Its most likely a COMSEC module from the communications system - This would be what is termed a CCI (Cryptographically Controlled Item) by itself it would be useless to a terrorist - but coupled with the keying material it might be useful - it is doubtful to me that the device survived with the key still in memory
Assuming it survived at all and assuming that it survived in a state where it might work.
It might be partly because most (or all) of the on-board measurements are beamed down as telemetry data.
Which doesn't mean adding a black box isn't useful, since the telemetry link itself could fail.
The telemetry link monitors a lot more paramaters than the typical FDR. Also you need a rather tougher box for something which flys at March 25 @ 250,000 feet compared with one which flys at March.8 at 30,000 feet.
Personally, I think the Russians had it right with Buran. Decouple the launch mechanism from the orbiter. Putting the SSME's in the shuttle increases vehicle complexity, and makes development of a replacement launcher prohibitively expensive.
The Russian approach also means that you have a heavy lift vehicle which can launch other kinds of payloads.
The Shuttle is pretty critical to the ISS. Yes, you can get people, fuel and supplies up with other means (i.e. Russian rockets) and we'll probably be doing this for some time now.
You could get quite a bit into orbit with a Saturn 5...
But the shuttles were used to do assembly (i.e. spacewalks), bring up the various new ISS modules, and to lift the ISS.
Thus the problem is that you need to get the parts into orbit. No need for parts and the construction crews to take their ride to orbit on the same vehicle.
Remember that the ISS is a huge beast and slowly sinks due to the small amount of air resistance. The shuttles are the easiest/best way to lift the ISS up to its normal orbit.
Actually the best way is to fit the ISS with thrusters in several places. Trying to push a fragile structure from one place is a bad idea.
Buran was a 3/4 scale duplicate of Shuttle, not the same size. It also never carried a crew...its one mission was unmanned.
It isn't so much a clone as a second generation version of the same concept. Being able to make an unmanned flight is probably more of a plus than a minus. It means that test flights can take place without risking lives of a crew.
The Missle Defense system is pushing the limits in a bunch of different technologies, including advanced laser research.
What are the real chances of anyone attacking the US using a long range missile system? Building a working missile system is hard quite possibly harder than building a working nuclear weapon. Missiles are also not in the least bit stealty, even at the testing stage.
And so it should. Listen. If some commerical launch goes wrong, do you honestly believe that any business will have the money to clean it all up? I mean if it hits a population center we're talking about some crazy cash.
An airliner will also make a nasty mess of a population centre if it hits one. Are you honestly claiming that airlines do not carry the appropriate level of insurance.
The whole notion of a corporation is 'limited liability'. The idea was concieved to encourage exploration of the New World when the loss of a ship could completely bankrupt the financial backers. That's what the 'Ltd.' stands for. Limited liability means if something goes real bad then "Super Space, Ltd." pull a Chapter 11 and the people in the crater are SOL.
Limited liability protects the investors. Whilst their certificates become worthless they cannot be persued by creditors. However the concept was never intended to protect the corporate entity itself from liability. The corporation itself and any assets it has are fair game.
I had an argument with someone a couple years ago about what vehicle I'd rather ride to space and why. I said Soyuz because they are safer.
AFAIK only 4 people have died on Soyuz, 1 due to a parachute being installed upside down and 3 due to a preasure relief valve opening too high up.
Shuttle missions have always scared the hell out of me. But when I hear some people are going up in a Soyuz I think "have a nice trip, ought to be fun."
Soyuz comes with an escape system for the crew, which actually works too.
They're necessary purchases if the US is going to have an effective military. The DDG-51 and Virginia programs are vital for the Navy (we've already gone from Reagan's "600 ship Navy" to barely 100 combatants). The Air Force needs the F-22 in order to replace planes that are probably older than most of the people reading this (1970s technology).
The USAF flys plenty of old aircraft, such as the B52 (early 1950's) also the E3 AWACS, KC135, RC135 all derived from the Boeing 707. IIRC no civilian airline has flown 707's in years.
NASA's budget for 2003 - now $15.5 billion after the Columbia tragedy
Military budget for 2003 - $396 billion
Now of course I think the military needs a massive amount of money, but they spend it like water, and on things that we do not need.
That's before considering the costs of fighting a war in Iraq (or wherever else), 400 cruise missiles a day comes with a rather large price tag. Also quite a bit of "black" money is most likely additional military budget.
Seriously, since when did DCCs impair or otherwise affect the normal operation of Dalnet?
Except that filesharing bots do not always remain on their own channels without bothering anyone else. You also get bots and "users" who like to "advertise" their services and channels.
In fact, recently the Dutch government has been trying to clamp down on weed again - and illegal trading goes back up with all the negative consequences. Interestingly, Germany, which is still much more strict on the issue, has a *higher* per-capita consumption of cannabis than the Netherlands
Sounds like a very obvious parallel with what happened in the US with alcohol.
Not likely, I should think. The cockpit is well enclosed, as posters pointed out earlier on the first story. It's possible some of the astronauts survived until impact.
To survive at 200,000 feet you need a preassure suit. Assuming you arn't killed by explosive decompression. This isn't like the kind of situation you'd get on an airliner where a simple oxygen mask is adequate.
The thermal protection is provided by tiles. There are two types of tiles: black and white. Only the black ones can stand the full temperature of re-entry, and they are placed over the nose and flat bottom of the craft. The white tiles on the top and sides can only deal with the lesser temeratures that leak around.
There are actually 3 type of ceramic heat shield material. The nose and wing leading edges have a grey coloured high graphite ceramic. IIRC 3 large pieces rather than tiles.
However, I'd imagine they had the ability to remain on orbit for a decent amount of time,
How would they do this, the Shuttle is not equipted for in flight refueling or resupply?
possibly time enough to get a second shuttle and/or one or two Soyuz capsules up to meet it and transfer crew.
You can't just launch a spacecraft at no notice. Soyuz takes 3 people, thus you'd need 4 (1 pilot and 2 spare seats for passengers) to get everyone off Columbia. Also transfer would need to be by EVA since the craft would not be able to dock.
Docking at the station is an enormously complex maneuver and it isn't something you do unless that's what the mission plan calls for. Even if you could get to the station, it can't handle a crew of 10 (its 3 plus the Columbia 7).
Even 7 (assuming 1 ISS and 2 Columbia took the docked Soyuz back to Earth) is more than twice the number of people.
There's no way to see that region of the craft; I'm not sure they could see it even if they had a remote manipulator aboard.
They didn't have an arm on board. None of the crew had trained for EVA, without any EVA being planned it's rather unlikely that there would have been an MMU (or suit) on board. Since weight is a premium only things which are intended to be used for the mission are carried.
NASA did an extended analysis of the debris impact, but didn't believe there was any cause for concern. Maybe they were wrong but if not there was nothing the crew could have done. Nothing. There's nowhere else to go.
Nor is there anything which could have been launched to dock with Columbia and take the crew off.
From reading the articles you listed, it appears that there is a lot of credible evidence to support the Hypothesis of: 1. there was a problem with the foam comming off, and 2. the detaching foam destroyrd tiles and created a possible danger.
It needn't have destroyed any tiles. Distorting the skin of the wing, even with the tiles still firmly attached, could create all sorts of problems with very hot air flowing in ways which the designers had never considered.
It will be interesting to see what pieces are recovered - will they recover any actual tiles, or do those things burn up when they come down solo?
The tiles are unlikely to burn up, given that they are intended to survive may trips through the atmosphere. Though they could be damaged on impact with the ground. Most suprising is news footage of what appears to be a complete tank.
they dont ignite exactly on contact, its a highly exothermic reaction, but the needed component is powdered aluminum. This is probably what the long white trail following the orbiter was, as its altitude was much too high for contrails.
More likely it's the airframe burning. The only powdered aluminium is in the SRBs
A guy I work with, and a former PROP flight controller, has told me that they don't entirely dump the OMS propellant because its weight can be used to manage the orbiter's center of gravity (cg). The cg is important because during entry, it affects the stability of the vehicle. It's been a long time since this was explained to me (not my area of expertise), but I do know that the orbiter's cg has to fall within about a 3-foot long area along the vehicle's long axis.
Supersonic and Subsonic flight have diferent centres of lift. Thus you need to compensate to avoid violent pitching. Concorde also has a system for moving fuel to specific trim tanks.
First of all, the wing could have probably have been inspected using the Hubble Space Telescope.
That would need the right orbit, for the telescope to be capable of focusing on a close object and to be able to observe the shuttle without any bright objects also in the image.
Secondly, even if that wasn't the case, the shuttle probably had enough fuel to match orbits with the International Space Station, where it could have been inspected by their crew memebers.
It didn't have enough fuel on board to get there.
If the damage had been found to be serious, the shuttle could have docked with the International Space Station
Columbia wasn't fitted with a docking module. No idea if they had preassure suits for all 7 people on board.
and the astronauts could likely have waited there for another shuttle to take them home.
Could be a long wait, without the ISS carrying provisions for an extra 7 people.
Yes, Dr. Chawla was of Indian descent and grew up there, but she is a US citizen. She is an American astronaut, and no doubt proud of her Indian heritage.
Or another option might be if the imact damaged an Auxiliary Power Unit which caused a fire then a fule explosion. But I am not sure where the APU's are located in the shuttle, so it is only one possibility according to my knowledge.
They are in the fusalage, aft compartment, IIRC. The only active components in the wings of the Shuttle are the elevon actuators.
Slashdot Mirror
Its most likely a COMSEC module from the communications system - This would be what is termed a CCI (Cryptographically Controlled Item) by itself it would be useless to a terrorist - but coupled with the keying material it might be useful - it is doubtful to me that the device survived with the key still in memory
Assuming it survived at all and assuming that it survived in a state where it might work.
It might be partly because most (or all) of the on-board measurements are beamed down as telemetry data.
.8 at 30,000 feet.
Which doesn't mean adding a black box isn't useful, since the telemetry link itself could fail.
The telemetry link monitors a lot more paramaters than the typical FDR.
Also you need a rather tougher box for something which flys at March 25 @ 250,000 feet compared with one which flys at March
Personally, I think the Russians had it right with Buran. Decouple the launch mechanism from the orbiter. Putting the SSME's in the shuttle increases vehicle complexity, and makes development of a replacement launcher prohibitively expensive.
The Russian approach also means that you have a heavy lift vehicle which can launch other kinds of payloads.
The Shuttle is pretty critical to the ISS. Yes, you can get people, fuel and supplies up with other means (i.e. Russian rockets) and we'll probably be doing this for some time now.
You could get quite a bit into orbit with a Saturn 5...
But the shuttles were used to do assembly (i.e. spacewalks), bring up the various new ISS modules, and to lift the ISS.
Thus the problem is that you need to get the parts into orbit. No need for parts and the construction crews to take their ride to orbit on the same vehicle.
Remember that the ISS is a huge beast and slowly sinks due to the small amount of air resistance. The shuttles are the easiest/best way to lift the ISS up to its normal orbit.
Actually the best way is to fit the ISS with thrusters in several places. Trying to push a fragile structure from one place is a bad idea.
Buran was a 3/4 scale duplicate of Shuttle, not the same size. It also never carried a crew...its one mission was unmanned.
It isn't so much a clone as a second generation version of the same concept. Being able to make an unmanned flight is probably more of a plus than a minus. It means that test flights can take place without risking lives of a crew.
The Missle Defense system is pushing the limits in a bunch of different technologies, including advanced laser research.
What are the real chances of anyone attacking the US using a long range missile system? Building a working missile system is hard quite possibly harder than building a working nuclear weapon. Missiles are also not in the least bit stealty, even at the testing stage.
And so it should. Listen. If some commerical launch goes wrong, do you honestly believe that any business will have the money to clean it all up? I mean if it hits a population center we're talking about some crazy cash.
An airliner will also make a nasty mess of a population centre if it hits one. Are you honestly claiming that airlines do not carry the appropriate level of insurance.
The whole notion of a corporation is 'limited liability'. The idea was concieved to encourage exploration of the New World when the loss of a ship could completely bankrupt the financial backers. That's what the 'Ltd.' stands for. Limited liability means if something goes real bad then "Super Space, Ltd." pull a Chapter 11 and the people in the crater are SOL.
Limited liability protects the investors. Whilst their certificates become worthless they cannot be persued by creditors. However the concept was never intended to protect the corporate entity itself from liability. The corporation itself and any assets it has are fair game.
I had an argument with someone a couple years ago about what vehicle I'd rather ride to space and why. I said Soyuz because they are safer.
AFAIK only 4 people have died on Soyuz, 1 due to a parachute being installed upside down and 3 due to a preasure relief valve opening too high up.
Shuttle missions have always scared the hell out of me. But when I hear some people are going up in a Soyuz I think "have a nice trip, ought to be fun."
Soyuz comes with an escape system for the crew, which actually works too.
They're necessary purchases if the US is going to have an effective military. The DDG-51 and Virginia programs are vital for the Navy (we've already gone from Reagan's "600 ship Navy" to barely 100 combatants). The Air Force needs the F-22 in order to replace planes that are probably older than most of the people reading this (1970s technology).
The USAF flys plenty of old aircraft, such as the B52 (early 1950's) also the E3 AWACS, KC135, RC135 all derived from the Boeing 707. IIRC no civilian airline has flown 707's in years.
NASA's budget for 2003 - now $15.5 billion after the Columbia tragedy
Military budget for 2003 - $396 billion
Now of course I think the military needs a massive amount of money, but they spend it like water, and on things that we do not need.
That's before considering the costs of fighting a war in Iraq (or wherever else), 400 cruise missiles a day comes with a rather large price tag. Also quite a bit of "black" money is most likely additional military budget.
Seriously, since when did DCCs impair or otherwise affect the normal operation of Dalnet?
Except that filesharing bots do not always remain on their own channels without bothering anyone else. You also get bots and "users" who like to "advertise" their services and channels.
And some people refuse to install Microsoft's newer service packs, because of the changed license on them, which has some pretty gross clauses in it.
There's also the problem that a "service pack" might alter things you didn't want to change in the process of fixing any bugs.
In fact, recently the Dutch government has been trying to clamp down on weed again - and illegal trading goes back up with all the negative consequences. Interestingly, Germany, which is still much more strict on the issue, has a *higher* per-capita consumption of cannabis than the Netherlands
Sounds like a very obvious parallel with what happened in the US with alcohol.
Not likely, I should think. The cockpit is well enclosed, as posters pointed out earlier on the first story. It's possible some of the astronauts survived until impact.
To survive at 200,000 feet you need a preassure suit. Assuming you arn't killed by explosive decompression. This isn't like the kind of situation you'd get on an airliner where a simple oxygen mask is adequate.
The thermal protection is provided by tiles. There are two types of tiles: black and white. Only the black ones can stand the full temperature of re-entry, and they are placed over the nose and flat bottom of the craft. The white tiles on the top and sides can only deal with the lesser temeratures that leak around.
There are actually 3 type of ceramic heat shield material. The nose and wing leading edges have a grey coloured high graphite ceramic. IIRC 3 large pieces rather than tiles.
However, I'd imagine they had the ability to remain on orbit for a decent amount of time,
How would they do this, the Shuttle is not equipted for in flight refueling or resupply?
possibly time enough to get a second shuttle and/or one or two Soyuz capsules up to meet it and transfer crew.
You can't just launch a spacecraft at no notice.
Soyuz takes 3 people, thus you'd need 4 (1 pilot and 2 spare seats for passengers) to get everyone off Columbia. Also transfer would need to be by EVA since the craft would not be able to dock.
Docking at the station is an enormously complex maneuver and it isn't something you do unless that's what the mission plan calls for. Even if you could get to the station, it can't handle a crew of 10 (its 3 plus the Columbia 7).
Even 7 (assuming 1 ISS and 2 Columbia took the docked Soyuz back to Earth) is more than twice the number of people.
There's no way to see that region of the craft; I'm not sure they could see it even if they had a remote manipulator aboard.
They didn't have an arm on board. None of the crew had trained for EVA, without any EVA being planned it's rather unlikely that there would have been an MMU (or suit) on board. Since weight is a premium only things which are intended to be used for the mission are carried.
NASA did an extended analysis of the debris impact, but didn't believe there was any cause for concern. Maybe they were wrong but if not there was nothing the crew could have done. Nothing. There's nowhere else to go.
Nor is there anything which could have been launched to dock with Columbia and take the crew off.
From reading the articles you listed, it appears that there is a lot of credible evidence to support the Hypothesis of: 1. there was a problem with the foam comming off, and 2. the detaching foam destroyrd tiles and created a possible danger.
It needn't have destroyed any tiles. Distorting the skin of the wing, even with the tiles still firmly attached, could create all sorts of problems with very hot air flowing in ways which the designers had never considered.
It will be interesting to see what pieces are recovered - will they recover any actual tiles, or do those things burn up when they come down solo?
The tiles are unlikely to burn up, given that they are intended to survive may trips through the atmosphere. Though they could be damaged on impact with the ground. Most suprising is news footage of what appears to be a complete tank.
they dont ignite exactly on contact, its a highly exothermic reaction, but the needed component is powdered aluminum. This is probably what the long white trail following the orbiter was, as its altitude was much too high for contrails.
More likely it's the airframe burning. The only powdered aluminium is in the SRBs
A guy I work with, and a former PROP flight controller, has told me that they don't entirely dump the OMS propellant because its weight can be used to manage the orbiter's center of gravity (cg). The cg is important because during entry, it affects the stability of the vehicle. It's been a long time since this was explained to me (not my area of expertise), but I do know that the orbiter's cg has to fall within about a 3-foot long area along the vehicle's long axis.
Supersonic and Subsonic flight have diferent centres of lift. Thus you need to compensate to avoid violent pitching. Concorde also has a system for moving fuel to specific trim tanks.
First of all, the wing could have probably have been inspected using the Hubble Space Telescope.
That would need the right orbit, for the telescope to be capable of focusing on a close object and to be able to observe the shuttle without any bright objects also in the image.
Secondly, even if that wasn't the case, the shuttle probably had enough fuel to match orbits with the International Space Station, where it could have been inspected by their crew memebers.
It didn't have enough fuel on board to get there.
If the damage had been found to be serious, the shuttle could have docked with the International Space Station
Columbia wasn't fitted with a docking module. No idea if they had preassure suits for all 7 people on board.
and the astronauts could likely have waited there for another shuttle to take them home.
Could be a long wait, without the ISS carrying provisions for an extra 7 people.
Yes, Dr. Chawla was of Indian descent and grew up there, but she is a US citizen. She is an American astronaut, and no doubt proud of her Indian heritage.
Also very much a role model in India.
When you turn on the news today and see titles like "showdown iraq" or "countdown iraq" do you think they pick titles like that to be informative
Anyone got any idea what a few thousand cruise missiles cost. Relative to NASAs budget.
Or another option might be if the imact damaged an Auxiliary Power Unit which caused a fire then a fule explosion. But I am not sure where the APU's are located in the shuttle, so it is only one possibility according to my knowledge.
They are in the fusalage, aft compartment, IIRC. The only active components in the wings of the Shuttle are the elevon actuators.