Shuttle Tank ruled out? So soon?

[Guest Barney1]

Totally differnet orbits and totally different inclinations. No docking fitting on Columbia and no provision for EVA.

[Guest]

Docking adaptor not aboard orbiter. With no means to maintain position relative to the station both vehicles would be endangered by the possibility of drifting into each other. The hazard from this would be similar to the docking accident that disabled a module on the Mir station. The station has numerous long protruding solar panels and heat dispersion radiators. It would be dangerous to maintain a position within reasonable tether reach without the ability to dock.I'll concede your first two points, because I do not have the necessary data to agree or disagree. On point three...this is not atmospheric flight. Drive up to 100 feet from ISS, and stabilize...the shuttle would stay exactly 100 feet away for an extended period (months?) Long enough to do a tethered emergency egress. Folks...folks are dead. Any type of egress would have been preferable to what happened to them. Hindsight is 20/20, but I say again. With the evidence they had historically, they should have done more diligence to investigate. My guess is foam impact probably did have something to do with tile damage, which had to do with failure of left wing, and catastrophe...much better chance of that than a meteor.bt

[RobertVA 0]

A proof of concept for the "next" reusable American spacecraft was partialy built! A launch facility for the proof of concept was built near Edwards AFB CA. Know as the X-33, the project was canceled when the unmanned spacecraft's composite fuel tank proved too porous to properly contain liquid hydrogen in a test prior to the tank's installation. Apparently NASA decided composite tank fabrication technology needed a while to acheve that capability.The X-33 was a reduced scale proof of concept for a proposed single stage to orbit (no external tank or boosters) manned vehicle which was refered to as "Venturestar". The concept was to use a modified version of the revolutionary Aerospike external combustion rocket motor to propel a lifting body spacecraft which would glide to a runway landing adjacent to the launch facility.A competing proof of concept actually acheived multiple low altitude test flights. That vehicle was destroyed in a fiery explosion when a retractable landing pad failed to lock into the extended position and the vehicle toppled on engine shutdown. That Delta Flyer, possibly named for its triangular shape, was designed to make a vertical landing using the thust of its rocket engines. The full sized spacecraft represented by the Delta Flyer would probably have required the same composite tank technology that caused problems for the X-33.

[Guest DNelson]

Braun, please educate yourself on orbital mechanics before making statements like this. Columbia orbital inclination: 39 degrees. ISS orbital inclination: 51 degrees. Do you have any idea how much propellant is required to make off-plane maneuvers like this once in orbit? Also the ISS orbit is between 50 and 100 miles higher than Columbia's. It may not be atmospheric flight, but it still takes energy to raise an orbit by that much. Finally, even if you could somehow get to the same altitude and inclination, you'd be trailing or leading the ISS by a fixed time, and that time would never change.

[greggerm 312]

I would like to seriously congratulate the participants of this thread for keeping a provocative topic within the bounds of civility. Discussions like these help to renew my faith in Internet forums. :)Anyway - getting back to the root of the thread...NASA did a bit of an about face, and clarified late yesterday and today (2/7/03) that the foam insulation has certainly not been ruled out. I think this is something we'll see a lot of throughout the course of the investigation. Not because they want to cover their behinds, but mainly because the data, information, and scientific conclusions the engineers are coming to change hour-to-hour, and day-to-day. Will we ever know the exact cause of this catastrophe? Probably not. Can our scientific minds bring the focus down to a few detailed possibilities? I sure hope so. The video from Nevada may help to show that this failure started before the Texas airspace.I'm sure there are folks in the nation that are certain this shuttle met it's fate due to A.) A North Korean Space Laser, B.) Them there aliens, or C.) A vast conspirisy designed by the New World Order folks to keep humanity from discovering the secrets of intersteller travel. I just hope more thoughtful minds prevail in the court of public opinion, and a scientifically sound theory emerges from the haze of the evidence.No public speculation from me - just hopes that we can find out as much as we can. -Greg

[Guest]

Dan, please read what I said before you critique me for an opinion or statement.I said there was a space station out there. I said they could have perhaps egressed to the ISS. Someone else (RobertVA) said:* Did not have enough propellant to change orbital altitude by that much* Probably did not have enough propellant to change orbital plane by that muchI conceded those points because I was not educated on those specific criteriaThe third point, the one I did contest was this:* With no means to maintain position relative to the station both vehicles would be endangered by the possibility of drifting into each other. I said, not true. Fly up to 100 feet or so, stabilize, and all is well...well long enough to make an emergency egress. I will stand by that part of my statement, as I am educated enough about orbital mechanics to know that two objects, even in low earth orbit, can track relatively close without undue danger.In my mind, the net of all this discussion is this...if we are going to be space builders, space "pioneers" we need to treat space like any other medium. Deep sea, Antarctic flatlands, Martian desert. If you are on your own, and you face a risk, you must weigh the risks of inaction against the risk of action. If we can't live up to that challenge, then planetary exploration is impossible.bt

[Guest DNelson]

>I'd indeed like to hear more about how the tiles are attached if you are able.Elrond,Here's a link with more information than you ever wanted:http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/techno...ps.html#sts-tpsIt's mostly engineer geek talk. Go about halfway down the page to the section titled "HIGH-TEMPERATURE REUSABLE SURFACE INSULATION TILES" and there's a description of how the tiles are attached.Dan

[Guest Barney1]

NASA's fickleness with respect to the foam debris shouldn't come as any surprise. Ron Dittemore, right from his very first words after Saturday's loss of Columbia, alluded to just that sort of attitude being the rule rather than the exception, especially in light of his declaration of honestly keeping everyone informed. It is an extremely complex situation, in fact, it *is* rocket science and to expect immediate, simple and defined causal effect is unrealistic. Unfortunately, the medias' instatiable appetite for instant gratification tends to blind some of us.

[Guest SoarPics]

Hi Greg,Good points you make... but I hope the one above proves untrue. I believe the combined talents and efforts of all involved will find the cause(s). But it may take time. They're dealing with the largest debris field in the history of accident investigation. And the most complex flying machine ever created.Regards,

[Guest DNelson]

Braun,It's obvious we're not communicating. I'm sure that's my fault, as my wife always tells me the same thing. :-lolFirst, I'm assuming that we are talking about the actual orbits that Columbia and ISS were in last week, and not some future, hypothetical orbit that was designed with rescue in mind.With that in mind, all I'm saying is that it's irrelevant whether Columbia and ISS could have gotten within 100 feet without damage or contact. The simple fact is, once the launch occurred at the time and date it did, the initial compass course over the ground was established, and the duration and timing of the SSME and OMS rocket engine burns were completed, all the orbital geometry was literally cast in stone, and there was absolutely NO WAY that the two objects could have come within 100 feet of each other. Maybe not within 100 miles or 1000 miles or 10,000 miles. (There would be a VERY slim chance that the ground-track paths could cross, but there is still the 50+ mile altitude difference.) That is a simple fact, and it cannot be debated.Dan

[Guest]

The simple fact is, once the launch occurred at the time and date it did, the initial compass course over the ground was established, and the duration and timing of the SSME and OMS rocket engine burns were completed, all the orbital geometry was literally cast in stone, and there was absolutely NO WAY that the two objects could have come within 100 feet of each other. Maybe not within 100 miles or 1000 miles or 10,000 miles.Understood, noted, and now just a bit "smarterer"! :)Thanks,bt

[Guest]

Hi Robert,I appreciate the entertaining analogy of the SUV, I do. However, that doesn't answer any of the questions posed in the failure of NASA to deal with known problems with the shuttle program. Let me repeat my specific questions about some of the failures here:1) Why wasn't the CANADARM on board for *all* flights - specifically to enable assessing damage to the tiles and other outside surfaces once in orbit. Outside damage - [link:www.msnbc.com/news/869842.asp?0cv=CB20|and the CANADARM had already proven] its ability to image that damage so to better access the real risks:"In 1998, part of a solid-fuel booster rocket flew off and skittered along the undercarriage of the shuttle Atlantis during liftoff, causing significant damage to 298 tiles. With the robotic arm and camera it carried, the crew was able to examine the damage in flight."2) Why weren't there at least two Manned Maneuvering Units, or even the less capable SAFER emergency units on board? No, not for flying to the space station in some fantasy rescue attempt - but to assess the known outside damage problems the shuttle had repeatedly encountered. And as part of a comprehensive and researched plan to fix tile damage.3) Why wasn't there a set of replacement tiles stored in the cargo bay area - or at least some advanced, researched emergency heat blanket type of "patch" available? As a layman, I of course don't know how feasible carrying and attaching tiles is from orbit. What I do know, is if the problem had been given top priority since it was known early in the shuttle program (and specially after Challenger), some type of today's unknown solution would already be in place. That there is no solution to the problem today is clear... Absolutely no research (or very little that had small priority) has been done to solve that problem. And thats the problem.4) The risk of a shuttle loss in the face of a meteoroid or space debris hit was clearly defined in the 1997 risk report by the National Research Council: "The space shuttle orbiter has already been struck many times by small meteoroids and orbital debris, but it has not been damaged severely. There is a real risk, however, that a meteoroid or debris impact could one day force the crew to abort a mission or might result in loss of life or loss of the shuttle itself. Protecting the Space Shuttle from Meteoroids and Orbital Debris assesses the magnitude of the problem and suggests changes that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration can make to reduce the risk to the shuttle and its crew." You can read the full report here: [link:books.nap.edu/catalog/5958.html]Protecting the Space Shuttle from Meteoroids and Orbital Debris].So why, when NASA repeatedly states that human safety is its number one priority, was this set of likely fatal circumstances wholly ignored? Or at the least, (and this is begining to sound familiar) not priority number one?In summary: Why wasn't a real in-orbit plan to physically assess damage and[/b replace or repair damaged tiles or other external areas (of specific, defined types - I realize not every contingency can be covered) the absolute top priority at NASA?Let me be clear of what I'm saying here. I realize that Columbia was doomed on this mission, nothing in the world can change that fact. Indeed, even if they knew there was damage, nothing in the world could have been done about it since a solution to the known and potentially deadly problems had never been a top priority.And that is the exact failure I'm talking about.Take care,Elrond

[Guest]

Thanks Dan, I appreciate it.Take care,Elrond

[Guest Barney1]

I'm also sure the cause(s) will eventually be revealed....the operative word being 'eventually'. However, it appears that beginning very shortly, Mr. Dittemore will no longer be 'in charge' of these newscasts; the recently-appointed admiral(Ret) who heads the unbiased and impartial review board created for this event(tongue-in-cheek), may be the next one we see addressing the camera. Where once we were hearing all sorts of information, I foresee a lot of "No comments are appropriate at this juncture of the investigation.", or some such similar phrase(s).