Slashdot Mirror
NASA says Columbia Rescue was Possible
nuke-alwin writes "Apparently NASA is saying that a rescue mission may have been possible for the Columbia crew. I first saw this on TV, but Chicago Sun-Times is also reporting the story. The risks would have been great, and may have endangered more astronaut's lives."
Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda. Lets work on improving our space program instead of sulking over things we COULD have done better.
Well NASA at the time didn't think the problem was all that big of a deal to send up a rescue crew, so they didn't.
And before people start yammering about sending them to the ISS, someone give them a physics book, they couldn't have.
I hope that NASA learns something (when something falls off a vessle it usually isn't a good sign!!!) and to be a bit more catious in the future. BUT I think they should get right back up on the horse so to speak and keep going. To quote "Enterprise" (and one of their better episodes recently) "If we are ever going to explore deep space we are going to need to take a few risks" and thats the truth of the matter.
-- It's harder to fly into the sun than out of the galaxy, go figure --
I'm sure many will disagree, but the cost of the shuttle program is horrendous, and NASA's insistence on using it has led to some cataclysmically stupid decisions. One example: the ISS (which is an utter joke compared to Skylab or Mir) was placed into a rapidly-decaying orbit not because that was a good idea (it isn't) but because the shuttle could get there.
Most of the satellites that are "launched" by the shuttle suffer from the design constraint that they have to fit into the friggin' bay AND have room for the accompanying boosters that will put them into their real orbit once the shuttle lets them out. Again, the shuttle can't go high enough for real deployment.
The idea of capturing and reparing satellites is inherently absurd; most aren't where the shuttle can get 'em and the total cost of the program utterly dwarfs the expense that would have been incurred had they said of the Hubble "Well, we screwed it up...build another one and get it right this time."
The safety record sucks. After Challenger Richard Feynman put the probability of a fatal accident at one in fifty. So far, NASA's on the money and the nature of the shuttle is such that if someone dies, everybody dies.
Lest I be misunderstood, I understand the romantic and scientific appeal of manned space flight, of the visceral sense of satisfaction we can have as a species when we look up to the skies and say "We live there." I'm a strong proponent of that. I also recognize the complaints that the money spent on that is money not spent on (feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, inoculating the sick, fill in your pet cause). The manned space program is hellishly uneconomical and a great deal of that can be laid at the feet of the shuttle program.
It's a white elephant without a mission, a bastard child of a spacecraft and an airplane which like most gadgets that try to do two fundamentally different things does neither well. Its payload capacity compared to heavy-lift rockets is a joke, it's barely capable of crawling out of the atmosphere, it's presented a tremendous constraint to the rest of the space program by forcing many missions to be less than they could have been in order to be shuttle-doable, and it bears repeating that every fifty flights it kills everyone on board.
It's time to ground the shuttle fleet permanently. Space isn't going anywhere. Stop pouring the hundreds of millions of dollars into the shuttle program and pour them into a new design effort. Scrap the silly "space-plane" concept and develop a family of lifters and craft that _can_ be used for many things but don't back NASA into a corner that forces them to use it for all missions. Make crew safety an inherent feature (recognizing that there are tradeoffs and that getting out of the gravity well is a fundamentally dangerous activity). Stop throwing good money after bad on that trinity dies ISS as well, and use the collective resources of the two programs to start over. It's not true that the second design is always better than the first (see again ISS and Mir/Skylab) but you're wise to play those odds.
Let's do it over. And do it right.
Yes, in theory it was possible... But at what risk? How do you no the rescue ship wouldn't have had the same problem on launch? And we will never know if they spy satellites could have seen the damage on the wing...
And what of the risk of sending a crew up on a mission with zero training for that specific mission? As I understand it, they practice space walks for months ahead of time... The suggest this space walk with no training at all. And rushing another space shuttle into orbit doesn't exactly sound safe.
Sure, there is a chance they could have saved them. We could also have lost twice as many people.
Really, this just sounds like a witch hunt, and someone laying the groundwork for lawsuits.
--T
http://www.theMediaBunker.com
I want to hear what they are going to do next time. I sure as hell don't want to hear that they could have done it this time, but didn't.
What do you think that they're going to do next time a shuttle is up in space and has possible damage?
Just about everything that they could have done for Columbia, plus whatever new stuff they change on account of looking at what NASA could have done for Columbia.
Better would be not to rush a rescue, but rather rush finding a way to resupply Columbia so it could stay up long enough to wait for a non-rushed rescue.
With all the military launch capacity, plus various other country's space programs, it would probably not take too long to get something up that could deliver food/water/oxygen and whatever else is needed to keep things going.
People really need to get a grip. These people signed up for this shit. What's with this joy of deciding FOR people "It's dangerous for you, you can't do it" instead of giving them a choice.
Ask the other astronauts, "We're looking for someone to go up to try and rescue these guys." I doubt one of them would say no, regardless of the danger. They would hope that those other astronauts would do the same for them if the tables were reversed, eh? It's part of the job. Hell, it's part of the human spirit.
It's not just the space program that they like to enforce "safety" upon, but that's been the clearest indicator recently. All the "oh no it's dangerous can't do it" anal-retentives of the world need to loosen up. Little of the research that has gotten us this far could be classified as "safe". So stop making decisions for others based on their safety.
There are stupid risks, and then there are just risks. Leave it up to the people whose lives are on the line to decide. Except, of course, if the risk is clearly a very stupid one, you might not want to waste an orbiter on it. That's fair. But to go up to save astronauts from certain death? Yeah, that's worth an orbiter.
Regardless, other posts are correct -- this is all 20/20 hindsight now. Time to move on. I just wish the lesson learned from this wasn't "Space travel is dangerous, we'd better be much more careful to the point of making everything we're trying to do only marginally useful at best", while all the people who are willing to take risks utterly blow them out of the water.
Random and weird software I've written.
I never bought that a rescue mission wasn't possible. If they knew that Columbia would burn up, they would've found a solution. 1,000,000 engineers across the country, including all 10,000+ Aerospace engineers in this country would have been working on solutions. We would've figured it out, and it would have been much more clever than the limited scenario they have reightfully been exploring.
Basically, all the engineers did their jobs, but they were making assumptions about how others would do their jobs, and what the options were.
One team analyzed the foam impact. They didn't think it would be serious, but there was some uncertainty. In general, rocket engineers, especially those working for NASA and the Air Force, are paid to make conservative analyses and decisions. So, if they were operating in a vacuum, the engineers would likely have requested better test data on foam impact of different parts, and better assessment of the damage.
Now, these engineers believed that getting better foam impact test data was unlikely. So they didn't ask for it. They had already made the 1st assessment that it was OK (based on un-wetted foam hitting tiles), even though they probably knew this wasn't a conservative analysis. So they asked for photos, to improve their assessment. Someone at NASA decided photos were not necessary since the intial analysis made it look like Columbia was OK. Plus, these managers assumed that the photographs would not be helpful, but that was based on 1) capabilities of a few years ago, and 2) probably what was unclassified; could an NRO spy satellite have taken pictures? Plus, the NASA manager has it in his head that a rescue is impossible anyways, so why push the issue?
I also wonder whether the foam-impact engineers knew about the piece that detached? Probably not. I'm sure someone had all the info, but it probably sounded like, "The foam impact analysis said there was no problem. Therefore this object is probably just ice."
And the point CAIB keeps hitting on, NASA got comfortable with risks b/c they turned out to be OK. But when you aim for 99.9% reliability, it should preclude using flight history to clear anomalies until the anomaly has occured 1000 times. NASA should've always been looking at objects neat STS.
All in all, it's a tough nut to crack. It took a lot to bring down Columbia, a sequence of events that took over 2 weeks to play out. Like Apollo 1, the biggest failure was probably a lack of imagination, and not realizing what our capabilities really are. The Shuttle is a true engineering marvel, on par with the great construction projects, and light-years ahead of any Stealth bomber (which cost almost as much as a shuttle!), aircraft carrier, dumb booster or any race car. The shuttle is a global asset, and the improvements we make to it will reep rewards for decades to come.
Do you really think there's someone at a high enough level at NASA (or anywhere, for that matter) who would have had the brass cajones (that's "brass balls" for you gringos) to take accountability for approving such a rescue mission? If a rescue were successful, he'd have to answer to the bean counters and outrage over having risked *two* crews. And if it weren't....
...Bethanie....
The right stuff and can-do attitude of the early days has been replaced by bureaucrats. Which, as you seen, can cost people their lives. As you can see here, shuttle rescues used to be part of the nasa planning process.
Of courser there is this question as well
"What's to stop you from having the same damage to Atlantis? You're basically throwing the dice," Thagard said.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
An overwhelming majority of US astronauts are ex-military types. To talk about risks...these guys would gladly bear the likelyhood of their own death if it meant the possibility of saving another. I know guys who risked their lives in combat to recover corpses - dead bodies - simply because the hunk of unrecognizable flesh they were dragging back was a fellow solider/marine/airman. If a rescue mission had been organized, and volunteers asked for, you would have had no shortage of schmoes ready to hang it out on the line.
Wouldn't NASA wait to determine the cause of the problem before launching a second crew into space? What if Atlantis gets up there and discovers "Hey, same thing happened to us...can you send ANOTHER rescue ship?". It took several weeks just to start narrowing down the cause from all the theories, and even now that they have plenty of info NASA still isn't sending shuttles up into space.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
True but to not even try was irresponsible and according to reports an attemp to do so was asked for and then called off. I do not understand the logic of THAT at all. They gave the excuse that "we tried to use those assests before and failed to get good results" Sorry that line is bogus. During the Joh Glenn mission they tried and didn't get good results but during the first mission of Columbia they got good photos and her last mission's orbit was simular to this one if I recall correctly so the same assets could have been used on this mission.
Who killed the attempt at photos and why? That is the question I have been asking for 3 months.
Also the board has now allready recommeded to NASA that ALL shuttles be photographed as SOP from now on. If it so lousy a method why bother to require it?
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.