I am sorry, but I don't think you have given the suggestion of abandoning the "S" turns a real answer. Answering that NASA has plotted the descent profile with great precision is not a meaningful answer at all.
If you want to abandon those turns, then how else do you suggest slowing down the orbiter? I think you are maybe trying to compare this to an airplane and there is little comparison.
Excuse me, you expressed this opinion very authoritatively. Can you justify this opinion?
I am not a rocket scientist. Nor do I claim to be. I give my opinions here. And I have explained my reasoning. You haven't.
I am not claiming to be an engineer, or a propulsion expert. My degree was in astronomy. Since I was interested in the shuttle program, I did a multi-course grad level study of the program. Since I am not an engineer, I can't always explain some things well. I aploogize for that, but my studies did take me to KSC and I got to know some of the people who are enginners down there and who work on the shuttle.
Too many people try to compare the orbiter to airplanes and jets and you just can't do that. The orbiter operates in very difficult conditions at best. There is little room for error. One tiny mistake can snowball to disaster. It is a delicate system at best. Can we do better? Sure, and we will, but there will be mistakes along the way. And, given their budget, NASA is crippled from the start.
Your inability to survive re-entry in just a space suit is due to a failure of imagination, too. Sometimes the parameters of the circumstance are just too tough no matter how much we all want Plan B. (or C or D or...)
The engineers actually thought of that, way back with STS1. Unfortunately that shrunken budget reared its' ugly head and quashed that. Now, after the STS107 tragedy, those ideas are back on the discussion board, however, they will have to deal with the budget issue.
I suspect you're thinking of having Columbia do a series of leftward corkscrews to favor that wing. I seriously doubt if would have been enough. In addition, it would have left them with no path to the runway, since their energy expendature just gets them to Florida.
During the many meetings held by the engineers to discuss the possibility of damage to the left wing by the foam, they discussed ways of trying to bring the orbiter in with a left wing. If there had been a way, they could and would have tried it. The problem is, the temperatures and speeds with which the orbiter descends are already at critical levels, you can only make things so safe. Unfortunately, there wasn't a lot of leeway to change the orbit and the engineers decided that there was nothing they could change that would have made any difference.
The runways where the shuttle is rated to land are triple-length, and it needs a lot of that even under good circumstances. I don't know how many of those there are on the flight path.
There are a few alternatives, such as White Sands. However, the orbiter has to plan for that long before Columbia atarted having problems.
Bottom line: give NASA a good budget and you'll see those guys get real imaginative with safety. We can help that by pushing politicans to address the issues.
I wanted to respond to several comments, not all by this person but I thought I'd try to get it all in here. First, tossing stuff out of the shuttle would be disasterous. NASA already tracks over 40,000 pieces of debris from spent rocket stages and dead satellites, all of which are a major hazard to the shuttle and anything else up there. Because of the speeds involved, even a paint flake becomes potentially dangerous. If it collides with the orbiter, it carries the punch of a 22 caliber bullet. In fact, the shuttles windows have already been hit with paint flakes and they have left pits. That is one of the reasons why the orbiter flys backwards while in space, to minimize exposure of oncoming debris from the crew cabin windows.
How would they have gotten rid of the science module? Columbia did not have it's remote arm to lift things out. And they cannot keep the payload doors open in lower oribt.
Someone else mentioned those "s" turns, I think it was with the idea that they could have somehow changed those to favor the left wing. Those s turns are very precise and are designed to reduce orbiter speed. They already plot a course for maximum reduction of speed and therefore exposure to higher temperatures. And trying to reduce heat by keeping the orbiter in a less steep descent would have been just as disasterous because it would have meant a longer period of time, even if in slightly lower temperatures. That was just as risky, and possibly more, than the descent carried out.
Someone else mentioned ditching the orbiter and saving the crew. How? Where would the crew go? Columbia was not outfitted to dock with the ISS, so that was out. There were no EVA suits on board so the astronauts could not go outside the orbiter. In fact, one of the reasons that KC was chosen for this flight was because it was a non EVA mission, because she was so small they had no suits to fit her. The crew couldn't leave, there was nowhere for them to go.
Another person criticized Ron Dittemore for not having the military take satellite images of the shuttle's wing. That was not a decision made solely by Ron. A group of engineers met repeatedly, all week, to discuss what to do about the issue of possible damage from the foam. For one thing, the military was already overtaxed trying to prepare for Iraq. Also, military experts did not feel that they could get any images that would show enough detail to be any help. Remember, it took a CAT scan to show the gaps in Atlantis' RCC.
And finally, on to the personel of NASA and the integrity of Ron Dittemore. I am sure that, like any other organization, there are those who would play politics and do things to protect their jobs. I do not believe this portrays most of NASA and I certainly don't believe it indicative of Ron Dittemore. Take a look at these articles about Ron:
Ron didn't come in to NASA from the management side, he is an engineer, and a darned good one, and a good guy altogether. Let's give him a chance.
The orbiter is a very complex vehicle, as I am sure most of you know. Let's not see conspiracy everywhere and get lost in "what ifs" and "should have/could have" because in doing so, we could easily lose sight of fact. I don't think this is going to be a case of management vs engineers like Challenger. I don't know if any of you have read Richard Feynman's books, but he sat on the investigation board for the Challenger disaster. He commented that one of the hardest things to do, but that which they had to do, was put what ifs and suppositions out of their minds and try to deal with the facts.
Dittemore has never given anyone any reason to believe he will deliver less than the truth. I think the real enemies here are the politicans who have cut away at NASA's budget forcing people to not only work for less pay, but to even work overtime for free. These kind of people do this because they love what they are doing. Let's please give them a chance.
Kathy
It's likely that they did drawings of some of their gods/spirits. It would make sense if they attributed water to a god, that they would then honor that god. As to why they are so large, well if you look at Stonehenge, those stones certainly didn't need to be so huge just to be astronomical markers. People then placed a lot of emphasis on pleasing the gods. I am from the Hopi nation and I know how much a part water is to our culture, as someone else said, if you live in a desert, water can be a rather consuming thought!
I'm not sure if I buy the hot air balloon story, but it's interesting and I don't think we should underestimate people just because they came from less technical times.
I think the truth lies in a blending of theories, but it's interesting to speculate about.
Slashdot Mirror
I am sorry, but I don't think you have given the suggestion of abandoning the "S" turns a real answer. Answering that NASA has plotted the descent profile with great precision is not a meaningful answer at all.
If you want to abandon those turns, then how else do you suggest slowing down the orbiter? I think you are maybe trying to compare this to an airplane and there is little comparison.
Excuse me, you expressed this opinion very authoritatively. Can you justify this opinion? I am not a rocket scientist. Nor do I claim to be. I give my opinions here. And I have explained my reasoning. You haven't.
I am not claiming to be an engineer, or a propulsion expert. My degree was in astronomy. Since I was interested in the shuttle program, I did a multi-course grad level study of the program. Since I am not an engineer, I can't always explain some things well. I aploogize for that, but my studies did take me to KSC and I got to know some of the people who are enginners down there and who work on the shuttle.
Too many people try to compare the orbiter to airplanes and jets and you just can't do that. The orbiter operates in very difficult conditions at best. There is little room for error. One tiny mistake can snowball to disaster. It is a delicate system at best. Can we do better? Sure, and we will, but there will be mistakes along the way. And, given their budget, NASA is crippled from the start.
Your inability to survive re-entry in just a space suit is due to a failure of imagination, too. Sometimes the parameters of the circumstance are just too tough no matter how much we all want Plan B. (or C or D or...)
The engineers actually thought of that, way back with STS1. Unfortunately that shrunken budget reared its' ugly head and quashed that. Now, after the STS107 tragedy, those ideas are back on the discussion board, however, they will have to deal with the budget issue.I suspect you're thinking of having Columbia do a series of leftward corkscrews to favor that wing. I seriously doubt if would have been enough. In addition, it would have left them with no path to the runway, since their energy expendature just gets them to Florida.
During the many meetings held by the engineers to discuss the possibility of damage to the left wing by the foam, they discussed ways of trying to bring the orbiter in with a left wing. If there had been a way, they could and would have tried it. The problem is, the temperatures and speeds with which the orbiter descends are already at critical levels, you can only make things so safe. Unfortunately, there wasn't a lot of leeway to change the orbit and the engineers decided that there was nothing they could change that would have made any difference.
The runways where the shuttle is rated to land are triple-length, and it needs a lot of that even under good circumstances. I don't know how many of those there are on the flight path.
There are a few alternatives, such as White Sands. However, the orbiter has to plan for that long before Columbia atarted having problems.
Bottom line: give NASA a good budget and you'll see those guys get real imaginative with safety. We can help that by pushing politicans to address the issues.
I wanted to respond to several comments, not all by this person but I thought I'd try to get it all in here. First, tossing stuff out of the shuttle would be disasterous. NASA already tracks over 40,000 pieces of debris from spent rocket stages and dead satellites, all of which are a major hazard to the shuttle and anything else up there. Because of the speeds involved, even a paint flake becomes potentially dangerous. If it collides with the orbiter, it carries the punch of a 22 caliber bullet. In fact, the shuttles windows have already been hit with paint flakes and they have left pits. That is one of the reasons why the orbiter flys backwards while in space, to minimize exposure of oncoming debris from the crew cabin windows.
How would they have gotten rid of the science module? Columbia did not have it's remote arm to lift things out. And they cannot keep the payload doors open in lower oribt.
Someone else mentioned those "s" turns, I think it was with the idea that they could have somehow changed those to favor the left wing. Those s turns are very precise and are designed to reduce orbiter speed. They already plot a course for maximum reduction of speed and therefore exposure to higher temperatures. And trying to reduce heat by keeping the orbiter in a less steep descent would have been just as disasterous because it would have meant a longer period of time, even if in slightly lower temperatures. That was just as risky, and possibly more, than the descent carried out.
Someone else mentioned ditching the orbiter and saving the crew. How? Where would the crew go? Columbia was not outfitted to dock with the ISS, so that was out. There were no EVA suits on board so the astronauts could not go outside the orbiter. In fact, one of the reasons that KC was chosen for this flight was because it was a non EVA mission, because she was so small they had no suits to fit her. The crew couldn't leave, there was nowhere for them to go.
Another person criticized Ron Dittemore for not having the military take satellite images of the shuttle's wing. That was not a decision made solely by Ron. A group of engineers met repeatedly, all week, to discuss what to do about the issue of possible damage from the foam. For one thing, the military was already overtaxed trying to prepare for Iraq. Also, military experts did not feel that they could get any images that would show enough detail to be any help. Remember, it took a CAT scan to show the gaps in Atlantis' RCC.
And finally, on to the personel of NASA and the integrity of Ron Dittemore. I am sure that, like any other organization, there are those who would play politics and do things to protect their jobs. I do not believe this portrays most of NASA and I certainly don't believe it indicative of Ron Dittemore. Take a look at these articles about Ron:
Houston Chronicle story and this on in USA Today
Ron didn't come in to NASA from the management side, he is an engineer, and a darned good one, and a good guy altogether. Let's give him a chance. The orbiter is a very complex vehicle, as I am sure most of you know. Let's not see conspiracy everywhere and get lost in "what ifs" and "should have/could have" because in doing so, we could easily lose sight of fact. I don't think this is going to be a case of management vs engineers like Challenger. I don't know if any of you have read Richard Feynman's books, but he sat on the investigation board for the Challenger disaster. He commented that one of the hardest things to do, but that which they had to do, was put what ifs and suppositions out of their minds and try to deal with the facts.
Dittemore has never given anyone any reason to believe he will deliver less than the truth. I think the real enemies here are the politicans who have cut away at NASA's budget forcing people to not only work for less pay, but to even work overtime for free. These kind of people do this because they love what they are doing. Let's please give them a chance. Kathy
It's likely that they did drawings of some of their gods/spirits. It would make sense if they attributed water to a god, that they would then honor that god. As to why they are so large, well if you look at Stonehenge, those stones certainly didn't need to be so huge just to be astronomical markers. People then placed a lot of emphasis on pleasing the gods. I am from the Hopi nation and I know how much a part water is to our culture, as someone else said, if you live in a desert, water can be a rather consuming thought!
I'm not sure if I buy the hot air balloon story, but it's interesting and I don't think we should underestimate people just because they came from less technical times.
I think the truth lies in a blending of theories, but it's interesting to speculate about.