Shuttle Data Recorder May be Key to Accident 238
DreamerFi writes "A flight data recorder from the space shuttle Columbia, recovered last week in East Texas, contains readings that continue 14 seconds later than any previously studied data. Those readings are likely to play a crucial role in determining the cause of the shuttle's catastrophic breakup on Feb. 1."
Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good + another interesting item !! (Score:4, Interesting)
Amazing (Score:5, Funny)
Good thing they didn't use DVD-Rs or <cough> Windows Media Player...
Re:Amazing (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Amazing (Score:2)
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Amazing (Score:2)
tar combined with gzip or bzip2 is even better because it requires less space and may be more usefull on mass-limited spaceshuttles.
Re:Amazing (Score:2)
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me that the most reliable format for data storage in this type of enviornment would be some sort of punch card/optical disk combinarion (no joke!) Why couldn't NASA use a high-speed water-jet torch to bore tiny holes into a circular disc made out of something really really durable (synthetic diamond comes to mind). In function, it would work like a cd, execpt that it would have holes instead of pits.
Re:Amazing (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Amazing (Score:3, Informative)
So I do not see a problem for a dedicated collection box to keep tape alive in it. After all it is not the box to survive. It is the tape within.
sad news (Score:2, Informative)
Re:sad news (Score:2)
Might I suggest that you stop pretending you know what people's priorities really are?
The truth is... (Score:3, Funny)
misleading title? (Score:5, Funny)
I somehow doubt that the data recorded caused the shuttle accident. Perhaps they mean to say "finding the CAUSE of the accident"?
Maybe not... (Score:3, Funny)
"You idiot! You pressed the wrong button!!!"
Re:Maybe not... (Score:3, Funny)
"You idiot! You pressed the wrong button!!!""
No no, it was probably this:
"Watch this, I can do a barrel roll..."
Re:Maybe not... (Score:3, Funny)
A. "Hey everybody, watch this!"
Hey everybody? You have GOT to be kidding. Admit it, you've never known a real redneck have you? You've watched a couple of episodes of Hee Haw, maybe, but you've never really met or spoken to a real, live, in-the-flesh redneck. Take it from someone who grew up in Alabama, this should be:
"Hey ya'll, watch this!"
(I also would have accepted "Hold my beer and watch this!")
--Jim
Re:misleading title? (Score:5, Funny)
Shuttle Data Recorder May be Key to Accident (Score:5, Funny)
No, really? (Score:2)
space is still risky (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:space is still risky (Score:5, Insightful)
Moreover, travelling and re-entry at 13,000 miles an hour is downright scary.
Exactly.
I think it is very tragic, the loss of the shuttle crew, but people really should not react to it as though there is some expected guarantee of a crew's safe return home. Sure, safety is one of the #1 concerns and considerations in the space program, but we are trying to "boldly go where no man/one has gone before." Space has risks and there are unknown variables. Should we turn away from space travel / research because of these risks? Is that what the crew, who you can be sure were well aware of said risks, would have wanted?
I think not.
blakespot
Re:space is still risky (Score:2)
The last thing heard on the recorder (Score:2)
My Crackpot idea... (Score:5, Interesting)
Can't seem to find the article that I quoted from when I submitted this to Slashdot, will see if I can dig up...
'Under the conditions of a normal return to earth, the shuttle flies on autopilot until it is traveling more slowly than the speed of sound. But pilots train to take the shuttle all the way down in case the autopilot malfunctions, and so it is possible one of the pilots was trying to take control of the yawing craft in its final moments. 'It is relatively easy for the autopilot to be turned off by accident, which in fact happened just minutes before the problems with the Columbia started to become apparent. In the recovered segment of flight deck video of the waning minutes of the flight released by NASA, Colonel Husband is heard to exclaim, "Oh, shoot," and to tell mission control that "we bumped the stick earlier," briefly disengaging the autopilot. He quickly and calmly corrected the error'
What this all leads me to is this, and I have not seen this suggested in anything I have read as an important concern: Is it possible that this accidental disengaging of the autopilot CONTRIBUTED to the loss of the Shuttle? Although the pilots are trained to fly the Shuttle without the Autopilot, if they were unaware that it was turned off then the "minute" adjustments that either one would make would be missed. All accounts I have seen suggest that the slightest details on the approach make HUGE differences in the results. Add to this the fact that it has been reported that the Autopilot, when on, was acting to correct the flight path anomalies caused by the damage outside. If the autopilot is off, then what other consequences were being experienced?
Is it possible that this with the likely outside damage and other factors may have COMBINED have caused the loss of the Shuttle where any issue ALONE would have not? With all the speculation I have seen in the media, I am not sure this is any less of a possibility...
BTW, I personally am not trying to lay blame on the astronauts themselves. Much like a Cruise Control that starts to mysteriously disengage on a vehicle, I would not be surprised if the Autopilot may have "sensed" a disengage as simple as moving the stick, and the pilots assumed that one of them must have done it."
Re:My Crackpot idea... (Score:2)
Columbia Pilot Error Not Ruled Out in Investigation [yahoo.com]
(SPACE.com)
The Shuttle is *extremely* difficult to land ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Nobody has done it except for the first crew. If I remember correctly, the first Shuttle pilot (dunno his name, some ex-Navy pilot) attempted to manually guide the Shuttle during its landing approach, and did so for a few minutes only to give up and let the auto-pilot take over, mid-way through.
I could have this story wrong (hey, it happens) but I do remember that there's little reason - other than extreme catastrophic failure of onboard systems - for a Shuttle pilot to attempt to override the autopilot. Such catastrophic failures of the onboard systems would definitely have been detected by NASA on the ground previously
So, I'd say, there's little chance that an autopilot-override was performed by the crew which lead to the failure.
But then, I dunno. I get most of my understanding of the Shuttle landing procedure from the X-Plane sim, which makes it very clear that it's extremely difficult for a human being to land the Shuttle...
Bumped the stick (Score:5, Interesting)
Although I don't know, it would seem reasonable that the shuttle's autopilot could be disengaged like this (much like any other aircraft). If during short-final, the pilot decides that the autopilot is leading the shuttle off the approach, a simple grab of the stick for control would seem the safest override method.
Does anyone know any more on this? - Does the shuttle allow pilot-input overrides?
Re:The Shuttle is *extremely* difficult to land .. (Score:2)
Yes, there is little reason for the crew to try to land the Shuttle. But if you look at the link I have included and IF I could find the original link you would see that for WHATEVER reason, the autopilot WAS turned off.
AND it is clear this has happened before and that apparently all it takes to occur is the stick getting "bumped" or some other minor detail
Re:The Shuttle is *extremely* difficult to land .. (Score:5, Insightful)
I heard one of the pilots in the USAF with the most air time comment something like
"Landing is easy. Landing without dying is a bit more tricky. Landing without damage is tricker still."
Re:The Shuttle is *extremely* difficult to land .. (Score:2, Interesting)
> I heard one of the pilots in the USAF with the most air time comment something like "Landing is easy. Landing without dying is a bit more tricky. Landing without damage is tricker still."
Someone also described it as "like flying a brick".
Mixed opinion (Score:5, Interesting)
We know that the shuttle wing suffered a catastrophic failure (as in it broke apart), and flight stability was lost. With a tail wing and one side wing, the shuttle should have gone into a corkscrew. Immediately, sensors onboard would have kicked in, saying "the current flight path is not desireable, adjust the flaps to stabilize". Well, the computer has no clue that half the flaps are gone, and nothing in the scenarios could have fixed the rolling. It is a case where the problem is beyond the scope of the software that controls the system. At that point, you can only hope that the ingenuity of the human mind would find the right solution -- in this case, it was beyond hope.
I recall reading that when the shuttle was originally designed, it assumed 100% computer control flight & had no cockpit, and adding the viewing glass added a multitude of structural weaknesses to the design. But the pilots wouldn't ride if they didn't have the option to drive... designs were changed, politics reigned, and we got what we have today.
On the flipside, you could argue that the complexity of the situation is beyond human reflexes, and instead we should allow the computers to fly all the time. This is the current setup, and it worked for every situation ever encountered to date. If NASA would just give up on the option for human-controlled flight, they would be able to scrap the cockpit, and design a shielded "passenger" bay instead. This would remove a lot of the material weaknesses, and it would allow more "common" scientists to travel in space, since it would remove that aspect of required training.
Would a shielded compartment have saved the crew? The forces involved are (pardon the pun) astronomical, and even had they survived, I doubt it. But, our country designs some amazing things, and it's only a matter of time before we discover the materials to make it happen.
Re:Mixed opinion (Score:2)
Respectfully, I disagree. Not because I am guessing as to this happening, but because I remember hearing it described that the computer did EXACTLY that. When the autopilot was on toward the end, it WAS attempting to make corrections. Now, I don't believe it knew WHY, but it was detecting "ano
Re:The Shuttle is *extremely* difficult to land .. (Score:5, Informative)
STS-112 [spaceflightnow.com]
"Making his first hands-on landing, first-time shuttle commander Jeffrey Ashby took over manual control of the shuttle five minutes before touchdown as the spaceplane passed through 50,000 feet above the Florida spaceport. "
STS-93 [floridatoday.com]
"Update for 11:17 p.m. EDT
Commander Eileen Collins is taking manual control of Columbia. Three minutes to touchdown. The shuttle has gone sub-sonic. Twin sonic booms now being heard in the local area around Kennedy Space Center."
STS-113 [cbsnews.com]
"Following a computer-controlled plunge to a point about 50,000 feet above the Kennedy Space Center, commander James Wetherbee, making a record fifth descent as a shuttle skipper, took over manual control and guided the spaceplane to a breezy landing, reports CBS News Space Consultant William Harwood."
If I remember correctly, the first Shuttle pilot (dunno his name, some ex-Navy pilot)
Pilot, Robert Crippen, USN
Mission commander, John Young, USN
I get most of my understanding of the Shuttle landing procedure from the X-Plane sim, which makes it very clear that it's extremely difficult for a human being to land the Shuttle...
I would suspect that they have a leetle bit more training than you do.
Re:The Shuttle is *extremely* difficult to land .. (Score:2, Informative)
At that point in the envelope, I believe only one human being has ever taken the stick, and he let auto-pilot take over. Columbia was doing it as planned: by computer.
Here, read the 8:49 a.m. section here: [bayarea.com]
Columbia was still going too fast, so at 8:49 a.m. it made the first of three planned sweeping S-curve maneuvers, banking first to the right and, later, to the left. These maneuvers extend the time the s
Re:The Shuttle is *extremely* difficult to land .. (Score:3, Interesting)
So don't you think whatever happened to Columbia in the last few moments might fit into that "extreme catastrophic failure of onboard systems" prerequisite?
Re:The Shuttle is *extremely* difficult to land .. (Score:2, Funny)
I beg to differ. In this movie [imdb.com], Lea Thompson did it manually without any problem.
I don't think that's accurate (Score:2)
Re:The Shuttle is *extremely* difficult to land .. (Score:2)
AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilot's Association, for you ground pounders) Pilot Magazine did an "aircraft review" article on the Shuttle orbiter a few years back. It described in great detail what it's like to "fly" the shuttle from orbit to earth.
The article writer "hand flew" the simulator from orbit to earth. It's not as bad as you might think. Anyone trained to fly an ILS approach (even a private pilot like me) would have very little difficulty with this. On the other ha
Some support for your Crackpot idea... (Score:2)
Looking for more to support your theory I found articles from USA Today [usatoday.com], Time [time.com], and IOCOM [io.com].
USA Today also has a link to a very nice graphical representation of the sensor failures.
The Time article interestingly describes what the final moments may have been like on board for the astronauts. It appears there was another 2 Sec burst of data after contact was lost. Time states, "For 5 sec. after that, only computer data streamed down, and then all contact was lost. Finally, 25 sec. later, the ship crackled bac
Re:My Crackpot idea... (Score:2)
Black box?! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Black box?! (Score:2, Funny)
a) It was a vast conspiracy by the evil alien empire with the earth combined with the Republican national committee to divert attention from a meeting of their evil cabal.
b) Some talking head on the news didn't do his research worth a damn.
Personally, I think it was a.
Re:Black box?! (Score:2)
Re:Black box?! (Score:2)
Mine too. Especially since it didn't explode. heating and dynamic pressure --> vehicle breakup
Re:Black box?! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not really a black box like those found on airliners. It's simply a data recorder lucky enough to survive relatively intact.
BTW, the telemetry sent by the shuttle, in theory, provides more information than a black box.
Re:Black box?! (Score:2)
The black box tape has data for at least 14 seconds after telemetry was lost (in the FA). I believe that radio is lost during reentry.
Re:Black box?! (Score:2)
The data recorder probably kept recording after the comm systems were damaged. Ideally communications can be maintained during reantry (though frequent drops are common).
Recorder not strengthened like black box (Score:5, Informative)
During one of the original news conferences, a reporter asked if there was a black box, similar to those on aircraft. He was told no because NASA did not believe that they could design a black box that could survive a shuttle disaster. Did NASA lie? No, they told the truth, there are no black boxes designed to withstand a shuttle disaster.
Re:Recorder not strengthened like black box (Score:3, Funny)
Nasa say they can't design a black-box that could survive a shuttle disaster.
The data-recorder, which was not designed to survive re-entry, survived.
Nasa should get the design of their next re-entry vehicle from the designer of the data-recorder!
Re:Recorder not strengthened like black box (Score:2)
NASA did not believe that they could design a black box that could survive a shuttle disaster
I think they need to reconsider this judgment. I don't doubt that it would be very difficult to design a box that could withstand every possible failure mode. But the crew cabin survived the Challenger explosion, and this unhardened recorder survived a vehicle breakup at about 14,000 mph.
I hope we'll never lose another shuttle. But there will be successors to the shuttle. With enough flights, there will undoub
Re:Black box?! (Score:3, Informative)
However Columbia did have extra monitoring recorders (to supplement the ground feed) because it was the first shuttle built and flown in space. They later removed some of that equipment, but did leave some of it, including this piece (fortunetly)
Re:Black box?! (Score:2)
Re:Black box?! (Score:2)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=52510&comment
Accident cause (Score:3, Funny)
Well, the solution is simple -- remove the data recorder from the remaining shuttles, and *presto* exploding shuttle problem solved.
GF.
Re:Accident cause (Score:3, Informative)
However (Score:5, Insightful)
-Evan
Re:However (Score:2)
Well, the Europeans seem to be looking at the past for inspiration [estec.esa.nl]. Apollo-style reentry vehicles are cheap and reliable. And I'm not sure whether they are exciting for you, but I suspect they are quite exciting for everybody on board.
that does not involve getting off the ground by blasting itself off the ground with hundreds of pounds of fuel.
Well, it just takes a certain amount of fuel to get stuff up there. However
Re:However (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. Return vehicles can be cheap and reliable if they are small, dumb, and Apollo/Soyuz-like. And, as the link shows, the Europeans scrapped Hermes and kept ARD--someone else seems to think it makes sense. And it's working for the Russians as well. Compare that with the enormous cost of each shuttle launch.
I gotta say, I'm glad you don't run CalTrans!
Space travel may be "public transportation", but, surprising as that may be to you, t
Yes, but will it bury the "mysterious beam" theory (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yes, but will it bury the "mysterious beam" the (Score:2)
Re:Yes, but will it bury the "mysterious beam" the (Score:2)
Re:Yes, but will it bury the "mysterious beam" the (Score:3, Interesting)
If you think this theory is "out there," believe me, you haven't seen shit [bakutoday.net].
Re:Yes, but will it bury the "mysterious beam" the (Score:2)
sfgate.com link (Score:2)
It appears to be directly quoted by commondreams, FWIW.
I'm curious about something -- If it's not an anomoly caused within the guy's camera, how come nobody else saw it? It's not like San Fran isn't populated.
--
Re:Yes, but will it bury the "mysterious beam" the (Score:2)
hhhmmm.... how convienant for a conspiracy site.
yes there was something, but they won't give us the picture back. its a ba ba baaaammmmm conspiracy. they don't want us to know. for no apparent reason.
Missing Data (Score:5, Insightful)
How much drastically could this tape change the reconstruction of the problem that is already done. There are even timelines of how things happened, when the problem started, what sensors stopped to report, and almost all that happened till it was too late. Thit last 14 extra seconds will only show the last parts of destruction, but should not change what is already know about what happened, what caused all, and most of how it propagates in the ship.
Re:Missing Data or launch data captured? (Score:2, Interesting)
"The device contains 9,400 feet of magnetic tape that permits up to two hours recording time. It was turned on 10 minutes before Columbia's Jan. 16 launch and then turned off about six minutes after the shuttle reached orbit.
The recorder was activated again 15 minutes before Columbia began its ill-fated, 45-minute plunge through the atmosphere.".
Is it possible that the impact of the foam on the left wing (or other la
No kidding. (Score:3, Funny)
"Black Boxes" on Shuttles (Score:5, Interesting)
Why, then, does Columbia have the OEX recorder? Simple - Columbia was one of the first Shuttles to fly to orbit, and the engineers at NASA wanted a data recorder on board so they could examine and validate some characteristics of the vehicle design.
The OEX recorder contains far more information than a simple "black box". Finding it, intact, will greatly aid the understanding of what went wrong, and hopefully lead to increased safety on future Shuttle flights. Perhaps, something similar to the OEX recorder will be integrated into the other Shuttles, since it looks like a data recorder can survive re-entry.
More info about OEX recorder (Score:5, Informative)
<karmaho>
I came across an article [spaceflightnow.com] at Spaceflight Now which contains basically the same news, as well as a link to the OEX specifications [nasa.gov] in the NSTS 1988 News Reference Manual.
</karmaho>
No insight here, move along...
14 seconds after? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:14 seconds after? (Score:2)
Re:14 seconds after? (Score:4, Interesting)
The key word is "presumably". Although there exists a working theory--certainly among the press, and likely among NASA engineers as well--that the block of insulation that fell off during takeoff damaged the leading edge of the Shuttle wing, there still is by no means a consensus.
We want to have every last datum about this accident--more important than the final fourteen seconds of tape may well be the data collected right from the beginning of reentry. This tape provides data from hundreds of sensors that we didn't have access to before. Definitely an important find. Sure, the foam is the most likely culprit--but what if we've actually discovered a new mode of failure? Some sort of aerodynamic instability that only appears under certain rare wing loadings? A fuel or hydraulic line that is prone to failure? Something else...? We don't want to get caught by a red herring and lose another seven astronauts to the same problem.
These data will help confirm or invalidate the current theories of the accident. In addition, by providing information about conditions later in the breakup, the tape might guide future engineers in making the next incident more survivable.
Re:14 seconds after? (Score:2)
Last 14 seconds not important (Score:5, Insightful)
Concentrating on the last 14 seconds seems to play to the morbid sensational factor. Ie., finding out exactly how the shuttle broke up and thus imagining the exactly how the astronauts felt, etc. But then again, the emotional factor (ie. national pride) is the only reason why the shuttle is flying (IMHO).
Also, this article doesn't mention that this flight data recorder contained more detailed information than was available on the radio downlink data. See Critical Data Recorder is Unique to Shuttle Columbia [space.com] for more details.
Ben
"Don't be so humble. You may not be that good"
Re:Last 14 seconds not important (Score:4, Insightful)
What I noticed in the article too is that there was some mention that they could use the OPX for filling in some gaps. Remember, there was missing data during the yaw, seven seconds of static, and that was it. Fill in that missing gap with the OPX, see what happened during and beyond that seven seconds, and use the OPX to fill in any other gaps and gather some more tourist information.
Re:Last 14 seconds not important (Score:2)
It is unfortunate we care so much about money because buying love is very very expensive.
Re:Last 14 seconds not important (Score:2)
How so? The shuttle has never gone anywhere that couldn't already be reached by Apollo, Gemini, Soyuz, etc. Since Apollo, the only real exploration has been carried out with unmanned vehicles.
Fourteen more seconds but..... (Score:2, Redundant)
Rather I am hoping that the recorder proves of exceptional interest in the timeframe before. Unless the telemetry feeds off the shuttle completely duplicate the recorder, I would suspect that it might offer more detailed information on the
Not trying to be an ass here, but ... (Score:2)
In an e-mail exchange, Oberg said there have been various reports about glitches or "funnies" that might have been occurring aboard Columbia even before the spaceship crossed the California coastline.
Also, I was hoping this report had some insight as to what was on the additional seconds of data that was r
Columbia FAQ (Score:5, Informative)
There's an excellent FAQ [io.com], that will clear up a lot of misconceptions, and hopefully shut up some of the ignorant pedants.
If you're afraid it's a hidden goatse link, here it is naked:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/home.html
Don't Villianize the Space Program (Score:3, Insightful)
Most astronauts are adrenaline junkies anyway, flying experimental jets, climbing mountains, sky diving, etc. Many cadets in the space program and military personnel wishing to join the space program when their duties are up die before they join NASA. We have lost less than 20 people total defying gravity, and I call that a wonderful sucess.
NTSB investigagors help Shuttle probe (Score:3, Interesting)
They also know what to bring, what to do, where to go and what to ask [erau.edu]. And of course, they known how to extract data from Flight Data Recorders [ntsb.gov] Interestingly, the NTSB issued recommendations [ntsb.gov] that Require retrofit after January 1, 2005, of all cockpit voice recorders [ntsb.gov] (CVRs) [...] [be] fitted with an independent power source [...] that provides 10 minutes of operation whenever aircraft power to the recorder ceases. Just one of the things the NTSB fights the FAA [ntsb.gov] over
But remember the "Black box" (OEX recorder) on the shuttle is very different [io.com] from a CVR.
Recorder May Have Ascent Information Also (Score:3, Interesting)
I always wonder.. (Score:2, Funny)
Same with airplanes too.
Re:I always wonder.. (Score:2)
Re:I always wonder.. (Score:2)
What kind of tapes? (Score:2, Funny)
Amazing.
Re:Live radio (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Live radio (Score:2)
Re:Live radio (Score:2, Informative)
It is just those few minutes during the radio blackout time that things seemed to go wrong.
Re:Live radio (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Live radio (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that at 32 seconds before the final breakup (estimated), the signal to the TDRS was lost. This seems to be when the STS yawed enough that the tail antennas could no longer point up the non ionized track. You'll not that they got some partial data a few seconds (off the top of my head, it was 7 seconds of data 14 seconds later) after the first contact loss - this is estimated to be the time when the STS had yawed FULLY through 360 degs - aka, the shuttle actually spun fully at least ONCE. During this spin is when the shuttle lost the engine pod, and you can see the fragments coming off in the videos
Re:It's just NASA Negligence... (Score:3, Insightful)
They had no means to repair the damage, and insufficient life support to wait in space for a repair mission to be sent. They chose to try landing a damaged shuttle (which enginners said would probably be OK anyway) instead of suffocating in orbit. What would you have done?
Re:It's just NASA Negligence... (Score:2)
Given that this was a 10 day flight, knowing the Shuttle is severly damaged 2 days into it gives a LOT of options.
Then, stretching out the rations (food, air, water), would give a lot more time.
With ~2 weeks notice, NASA could have accomplished a LOT more than with 30 seconds notice.
Could they have gotten a resupply from Promise? Maybe, maybe not.
Could they have (given 2 weeks time) sent up another Shuttle? Maybe, maybe not.
Re:It's just NASA Negligence... (Score:2)
No, they didn't.
They declined to have it properly inspected before re-entry.
They didn't have the *ability* to inspect it.
I'm no NASA expert
In that case, stop acting like one.