the chance they have been waiting for to discredit their viability in the future. Which %&&*@#&s are responsible for a study of nuking the moon, that's a great idea opposed to let's say COLONIZING MARS, which would actually be of any use to humanity. Whose responisble for making sure NASA doesn't suceed imposing so many safety regulations on the new shuttle programs that made them to expensive to fund. And I am talking redundant stuff which they were only doing in petty self interest. I guess the Europeans and the Japanese are now our hope for space expoloration, but I doubt they have the means without the US supporting their programs.
Hope I am wrong in both respects
Re:I hope this isn't the end of NASA (Score:3, Insightful)
NASA is not really that beneficial to human spaceflight- if nothing else, the Space Shuttle is ridiculously expensive, and tragically, not terribly reliable.
I guess the Europeans and the Japanese are now our hope for space expoloration, but I doubt they have the means without the US supporting their programs.
Yeah? Well, the Ruskies are european, and:
a) have been in space longer than America
b) launch people cheaper than NASA (by a factor of 10)
c) seem to have a more reliable launch system than the Shuttle (no failures in 25 years).
Maybe the USAF will get back it's leading role in space as a platform for new weapons.
There would be worst things. USAF seem to be more pragmatic than NASA if nothing else.
How Independent an Investigation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Later, when I was older, I read an account of the Challenger investigation in some compilations of interviews with Richard Feynman, the Nobel Laureate physicist. He was made a member of the investigative panel, even though he was strictly a civilian scientist. And in his words, when he was doing his investigation by going through documents and talking to people, it sounded that he felt like he was fighting a gigantic institutional bureaucracy that was being very slow, passive and reluctant to divulge information. On the committee were members of the military, former astronauts, etc, who likely had ties to NASA in some personal way, at least more so than some physicist from Caltech.
I don't know what sort of hard conclusions came out of the investigative committee in the end. Feynman was flamboyant and made a great show of the O-ring problem in front of TV cameras, an unrehearsed and disruptive performance, according to his accounts. But I think this flamboyance and disruptiveness was a good thing, because here was some guy who didn't give a crap about whether or not NASA was going to get its butt kicked for being negligent whatnot, and that's the sort of investigators that will be needed to bring the facts to light.
We will need people who are independently minded, and who are going to dig at the truth even if it might hurt a lot of people at NASA, assuming that the destruction of Columbia had a man-made origin. And even if NASA does become hurt and demolished in the process, that's for the better in the long run, because we will, hopefully, build anew and better, and send our tendrils even more deeply into space with or without the current incarnation of the thing we call NASA.
I grieve along with all the others affected by this disaster. It wasn't only the death of seven people, it was a little bit of death in all of us, of all of our wonder and awe and our eagerness to propel ourselves beyond our planet.
Re:How Independent an Investigation? (Score:3, Informative)
I wouldn't call it flamboyant.You can watch a video [heelspurs.com] of Feynman demonstrating the O-ring problem; he demonstrates the problem and describes it in a very matter-of-fact fashion. (Sorry for the link to a RealMedia file!)
Feynman's appendix [ralentz.com] to the Roger's Commission report on the Challenger disaster is a very interesting read. He makes the estimate that there is a 1 in 100 chance of a catastropic failure (pretty close, since the actual rate is now 2 in 107).
The appendix calls into question the management practices at NASA; I'm not sure how the agency has changed since then, but I am certain many of the points he makes are still highly relevant today.
4 things I find interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
2.) 10 minutes before lost contact the thermometers that monitor the hydrolics on the left wing went offline.
3.) The fact that the crew just turned on the final phase of the autopilot. This controls the rudders and flies the shuttle like a plane. ( before this the computer just moves the shuttle in a zigzag pattern to slow it down upon re-entry which Columbia just finished doing)
4.) The computer did not report anything unusual besides what I mentioned in steps 1 and 2 above. Even if an explosion were to happen, the computer would send a few packets of temperature abnormalities before going offline according to an engineer.
THe problem could be any one of these 4 things.
My theory is that perhaps the left wing overheated near the thermometers and the extreme heat burned the circuitry so the temperature as well as the pressure sensors went offline. One nasa official said this may be possible. The reason why I theorize this is because the tires started to expand probably because of heat. Maybe a fire broke out or the wing could of just overheated and the heat moved to the landing assembly. Remember that the insulating heat tiles also hold heat in. If the tires exploded then perhaps the assembly would open pre-maturely and blow open a critical amount of heat tiles causing the shuttle to turn into an inferno.
Also an engineer at boeing said a problem with the hydrolics at one of the wings would violently move the shuttle angle and blow open the cabin and short the computer before it could send data. The pressure and enormous and friction would move the shuttle sideways and would brake open due to stress.
This all happened right when the left wing was used so this is what probably happened.
This is the only explanation that would answer the 4 questions.
Re:What could they do? (Score:5, Interesting)
Infact only the computer can land the plan because any angle that is more then a few degree's off what the designed limits are would brake apart the vehicle. The computer probably was confused since it could not recieve a sensor reading on the left wing but decided to go at it anyway which caused the shuttle to spin out, burn and break within seconds.
The astronaughts just sit there untill the final part of the mission near the runway. The computer takes care of everything and a human is not capable of handling the precision.
I just found out about the temperature reaching extreme conditions for a few milliseconds before the shuttle broke. New news. My guess is the cabin leaked and filled with fire when the the seal seperating the cabin air from space broke open bringing in super heated air. The rudder probably flipped voilently upward or downward due to the lack of hydro fluid which probably boiled away if the left wing really did infact overheat.
Even if the astronaughts did not run the program the cabin would turn into a furnace anyway from just the lack of a heat shield where the landing assembly broke as well as the left wing. The layer seperating space from cabin air is as thin as a blanket and can break easily. They did what they had to do and just hope it would work because you really have no options. At least it was quick and painless.
They were not wearing spacesuits so I am sure they did not meet the same fate as was rumoured from Challenger astronaughts. The orange suits only provided oxygen and pressure. No heat insulation.
Re:What could they do? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ice hasn't disloged or damaged any tiles for some time now. The ice used to build up on the top of the external tank (ET), and was shed during the liftoff. Nowadays, there is a big cap over the external tank, and dry nitrogen gas is blown down over the ET nose, so no ice forms. On this launch, some of the foam insulation was shed. It isn't hard like ice; it's kind of light and foamy like a dry sponge. It could have done some damage, but not like the ice used to do. The ice used to damage the external tile surfaces of ceramic (white) tiles (not the back carbon/carbon tiles).
In addition, whole tiles used to come off because they weren't glued in place properly. This hasn't happened in the last 75 flights, because of an improved pull test, which yanks off the improperly glued tiles.
The final tile failure mode which has been fixed was this: water intruded into the joints between the tiles while the bird was on the pad (in rainstorms etc). The water flashed to steam during reentry (if memory serves) and that popped the tiles off. Improved seals between the tiles fixed that problem around the same time as the improved "pull test".
In spite of all these improvements, some problem needs to be found and fixed. Given the very low aerodynamic loads when it came over the coast (at 7:43) a chief suspect would be still have to be a failure of the Thermal Protection System (TPS), just as you say.
Re:What could they do? (Score:4, Informative)
It was a piece of insulating foam, not ice, that hit the wing during the shuttle's ascent.
The rudder probably flipped voilently upward or downward due to the lack of hydro fluid which probably boiled away if the left wing really did infact overheat.
Rudders control yaw, not pitch. They move left to right, not up and down.
And this post was modded up? C'mon, people, don't be so quick to believe everything you read on the net.
No, it can't be the fuel lines. (Score:5, Interesting)
The fuel lines which were repaired have nothing whatsoever with the failure today.
The three main engines are fueled by liquid hydrogen, the propellant, and liquid oxygen (LOX), the oxidizer. The propellent and LOX is provided only during the takeoff of the Shuttle. The fuel and LOX is pumped from the large brown-colored external tank attached to the Shuttle. During the ascent to orbit, the external tank is totally exhausted of LOX and fuel, and is jettisoned by firing explosive bolts which hold the external fuel tank to the Shuttle.
The fuel lines which formerly were cracked are not used in any way after the external tank is jettisoned. Those three main engines you mention are not used at all after the external tank is gone. They can't be. The fuel is gone. And the fuel lines which feed those engines are fuelless as well. They cannot explode by leaking, as there is nothing to leak, and nothing to ignite.
You may want to know that there are two much smaller engines (the two shrouded "bumps" on the rear top of the Shuttle on each side of the horizontal stabilier fin) which are not fuelled by liquid hydrogen. These are the orbital maneuvering engines, used for orbital changes, as well as the all-important de-orbiting burn which slows the Shuttle down enought to start falling back to Earth. The engines, it must be stressed, are not fuelled by the fuel lines which feed the three main "ascent" engines I mentioned earlier.
I would assume, but do not state authoritatively, that the two smaller orbital maneuvering engines are purged of fuel and oxidant after the Shuttle begins its descent to Earth. It would be incomprensible if there was any explosive whatsoever in any of the propulsion systems, because after the Shuttle begins the drop out of orbit, the engines are never used again. The fuel would be dead weight, not to mention a hazard which would serve no purpose.
Remember, the Shuttle is a dead stick glider after it enters the atmosphere. No engine power is possible. The engines are shut down, and never used after the de-orbital burn.
Whatever took the Shuttle apart was not explosive. There was no explosive mix on the Shuttle.
Opinion: Something fell off, unbalanced the craft, and pinwheeled it at 12,500 MPH, at which point it simply tore apart.
Speculations:
- A damaged wing tore off?
- The tail tore off?
- Somehow, one or more of the cargo bay doors opened?
- Somehow, a wheel bay door opened, even partially, and at that speed, flipped the craft?
- catastophic skin failure somewhere on the nose or belly of the craft?
- one of the engines came loose? Reaching here.
- one of the tiny attitude control rockets fired, swing the ship out of true, and slamming into a Mach-speed wind? This seems unlikely - I'd think those hypergolic fuel tanks would be purged before reentry.
- control surface(s) on the wing somehow moved, rolling or pitching the Shuttle?
- the rudder somehow moved?
- the parachute system released the chute, causing enough turbulence to flip the shuttle around?
- window failure?
- airlock door failure?
- (sadly) action of a crew member?
We must keep in mind that the Shuttle is the ultimate experimental aircraft. In a sane world, we would have evolved safer and cheaper craft in the last thirty years. But we were cheap, and cut the program to the bone -- down to the marrow.
The Delta Clipper would have been a smaller, cheaper, reusable single-stage-to-orbit wingless space taxi. We could have developed it on the cheap for a few billion over a period of ten years. But we went for the ultrasophisticated and ultimately unbuildable superspaceplane.
Now we have three X-craft that are proven to fail about every decade.
Developing simpler and safer craft is of maximum importance. The shuttle as it flies is too dangerous -- a compromise for the Air Force and the spooks during the early seventies, built to fly giant spy sats instead of the tiny taxi it was supposed to be. The tiles are impractical. The flight surfaces are unstable and parasitical weight.
We need to spend real money, and NOT just to fund Boeing/Lockheed-Martin. We need to build a real fleet of ships that do what we need them to do. Small passenger craft.
We can't keep trying to reach the stars with a budget that can't even pay for a repainting of NASA HQ. You can't cheap out R&D -- it doesn't work. People die. We must spend what the ENGINEERS say they need to build the next gen of craft, and the gen after that, and after that.
We built the equivalent of a biplane, and froze time. We must build the DC-3. The 707. The tech has to evolve naturally, as engineers learn from past flaws. We do not do this. We have insisted that NASA first build a flying boxcar it didn't deem necessary. Then we wanted this experimental craft to last for forty years or more.
The real miracle is that the NASA engineers have kept this sad can flying since the late seventies.
Re:No, it can't be the fuel lines. (Score:3, Insightful)
That way, in the future astronauts will be ferried to ISS via Delta Clipper and space station supplies and ISS expansion components will be lofted up by unmanned heavy booster rockets.
Re:No, it can't be the fuel lines. (Score:3)
The OMS engines aren't used after the de-orbit burn, but the RCS (reaction control system) engines are used to maneuver the orbiter until it reaches an altitude where the atmosphere is dense enough that the aero surfaces become effective. The RCS engines use the same hypergolic propellants that the OMS engines do, and they're fired all the way to the ground to assist the aero surfaces. I've seen pictures of the vehicle turning around the HAC where you can actually see a pair of the RCS jets firing.
A guy I work with, and a former PROP flight controller, has told me that they don't entirely dump the OMS propellant because its weight can be used to manage the orbiter's center of gravity (cg). The cg is important because during entry, it affects the stability of the vehicle. It's been a long time since this was explained to me (not my area of expertise), but I do know that the orbiter's cg has to fall within about a 3-foot long area along the vehicle's long axis. The "dead weight" of that fuel can be used to balance the orbiter and keep the cg within its safe range.
So there are still some hypergolic propellants within the vehicle all the way to the ground. Ever noticed the suits the ground crew wears when they come out to greet the shuttle after it lands? Those suits protect the ground crew from the nasty corrosive vapors of the OMS/RCS propellants. The ground crew runs around the orbiter with a sniffer to detect vapor levels, and the crew doesn't get off until any fumes have dissipated.
I thought you're right, though, that it's unlikely for those propellants to have caused an explosion. They don't ignite until they come into contact with each other, and that shouldn't happen unless their tanks get ruptured - in other words unless the vehicle is already in serious trouble.
--Jim
Who is going to be our Feynman this time? (Score:4, Insightful)
Without his intrepid investigations [nasa.gov], we probably still wouldn't know what happened (though some NASA engineers might). His investigation was thorough enough to find myriad safe (software) and unsafe (mission cancellation policies) aspects of the shuttle program.
Who will be our Feynman now?
Tile damage cause breakup? (Score:3, Interesting)
The piece of insulating foam which fell off of a fuel tank on launch may have caused more damage than first believed.
Shuttle Atlantis was struck by a piece of foam from the tanks on launch 4 months ago; the foam struck the aft skirt of a booster rocket.
A California Institute of Technology astronomer, Anthony Beasley, reported seeing debris trailing the shuttle while it was still over California.
Damaged thermal tiles can begin to strip off in a chain reaction instigated by a single damaged tile.
Thermal tiles torn from the shuttle can cause instability, placing the unprotected areas of the craft in critical overheating.
Possibly due to the weight of the experiments, the Canadian built space arm was not installed on Columbia for this mission. The arm may have been able to inspect damage on the underside of the craft in space. A spacewalking astronaut cannot safely inspect this area of the craft.
Had damage been discovered, there is no means to repair the damage in space.
Ground observation was not used to try and inspect the craft, but NASA indicates prior attempts to use this (on other missions) had not provided any useful help or images.
The only question I have is whether the astronauts could have spent any time at the space station, waiting for a different ride home. The damaged shuttle in this case would not be used for manned re-entry. There may well be many reasons why this was not possible; it's just a question that came to me based on the above.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apscienc
An Israeli Died (ands some others too) (Score:5, Insightful)
To me, Dr. Chawla's story is more interesting. An Indian born female who migrated to the US, obtained a PHD in engineering, and finally became an astronaut is an inspirational story. Especially when you consider that an Indian born male (to my knowledge) has never been in space.
And what about the other non-ethnic Americans who were lost? Nobody willing to come on TV and state how remarkable they were?
Re:An Israeli Died (ands some others too) (Score:3, Insightful)
Rakesh Sharma was the first Indian in space, although he was a cosmonaut, ie, he flew with the (then) Soviets. Dr Kalpana Chawla was the first, and so far only, astronaut of Indian descent.
But I agree with you about the point on news coverage given to Mr Ramon. My condolences to his family of course, but I see no reason why so much heavy weather should be made out of the dead astronauts' nationalities/ethnicities.
From someone inside NASA (Score:3, Informative)
2. ~7:53am, portside hydraulic sensors went offline.
3. ~7:56am, portside elevator and aileron temperature sensors went offline.
4. ~7:58am, portside landing gear pressure and temperature sensors went offline.
5. ~8:00am, crew confirms portside landing gear sensor problems.
6. ~8:00am, all communication went offline.
In the immortal words of Gus Grissom (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In the immortal words of Gus Grissom (Score:5, Insightful)
Gus, Roger, Ed...
Dick, Mike, El, Judy, Ron, Greg, Christa...
Vladimir, Georgi, Viktor, Vladislav...
Take care of your new brothers and sisters for us, willya?
Shuttle Disaster Scenarios from 1988 sci.space (Score:3, Informative)
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 88 15:45:52 PST
Subject: Shuttle Disaster Premises
Here are the premises of the Shuttle disaster scenarios (my apologies
to those who find all this painfully obvious, but the noise level
around here has made it necessary that I belabor these points):
1 The SSME turbine pump blades have been found to be a weakness
in the SSME design that has yet to be dealt with adequately.
2 The failure of these blades would result in a failure mode that
has not been adequately tested, thus the turbine blade containment
ring may not succeed in fully containing the debris.
3 The 3 APU's have been found to be a weakness in the Shuttle
system design as 2 of the 3 have failed in a single mission
with the 3rd found to be near failure after landing.
4 According to James Fletcher, the NASA Administrator appointed
by President Reagan to reform NASA's Shuttle program after the
Challenger disaster, the Space Transportation System is on
the verge of becoming "economical". (While I may not agree with
this opinion, it is certainly reasonable to assume the statements
of such a person to be "plausible" in these scenarios.)
5 An "economical" launch system is what the military needs to
launch its crushing backlog of spy satellites and Vandenburg
is the only launch site which can make polar orbit without
going over populated areas.
6 The trajectory of a Shuttle launched to the south into a polar
orbit (which is the typical orbit of spy satellites) from Vandeburg
reenters over the major western Soviet cities in the event that
an abort to once around option is attempted and falls short due
to inadequate thrust (such as OMS engine failure secondary to
SSME failure).
7 RTG's are a far less vulnerable power source for spy satellites than
solar cells and the military is increasingly concerned about
solar panel vulnerability.
8 Unavoidable clear air turbulence is common over the Shuttle
landing site at Edwards AFB.
9 The OMS fuel and pressurization lines are in reasonable proximity
to the SSME turbine blades.
10 The Pu239 oxide cannisters have not been adequately tested since
when they were subjected to an explosive test, they did fail and
NASA proceeded to proclaim them flight ready because the explosive
test was "invalid".
11 We have no way of rescuing Shuttle astronauts stranded in orbit.
Some other facts, pointed out to me privately, that could be used for
future Shuttle disaster scenarios:
12 Orbital debris is a significant threat to the Shuttle as we have
already experienced damage during one flight.
13 The SSME bell is not being adequately inspected for hairline cracks
which could fail catastrophically during launch.
There are many classes of plausible disaster scenarios based on these
premises. I've chosen to write on just a few exemplary cases which
are particularly horrific. They are worth contemplating because they
are so horrific.
NASA is intransigent when it comes to pursuing important technical
activities that have little immediate political import. Therefore,
it invested in SRB redesign only AFTER catastrophic SRB failure.
Now that it is "safe", NASA continues to invest more and more money
in SRB research to the exclusion of other areas of far greater
weakness in the Shuttle system. Obviously, it will not invest adequate
money in those areas until they, too, fail catastrophically.
Tom Neff, Bob Pendleton, Jim Merrit, et al, start educating the
net for a change. Maybe you should start by reading some nonfictional
accounts of space technology and history rather than continuing to
worship mythology authored by such great story-tellers as Hans Mark, Gen.
Abramson, Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, Barney Roberts, Jessco Von
Puttkammer, James Fletcher, et al.
PS: If NASA ignores reality in its largest, currently most important
and most immediate program -- the Shuttle program -- how do you think
it is doing on future systems like Shuttle C, NASP, Space Station,
lunar bases, space resource utilization and mars missions?
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 88 18:17:25 PST
From: jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
Subject: Stranded in LEO due to APU failure
In order to prepare for the next Shuttle disaster, we need to examine
the various scenarios that may occur, their likelihood, consequences
and what work should be done, in advance to prepare ourselves, our
space program and our citizenry.
For example, consider what would happen if an orbiter were stranded
in LEO due to total APU failure. The logic of the situation would
unfold in this scenario:
Hundreds of millions of people on Earth would watch every detail
of the dramatic situation unfold over several days (assuming they
have that much life support). During the first few days, there
will be many attempts to repair the problem with ground crews working
round the clock on a simulated orbiter in a similar failure
mode. They will come up with any of a number of futile attempts
to fix the problem which the astronauts will, at first, dutifully
carry out. This work will proceed even though there is little or no
possibility of an actual fix. The public, the astronauts and NASA
personnel will feel hope and dispair in cycles at each attempt,
until, eventually, the charade will wear thin. At that point, the
astronauts, the ones who are facing certain death, will be under
enormous psychological pressure to end the charade.
Such a break-point will carry with it the likelihood of one or more
astronauts venting frustration and hostility -- possibly built up
over many years of disillusionment as part of the crippled US space
effort.
NASA will attempt to blank-out all communications with
the astronauts at or before this point. Some or all astronauts will
not want to cooperate with this black-out and will refuse to allow
the their communications to be encrypted. Ham radio operators and
others around the world will band together to pick up the transmissions
of the doomed astronauts and make them available to the public.
After breaking from the bureaucracy's authority, the astronauts
may become extremely critical of specific individuals in NASA and
its contractors. They will have nothing to lose and will finally
have a chance to right what they perceive as the wrongs in the
space program.
A few weeks after the dying words of the astronauts are heard,
the shuttle will reenter the atmosphere at 5 or 6 miles per second.
It will break up. A few large fragments will scatter widely and
unpredictaby, hitting the ground before total disintigration due
to the ablative coating. The public, ignorant of probability theory,
will be in terror at the thought of the shuttle crashing into their
communities causing mass destruction. The fireball could easily be
visible from large population centers and will most likely be viewed
on television broadcasts around the world.
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 88 21:52:48 PST
From: jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
Subject: Possible consequence of terminal approach APU failure
Another possible Shuttle disaster:
During reentry 2 of the APUs fail and the third has some problems (as
has occured before). But unlike the previous instances, the Shuttle
comes into the terminal area energy management manuver a little bit high
and a little bit fast. It encounters a little clear air turbulence
while in a tight turn to bleed off this excess energy. As the pilot is
lining up on the runway, the third and last APU gives out due to the
buffetting. Unfortunately, the APU failed before he completed the final
turn. The control surfaces go dead. The Space Shuttle, now out of
control, impacts at supersonic speed into the waiting crowd which never
hears it coming. Thousands perish.
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 88 21:17:18 PST
From: jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
Subject: Secret Shuttle Launch Disaster Scenario
Here's another possible Shuttle disaster:
The DoD reopens the Vandenburg Shuttle launch facility. A payload
with a plutonium radioactive thermal generator needs to be placed in
an LEO polar orbit. About 2 minutes after SRB separation, a main
engine pump turbine blade fails causing the turbine to fly apart
at supersonic speed. The containment works pretty well but a few
blades get out. One of them nicks the pressurization system for
the fuel oxydizer tanks in one of the OMS pods. The astronauts sense a
loud THUD and the loss of one of the main engines. They opt to abort
once around using the remaining two main engines. Everything goes
according to the contingency plan. All fuel is consumed from the
main tank. The tank separates. The OMS engines start up. Only
one of them lights. Since this produces an off center thrust, the
RCS consumes excessive amounts of fuel to keep stability. The OMS
system, only capable of using half its fuel, fails to put the Shuttle
into a once around trajectory. It reenters short, somewhere near
the Persian Gulf. In the early phase of reentry, when the aerodynamic
control surfaces are insufficient to orient the spacecraft, the already
overtaxed RCS runs out of fuel. The Shuttle begins tumbling somewhere
over the Caucasus Mountains. By the time the control surfaces could
be used, the Shuttle is in a fatal spin. It breaks up. When it
breaks up, the RTG canister, designed to withstand reentry, is struck
by one of the structural members of the Shuttle. Not being designed
to withstand this, it shatters. 22 kilograms of Pu238-dioxide are
distributed in the atmosphere over Moscow, Kalinin and Lenningrad.
The Soviet ballistic missile warning radars, primarily facing north,
are briefly treated to the spectacle of hundreds of reentering
objects coming down around Moscow and Lenningrad. The two largest,
most economically important and strategically significant cities in
the Soviet Union.
Pu238 is 284 times more radioactive than the fissionable isotope Pu239
due to its relatively short half-life of 86 years. It decays by alpha
emmission of 5.5Mev. While this is somewhat higher than the decay
energy of Pu239, it is far higher than the decay energy of U235 and
not similar to the decay energy of any other common nuclide. Thus
to the relatively unsophisticated instruments initially used to
evaluate the sudden release of radioactive material, it will appear
as though 5.5 metric tons of weapons-grade Pu239 has suddenly reentered
over Moscow.
5.5 metric tons of Pu239 is enough to support on the order of 500
warheads. Areasonable surmize would be that a US secret launch out
of Vandenburg was to illegally emplace a facility containing 500 or
so nuclear warheads into an orbit where it would pass over the
Soviet Union 4 times per day from the south whre their early warning
radars could not detect it until it was far too late.
Vandenburg is a highly secured facility. Due to the local geography,
neither the launch pad nor the assembly building can be viewed from
sites not on the base. The Soviets will have very limited intelligence
about launch preparations and the launch itself. Our belated
protestations that it was merely a routine Shuttle launch will be met
with a great deal of skepticism.
The Soviets, sensitized by the Chernobyl disaster to nuclear
catastrophe, will be react unpredictably.
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 88 08:24:13 PST
From: jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
Subject: Brilliant Soviet Rescue of Astronauts Stranded in LEO
As in the "Stranded in LEO Due to APU Failure" scenario, all 3 APU's fail,
leaving the astronauts helplessly adrift.
The Soviets, hearing Tom Neff's idea of a rescue effort, come up with
a brilliant plan. They launch an unmanned Soyuz from Space City
with the stated intent of making a rendevous with the drifting Shuttle
and rescuing some of the astronauts (the Soyuz wouldn't have capacity
for all of them). Space City, being at a much higher latitude than
KSC, gives the Soyuz craft a much higher inclination orbit than the
Shuttle. The Soyuz, being incapable of correcting its inclination
by the required amount, intersects with the Shuttle's orbit at a few
miles second or so.
Thus the Soyuz saves our brave astronauts from the senseless torture
of a slow death.
Why would the Soviets would go along with such an imbicilic
rescue attempt when it requires the sacrifice of a launched Soyuz
(worth $15 to $20 million)? The Soviets draw attention and blame
for the disaster away from NASA. This allows NASA to contain the
political damage and maintain its appearance of conducting a space
program, leaving the Soviets free to develop space without competition.
---------------
And now for a little space policy...
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 88 21:43:32 PST
From: jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
Subject: Diversity vs Monolithism
Humanity can promote the richness and diversity of life by providing a
greater variety of habitats in space rather than encroaching on existing
terrestrial habitats. We can enhance richness and diversity in systems
at all levels -- technological, economic, governmental, cultural, and
biological. We can bring this gift to our world and, indeed, our
universe, if we adhere to the principle that it is better to
err on the side of diversity than on the side of monolithism.
In a series of seminars with environmental groups over a period of
years, space activists in the San Diego area have succeeded in laying
a foundation of trust with these groups based on the above vision.
This trust is a fragile one, more prone to misunderstandings than
the internal factions of the National Space Society.
As guardians of the biosphere, environmental groups are particularly
sensitive to the issue of diversity and quality of life. The vision
of space habitats usually comes wrapped in conventional aerospace
concepts such as "the space program" and the National Commission on
Space's "50 year plan". Unfortunately, for too many of us, this
wrapping is an accurate reflection of our values. Environmental groups
reject our vision, and rightfully so.
Until we clean up our own act, and recognize that large government
projects are not the way to a diversity of space activities, we will
fail to make inroads with grass-roots America, and our gift will be
rejected by those in the environmental movement who can lend it
deeper ethical and moral credibility.
We are desparate for things to happen in space. We are easy prey for
the agents of monolithic space programs who would use us to
prop up funding for such dubious big projects as Space Shuttle
and now Space Station. These projects do more than waste money, they
sap the will of our people to take responsibility for space activities
into their own hands. Like monocropping, they displace the richness
and diversity of natural selection with the errors of monolithism.
We were willing to wait a decade for NASA to build Shuttle. It failed
miserably to live up to our expecations. Now, 15 years later, NASA is
asking us to, again, wait a decade for Space Station. It will have
been 25 years of waiting from Skylab to a pig-in-the-poke Space Station.
25 years.
Think about it.
The monolithism of our government's "X year plans" is as abhorrent
as the "5 year plans" of totalitarian bureaucracies of communist nations.
Do we really need the government's "help" in the form of "the space program"
in order to realize the potential of space?
No!
"The space program" is merely the decaying carcas of Apollo which
monolithists keep around like a psycho with his long dead mother.
The stench is becoming unbearable.
If we are going to wait 5, 10, 25 or 50 years for something, let it be for
something of real and abiding value. Just as it takes several years
for a dispoiled environment to regain its biodiversity, so it will take our
economy several years to fill the markets dispoiled by government encroachment.
Let us abandon the idea of "the space program" for the atavism it is. Let us
not wait for yet another miracle from Uncle Sam. Instead, let us wait for the
life force, as embodied on our free enterprise economy, to grow and flourish,
filling all the territories that "the space program" has dispoiled by its
decaying presence. Let us no longer accept morsels of opiated carrion from
NASA to satiate our craving for space activity. Let us, instead, get back
in touch with our true needs which are the mother of invention.
Beyond business regulatory functions, let government restrict itself
to the support of basic research through a wide variety of independent
agencies that have their own reasons for being interested in space.
Leave technology development and services exclusively in the hands of
the citizens, buying technology and services on the open market when needed.
When our people see groups of other citizens getting together to do things
in space on their own initiative, without government help or interference,
the life force will speak to them. Then, the National Space Society's
mission will be accomplished and only then will we the people understand
that space is a place to live work, play and grow.
Jim Bowery
PO Box 1981
La Jolla, CA 92038
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com
First Columbia Flight (Video) (Score:3, Interesting)
14 minutes with pre-launch shots of crew, launch, space views and landing.
Very bad sound unfortunately.
Auxilary power units most likely cause (Score:4, Informative)
The APU's are turbines that use hydrazine fuel. It's highly explosive and there's been talk of finding a safer power source, but the problem is that batteries would be much heavier, and coming up with a lightweight replacement would be a multi billion dollar research project.
Anyway the turbines were due to come on line about the time the shuttle broke apart.
Scientist Michio Kaku said that the explosion was "par for the course" in that "about 1 in 75 space launches explodes" and this was columbia's 102 mission. Which is only to say that rockets are a dangerous form of transportation.
His next point was that this is a reason to think that the nuclear powered rockets that some (who?) are considering are a bad idea.
Rocky J Squirrel
There will be calls to cancel the space program (Score:3, Insightful)
In the meantime there are people all over the world dying at the hands of other people, quite maliciously, by the score of scores.
The later is a tragedy. The Space Shuttle failure is an *accident.* In essence no different than a fatal car accident due to some trivial mechanical failure or other. It happens. No one threatened the cancelation of the Navy after the Thresher disaster which took the lives of 129 men, some civilians, despite the fact that these men had no more business being in the deep ocean than man has in space.
Why do we do such things as fly into space in the first place? Well, in the words of one of the great martyrs of going someplace no one has been before, "Because it's there."
When left to his own devices, rather than simply being asked idiotic questions by a mindless press agent, he could be quite a bit more eloquent though, and I'll depart with these words of Mr. Mallory:
"The first question which you will ask and which I must try to answer is this, 'What is the use of climbing Mount Everest ?' and my answer must at once be, 'It is no use'. There is not the slightest prospect of any gain whatsoever. Oh, we may learn a little about the behavior of the human body at high altitudes, and possibly medical men may turn our observation to some account for the purposes of aviation. But otherwise nothing will come of it. We shall not bring back a single bit of gold or silver, not a gem, nor any coal or iron. We shall not find a single foot of earth that can be planted with crops to raise food. It's no use. So, if you cannot understand that there is something in man which responds to the challenge of this mountain and goes out to meet it, that the struggle is the struggle of life itself upward and forever upward, then you won't see why we go. What we get from this adventure is just sheer joy. And joy is, after all, the end of life. We do not live to eat and make money. We eat and make money to be able to enjoy life. That is what life means and what life is for."
-George Leigh Mallory, 1922
May the crew of the Columbia rest in peace, and joy, and may others live to experience the same joy of stars reached for.
KFG
Reports from southern Utah (Score:4, Interesting)
The local news reported on skywatchers in Southern Utah who video taped the Shuttle as it crossed the southern part of the state.
What is interesting (no link yet, I'm surprised that the national news doesn't have a copy yet) is that in a certain place in the video you can see a very slight trail very close to the shuttle. In another video you see a very small blue dot pull off from the shuttle and follow it (after enhancement).
Also very interesting is this report [4utah.tv] that an eyewitness decribes the shuttle changing color from "orange-yellow" to a "white with a purplish color".
This is speculation, but I think what is being described here is the flight surface being peeled away.
The sensors in the tire compartment that showed heating was probably because it was exposed to the air at mach 18.
By time it reached Texas it was already a fireball.
Godspeed (Score:5, Interesting)
My ten-year-old doesn't understand why this is a big deal. Space travel, to her, is like CDs and PCs and microwave ovens -- a routine part of the world as it is. She was born after the cold war, after the glory days of the space program. Maybe when she's older, she'll understand that the space program transcended all the petty factional divisions and murderous religious and political ideologies of this sad world and was for a lot of us a shining example of the very best of the human race and a beacon of hope for a better future.
Growing up in the 70's, astronauts were the only people I ever really thought of as heroes. NASA was the only government agency I could admire, whatever its faults, without a trace of cynicism. That hasn't changed.
I wish I could somehow take my daughter back in time to that day on the beach when I looked southward towards the Cape and saw a Saturn V rise from the horizon on a pillar of flame. Maybe then she could understand why her parents were crying in front of the TV today. Instead, the best I could manage to say was, "They were astronauts. Our dreams went with them."
Godspeed, folks. You were the best of the best. You will not be forgotten.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:question (Score:3, Informative)
There is also a question of keeping ISS in orbit. That job was done mainly by the shuttle by boosting it into higher orbit with each visit. Technically, the Russian Proton rockets can do the job, but apparently the RosAviaCosmos (Russian's space agency) is saying today that there aren't enough of those either to do this for a long enough time. And again, it takes over a two years to build the rocket.
Re:Question... (Score:5, Insightful)
And less than 2% out of the total number of launches. And?
Re:Question... (Score:5, Informative)
The Challenger disaster (STS-51L) occurred on January 28, 1986, killing seven astronauts shortly after launch. The next mission (Discovery, STS-26) took off on September 29, 1988, a delay of two and a half years.
At the present time there is pressure to continue construction of the International Space Station. Unless the ISS is to be mothballed, this will probably mean that at least one launch will have to happen within a year or so.
Re:Question... (Score:5, Insightful)
If its a design flaw like with Challenger then it could easily be a simlar kind of time scale which will likely have a ripple effect on ISS. Though if Soyuz and progress launches could be stepped up there is no reason to abbandon ISS. However construction efforts would cease as they have been the purview of shuttle and soyuz can't launch the mass. Perhaps some Heavy Delta or Arian launches could be substitued but I would imagine that would take a couple years at the least to set in motion.
On the other hand if its a unique failure related to say the foam break off at launch or to some uncharted space debris on re-entry then they might not even miss the next scheduled launch.
In either event shuttles plate was pretty full with only 4 orbiters. Losing columbia does not effect any of the scheuled ISS missions as it was incapable of making the ISS orbit with enough payload so long as the remaining 3 remained cleared for operations.
So ultimately the quetion is if this is a fundamental problem in shuttles design or if it was a unpredicatable and unavoidable risk which comes with spaceflight operations.
Re:Question... (Score:3, Interesting)
Psst: Columia's next mission (STS-118 [nasa.gov]) was scheduled to dock to ISS to deliver supplies and a truss.
Re:Question... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a crappy way to use statistics.
I doubt that this will kill space exploration. If anything, it may boost interest in making sure that these things are made safe. Maybe I'm just an optimist, but there are a number of plans to making new generation reusable oribters drawn up that Nasa could, if funded well enough, build and use. I can see Nasa getting extra funding down the road.
Again, I may just be an optimist. I just don't think the US Gov't would want to let those people die for nothing.
Let me put it another way, I still trust Nasa far more than I trust the airline industry.
Re:Fix (Score:4, Informative)
"orbital maneuvering system provides the thrust for orbit insertion, orbit circularization, orbit transfer, rendezvous, deorbit, abort to orbit and abort once around and can provide up to 1,000 pounds of propellant to the aft reaction control system. The OMS is housed in two independent pods located on each side of the orbiter's aft fuselage. The pods also house the aft RCS and are referred to as the OMS/RCS pods. Each pod contains one OMS engine and the hardware needed to pressurize, store and distribute the propellants to perform the velocity maneuvers. The two pods provide redundancy for the OMS. The vehicle velocity required for orbital adjustments is approximately 2 feet per second for each nautical mile of altitude change."
"Before the deorbit thrusting period, the flight crew maneuvers the spacecraft to the desired deorbit thrusting attitude using the rotational hand controller and RCS thrusters. Upon completion of the OMS thrusting period, the RCS is used to null any residual velocities, if required. The spacecraft is then maneuvered to the proper entry interface attitude using the RCS. The remaining propellants aboard the forward RCS are dumped by burning the propellants through the forward RCS thrusters before the entry interface if it is necessary to control the orbiter's center of gravity.
The aft RCS plus X jets can be used to complete any planned OMS thrusting period in the event of an OMS engine failure. In this case, the OMS-to-aft-RCS interconnect would feed OMS propellants to the aft RCS.
From entry interface at 400,000 feet, the orbiter is controlled in roll, pitch and yaw with the aft RCS thrusters. The orbiter's ailerons become effective at a dynamic pressure of 10 pounds per square foot, and the aft RCS roll jets are deactivated. At a dynamic pressure of 20 pounds per square foot, the orbiter's elevons become effective, and the aft RCS pitch jets are deactivated. The rudder is activated at Mach 3.5, and the aft RCS yaw jets are deactivated at Mach 1 and approximately 45,000 feet.
The OMS in each pod consists of a high-pressure gaseous helium storage tank, helium isolation valves, dual pressure regulation systems, vapor isolation valves for only the oxidizer regulated helium pressure path, quad check valves, a fuel tank, an oxidizer tank, a propellant distribution system consisting of tank isolation valves, crossfeed valves, and an OMS engine. Each OMS engine also has a gaseous nitrogen storage tank, gaseous nitrogen pressure isolation valve, gaseous nitrogen accumulator, bipropellant solenoid control valves and actuators that control bipropellant ball valves, and purge valves.
In each of the OMS pods, gaseous helium pressure is supplied to helium isolation valves and dual pressure regulators, which supply regulated helium pressure to the fuel and oxidizer tanks. The fuel is monomethyl hydrazine and the oxidizer is nitrogen tetroxide. The propellants are Earth-storable liquids at normal temperatures. They are pressure-fed to the propellant distribution system through tank isolation valves to the OMS engines. The OMS engine propellant ball valves are positioned by the gaseous nitrogen system and control the flow of propellants into the engine. The fuel is directed first through the engine combustion chamber walls and provides regenerative cooling of the chamber walls; it then flows into the engine injector. The oxidizer goes directly to the engine injector. The propellants are sprayed into the combustion chamber, where they atomize and ignite upon contact with each other (hypergolic), producing a hot gas and, thus, thrust."
Re:S - Roll (Score:5, Informative)
Essentially, it's a series of slow, lazy turns from side to side in a sort of half figure eight (resembling and S, ergo: S turns).
-E2
To Keep things in perspective... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember that one time... (Score:3, Interesting)
Tim
Re:To Keep things in perspective... (Score:4, Insightful)
9/11 vs starvation news media coverage (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not numbness to injustice, although that may be true. It's sheer pragmatism- the enemy of idealism perhaps but not necessarily the enemy of wisdom.
(Plus there is the news-vs-business-as-usual aspect you mention. If you want publications focusing on justice issues, not just "new"s, try donating to various charities dealing with the injustice. I have. Believe me, you'll get more information on such topics than you have time to read._
--LP
P.S. While it is worth remembering that media will most-likely show you what will help their advertisers, it's pretty well documented that various media outlets lost serious money with their 9/11 coverage due to a lack of advertising in the immediate aftermath. I'm sure though that the moneymen viewed it as a necessary investment in 'credibility', ironically viewing it as a 'justice' issue akin to the ones you feel get inadequate coverage.
Re:To Keep things in perspective... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm old enough to remember the Apollo 11 moon landing, and every Apollo mission since. I remember the novelty of Apollo-Soyuz, of Russians and Americas working together in space. I remember the excitement of the first Enterprise tests, the first launch of Columbia, and the horror of Challenger.
I've always admired astronauts. I've absorbed all I can on the subject, it's fired my imagination, and the imagination of many, many others, for years. It's a dream we all have, to soar beyond towards the stars.
And again, we see the cost of such a dream. Are their deaths any more tragic than those of the hundreds of people around the world who will die today? Of course not. But these seven died in the midst of fulfilling a dream many of us share. They died attempting to push the limits of human knowledge and experience. And as such, we grieve for them all the more.
And would they talk about stopping mining? (Score:3, Insightful)
Think how many people were killed in the research for Airplanes in general, Cars, building large projects (think Great Wall of China or The Pyramids). Did they ever consider abandoning or setting back the project by years, or wasting millions because of 7 deaths? Of course not! I mean, I feel for their families, and am upset about the whole thing- but let's not get ahead of ourselves. The whole space program shouldn't go to hell for this.
Re:And would they talk about stopping mining? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is basicly being used to manipulate people. They are already talking on CNN about how it is uniting both sides in the war on Iraq and that people are putting aside their differences. In other words, they are using it as a sick way of saying, "Don't worry about that little war on Iraq, it's not a big deal, instead LOOK AT THIS TRAGEDY!!! SEVEN PEOPLE DIED! SEVEN! DON'T YOU HAVE COMPASSION??? HOW DARE YOU TALK ABOUT OTHER ISSUES." It's a way of shutting people up. Do you see how it works? The same thing happened after 9/11, when Bush used a tragedy to push his own agenda, and he is again using the economy to push his own agenda of tax cuts for the rich, and now the war on terror to push his agenda of control over Iraq's oil. I am tired of seeing events blown up like this, while other issues that are preventable are put in the background. By focusing on news that we have little control over, and not the news that we truly do have control over, the media is portraying events to be out of our control. They are participating in the destruction of our rights to decide what our governments do. After all, if people don't think they have control over anything, they won't get up and do anything about it.
Re:No way out? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, they have. It was not possible to inspect the bottom of the shuttle during this flight because (1) the cargo bay was being occupied by the science package and had no remote manipulator, (2) there are no handles or tethers on the bottom of the shuttle, and (3), shuttles are simply not equipped nor is it recommended for spacewalks to occur without tethering or the robotic arm. Thus, no spacewalks to the bottom of the shuttle.
All I've heard is that it wouldn't have made any difference if they had done one, since they weren't equipped to repair it.
I think also that the Columbia is too heavy to make the higher orbit of the ISS, and OMS and RCS thrusters would not have been enough to boost it to that level. The Columbia is heavier because it was overbuilt... the later shuttles are much lighter. This is why the Columbia has *never* gone to the ISS.
Even if they did find the damage, they also have no way to fix it. All of the tens of thousands of tiles on the surface of the shuttle are unique. Each one has different dimensions, and fits in only one place. Obviously, it would be impossible to carry a replacement for every one.
Lastly, if they discovered the problem during reentry maneuvers, it was still too late. The best NASA could have done was say "It was nice knowing you. God be with you." Once the reentry sequence has started, there is no way to abort. Either they make it, or they don't.
Re:No way out? (Score:3, Interesting)
If in further operations, the robot discovers some problems outside the shuttle, they can then decide whether it worths to risk the life of the astronauts to go out the shuttle and carry out an unscheduled repair.
Re:Why not a slower or more gradual re-entry? (Score:3, Informative)
If they had spent longer at high altitude, then although the peak heating is lower, if you do the maths, the overall heat soaking into the vehicle would be higher, as it would take longer to slow down, so more heat would have time to enter. So the vehicle would melt.
If the vehicle were to reenter at a steeper angle then the peak heating rate is higher, but the overall heating would be less; but then the aerodynamic forces would be higher, and the wings would snap off.
About the only thing the orbiter could have seriously done to try to save itself would have been to jetison the science module whilst on orbit, but I doubt that they had the tools for that onboard, and it probably wouldn't have worked anyway- the orbiter itself weighs a lot more than the cargo, and they didn't know that they were in trouble prior to reentry anyway.
Re:No way out? (Score:3, Informative)
Because they had Spacelab in their cargo bay and bolted onto their airlock. Which as far as I know means that they'd have no way to get out. Thus they probably didn't even bring up EVA suits.
More interestingly, they didn't use the Canadarm to inspect the left wing. This arm is on the left side. Anybody know if it wasn't flying this mission? It would make sense if they weren't planning on using it.
> [...]perhaps getting them out to the ISS [...]
Sorry, the laws of orbital mechanics prevent that. You can't change your orbital inclination without using massive quantities of fuel. Altitude and phase are easy to change, but ISS is at an inclination that is right at the limits of NASA's shuttles. Getting there after you've achieved orbit is completely impossible. Besides, they had Spacelab in their cargobay, not the required ISS docking tunnel.
Re:No way out? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, in the news conference it was noted that they had the ability to EVA, but only in case of a latch problem in shutting the cargo bay doors...they had no way to leave the bay though.
Also, to answer your other question, there was no arm on the Columbia for STS-107.