Pete Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Now I’m not the conspiracy theory type by nature, but for the past day or so I’ve had something on my mind. What if NASA knew. You can’t tell the world, it would be too damaging to the program. There is no way in the world that anybody can prove that they didn’t look with satellites and telescopes. Back in the day, John Glen was told that there might be a problem with his heat shield, and he may burn up during re-entry. The media was aware of the situation, but these men were viewed as heroes and the country for the most part supported and followed the space program. 03 is so different when it comes to the attitude towards the manned space program. The general public denies the fact that it’s still a very dangerous game. Having them go up, and come down with out a hitch in so many years, we’ve come to expect perfection. They say that they estimate that the damage caused to the tile on the wing would be around 30 X 7 inches. I’m no astro physicist. I’m more like Astro from the Jetsons, and don’t understand one thing. If the basic design of a wing is to create a negative pressure above the wing, and a positive pressure under (lift), wouldn’t it also be possible for debris to tumble or even drag along the underside of a wing, not just hit and bounce off. I haven’t heard anything on what the make up of the insulation is, but anything possibly being covered with ice could cause more damage IMO. Did NASA know. Did the flight controller have to call up to them prior to their de-orbit burn and say, sorry folks it seems there’s substantially more damage to the tiles then previously thought. With no chance of rescue, the options are sure death in two weeks or so when the air runs out, or take the slim chance of a successful re-entry and landing. Did they let it go unknown to the crew knowing the poor odds, and hoping for the best. Could the airframe have had a fatal flaw that was missed, or develop one during lift off, or dozens of other things making all the talk of tile wasted time ? Yes, But Did a small group at the top in NASA know the flight was doomed early on, and decide to hide the truth to lighten the damage to the program. If they said early on the flight had little to no chance of survival, you would have live network coverage of the faithful moment when they try to re-enter. The public outcry would undoubtedly be that we can’t take these risks with people any longer, and must go the rout of the robot for now. Did NASA know ? Did the Crew ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Of course NASA didn't know! They aren't a bunch of sadists! We have other shuttles and a way to retrieve those astronauts with them. I was envisioning a scenario wherein the Columbia could have remained docked at the ISS while another shuttle came up to retrieve the astronauts and bring equipment to resupply Columbia and repair the damage . . . if they'd known about it. As for the ice theory, NASA's backing off of that and the insulating foam as causes: . . . A patch of foam insulation that broke off from the shuttle's external fuel tank during launch and struck tiles on the underside of the left wing had been the focus of the probe into the possible causes of Columbia's destruction. After days of analysis, NASA backed away Wednesday from the theory that the foam might have been the root cause of the accident. Instead, Dittemore said investigators are focusing more closely on the frantic effort of Columbia's automatic control system to hold the speed of the spacecraft stable despite increasing wind resistance, or drag, on the left wing. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 The more I read, the more it sounds like theres some 'x factor' which caused the Columbia to break up. The calculations the engineers used (once they realized the foam had come off and struck the underside of Columbia) were apparently extremely conservative and the engineers still couldn't see anything more than minor damage having occured. The foam (according to what I've read) is basically water-resistant, and icing was not a major problem at launch, so those theories don't make much sense either. It sounds like to me that they are examining a possible collision with space junk as the next area of explanation. I believe a far more likely scenario had NASA known the damage put the craft in jeopardy would have been an attempted rescue mission. I just can't see that kind of self-serving a$$ covering from professionals. I think they've conducted themselves with total candor and class throughout the entire ordeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Redman... I was envisioning a scenario wherein the Columbia could have remained docked at the ISS while another shuttle came up to retrieve the astronauts and bring equipment to resupply Columbia and repair the damage . . . if they'd known about it. The shuttle wasn't carrying enough fuel to reach the ISS orbit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted February 6, 2003 Author Share Posted February 6, 2003 Of course NASA didn't know! They aren't a bunch of sadists! Sorry if that's the way I made it sound to you Redman, but it has nothing to do with being sadistic. I'm talkin realists. Everything I've seen at this pont says there was no chance of rescue. Throughout US history there have been some cases where the people in charge have had to say, there's nothing we can do, your in gods hands now. If I'm in the driver seat, I tell the crew, and give them as much time to interact with their families as the agree with, and then try the landing. I just can't see that kind of self-serving a$$ covering from professionals. I think they've conducted themselves with total candor and class throughout the entire ordeal. Yes, thay have done an outstanding job in the way they have conducted themselves. No matter what the cause, they could have known. They are only humans, and we have been shocked before by things you would never think could or would have been done. I'm pro NASA , but do think it was a possibility they knew, but couldn't do a single thing about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 They couldnt reach the ISS, they couldnt have docked even if they made it. Furthermore, there wasn't enough food/water to sustain all 10 people for the time needed to send up a "rescue" craft. These shuttles arent sitting in a shed waiting to be fired up. IT takes months to prep one and get it ready. It wasnt an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin56 Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Endeavor was sitting on a launch pad and still is. It was scheduled to fly less than a month after Columbia's return. They could have launched Endeavor within two weeks. Columbia had enough supplies to last at least two more weeks. The problem with a rescue with another shuttle was more difficult than that. Columbia had no docking rings to pressurize a passage between two spacecraft and there weren't space suits for the Astronauts to wear to make a walk between two vehicles. So............ even if NASA had launched Endeavor for a rescue mission, the Columbia crew could not have exited the vehicle to get into another one. This illustrates the failed policies that NASA has been utlizing in the shuttle program. Once its lauched on a mission such as Columbia's, there is only one way back.............. on board the same vehicle through the atmosphere. The missions to the ISS are a different story. The ships are equiped with the proper technology to allow for space dockings. NASA must devise a way, or have contingency plans, for such events that strand a wounded shuttle that would allow for such "Rescue Missions". Currently there are none. So IF NASA knew that there was a chance that Columbia could burn up upon re-entry, they still could not have rescued the crew. IMHO this needs to change in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleSteve Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by redskin56 So IF NASA knew that there was a chance that Columbia could burn up upon re-entry, they still could not have rescued the crew. IMHO this needs to change in the future. All this is true, but I believe the shuttle could have held more fuel. It just wasn't deemed necessary for this mission. I don't know if it would have been enough to boost their orbit to 240 miles for a link-up with the ISS. I completely agree. Some sort of contingency planning needs to be done. They should have at least been able to deploy the arm to get pictures of the underside of the shuttle. But they didn't bring it. 7 lives and a $2 billion spacecraft. What a waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by TheChosenOne Redman...The shuttle wasn't carrying enough fuel to reach the ISS orbit. Ah, important point. Thanks. I'm far more up to speed on Iraq than the shuttle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin56 Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 The point remains however that even if Columbia could have reached the ISS, there was no way to have the crew disembark the Columbia and transfer to the ISS. The Columbia did not have the proper docking components to dock with the ISS and there were not spacesuits on board for them to enter through an airlock. They could not have transfered to the ISS under any conditions. I could be wrong about this, but I seem to recall that Columbia has never been outfitted with the docking hardware to dock with the ISS. Columbia had a "Space Hab" component in the cargo bay. In order for the shuttle to "dock" with the ISS it has to be equiped with the "Docking Unit" carried inside the cargo bay. This further illustrates the point that NASA has no contigency plans in the event of a mishap when they send the shuttle on missions such as the Columbia was on. There was absolutely no way for the crew to disembark and transfer to another vehicle or the ISS. This means that IN THE EVENT THAT SOMETHING GOES WRONG during the duration of the mission after attaining orbit, they have to re-enter the earth's atmosphere, no matter what. It bothers me that NASA doesn't anticipate that something could go wrong on a space flight that would prevent the shuttle from re-entry without the threat of burning up without making some sort of plan or contingency that would allow the crew to remain in space on the ISS or wait until another vehicle, American or Russian for that matter, can come to their aide. They just let the vehicle and crew perform their mission and gamble on the chances of their safe return. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 It occurs to me that the equipment for these contingencies is precisely the kind of thing that falls victim to the red pen when budgets get tight. I hope this means that we get serious about supporting our space program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin56 Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 It occurs to me that the equipment for these contingencies is precisely the kind of thing that falls victim to the red pen when budgets get tight. I hope this means that we get serious about supporting our space program. I could not agree more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by Blazers21 All this is true, but I believe the shuttle could have held more fuel. It just wasn't deemed necessary for this mission. I don't know if it would have been enough to boost their orbit to 240 miles for a link-up with the ISS. I completely agree. Some sort of contingency planning needs to be done. They should have at least been able to deploy the arm to get pictures of the underside of the shuttle. But they didn't bring it. 7 lives and a $2 billion spacecraft. What a waste. They do contingency planning. Most solutions mentioned wouldn't have lowered the total risk only re-balanced it (and in some cases made it higher like aditional fuel which if not used would most likely have to be dumped before re-entry which is a very high-risk requirement). Now with hindsight, that'd be okay (since post-event, there is NO RISK, only the certainty of what happened). But before the event, you're balancing several risks and the best solution is to minimize total risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.