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."

Comments

No, it wouldn't...

[docbrown42]

Would have been nice to have on the Columbia mission.

No, it wouldn't. Even if the astronauts had found the problem before they re-entered the atmosphere, there wasn't anything they could have done about it. They weren't set up for extended space walks, and they didn't have the equipment to repair the tiles anyway. And, they weren't in the right orbit to make it to the space station.

It wouldn't have made much of a difference.

Re:No, it wouldn't...

[727scotty]

It wouldn't have made much of a difference.

Not to Columbia, but I bet the investigators would love to have detailed pictures...

Re:No, it wouldn't...

[joshuac]

---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.

Re:No, it wouldn't...

[MonopolyNews]

Apollo 13 didn't have the right materials to survive either.

Re:No, it wouldn't...

[AndyDeck]

The main point was that saying that there was nothing to do seems a bit foolish. NASA has pulled some pretty significant rabbits out of the hat in cases of having to deal with unexpected but non-catastrophic failures before. This one was not definitively catastrophic until reentry.

THANK you. This has been my biggest issue with the way things are sorting out. Yes, the orbital mechanics were all wrong for approaching the ISS. Yes, the lab module was blocking the airlock. Yes, there was no robot arm. Yes, there is no procedure to repair tiles in space.

But why in the name of all that is holy did they decide to not even look for damage? I saw a comment from last week that the damage was judged by the analysts to be minor, and thus no changes in re-entry were planned. This says to me that if damage was judged to be major, an alternative re-entry could have been planned to reduce heat and stress. No magic tile repair necessary, no emergency launch of supplies or rescue craft, just an alternative landing approach - and the astronauts could have been saved.

Damn hindsight - let's have some foresight!

Re:No, it wouldn't...

[adolf]

My girlfriend's car has some sort of suspension problem. I haven't found what it is because I haven't looked, but I hear it clunking somewhere near the right-front wheel sometimes on bumps and ABS stops on snow. It started sometime after she pinwheeled off the road, through a shallow ditch, and into someone's front yard, some months ago.

I just tell her to ignore it. After all, I don't have a garage, let alone equipment and supplies to repair it. There's a good chance that it's just something rather benign, like a sway-bar mount, anyhow. Besides, the car drives just fine - it's just got some new noises.

OTOH, there's also a chance that it's a ball joint or other critical, non-redundant component. A part which has catastrophic failure modes that include loss of power, braking, and steering, and present an opportunity for a screaming, cartwheeling death.

But, like I said: Since I don't know for sure that it's something important, I'll just assume that it's not and hope things turn out OK for her and our 2-year-old.

It won't make much difference. Out of sight, out of mind - it's a Zen thing. Everyone really is better off by not looking at it and identifying the problem - ignorance is blissful like that.

[Translation for the sarcasm-impaired: If the combination of a crew of bloody astronauts (already proven to be some of the most capable people in existance) and a multinational fleet of fucking rocket scientists can't figure out a way to hang 10 long enough to fix what was probably the spaceflight analog of my girlfriend's simple automotive suspension problem, I'll eat my hat.

But first, they need to be able to identify potential difficulties; this microsat gizmo might be just the ticket to avoid doing a spacewalk equivilent of the terrestrial walkaround that everyone's supposed to do before they get in their car and start driving.

They go over everything with a magnifying glass, fine-tooth comb, and sliderule before liftoff. How much would it really cost to give a cursory look at stuff before re-entry, especially when potential problems are already known to exist?

Worse case is that it's really, really unfixable and they end up ditching the shuttle by burning it up over the Pacific, but that's really no big deal - simple money will build more of them. Things might get cramped, but I'd bet there's enough room and food on ISS for a few extra bodies to get cozy and play blackjack for a couple of weeks as the Russians figure out how to caravan the extra heads back home, and we scratch our collective asses, wondering why we didn't send a couple of tubes of JB Weld along on the last mission.]

Columbia - NASA Ignored Inspection Chances...

[0x69]

My understanding (from a NY Times article if I recall right) is that NASA did not even try to inspect Columbia with several powerful ground-based telescopes (which had been used to inspect some earlier shuttles).

A better tool ain't no cure for "talked yourself out of bothering to try".

Yeow

[Bob Vila's Hammer]

Yah, there's nothing like hindsight is there...

Re:that's what's suspicious...

[elmegil]

I don't think that terrorist investigations have any relevance to this. The relevant study to compare it is the Rogers commission from when Challenger blew up. And that definitely was quality work, and I have confidence that this one can be the same.

It's about increasing options.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Progress cargo vessel that docked with the ISS was sent up 1 day after the Shuttle crash with supplies.

If they had known a *week* beforehand that the shuttle was not going to survive re-entry, is there not a *POSSIBILITY* that an emergency cargo / docking ring change could have taken place, the launch recalculated and sent into a Columbia-compatible orbit? Bring at least some of the shuttle crew down in Progress (maybe all if possible) then attempt to bring the Shuttle in on autopilot?

The shuttle would have had enough supplies to last for another couple of days for this rendezvous to take place - landing delays are frequent events anyway because of bad weather.

Anyway, it's something to think about for the future - it's obvious that there is a need for emergency response options with any future space travel.

Also: WHY are all docking rings on manned spacecraft not compatible? Standards like that will save lives in future, dammit.

Re:It's about increasing options.

[PD]

Jeez man, this isn't Star Trek. How would progress have made it back to Earth? It doesn't have a heat shield. How would progress have docked with the shuttle? No docking ring. How would the astronauts have changed the docking ring? No tools or training. It takes a whole crew of people a long time on the ground to do it.

And even if all that stuff had been made available, how would you have fit the progress into the shuttle? Solar panels can't fit, plus you had a cargo bay full of experiments that can't be released from the shuttle.

Even the most spectacular rescue in space - Apollo 13 - had the benefit of some planning before the launch of the mission. The use of the LEM as a contingency lifeboat had been considered before. With Columbia, there's nothing at all that could be done.

BTW, if you had put a big barge of superglue and tinfoil out in the middle of the Atlantic waiting for the Titanic to hit the iceberg, it still would have gone down. Just being sarchastic there.

Will you quit regurgitating foolish NASA wisdoms!

[uradu]

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.

Re:ACES and intervehicle transfer

[Rocket Racket]

Partial Orbital Elements for the ISS:
Semi-major axis: 6763km (alt. ~392km, or 250mi)
inclination: 51.55deg

Orbital data for SS (from press release):
Altitude: 178mi
inclination: 39deg

So, we have a LOT of altitude to make up and an orbital inclination change of 12.55 deg is going to take a LOT of oomph! (a 1deg change of inclination costs you fuel equal to 9% of your mass). At first glance, that just wouldn't work. Not the nice analysis you were looking for, but it seems like a waste of effort.

Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

because it wasn't worth it the first time

[barakn]

According to this article:

"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....

Re:that's what's suspicious...

[johngaunt]

They did not "FIX" the O-rings, they decided that they can't launch in cold weather. The fix is to spend millions of dollars holding up the launch of a multi Billion spacecraft over a 50 dollar piece of rubber. Nothing was "fixed" because of the Challenger, we just adjusted our capability to our technological weakest link.