Slashdot Mirror


The Rescue Plan That Could Have Saved Space Shuttle Columbia

An anonymous reader writes "In February, 2003, space shuttle Columbia was lost upon atmospheric re-entry. Afterward, NASA commissioned an exhaustive investigation to figure out what happened, and how it could be prevented in the future. However, they also figured out exactly what would have been required for a repair and rescue mission using Atlantis. Lee Hutchinson at Ars Technica went through the report and wrote a lengthy article explaining what such a mission would look like. In short: risky and terribly complex — but possible. 'In order to push Atlantis through processing in time, a number of standard checks would have to be abandoned. The expedited OPF processing would get Atlantis into the Vehicle Assembly Building in just six days, and the 24/7 prep work would then shave an additional day off the amount of time it takes to get Atlantis mated to its external tank and boosters. After only four days in the Vehicle Assembly Building, one of the two Crawler-Transporters would haul Atlantis out to Launch Complex 39, where it would stage on either Pad A or Pad B on Flight Day 15—January 30. ... Once on the pad, the final push to launch would begin. There would be no practice countdown for the astronauts chosen to fly the mission, nor would there be extra fuel leak tests. Prior to this launch, the shortest time a shuttle had spent on the launch pad was 14 days; the pad crews closing out Atlantis would have only 11 days to get it ready to fly.'"

54 of 247 comments (clear)

  1. However.. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2, Insightful

    However, this presupposes that you knew about the problem before trying to land.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:However.. by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 5, Informative

      From TFA:

      The foam strike was not observed live. Only after the shuttle was orbiting Earth did NASA's launch imagery review reveal that the wing had been hit. Foam strikes during launch were not uncommon events, and shuttle program managers elected not to take on-orbit images of Columbia to visually assess any potential damage. Instead, NASA's Debris Assessment Team mathematically modeled the foam strike but could not reach any definitive conclusions about the state of the shuttle's wing.

      The mission continued.

    2. Re:However.. by IndigoDarkwolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not to mention, this sounds like the kind of plan that could easily result in the loss of two crews, instead of one.

    3. Re:However.. by Cryacin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, but this was their contingency plan portfolio at the time:

      1. Spend 12 weeks to prep Atlantis at which time the larger astronauts would have begun eating the smallar astronauts. (Proven in animal testing)
      2. Request $5b in DARPA funding to develop and deploy a space elevator to retrieve astronauts in 5 years. (Plus project delays, see problem with contingency #1)
      3. Bruce Willis, a long rope, and a toothpick.
      4. Buy Uncle Murphy a case of Guinness, pray to several gods, and try to land the sucker anyway. (AKA: The ostrich risk assessment technique).

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    4. Re:However.. by Nimey · · Score: 2

      OP couldn't have gotten first post if he'd RTFA'd.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    5. Re:However.. by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 3, Informative

      OP couldn't have gotten first post if he'd RTFA'd.

      The cool kids already RTFA four+ hours ago when it appeared on Digg & Reddit.

    6. Re:However.. by mosb1000 · · Score: 2

      Why investigate and attempt to solve a potential problem that your engineers have brought to you attention? There could be some risk involved (to your career). Better to do nothing and write a report later on saying there was nothing you could do.

    7. Re:However.. by nrjyzerbuny · · Score: 5, Informative

      As stated in the article (page 2, I know, I must be new here):

      Columbia's 39 degree orbital inclination could not have been altered to the ISS 51.6 degree inclination without approximately 12,600 ft/sec of translational capability. Columbia had 448 ft/sec of propellant available.

    8. Re:However.. by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

      Docked Columbia at the ISS

      No. RTFA.

      I may be totally wrong.

      You are. Sorry.

    9. Re:However.. by sribe · · Score: 2

      ...Docked Columbia at the ISS...

      No, they could not have. Columbia was in a very different orbit than ISS, and had nowhere near enough fuel to get there.

    10. Re:However.. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mathematical modelling team: "We can't be 100% sure, but the models don't look good. Recommend taking a look for damage."

      Mission director: "And if we see damage what then?"

      Engineering team: "Um."

    11. Re:However.. by quenda · · Score: 4, Informative

      Do you wish that the first Apollo mission hadn't reached the moon?

      Dude, I have some really bad news for you about Apollo I. They didn't even make it off the launchpad - all dead in a fire.
      There were four more manned missions, and a number of unmanned missions before Apollo 11 reached the lunar surface.

    12. Re:However.. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      You can equally say the same thing about the Columbia crew. They happily took the risk, with full knowledge.

      If the expected combined loss after a rescue mission was greater than the expected loss without one, the right decision is to not stage a rescue. That's not a popular decision, obviously, so the correct decision was likely exactly what was done: don't look, because if you do see a problem you can't (or shouldn't) do anything about it anyway.

      Even after visually inspecting the orbiter (from the ground, likely), it's unlikely that it would have been a "if you reenter you're gonna die" conclusion. The decision wouldn't have been to try to save a doomed orbiter, it would have been whether or not to launch a risky rescue mission that possibly wasn't needed.

    13. Re:However.. by mmell · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, but we're talking about Sandra Bullock here.

    14. Re:However.. by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      All the really cool kids read it when posted by NASA.

    15. Re:However.. by rwa2 · · Score: 2

      Seems like they could have launched some kind of lifeboat or three up to dock with them within 30 days.
      How long would it have taken the Russians to prep a Proton rocket to deliver unmanned Soyuz capsules (and an airlock adapter) to them?

      Eh, it would have looked bad to ask for help from the Russians. Nevermind.

      http://www.nasaspaceflight.com...
      http://historicspacecraft.com/...

    16. Re:However.. by EvolutionInAction · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fuck you. I don't normally go for insults, I like reasoned discussion. But fuck you if you think that the engineers and managers involved in the disaster weren't devastated. They made a choice, and it was the wrong choice. But you don't know jack shit about what went into that choice. How many times had there been foam strikes with no damage? How many times had they sacrificed part of the mission to do inspection, only to find no damage?

    17. Re:However.. by jrumney · · Score: 3, Funny

      Columbia was in a very different orbit than ISS, and had nowhere near enough fuel to get there.

      Han Solo never had fuel problems. And could go anywhere he wanted in a flash. Was Columbia really so poorly designed it could not match Han Solo's 1977 technology?

    18. Re:However.. by JustOK · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The REALLY cool kids are the ones AT NASA

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    19. Re:However.. by gargleblast · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes exactly. Here and here, Flight Director Wayne Hale describes the efforts of NASA's TopMgmt to halt further analysis, refuse any help from the DOD, insist that nothing could be done, and squelch any chance of rescue.

    20. Re:However.. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Looked bad? Hell, it would have looked great, all it would've taken is a good PR department.

      First, remember that only 3 years earlier the Russian sub Kursk sunk and everyone on board died because they didn't want to accept help from foreign parties. This would have been a great chance to show everyone that the US care more about their people than about their pride, other than those Russkies who got a lot of flak internationally for their refusal of aid. The world would have taken it as a visible, very tangible end of the competition and "a new era of mutual support instead of blind competition" or something like that. Yes, the ISS is up there and it's an international effort, but, let's be frank here, who cares? A Shuttle stranded in orbit, that's in the news, for days! People around the world would have been glued to their screens to see that. And there they could have seen that great moment of space cooperation.

      Honestly, people around the globe don't really care too much about how saves whose ass. What would have been remembered is that US and Russia are working together and the outcome was that 7 lives were saved that would have been lost otherwise.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    21. Re:However.. by msauve · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, but now they determined that with only 11 years of study first, they could launch a rescue mission in 15 days. Now there's a bureaucracy.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    22. Re:However.. by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

      Couldn't there have been an emergency docking with the ISS?

      No.

      Read
      The
      F*****g
      Article

      Maybe there should have always been overlapping missions so that two shuttle spacecraft were in orbit simultaneously.

      The people wouldn't have been willing to fund it.

    23. Re:However.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't be stupid. Anyone who's seen Gravity knows that all shuttles, space stations and satellites orbit within a fire-extinguisher's blast from each other.

    24. Re:However.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They made a choice, and it was the wrong choice

      And I'm not even convinced it was the wrong choice. From TFA, and I read the report when it came out, and TFA is just a rehash of the report, but it puts it pretty damn well.

      "Three unceasing, brutal weeks of 24/7 shift workâ"and that's with absolutely no margin factored in for errors or failures. The Orbital Processing Facility team, the Vehicle Assembly Building team, and the Launch Complex 39 pad team would have had to get every one of the millions of steps right, and every component of Atlantis would have had to function perfectly the very first time, or it would all be wasted."

      I believe the engineer-focused NASA of the 70s could have done something like that. The management-focus NASA of the 2000s? Despite the presence of many talented engineers (both holdovers from the earlier era and more recent hires who still give a damn but are hobbled by management)? There's no way in hell today's organization would have gotten Atlantis to the launch pad before time ran out, let alone off the ground.

    25. Re:However.. by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 2

      GP was lazy for not reading the article carefully. However, it seems strange that no one has ever suggested that the Progress supply vehicle or Soyuz life boat on the ISS could are additional variables in the scenario and have been used as a ferry to meet the shuttle half way. Is anyone knowledgeable enough to work out the feasibility?

      Just a guess, but if Columbia itself had less than 4% of the delta-V required to match orbits, I'd think another ship with about 4% of the delta-V required nets you nowhere anywhere even remotely near "meet half way". Worse, once you've met half way, what's your next move? You've burned at least ten times as much fuel as you actually have just to get there. You've got (up to) twice the crew chewing up consumables in an orbit that's nowhere near anything else.

      --
      "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
    26. Re:However.. by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or worse, they could have gotten Atlantis into orbit, only to discover they had TWO shuttles in orbit with deadly foam strikes. Or they could have blown up Atlantis on the pad because they crammed a month worth of work into 5 days, and a weeks worth of safety and inspection checks into a few hours. Hindsight always reveals a ton of 'what if's' but in all honestly, they took option that put the fewest number of lives at risk. They lost those lives, but the call had to be made.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    27. Re:However.. by Cramer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Welcome to the never ending lawsuits. If NASA knew about it and didn't risk a bunch of lives to attempt a rescue, you bet your ass there would be a thousand lawsuits filed within days. And the only humans to ever go into space after that would be from communist nations where they cannot be sued.

    28. Re:However.. by Cramer · · Score: 2

      It wasn't even SUPPOSED to go to the moon. It was to be a low Earth orbital test of the systems.

    29. Re:However.. by rok3 · · Score: 2

      It costs a lot to get excess delta-v into orbit. It's HIGHLY unlikely that either of them would have much more delta-v than what is required to deorbit them. That would be way short of the amount required for intercept and even if you do happen to make it... what then?

    30. Re:However.. by cyn1c77 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And here is where IMHO, the wrong decision was made. They elected to not take images to see the damage. If they did, and saw the damage, instead of trying to rush Atlantis back into orbit, could they not have...

      The wrong decision was made decades earlier when the US chose to rest on their laurels and not improve the shuttle design by increasing the safety margin or the turnaround time:

      -The turnaround time between shuttle launches should not exceed the crew's air supply.

      -The cockpit should have been contained in a module that could be ejected during reentry.

      There are no technical hurdles to meeting either of those goals... NASA did not design the original shuttles to accommodate these factors due to cost. They could have redesigned the shuttles to be safer after 20 years of technology development and flight experience, but that also was deemed to cost too much.

      This is the reason the astronauts died. Their lives were not worth the cost of incorporating full redundancy into the shuttle systems.

    31. Re:However.. by camperdave · · Score: 2

      Exactly. Fire or no fire, Apollo 1 would never have made it to the moon. The mission was a Low Earth Orbit test flight to evaluate launch operations, ground tracking and similar support systems, as well as evaluating the Saturn launch vehicle and command module.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    32. Re:However.. by camperdave · · Score: 2

      Mission director: "And if we see damage what then?"

      Engineering team: "Um."

      When the first shuttle was launched, there was a big uproar about the fragility of the tiles, so much so that they declassified a high power space surveillance telescope in Hawaii to show the public photos of the shuttle's underbelly. I seem to recall that the shuttle crew had a repair device, which looked like a fat caulking gun with an upholstery brush attached to it, which would dispense an ablative gel into the hole left by a missing tile. I can't find any pictures of it though.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    33. Re:However.. by AGMW · · Score: 2

      Dude ... SPOILERS!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    34. Re:However.. by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 2

      According to NASA people there at the time, there was a very deliberate campaign by senior management to block attempts to assess damage, or get help from outside the agency (they refused DoD's offer to image the shuttle), or prepare for the worst. They had decided at the first meeting that "nothing could be done", and any attempt to tell them otherwise was shut down.

      An example of that attitude is in the report itself, the only rescue scenario even looked at was rushing Atlantis into service. No analysis of sending up a Proton with supplies, or an empty Soyuz to retrieve three (maybe four) crew to reduce the demand on the LSS and extend the time available to stage the Atlantis rescue. [Ie, rushing the launch of an unmanned rocket to reduce the risk from rushing the manned rescue.]

      Columbia could have been their finest hour. Instead it was a perfect example of how the agency is rotting away. And failing to call them on that, because we don't want to offend their delicate sensibilities, just begs for a continuation of the rot.

      Do I need to remind you of Feynman's shredding of NASA's credibility in the Challenger investigation? Or the more recent report that showed using a solid stage on SLS would likely result in an unsurvivable abort scenario (due to burning solid fuel destroying the parachutes). Or the recent report that says Orion is too heavy for the Navy to recover...

      How about the fact that on-orbit repair scenarios had been suggested and studied by engineering groups ever since the shuttle was built, but not one piece of hardware was even allowed to be built, let alone flown. Not even after Challenger.

      The agency repeats the same mistakes over and over and over...

      [And it's not just manned missions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter#Cause_of_failure "The discrepancy between calculated and measured position, resulting in the discrepancy between desired and actual orbit insertion altitude, had been noticed earlier by at least two navigators, whose concerns were dismissed."]

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    35. Re:However.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is the reason the astronauts died. Their lives were not worth the cost of incorporating full redundancy into the shuttle systems.

      Yes, that's correct. And the astronauts knew that before they took off. These aren't fee-paying train passengers we're talking about, these are trained scientists with full engineering knowledge of all the shuttle's systems. And they understood that their lives were not infinitely valuable, which is a fact a lot of liberals still need to get to grips with ... bottom line is you don't spend infinite money to make things infinitely safe, ever, in any walk of life, and it's stupid to suggest you should.

      -The cockpit should have been contained in a module that could be ejected during reentry.

      This is just crazy talk, though. If the heatshield on the orbiter can fail, so can the heat shield on the ejectable cockpit. Except now you need to carry the weight of two heatshields instead of one. Also you seem to be under some illusion that ejection is some benign safe option. Ejection is fucking dangerous and the ejection mechanism can misfire meaning your system is probably more dangerous than the system they had.

      Whatever NASA's faults, at least they don't design critical systems according to the armchair pontifications of laymen ...

  2. And when you lose Atlantis... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because you were cutting corners?

    What then?

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re:And when you lose Atlantis... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      If not when, and so what? Seriously, its worth the risk to try and save people.

      Not necessarily. As TFA noted, a number of scenarios were considered. It wasn't at all clear than they would have worked at all and there was an excellent chance that the Atlantis AND the crew would have been lost. So making hard headed cost benefit analysis calculations really does work in the real world.

      Otherwise your car would go 5 mph and no one, but no one would ever fly in a plane.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:And when you lose Atlantis... by Aaden42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you knew with complete assurance that the first crew would be lost if they attempted to land without repair, then it would likely be worth the risk to a second crew to mount a rescue.

      If on the other hand, there’s only some chance that the first crew would be lost attempting to land, then working that risk into the risk to the second crew is reasonable. IE if there’s a 10% chance that there might have been trouble landing (and it sounds like the foam strikes leading up to Columbia’s trouble were in fact common, so could be considered low-risk) then it’s not unreasonable to decide that the risk of the second crew is an unreasonable risk. Consider also that the risk to this second crew for an accelerated launch process would likely have been FAR greater than a “normal” shuttle launch (assuming it can be said there’s anything “normal” about strapping a bomb to your ass and fleeing the planet...)

      If there’s a very high chance of failure of the original crew’s landing, then the additional risk might be worth it. If not, then you really are doubling down and risking losing two crews. It’s entirely plausible that due to the corners cut for an accelerated launch Atlantis could have exploded during launch, leaving Columbia to still take their chances landing with a damaged wing.

      Armchair quarterbacking is easy. Saying they should have risked a second crew *now*, knowing that it’s an impossibility and that your assertion that the risk is reasonable will never be tested is also easy. Being left to make that call in the moment, knowing that you could be sending a second shuttle crew to their deaths trying to help another crew that might not even need the help the first place. Little bit harder to live with that one...

      The loss of the Columbia crew is a tragedy, but looking back based on this report, it doesn’t seem like the way it was handled was unreasonable.

  3. Other options? by firewrought · · Score: 2

    I wonder what other options they investigated... for instance, would it have been feasible to do a spacewalk and relocate foam to critical areas? I know this stuff is way more complicated than any simplistic suggestions from the internet, but NASA pulled hell and high water to bring Apollo 13 home safely. Imminent emergencies have a way bringing out the greatness in an otherwise bureaucratic organization.

    --
    -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    1. Re:Other options? by WetCat · · Score: 2

      Also, what options about using MKS were investigated? Was it possible to host all austronauts there after life support on Columbia has been exhausted, and then gradually evacuate via Sojuz and/or Atlantis?

    2. Re:Other options? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Yep, they investigated lots of options. They're all in TFA (the CAIB, not just the Ars article but you might start there).

      No, you can't 'relocate the foam'. The damaged part was a carbon-fibre leading edge element, not foam. NASA subsequently developed a patch for this sort of damage but obviously stuff like this takes time.

      And to everyone who thinks that the Columbia accident and Apollo 13 are somehow equivalent consider this - in Apollo 13 "all" they had to do was to stay alive until they could loop the CSM and lunar module back to earth. The Command module with it's heat shield and other reentry gear was intact.

      Columbia lost it's ability to reenter the earth's atmosphere. To fix it required never-done-before-engineering outside the spacecraft. Sometimes just willing something isn't enough to get it done.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Other options? by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      To be fair concerning apollo 13 grown crew had no idea if the heat shield was damaged or not, and intentionally kept it from the crew as to not put them inder any more stress. At the time they thoight it was 50 50 that.the craft would burn up on reentry

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    4. Re:Other options? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Say it how it is, the main difference to Apollo 13 was that the shuttle design was simply by no means as solid as the one of the Apollo rockets.

      V. Braun, no matter what you might think about him, made sure there's a backup plan available. Always. Well, I guess you get that way when you spend your first test years ducking for cover from explosion debris. I think I remember an interview where he remarked that he did play out everything that could even possibly go wrong every time he designed something and that we haven't seen about 90% of what the Apollo capsules COULD actually do in an emergency because we (thankfully) never needed them.

      Apollo 13 is a good example of a mission that could easily have gone south if it happened to a less solid platform.

      The shuttle was over-engineered. There were simply too many little things that could go wrong to be a safe launch platform. Solid boosters (another thing v. Braun despised) and a pretty much unshielded heat shield (where other parts may bang against) were the two things that eventually cost lives.

      Personally, I think we should consider ourselves damn lucky it was just 2.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Other options? by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 2

      No, the problem with solid boosters is "Turn it on, and pray to whatever deity you prefer that you didn't just fuck yourself, because you can't shut it off." And challenger is the perfect example. A good friend of mine was standing in a room full of NASA engineers watching that launch, watching the onboard cameras. They saw that O ring break, and by his description, it was producing what looked like the Jet of a cutting torch, aimed right at one of the structural pylons that holds the external booster to the external tank. He said everyone in that room knew the mission was over the second the pressed go. That jet cut through that pylon, and that caused the external booster to nose over into the big orange tank, which ruptured it, which caused the fuel to come out, which ignited, which exploded. Now, had the external boosters been liquid fuel, and not SRB's they could have been shut down immediately, and the mission aborted, but because they where solid boosters, the could not be turned off. Also, staging them off early was not an option, because they would have accelerated past the shuttle, probably igniting the fuel tank in the process. Solid fuel rockets are a fucking nightmare, and belong in recreational models and fireworks only.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    6. Re:Other options? by Cramer · · Score: 2

      It made it too heavy. There are a great many compromises that had gone in the shuttle program up to that point. They used to carry extra heat shield blocks, but that stopped early on -- added weight for something they aren't likely to need to fix in space, plus every damned panel and cube on the thing is unique. (who the f*** thought that was a good idea!)

    7. Re:Other options? by dryeo · · Score: 2

      Apollo 13 were lucky enough to have a second spaceship right there. Without the lunar module to act as a life raft they would never have made it.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    8. Re:Other options? by dryeo · · Score: 2

      Apollo 13 were lucky to make it to orbit. The pogoing problems (68g at 16hz) which caused an engine to shut down are forgotten due to the later oxygen tank blowout. If the oxygen blowout had happened to Apollo 8, or had happened on the return part of any of the missions they would have been dead due to no Lunar Module to use as a life raft. They also had problems due to it not being that solid of a platform, the Lunar Module did not interface too well with the Command Module as they discovered when they needed more CO2 scrubbed.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    9. Re:Other options? by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      Assuming that worked--you're using up more oxygen and more propellant--you could cut it down to two trips--one with five passengers and one with two. I'd be willing to bet that a Soyuz didn't have fuel to do that.

      Nope, very much not enough fuel. Though perhaps a customized Soyuz launch could have reached them.

      A critical item to realize is that you don't necessarily need to immediately evacuate them - get an unmanned cargo ship close enough stuffed with CO2 scrubbers, extra oxygen, batteries, and food should extend survival past 30 days to get something man-rated there. One problem I see is that they don't have 9 space suits to effect the transfer. So you might need to rig up some sort of pressurized tube*.

      *Personally I'd go with near pure O2 in the tube, sufficient to keep the person concious, but the pressure low enough that you can keep it sealed.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  4. If you have a time machine with a short range by localroger · · Score: 2

    ...of only a few days, then this would be quite useful. You could get Denzel Washington in onthe project somehow.

    --
    Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
  5. The Plan That Could Have Doomed Atlantis by Minwee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Could" is a pretty strong word. As Lee goes into some depth on exactly how much of a record breaking effort it would have taken just to get Atlantis off the ground in time to save Columbia, and how many corners would have to be not only cut but removed with a chainsaw, it would be more accurate to say that the plan proposed by the CAIB shows that even if the Launch Director had pointed to Columbia as it was launching and said "Hey, there are some missing tiles there. We need to get Atlantis ready right now", they still wouldn't have been able to do it.

    The thing to take away from this is not that NASA could have saved Columbia but didn't, but that they changed the plan for every other shuttle launch so that they would always have a second launch vehicle on standby. It's about learning from mistakes, not making them worse.

  6. Debris Assessment Team modeled foam strike .. by DTentilhao · · Score: 2

    "The foam strike was not observed live. Only after the shuttle was orbiting Earth did NASA's launch imagery review reveal that the wing had been hit. Foam strikes during launch were not uncommon events, and shuttle program managers elected not to take on-orbit images of Columbia to visually assess any potential damage. Instead, NASA's Debris Assessment Team mathematically modeled the foam strike but could not reach any definitive conclusions about the state of the shuttle's wing. The mission continued"

    NASA management choose to ignore reports of a foam strike, as they ignored previous problems with the O-Rings ..

    'NASA engineer, Rodney Rocha .. said he tried at least half a dozen times to get the space agency to make the requests. There were two similar efforts by other engineers. All were turned aside. Mr. Rocha (pronounced ROE-cha) said a manager told him that he refused to be a "Chicken Little." The Columbia's flight director, LeRoy Cain, wrote a curt e-mail message that concluded, "I consider it to be a dead issue"`

  7. Re:Paralysis by Analysis by gnu-sucks · · Score: 2

    I think you have to go with both. As others have pointed out, humans can be awfully wrong too.

    Having said this, there is no way, at all, that, if we had understood the gravity of the situation we would have done nothing. That's not the American or NASA spirit. Take John Glenn's first flight, where there was an indication that the heat shield and landing bag had been released in-orbit. Can you imagine being in that small capsule knowing that you might be about to burn up on re-entry? The incredible engineers, technicians, and flight directors considered every option and decided not to ignore the instrumentation reading (which was later proven to be false). They came up with a plan, and although it was untested and of course not analyzed by a computer, they put it into action, and sure enough, John Glenn made it back safely.

    You're absolutely right that this level of complexity (and creativity) cannot be programmed into a computer model. It comes from ingenuity. Creativity. Outside-the-box thinking. We'll never know if the crew of Columbia could have repaired the damage, mitigated the risk, or been rescued because NOBODY TRIED. And they did deserve that fighting chance.

    I'm not saying they would have made it, but they did deserve a chance.

  8. Re:Paralysis by Analysis by dryeo · · Score: 2

    The engineers who designed the rubber seals said that they were not designed for freezing temps, and to wait for it to warm up. No feel about it, the temperature was out of the design limit and the rubber was going to be brittle. Management wanted a launch that day and overrode the engineers.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism