Slashdot Mirror
Columbia Coverage
ke4roh writes "Space.com offers a list of questions and answers about the events and hardware surrounding Columbia's destruction Saturday. They address suspected causes, foam, tile, and some of the alternatives had NASA known the ship would not be able to re-enter the atmosphere." viewstyle writes "PC Magazine has a pack of stuff put together on the space shuttle accident, as they recognized the fact that the space program inspired a lot of tech people in general. What's pretty cool is the section written by a guy there who worked on the computer components in the shuttle." And naturally, the idea of a space elevator is back in vogue again.
I've been hearing a lot about the 30 seconds of telemetry that was too weak for the computers to display during the shuttle break-up but that is now being analyzed from backups. Does anybody have any more information on what this data?
As I understand it, the last 'good readings' were full-scale low or high on a lot of the temperature sensors, which to me would indicate sensor failure. Several of these sensors reported such values before communication was lost. This kind of makes me wonder what benefit there would be in examining whatever else came back after those failures--I can't imagine the data would be particularly accurate, though there may be some valuable information. Can anybody elaborate?
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
My favorite quote:
"Technology has its limits. Information systems have their limits. Human analysis, foresight and insight have their limits."
I firmly believe that what limits us and/or holds us back is not how horribly broken is, but how we choose to abuse/use it.
Columbia likely was doomed by damage incurred during launch. However, those astronauts were likely doomed by a faulty damage analysis.
Don't believe anything I say. I crash test crack pipes for a living.
One thing that suprised me was how FEW detectors there appeared to be on the shuttle. You'd have thought that it would be mostly wiring and lots of redundancy and measuring every millisecond, but it appeared to be much coarser and less often. Surely in 1980 they had small electronic detectors so as to enable more accurate reporting ?
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Here is an insightful editorial on K5 which should help put some things into perspective. It's worth reading if you haven't already.
So, how the hell do you get down if there's a fire? The "Space Stairs"*?.
* (c)2003 kir
3cx.org - A truly bad website.
Why dont you keep your stupid gub'ment conspiracy theories to yourself?
Big chunks of ice fall off that big gas tank every time it goes up (it's filled with liquid hydrogen, IIRC). There was no more damage to the shuttle than occurs on any given launch.
They did inspect it, and if you were paying attention to the mission BEFORE it became a tragedy-cum-media-feeding-frenzy, you would have known that they assessed that there was no issue with safety.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
"As for that retarded idea of space elevator, let's repeat for the zillionth time: It won't work. It's just an occupation of "acaedmics" to keep them occupied with such "ideas".
Yes, it is exactly the same as the other huge time-wasters some idiot academics spent time on in the past, such as:
- That improbable heavier-than-air flying machine
- The ludricous notion that one could reach India by sailing west around the world instead of east...
- That silly experiment of using steam to turn wheels and do useful work.
- Trying to figure out the course of planets by assuming they revolve around the sun, where any fool can see that everything revolves around the earth.
Seriously, with a mentality like that we'd still be hunting wooly mammoths with sticks.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
People wishing to express their sympathies can send notes to this address:
Johnson Space Center
NASA Road 1
Houston, TX, 77058
The astronauts are heroes who risk their lives to better our world. They are truly the best of the best and I think we have taken them for granted. Since Apollo, the missions they've been on haven't been attention-grabbing and shuttle launches became routine. But I think this event has awoken us to the fact that space exploration is one of the most important fields and we need to give NASA more funding. It's time to realize that space exploration is costly but to make it safe, it is even more costly. I'm also going to draft a few letters to my national representatives and let them know that NASA needs omre money. THe launch of a space shuttle is not mundane and we should still be in awe of it.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
According to the article, NASA could have probably kept them alive in orbit long enough to get Atlantis up there to rescue them. Of course, that risks having the same thing happen to Atlantis...
I've seen the footage that CNN et al see fit to publish regarding the Shuttle, but where are all the street-level pics being posted these days?
... as an avid space nerd, I want to see as much as I possibly can about this incident (save, perhaps, pics of the charred skeletal remains that were found the other day ... I can leave that for stile.)
Surely there are sites out there for folks to upload pics of debris they've taken out in the field, etc? I'm tired of having these sorts of things filtered for me by mainstream news - so anyone got any URL's?
Pissed me off that I have to *subscribe* to CNN to see the amateur video that was taken in California of the breakup
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
The article on space elevators said the physics were sound, but it didn't really explain how it works. Here's the short of it:
The structure extends from earth to a point in space beyond geostationary orbit. As the earth spins, centrifugal force keeps the structure under tension to prevent it from collapsing. To place something in orbit, you just climb the structure and let go.
"it's feasible to talk of building a meter-wide "ribbon" that would start on a mobile ocean platform at the equator, west of Ecuador, and extend 62,000 miles up into space."
I'm not gonna be able to stand that much Space Elevator music!
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
There's a good story about the software team at NASA here.
From the story: "Consider these stats : the last three versions of the program -- each 420,000 lines long-had just one error each. The last 11 versions of this software had a total of 17 errors."
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
3 to 4 times? No, eighteen!
No, I find the Slashdot discussions useful. The mainstream media can't give the scientific insight which so many of us crave, and assuming you browse /. at a suitable threshold there are a number of intelligent contributions which stimulate the braincells.
/. treatment, and in this case at this stage starting a new discussion every couple of days provides a refresh to the intelligent discussion.
Yesterday (or the day before perhaps) someone posted a link to Feynman's Appendix on the Challenger enquiry about risks being de-emphasised if they had previously not resulted in catastrophe - and there *may* be elements of this flawed analysis involved in the Columbia breakup.
I welcome the opportunity for mainstream news stories to receive the
Dunstan
The last scintilla of doubt just rode out of town
I firmly believe NASA knew that the insulation hitting the wing doomed the shuttle.
BOL^H^H^HI respectfully disagree...
While it may not seem much, the shuttle was travelling as awesome speed already as the insulation fell. It would have hit the wing at some shocking speed. This had sealed the fate.
Yes - the space shuttle was travelling fast. But the insulation fell OFF THE SHUTTLE. This means that the relative speed of the insulation hitting the shuttle was just the deceleration felt by the insulation in the time between coming loose and striking the front wing edge. The insulation is almost certainly inside the bow shock caused by the nose of the fuel tank itself so the insulation was probably tumbling inside the turbulent flow inside the bow shock and not exposed to the still air ahead of the shuttle.
Look - the astronauts were up there for 16 days in orbit. I don't know if there were any scheduled EVAs during that period but I suspect that the first thing any EVAs might have looked at would be a visible inspection of the wing edge.
I also firmly believe that had NASA felt that the dangers of re-entry would have a modest chance of causing a severe structural failure, they would have ditched the shuttle in orbit and looked for other ways to get the astronauts back down. There is always some sort of plan B - in this case the most obvious one is dock with the ISS and look to the other shuttles or the Russians for extraction. You don't play games with peoples lives, especially under such scrutiny and at a time when NASA funding isn't so good. When a shuttle explodes, it's inevitably a major public event.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
I couldn't agree more, which is surprising since I usually don't agree with anything he says. But I really believe that changing NASA's focus might be the ideal solution to the public's (read: media's) boredom with our space program.
The so-called "journalism" media have already determined the accident was caused by foam from the external tank. They will never let it go. Any other theories, regardless of scientfic validity, will be dismissed as a NASA cover-up. The news meadia already have their slings out and they're just looking for asses to put in them.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
"The foam is fragile enough to have been damaged once in a hailstorm, forcing a previous shuttle mission to be delayed while the insulation was repaired. Chunks have come off in flight before, too. They can be ice-coated, making them heavy projectiles. Columbia sustained damage in this way in 1992 and 1997, and foam struck a booster rocket of Atlantis in October."
RTFA
I live in the D.C. area, know many who work for NASA, and was actully at Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD last week doing a dog and pony show of our RMS system to their security chiefs and some of the bigwigs. I've met the people involved, higher ups and lower-downs. They dont let 7 people die to 'save face' on TV.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I've started to wonder if the insulation hit isn't a red herring. NASA themselves have said it doesn't explain the breakup - that there's a "missing link" (their exact words) that they've yet to find. The temperature on the left wing only rose by about 40 degrees despite 3,000 degree temperatures outside the shuttle - which doesn't sound to me like there was much tile missing. The Atlantis, I believe, was hit in much the same way as the Columbia was on an earlier launch and showed no ill effects. And the Columbia itself lost more than 100 tiles from its nose area on one flight and still made it home fine.
I could very well be wrong, but I would almost bet at this moment that the foam hit on launch is mostly a coincidence - or at most the beginning of a long chain of implausible events that preyed on some other, pre-existing fault. This is the case with most airplane disasters, where it's rarely one single problem but rather an entire series of highly implausible but still possible events that coincide in an extremely unlucky chain. The shuttle is not as fragile as some people are making it out to be right now; it was built to withstand the repeated abuse of the shock of liftoff and the heat of re-entry over many, many years and many, many cycles. The Columbia in particular was also just recently refurbished and had its heat shielding inspected and, where appropriate, upgraded to the latest materials available. It does not sound to me like a piece of foam hitting it at launch alone could bring it down - there has to be something more, and NASA seems to agree with their "missing link" statement.
If you know they are doomed, don't bring them back. There's a space station up there that can hold their butts until rescue arrives.
Columbia wasn't equipped to dock with the space station.
So what the engineers will do is pull the threads. For example, it may be possible to explain all the off-scale and zero readings by assuming a particular wire bundle was cut at a certain point. This can lead them to look at the surrounding structure in more detail. They'll also look carefully at the times at which sensors went bad to determine how the structural damage evolved.
Basically the effort is to look at all possible causes of the disaster and use the telemtry to eliminate them one-by-one. Zero readings in sensors will probably be inconsistent with some possible explanations, thus eliminating them.
It is the only good thing that could come out of this horrible event.
Both of these programs are doing next to NOTHING in helping us to colonize and explore space. They are robbing billions of dollars each year in resources we could devote to developing better launch and propulsion technologies.
So why is the shuttle and the ISS still around if it is so worthless? Two reasons 1) Pork politics. NASA has cleverly made sure most of its contracts are spread out into districts controlled by powerful congressmen, and 2) nerds who know little about science but keep naively swallow the nonsense that is fed to them by NASA that the current incarnation of manned space flight is an investment in the future.
Canceling the shuttle and the ISS is not turning your back on manned space flight. Don't make more people senselessly lose their lives.
Space Elevator? Can you say "terrorist target?" Besides, I dont' see how that could possibly be viable. Raw materials would be one factor, and I can't stand an elevator going up a couple of dozen floors, let alone several miles. If a couple of people fart, it'd be all over. And besides, bin Laden and crew would drool over a high profile target like that, and it wouldn't even get very far under construction without getting nailed by some radical towel heads who can't wait to get to their how-ever-many virgins in the name of their god. That's just reality, folks. Next idea, please...
Aren't we supposed to be on the next generation shuttles already? Or did Challenger set us THAT far back? Don't we have some new birds like those seen in Armageddon yet? Oh yeah, that's right. Our President cares more about dropping bombs in a sandbox than he does about Space Exploration, so NASA goes underfunded, and the War for Oil gets top billing.
Yes, we'll return to space. It took us a while after Challenger, but I don't think we'll have that much of a delay this time around. Trouble is, we're running low on Shuttles, and now that we're down by two, with the others aging, how much longer can we keep up that program? We need new shuttles, which means NASA needs more funding so it can get contracts rolling....
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
The research into nanotubes could have some *very* nice spinoff techs...nanotubes, if one or two hurdles are overcome, could be heralded as a pretty much "perfect" tech for making ICs...mmm Pentium/Athlon 10 400GHz... Nanotubes are as close to "unbreakable" as it gets :)
------- "From bored to fanboy in 3.8 asian girls" ----------
So why couldn't you have come up with this before the fireworks???
Never give any object more potential energy than you want it to have.
They are not. They are just over one billionth of world population, which will all surely die. They would have died anyway, someday, probably not later than 50 years into future. So I don't care much about those seven people. And when I do, I envy them, 'cause they have been where I want to be.
I, and many of my friends, mourn for the loss of the shuttle, as in "the thing that can fly into space and carry people with it too." I would be more distressed compared to when two mars probes were lost back a few years ago had the shuttle been any other shuttle. But Columbia was what fueled my childhood imagination, it was whose first flight I watched in awe...
Whatever. It is sad.
Let me ask you another question, you probably went ape over 9/11 events. Terrorism killed ten times that amount in my country in the last decade, yet you didn't even notice. Should I tell you that you should care about 9/11 when ten times that amount had died elsewhere? Does that make any sense at all?
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
First of all, the difference in degrees across the two wings will create turbulence. Now the onboard computers is going to try to compensate for that.
The Angle of re-entry into the earth's atmosphere barely has any margin for error. Either your angle
is correct or you skip off the atmosphere and have to try again, or you burn up. In this case the extreme heat and turbulence broke the shuttle to pieces.
Actually, that much (and more) is denied you, because you obviously know nothing about it and choose to spout off anyway. Quote from space.com article: "Ice forms on the tank because of the super-cold liquid hydrogen and oxygen inside." --Paul Fischbeck, an engineering professor at Carnegie Mellon University who conducted the 1994 analysis.
You sound like every other conspiracy theorist* here. Short on knowledge, but long on theory.
*conspiracy theorists are often control freaks who can't stand the thought that something might happen beyond their (or someone else's) control. The idea that we're fallible, or that circumstances can be such that Bad Things happen despite all attempts to prevent them is inconceivable to them. No, there's no way a single, very lucky and very skilled nut could've killed Kennedy, it was a CONSPIRACY. Yeah, if that makes you feel better, go ahead and think it. But in reality, there are some things beyond our (or others) control...{/rant]
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
In the short term, yes, a huge amount of energy, (not to mention money and materials) would have to be expended to build a space elevator. The whole point is that once it's built, moving stuff up and down requires very little energy at all. This is because energy can be generated by the lifts/shuttles/cars/climbers/whatever as they descend down the elevator, convert gravitational potential energy to, well, electricity would be probably be most useful. This energy is then used to power the lifts back up. Sure energy will be lost, but not as much as it takes to lift the entire shuttle+external tank+boosters combo up to even a low orbit.
The Space Exploration Act of 2002 seemed a great first step, but received very little backing. NASA's NExT group plans look very promising - but do they have any money, even in this year's budget? The goal should be human exploration, development, and settlement of the solar system. The National Space Society has a clear roadmap for space development, and a vision of people living and working in thriving communities in space - but membership there has been dropping for years. The goals actually are pretty obvious - what's needed is for the public to get behind them. Go join these organizations, write your senators and congressman! If you care about space, do something about it!
Energy: time to change the picture.
Im seriously wondering what plans they have to deal with the electrical charge that will build up on that cable. If you follow the TSS (tethered sattelite system) tests that were perfromed on (I think) STS-46 with Atlantis and then again a year or two ago, where they reeled a big globe out on a tether to test for A) static buildup/generating capability B) the opportunity to build a rotating generation ship using a tether to create the rotation, rather than a hub (at least if you believe Nimoy on Destiny in Space (filmed on Atlantis), you will see that a cable strung out in space builds up one HELL of a charge. Enough to (they think) melt the tether off clean in the second and most recent test.
I dont know about you.. but I really dont want to be climbing (or anywhere near) a giant electrode.
Maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
"Could the damage have been investigated with satellites? Perhaps, but that was tried during a 1998 mission and the pictures were of little use."
I found this quote from the article odd. We can take pictures of license plates from space and we can see the divits from meteors on the hubble telescope, but we couldn't look at the shuttle? As far as the 1998 reference, satellite picture technology has come quite far since then.
Holy s-, it's Jesus!
One thing I've been wondering about is whether it might be possible to spray some kind of sealant on the tiles to help protect them from damage before orbit. Maybe something wax-like that would melt off during reentry. Off course we'd need to be sure that it wouldn't damage the tiles itself.
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
--I agree. If the guy was that concerned about it, his best defense was full release immediately. He also is really dumb to give up ownership and control of the camera, to let it out of his sight. He's screwed now, and as far as I am concerned the camera is now tainted. Any investigation of the camera and negatives should have taken place in full and open view of any interested press persons and especially his lawyer present and a hired camera tech scientist. IF his photos do in fact show some sort of "lightning bolt" or "beam", especially coming from ABOVE, that is some scary stuff potentially.
I do NOT trust the government. ANY nation's government. I also don't trust scammers. So we are stuck on this one. The good news is he doesn't seem to have tried to immediately sell the photos, that's a good sign.
With that said, I'll wait to inspect the photo myself before commenting on it. At least it needs the highest resolution scan possible to be released on the net.
Think about this for a moment. . .
It currently costs thousands of dollars to launch a pound of material into space.
Even when the technology to grow carbon nanotubes large enough to handle the immense forces involved in being used for a space elevator, the cable is still going to weigh thousands and thousands of tons.
The cable is also going to have to have a counterweight weighing at least as much as the cable itself to balance the space elevator in orbit.
Plus, there are a whole host of engineering concerns that haven't been addresed about a space elevator yet. These would have to be a dead issue, given how much of a catastrophe it would be should a space elevator ever come crashing back to earth.
So it's not really a question of if it's possible, so much as a question of safety plus who is going to foot the bill for its fabrication, launch, and assembly. Given the financial woes that have surrounded the ISS since its conception, I think the clear answer would be nobody.
And by the time we do have the prolems solved, the money to do it, and the industrial capacity to manufacture such a beast, someone will almost definitely have come up with a much better idea, anyway.
I found this video on a Mexican news site. The story is in Spanish and mostly talks about NASA's plans for the shuttle, but the video link was new to me. It seems to show the beginning of problems with the shuttle. I haven't seen this on any US news reports or sites. Does anyone know if it's legit?
Have you seen my stapler?
Think for a second about what you just asked. Is it normal procedure for US MILITARY to be present at a US SHUTTLE LANDING - um, DUH! If something happens, if the shuttle is forced to land off course, who do you think reaches them first? Civvies? dream on! Good ole Uncle Sam is always prepared, simply because there HAVE been problems in the past. It's just common sense to be prepared for more.
Visit us at http://www.iblist.com!
As early as the day after Columbia was lost, we are starting to see reports of management decisions that affected safelty, design, and ignored problems what were spookily predicted when it came to the foam. Sure, lots of letters might cross managements desk in regards to shuttle problems. But it's the fucking shuttle, you check them ALL or you just don't DO the shuttle. Suddenly the pointy haired boss in Dilbert strips isn't so funny, knowing how accurate he is to real managers in the real world.
In the past four years as a computer programmer (doing other shit now, self employed, NO management to harrass or to blame) I've gotten to enjoy the view as in each and every company I worked at, managers were the cause of almost every problem that happened with the products. To all the managers reading this: goto www.dilbert.com and check to make sure you are not an idiot leading a team of people who know a lot more than you. THINK. LISTEN. THINK MORE. TRY TO DO SOME FUCKING GOOD since you do the "planing of the work" and not the actual "work". Make the best of your time in your leather chear and wall-side office, and LEAD. Watch Braveheart, get motivated!
No matter how good of an idea the space elevator may be, we would definitely have to consider the possibilty and consequences of a terrorist attack on it. Not only would a space elevator be a Huge Damn Target, but it would also be iconic of the US's technical achievements.
Look at how Al-Qaida was obsessed with the twin towers. They made an attempt in 1993 which didn't work, so they regrouped and drew up new plans. I can see terrorist organizations simply salivating at the prospect of destroying a space elevator.
If we attempt this at all, it would definitely have to be on a military base, way out in some desert in the middle of nowhere and surrounded anti-aircraft missles. Even then, that only buys us time.
Finally, if the world community knew that there was a problem, I bet one or two people out there could've come up with a way to get them back safely.
I bet you one or two couldn't. They couldn't repair the damage. There is now escape mechanism on the shuttle from orbit. They had no suits or training for extra-vehicular activity. Their orbit made it impossible to get to the ISS and even if they did they had no way to actually DOCK with it. The only way they could have come down was using the shuttle. If there was damage to the left wing, the only way they could have prevented a burn-up is by altering their de-orbit trajectory. For example, the shuttle performs a series of rolls to turn right and left. When you turn right, the right wing has the majority of the force applied to it (and vice versa). Limiting the amount of force on the left wing may have solved the problem, but we really do not know.
All of these possiblities are under the assumption that NASA KNEW THE SHUTTLE WAS BROKEN to the extent that they'd all die. NASA did not know, otherwise they would have atleast altered the shuttles reentry trajectory (at the very least).
Short of preparation for this trajedy, there was nothing NASA could do to prevent it.
Why is this tragic accident SO much more important than so many others?
Not to sound too crass, but it's the quality, not the quantity (up to a point) that counts here. You're right, 100 average joes/joettes die somewhere and nobody blinks an eye. Seven astronauts die and the nation is in mourning and the flags are half mast. Why, well it's because the astronauts are celebrities. Why do people make pilgrimages to view Elvis's grave, but wouldn't take to time to stop at the Vietnam war memorial? Why does an entire nation come out the mourn the death of a single "princess"? It's all about who you are. This is no different.
What should I do if I find Columbia debris?
Do not touch it. Monday evening, NASA officials issued another warning that the debris "may be dangerously contaminated with toxic substances and cause serious injury if handled. Individuals who think they may have come in contact with shuttle debris should take a shower with soap and water and then seek medical attention.
What is the nature of this contamination? Does anyone here know?
Siggy Wiggy Figgy Tiggy a bana bo Biggy!
I would say there are (at least) three kinds of heroes:
People who knowingly risk their lives in order to either try and save the lives of others or to try and help advance humanity as a whole.
Or people who put themselves in harm's way on the spur of the moment in order to protect or rescue others.
Finally, people who dedicate themselves to helping others or performing a valuable service to society (whether or not they risk their own lives) are heroes too, I think.
So no, a person who gets hit by a bus may not necessarily be a hero, but when that person sacrifices their own safety to push other people out of the path of that bus, they could be called a hero.
And if that person who was hit by the bus had been an astronaut, then I think given the nature of what they do and the risks they take, that a hero was hit by that bus - even if dying in a bus crash isn't itself a "heroic act".
For better of for worse, society has assigned a value to the work performed in space by astronauts who were trained to go there and assume those risks. Ergo, astronauts are heroes. The bus driver may have been a decorated military veteran. Or not. It doesn't matter for these purposes. Ordinary people die doing heroic actions, and ordinary people also rise to the occasion, do something heroic, and live to tell the tale. Heroes also die peacefully in their sleep at a ripe old age - heroism and martyrdom are not automatically related.
Which is good, otherwise all our heroes would be dead ones.
(as the old quote goes, "...a statesman is a dead politician. Lord knows we need more statesmen!")
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
"The cable is also going to have to have a counterweight weighing at least as much as the cable itself to balance the space elevator in orbit."
Actually I thought the latest design showed that a counterweight was not required. The cable itself acts as its own counterweight.
"Plus, there are a whole host of engineering concerns that haven't been addresed about a space elevator yet. These would have to be a dead issue, given how much of a catastrophe it would be should a space elevator ever come crashing back to earth."
In short: the academics are not wasting their time studying this. There are indeed issues that we need to address before we begin building this thins, or decide not to. As for the catastrophic failure: studies show that most of the cable would burn up, with the last bit crashing to earth at a moderate speed, in a part of the ocean devoid of human settlements or even shipping lanes.
"So it's not really a question of if it's possible, so much as a question of safety plus who is going to foot the bill for its fabrication, launch, and assembly. Given the financial woes that have surrounded the ISS since its conception, I think the clear answer would be nobody."
Indeed. Part of those academics studying this thing are working on those questions: what does the elevator cost to build and operate. And unlike the ISS which was built purely for scientific reasons (and bad ones at that), the space elevator can show a decent return on investment once it is built, according to some studies.
Whether you want to believe those studies is another matter. But to abandon the space elevator as impractical is way too early.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
The ISS and Columbia were in *very* different orbits. Realize, the orbits we're talking about are not just circles over a fixed latitude. The orbits are at an angle to the equator (called the inclination). That's why you see the orbit path move across the earth in a sinusoidal path....it's not orbiting at the same angle as the rotation of the earth.
ISS' inclination is about 51 degrees, which is pretty big (ie, it's over 45 degrees off of the equatorial line). I don't remember what Columbia was at, but that wasn't it. To get the Shuttle up to that declination from their orbit would have taken a buttload of fuel, or a lot of time, neither of which were available.
Sorry, nice thought, but not possible in this case.
Yeah, you really can't change tiles in space. First of all, you need the custom tiles, and affixing them is NOT easy. Check out this article from 1980, about the building of the Columbia:
0 4.easterbrook.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/80
Also, there are no foot/handholds anywhere on that part of the Shuttle, and Newton's laws apply up there. That's the problem they had on the first Spacewalks of the Gemini program, no one realized that without footholds or handholds, you can't even turn a screwdriver, because the screwdriver is also turning you. (No Soviet Russia jokes!)
In short, if the falling insulation is what caused Columbia to break up, they were doomed the day they launched. There wasn't nearly enough delta-V to get them into a higher orbit to rendezvous with ISS, and no way that Atlantis could be rushed in time to reach them before they ran out of Oxygen. I don't know how long the shuttle's batteries/fuel cells can keep it heated, but I'm guessing that really the only way anyone could have survived would be if they drew straws and 5 of the 7 went out the airlock. That's assuming there's enough power to keep it at least 40 degrees F in there until Atlantis could be scrambled.
Otherwise, maybe the Soyuz escape pod at ISS could be routed to them, or the Russian Progress capsule with O2 and supplies sent to ISS the next day could have been routed to them, but I highly doubt both of those were possible.
Columbia was most likely lost at launch, and there's nothing NASA could have done, even if they knew within 30 minutes that the damage would prove fatal.
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. --Robert A. Heinlein
I was thinking about the process followed after the launch and the discovery of insulation hitting the shuttle. Couldn't someone make a softball sized robot (USV?) that is remote controllable and has a camera? The astronauts can send the robot outside for inspections in case questions arise. I would assume this robot can perform a far better inspection than other techniques currently used (ground based cameras, satellites not in same orbit, etc)
Yeah, they can't fix the shuttle, but can't they send another shuttle up in an emergency time frame to rescue the others? Is there absolutely no contingency plans at all when the astronauts go up...
The external tank burns up when reentering the atmosphere. It is jettisoned from the orbiter just short of orbit. There is simply nothing left to recover.
- The problem with the world is that everyone is a few drinks behind. -- Humphrey Bogart
Ya know, I've been wondering about this ever since people have started debating it. I honestly don't know the answer, but I'd be curious if someone else does:
Some time ago, I remember seeing/reading about these small devices called 'Rescue Balls' that the shuttles carried aboard them. They were basically just small, single-person sized foldable containers which could be sealed and pressurized with someone inside. The idea was, if a shuttle ever were stranded in orbit, there wasn't room to have spacesuits aboard for every crewmember, so most of the crew would get zipped up into these little doohickeys and the two that had suits would basically carry them over to the rescue ship.
Now, I understand there wasn't fuel enough to make it to the ISS (although I think people who think that was the only orbital option aren't thinking hard enough--I think there were more avenues that would have been explored for an orbital rescue had this been debated before rather than after the fact). But does the 'only two suits' or 'no one was trained for a spacewalk' argument really hold, or are these rescue balls still carried? Does anyone have any better information about them?
No relation to Happy Monkey
FAQ Version 1.4
Link to low-bandwidth version to minimise slashdoting.
All talk I've seen of any space elevator is insistent on putting it in the middle of the pacific ocean- a location you'd don't exactly sneak up on. It would also be a safe assumption that we would protect the space elevator base with a force substantial enough to destroy any conceivable terrorist attack, having learned our lessons on 9-11.
Moreover, since the base would be in the middle of the ocean, and not in a city, there would be little opposition to stationing a couple cruise missiles (for ships) and SAM sites there.
I think it's also safe to presume that all cargo and passengers would be thoroughly checked before beginning the journey to the base, to avoid any problems from that angle.
Having the base in the middle of the ocean, 3000 miles from land, and protected by the US military does more than buy us time. It's damn good insurance against the likes of Al-Qaida, who, at best, have access to Cold-War era Soviet weapons. An organization that must highjack passenger planes and fill rental trucks with explosives to carry out it's goals cannot evade or overwhelm arrays of active sonar bouys, a Los Angeles Class submarine, AWACS radar planes, SAM sites, Tomohawk cruise missiles, Commanches, JSF, or whatever else we station there if we build it.
New York City is a busy city, with 16 million people. It has it's own airport, and several other airports within an hour's flight time. It makes a great target.
A space elevator installation, in the middle of the ocean, protected by the United States DoD, would be well protected against the likes of Al-Qaida. They couldn't sneak in if they tried.
Even if they acquire surface-skimming cruise missiles, they're of little good. You can't hide from JSTARS and AWACS on the ocean, and once they get close, the phalanx guns (which we have mounted on destroyers and aircraft carriers) are quite capable of destroying a missile in flight.
I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
While nobody yet knows what caused the disaster, and while numerous alternative scenarios have been suggested to explain it, absolutely everybody agrees that current space vehicle technology is extremely fragile. Not fragile per se, as the shuttle is designed to survive a whole range of minor problems and has done so repeatedly. However, it is effectively very fragile in the context of the extremely harsh conditions of space and the huge forces of launch and reentry. Nobody disputes that the risks of manned space exploration are currently very very high in the face of things "going wrong".
I wonder then, what would be needed to reverse this situation? If we knew what was required, we'd have some idea of how far away from such a future we currently are. It is after all not an impossible dream --- for example, as one part of a transport system, you could hypothesize that a seamless body built out of (say) 1000-times as strong self-sealing materials comprising millions of layers of ablative and structural thin film, with a passive self-righting shape, might not have any problem at all in dealing with reentry conditions. (This is not a proposal --- I'm just suggesting that you can always come up with a less fragile basis for a space vehicle by extrapolating current-day technological developments.)
So, given the (futuristic) possibility of eventually having vehicle technology that is inherently less fragile than the current one, what would we need to develop towards such a future? We all know that there are pretty amazing developments in materials technology heading our way already, within human timespans, but there is more to it than just materials.
For a start, is there a completely stable, self-righting shape that would be a clear candidate for a design that eliminated the risk of guidance electronics failure by not requiring any stabilizing controls once the reentry trajectory was established outside of the atmosphere?
If so, transformation from that to a gliding shape is only one of many possibilities for handling the landing, ranging from on-end-landing propulsion to catching the darn thing to good ol' parachutes and many other approaches.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
From the sci.space.shuttle FAQs
"*1* - COLUMBIA IS TOO HEAVY TO GO TO THE SPACE STATION ALPHA.
FALSE. Columbia is capable of going to the space station. However,
because Columbia's mass is greater than other orbiters, its cargo
capacity is reduced by the same amount. By using the other orbiters,
station assembly requires fewer flights since those orbiters can carry
greater mass.
During its latest heavy maintenance, Columbia's weight was greatly
reduced, but it still has a significant mass difference with the other
orbiters. Columbia was scheduled to go to the station later in 2003.
*2* - COLUMBIA CANNOT DOCK TO THE SPACE STATION ALPHA.
FALSE. During the last heavy maintenance, Columbia was modified to allow
the installation of the Orbiter Docking System (ODS). Columbia was
scheduled to go to the station later in 2003.
*3* - COLUMBIA COULD HAVE GONE TO SPACE STATION ALPHA ON STS 107 (I).
FALSE. For STS 107, Columbia did not carry the orbiter docking system. So
it could not have docked. In a bind, however, transvers via EVA (space
suits) might have been possible. The station has 2 Russian suits and 2 US
suits. Columbia has 2 US suits.
*4* - COLUMBIA COULD HAVE GONE TO SPACE STATION ALPHA ON STS 107 (II).
FALSE. Orbital mechanics and basic laws of physics make this impossible.
When a shuttle takes off, it aims in one direction and then accelerates
until it reaches its orbital speed of about 28,000km/h. This direction is
called orbital inclination.
Consider a large round frozen lake with smooth ice. You slide at 100
km/h from 12:00 to 06:00 (south) without any skates. A friend travels
from 02:00 to 08:00 (south west) at 100 km/h.
The goal is for you to shake hands with your friend while both
travelling at 100 km/h. To achieve this, you would not only have to
change your direction of travel to match that of your friend, but also do
this such that your track will match that of your friend, after which,
you can simply accelerate to catch up to him. If both are going in same
direction but 100m apart (parralel courses), you can't shake hands. Now, think
about what is required for you to change direction while sliding on ice.
Columbia launched to a 39 degree inclination. The Space station is at a
51.6 degree inclination. If you do a bit of simple algebra, changing
course 12.6 degrees while maintaining 100km/h requires about 24 km/h
acceleration or roughly one quarter of the acceleration that gave your
your 100km/h.
The shuttle accelerates from 0 to 28,000km/h during launch. Once in
orbit, the main engines are without any fuel. Only the OMS and RCS
engines are available, and their capability is roughly 1250 feet per
second, or about 1400 km/h speed change (delta v). Subtract from that the
amounts used to complete the orbit, on-orbit attitude control, as well
de-orbit burn.
If you need one quarter of the 28,000 km/h speed to change orbital
inclination, it means is 7000 km/h. So the shuttle has nowhere near what
is needed to perform a orbital plane change of 12 degrees.
i'd like to ask a question that has not,
...
to my knowledge, been asked yet:
why, excactly, the communication was lost
so abruptly at 7:59 AM ??
was it an electrical type of fault,
perhaps some communication subsystem
started to burn ? perhaps the antenna ?
if so, how could a termal failure
propagate itself through the
communication system ?
or, rather, the shuttle itself began
rotating so everything started to burn,
and the communication was lost after that ?
given that shuttle attitude was "almost" normal,
at the moment in which the communication was lost,
it seems more an electrical type of failure.
a related question is if it is known (by the
many videos) at what time exactly the shuttle
was broken in two pieces
giampy
Premature Optimization is The Root of All Evil - D.Knuth
We learn from history that we learn nothing from history - Tom Veneziano
Some past articles discussing the progress of a space elevator can also be found over at Sci-Fi Today:
The Aftermath of Another Shuttle Tragedy
The Business of Building a Space Elevator
Drog
Looking for political forums? Check out "The World Forum".
"Columbia was most likely lost at launch, and there's nothing NASA could have done, even if they knew within 30 minutes that the damage would prove fatal."
If there's one thing in this world that never ceases to amaze me, it is the ingenuity of the people at NASA. If anyone could have saved that crew, it would be those fine people who have managed to save at least one crew (Apollo 13) against all odds. I realize given all the odds stacked against them, it would be "difficult at best", but then again, doing the impossible is NASA engineers' jobs. My hats off to the fine men and women who live and give their lives in the pursuit of science.
Columbia was the first shuttle to fly in space. The first shuttle to fly was the Enterprise, but it was used only for drop testing and was not capable of flying under rocket power or operating in space.
Because Columbia was the first fully operational shuttle it is by far the heaviest shuttle with the lowest payload. For that reason it was not flown much after the later shuttles were built. IIRC Columbia could not reach the altitude of the space station with any useful payload.
Columbia was originally built with ejection seats on the flight deck that were later removed.
During the first few flights of the Columbia NASA was very worried about the tiles coming off. They had developed a thing a lot like a caulking gun that could be used by an astronaut to fill in the gaps left by a lost tile. But, IIRC it was never flown. So, this is a problem that NASA has considered, and one for which they already had a potential solution more than 20 years ago.
On a personal note, I can think of no better way to die than to do it while following a dream. And not just a personal dream, but a dream that benefits all of humanity. They are heros not because they died, but because they dared.
Stonewolf
They have tested an EVA helper like you describe, it is called Sprint. It flew on STS-87, ironically this was a Columbia mission and also the only other flight for Kalpana Chawla.
Remember, Amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic