Slashdot Mirror
Inspection Microsat Tested In Orbit
727scotty writes " Aviation Week magazine reports (Feb 3, page 39) that a 70 lb microsatelite designed to inspect its "mother ship" was successfully tested in orbit on January 29. The XXS-10 was launched on a Boeing Delta II , piggybacked on a GPS IIR-8 payload. The Microsat was maneuvered around the orbiting Delta upper stage, using video cameras to inspect it from all angles and various distances. Would have been nice to have on the Columbia mission."
---snip
So you already know, without knowing the actual extent of any theoretical damage that a minimal approach rather than the normal one would have made no difference? What would have stopped them from, e.g. getting another shuttle up, stopping by the space station, etc.?
---snip
I doubt there is a much more "minimal" approach than what is already used by the shuttle. As for getting another shuttle up, the soonest an emergency launch of atlantis could be performed would be a week, assuming everything went well. Considering how often launch dates have to be pushed back even under ideal conditions, actually pulling off an emergency launch in a week is a long shot.
And no, stopping by the space station was not an option, Columbia was in a much lower orbit than the iss and orbiting at a different angle (I know there is better term for that, anyone?).
There might have been _something_ they could have done, but those three options can pretty much be ruled out.
If it wouldn't have helped at all to have visuals of the damage in orbit, why on earth are we spending millions gathering debris to reconstruct what happened? A visual inspection, if it had been possible, could have potentially removed a lot of doubt about what really happened, even if it couldn't have saved the shuttle. It could have also given the astronauts a chance to assess their odds of survival and given them more time to say farewell to their families. Depressing maybe, but certainly pragmatic and humane.
Anybody ever see that show on Discovery three years ago, before they turned into the 'boring repeat channel'?
They had a one hour show on cold war technologies, one segment on powerful lasers for launching small devices. This laser had a square output beam, was focusable, and was used to launch this little metal top.
Anyways, I'm just rambling because I don't remember the name of the show, but one of the other things on that show was this *amazing* little device demonstrating an exotic propulsion system.
This device was about a foot long, and had little rocket nozzles all over it. It used some sort of engine that works in bursts. The device was in a net, and there was a countdown. Suddenly, the thing rises on tiny bursts of flame, stabilizes at some altitude. Just watching this thing rise with the tch-tch-tch-tch-tch-tch sound was amazing enough, but suddenly more jets activate, and the thing just ROLLS and floats sideways in the air.
This thing was the most maneuverable thing I'd ever seen. It had been designed to float in space and ram itself into enemy satelites.
It must have been very light. Just slap a camera on one of these and keep one on every Shuttle mission. I can't imagine anything being smaller and cheaper than this.
Oberg's idea of getting an astronaut out there, have the Shuttle maneuvre and have the astronaut basically in free-fall next to the Shuttle is last-ditch, IMHO.
"NASA did not attempt to examine Columbia's left wing with high-powered telescopes on the ground, 180 miles below, or with spy satellites. The last time NASA tried that, to check Discovery's drag-chute compartment during John Glenn's shuttle flight in 1998, the pictures were of little use, [shuttle program manager Ron] Dittemore said. Besides, he said, `'there was zero we could have done about it.' "
The article discusses other options and why they wouldn't have worked. Recommended reading....
"I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show