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."
I wonder if push came to shove, how long it would take them to prep an emergency launch for a rescue?
They could have kept the shuttle up there for 30 days, would that have been enough time to launch a rescue mission?
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
There are an infinite number of things we could have done. Why live in hindsight now?
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
If you were one of those astronauts, would you have wanted many more of your coworkers to possibly lose their life just to save your's.
Administrators didn't want to admit the possiblity of a rescue becuase it makes the decision to not have the shuttle inspected using telescopes look even worse.
Lasers Controlled Games!
If the Columbia crew had adopted some serious resource-conservation procedures PDQ, NASA could've had Atlantis prepped and ready to go in time to get them out alive (theoretically, anyway, since a shuttle-to-shuttle rescue is unprecedented).
However, Atlantis had already entered preparations for its scheduled March 1 launch-- if that had not been the case, Columbia and its crew would in all likelihood have been SOL. Prepping a shuttle for a launch is a tremendous, time-consuming undertaking, and it's not something you can cut corners on even if there is a "gotta get it up there quick" type situation. Perhaps they could institute round-the-clock operations via multiple shifts, but I don't know if they have enough qualified workers to be able to handle something like that.
Also keep in mind that hastily laying on a rescue launch increases the chance of something going catastrophically wrong on that mission. If NASA lost a second shuttle while trying to save the crew of a stuck-in-orbit first shuttle that would then be destroyed on re-entry, confidence in the space program would plummet. Congress would yank even more funding from NASA, and they might as well just deorbit the ISS a few days later-- maybe we could all get a free taco out of it this time.
~Philly
The idea of capturing and reparing satellites is inherently absurd
Yes, it's a rare, rare satellite that would be worth a launch to repair. However, on the off chance a Hubble-situation happened, you don't even need a Shuttle to fix it. It's also possible to spacewalk from an ELV. A nice Titan IV rocket (or whatever improved version we could've made if ELV research wasn't cancelled in favor of the Shuttle) could handle a fine repair crew for 25% the cost of a Shuttle flight. (And with a safer re-entry, too)
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.
Skylab was intended for exactly three missions, with no intention of resupply or re-use. The vehicle itself had severe problems -- one solar panel tore off at launch -- which limited its usefulness (the first mission ended up being largely wasted on rescuing the station). Mir was no picnic, either -- there was a major fire, and the collission with a resupply ship. The ISS has, so far, been comparatively problem-free.
Skylab's orbit was not that high -- roughly 270 miles -- in any case it was launched in 1973 and crashed to Earth only six years later, in 1979. The ISS's current altitude is 242 miles. I can't find any orbital data on Mir, but the space shuttle got there, too, and it didn't take more than a few years to crash back to Earth after maintenance ended.
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.
I don't know what you mean by "real orbit", but the shuttle deployed Hubble at an altitude of 368 miles and has visited it several times since. No current manned vehicle can go much higher than this; and none can reach geosynchronous orbit. Shuttle deployment is not a good idea for commercial satellites, but it makes sense for large, multi-billion-dollar one-shot spacecraft (like Hubble) because if something goes wrong there is an option to bring it back to Earth or do on-orbit repair.
The safety record sucks.
The claimed accident rate of one-in-400 is clearly off. The demonstrated accident rate of 2-in-113 is not atypical of comparable launch vehicles, such as Soyuz. It's even more impressive given that the shuttle system is intended to be reusable, while Soyuz is launched new each time.
It's a white elephant without a mission
Its mission has been and always will be to service the ISS.
It's very tempting to look at any complicated system that has problems, and say, "Bah, this is useless, let's start over". The reality is that experience gained using the shuttle and the ISS is crucial to the continued exploitation of space.
Space flight is a risky business and will continue to be so. There is no guarantee that a new system with untested hardware will be any safer.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
That's all well and good -- I see your point. But it's not just the astronauts' lives and some equipment that will be sacrificed. It's hundreds and hundreds of hours of training and dollars invested in these people. Dollars that come largely from taxpayers. Not to mention public buy-in (both financial and political) to the value of the program
....Bethanie....
Here's some pure speculation for you: If every available astronaut would be willing to lay his life on the line to go up in attempt to rescue the others, what level of sacrifice do you think the doomed astronauts would have been willing to make to ensure that the space program would survive a [potential] disaster? Would they have wanted a rescue attempt, given the potential for failure and subsequent [we can assume] abandonment of the space program? Would they really be willing to risk their colleagues' lives in a rescue attempt?
I would never assume to have the answer to this question, but given the dedication of astronauts to the "cause" of space exploration, it's enough to give me pause to think.
That's where it would be handy to have a traditional space capsule on standby. Of course, given the fact they can only fit three people max, it would require three launches, or a single launch vehicle with three capsules. The capsules would then be able to dock with the shuttle to let everyone out and would then return to Earth as the Soyuz does. This is a knee jerk idea, so there are probably limiting factors that I have not taken into account.
BTW does anyone know what the minimum crew required to fly a shuttle?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
As Admiral Gehman, head of the CAIB noted, we commonly send 120 soldiers in to rescue one downed pilot.
/. and fark) the just-say-go crowd telling us the astronauts sign up for missions, and that they're not heroes, and that because others would sign up for the same exact mission again we should not ground anything (just keep building shuttles I guess), and basically apologizing for NASA and Ron Dittemore.
First we had (on
Now we have the "at what risk" crowd saying that it would have been too risky, and basically apologizing for NASA and Ron Dittemore.
NASA and Ron Dittemore had 20 years and 102 flights of warning to think about tile problems, foam problems, tile repair kits, and rescue options.
Me, I'm with the I love the space program, and I think the most courageous thing a leader at NASA would do, if they are as underfunded as we imagine they are, is to fucking resign, publically, and loudly. If Ron Dittemore, holder of One of the Most Prestigious Leadership Jobs in the World really thinks the shuttle is unsafe or underfunded, then it's his job to resign. If NASA management is such that it rewards employees and managers for saying yes to everything and to always do it with smaller budgets, well, THAT IS an accident waiting to happen and one WE need to fix before the shuttle flies again.
I don't want to explain to my kids again how NASA management decisions and leadership failed and another shuttle has uh, "had a bad day" (god what a sick euphemism that ran throughout NASA).
Then they proactively squashed any attempts to get actual pictures of the shuttle after the debris hit on launch.
I sure hope to hell we find out the name of the official who prevented the taking of photos of Columbia - because it's not enough for that dolt to have to live with tha decision the rest of his life. Everyone on the planet needs to know that he was such a fucking moron that he didn't even want to look and therefore doomed seven people to certain death.
That's the crime here - people at NASA undertook active efforts to keep themselves in the dark. That's utterly inexcusable.
The Progress which was sent to ISS could have reached Columbia. Columbia was in a lower orbit, and I'm sure the Progress launch rocket was not built for a specific orbit and could have been reprogrammed for the Columbia orbit. I don't know how easily the payload could have been replaced, but if Columbia was waiting in orbit for a month there should have been time to change Progress payloads. A Progress is not built for reentry, so could only carry supplies -- although perhaps also repair parts.
The astronauts were wearing their emergency spacesuits, so everyone did have a suit. I don't know how long those can be used for EVA. Someone would have had to go look at the damage. Someone would have had to get the first batch of supplies from Progress. That first batch could include supplies for more suit time (I assume not a full EVA suit and thruster pack), so the rest of the supplies could be retrieved. Whether the supplies would have replenishment or repair equipment depends upon what was found to be needed and could fit.
ISS was too far for Columbia to reach. I'm sure Progress could not carry enough fuel to push Columbia toward ISS (whether by using Progress as a tug or refueling Columbia -- and I doubt the fuel tanks were designed for fueling in space). ISS did have its "lifeboat" Soyuz. Perhaps that lifeboat could have reached Columbia. A Soyuz probably does not have enough fuel to quickly alter orbit to Columbia, but there would have been a month to loop around the Earth and/or Moon to change orbits with minimal fuel. Another possibility would have been to have Progress bring Soyuz fuel to ISS so Soyuz could reach Columbia.
The Progress on ISS was full of trash. It could have been refilled, but probably could not reach Columbia anyway.
A Soyuz is designed for 3 people, and 7 were aboard Columbia. I'm sure if Columbia were known to be fatally damaged, all the people who could fit in a Soyuz would try to return. If a Soyuz reached Columbia, although it definitely could rescue three people I suspect that any three would prefer to risk themselves in trying to rescue others than to go in safety.
Maybe the Soyuz which was launched in April could have been launched with one of the world's rockets. Maybe the scheduled Russian launcher, maybe welded to something else.
If the onboard fuel could not reach Columbia, perhaps the Progress could have brought fuel and an extra seat for an attempt at rescuing the other 4.
There are riskier possibilities which would be less likely to succeed.
Columbia Tugboats. Columbia is heavy. The only place where it could be pushed for rescue would be ISS, which was in a higher and different orbit. Maybe geosync boosters could have helped, but I doubt there are enough available. I don't think pushing Columbia so the ISS lifeboat could reach is possible nor would it make sense, as pushing the lifeboat is easier.
Tether tricks. If there is something like a rope on Columbia, put someone on the end of it. Spin Columbia. Release to toss them toward ISS. Catch
Two reasons (off the top of my head):
- Parasitic cost vs. benefit; such an escape system would consume a lot of weight and space and compromise every mission, against the chance that they MIGHT be needed.
- Effectiveness: they would only be useful in an emergency where the crew knew there was a problem and had enough time to get the shuttle into a configuration where they might work.
Why don't airliners carry an escape pod for every passenger?
After reading most of the comments below I have to say it. If a rescue had been attempted, NASA would have needed guards to keep the Astronauts in line to apply for it. The military ones have a code of honor about not leaving anyone behind. The article stated that they would have been knocking down the doors to get the job, "and it's true". Men like John Young and Robert Crippen are still around. I met them both when the shuttle landed at White Sands, NM. I think it was the third suttle flight. They are retired but that caliber of person is still around throughout the Astronaut Corps.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
I also believe that Columbia hade VERY limited rendezvous capabilities on its own. No EVA suits and no arm. The only other possibilities for getting things to columbia were in an arian rocket that was in the early to mid stages of prep work for a launch (though, I think that is was suffering from some sort of budgetary hangup). Japan had the capability of launching a light payload in about two weeks notice. Russia is in no position to change what their progress or soyuz were going to do. China, though quite secretive, is believed to have the capability of putting a medium weight payload in Columbia's vicinity in a three week window, though, that's largely speculation. We do know fer certain that they are pressing hard for their own manned space program. It would have been a massive coup for them to have mounted a resupply mission with their first space flight. About the only other possibilities were classified military assets, but the airforce doesn't use their own facility much and likely didn't have anything prepped. I also believe that Boeing and its partners have a prototype ready to go for a test launch for their commercial program, but, it is virtually mothballed due to the global economy. Also, I believe that it is the sea launched system that I read about a while back and would have taken almost a month to get into position. In the end, there just isn't a whole lot out there to help these guys out aside from a drastic crash course in re-outfitting an ICBM, and that's just plain crazy talk.
Yah, and the descent rate is very high because the "wings" don't provide a very good Cl/Cd at the speeds and angles of attack that the shuttle flies.
Still, bailout at 10,000 feet is conceivable with the systems as they exist. The main reason for a bailout as opposed to a controlled landing is it's likely that the landing gear would fail to deploy; and at the landing speeds and loads the shuttle experiences, lacking a gear on landing would definitely be LOCV (loss of crew and vehicle).
It's too bad that there are a few things that lack computer control in the shuttle, like the landing gear (ostensibly for safety reasons). Sure, the computer flying all the way to the ground is probably a little less reliable than a human pilot; but t makes the bailout call a lot easier to make, if you know that the vehicle will try and land itself with a high probability of success.
I think people are focussing a little too much on whether a rescue could/should have been tried in this specific case.
The real importance of this finding by the board is to say that rescue missions are possible in some cases; they are not "impossible" and thus not even worth considering. Therefore, NASA has got to put some thought into planning for such contingencies.
That's the real failing here -- why hadn't NASA figured out more of this beforehand? Granted that it would have been tremendously risky and far outside the usual sorts of rules for mission planning. But consider the following:
1. It was reasonably likely that NASA would end up with a stuck shuttle but live crew someday, since several failure modes could do that to you.
2. If the NASA administrator told the White House that, "sorry, nothing to do, should they blow the hatch now or just suffocate slowly?", they would be told that response is NOT acceptable. Try *something*
3. However bad "something" is, it would almost certainly be better to have given some thought to what "something" would be and how to do it, than to come up with a plan in 24 hours.
Therefore, NASA really screwed up if they had not done some back of the envelope studies of what they could do, even if risky and kinda crazy, to save a stranded crew. "impossible" was *not* an answer they'd be allowed to give.
Consider Apollo 13. It's amazing how much of that rescue was NOT spur-of-the-moment, but was at least based on previous studies and simulations. Even the duct tape-and-cardboard air filter contraption drew from a simulation where a crew had had to build a makeshift air pump out of cabin materials after the LM fans died. They'd never considered the specific 13 scenario, but had done enough other crazy "what ifs" that they had a lot of building blocks to work with.
NASA should be doing the same today. Have at least some outlines of what they might do. They might even conclude there is some cheap/easy stuff to do in advance to make a rescue more feasible. For example, if they realize a particular fitting or tool that doesn't exist yet would be needed, they could make one in advance rather than scramble to do so during the crisis. It's not worth billions of course, but I bet you could find things to do with a couple of million in advance that would give you a much higher chance of success in a rescue contingency.
Hopefully NASA is way ahead of me, but I'm not sure that's the case.