[ale] OT: Space Shuttle Columbia

[Kilroy, Chris]

just an aside to the idea of a lower speed orbital descent.


basically unless i'm missing something you are going to need a lot more fuel to perform this action, because gravity is doing all the work.  to counteract that, you are going to need a lot of fuel, unless there is some sublte straightforward way to enter a descent angle, that for some reason won't decay into the same rapid descent they use now.

->
->
->Jeff Hubbs wrote:
->> Bob -
->> 
->> I'm going to take a stab at a prediction; let's see how 
->right/wrong I
->> turn out to be.
->> 
->> Based on what I've heard, seen, and know so far, I think that the
->> insulation shedding from the ET damaged the left wing near 
->the leading
->> edge.  No big surprise there.
->
->Agreed.
->
->> 
->> I think that an EVA should have been performed, even if it 
->were under
->> suboptimal conditions.  However, If they didn't have a 
->proper EVA suit
->> on board, an umbilical, and a simple hand thruster...SHAME!!
->
->Agreed.
->
->> 
->> I believe that an EVA might have provided key information 
->regarding the
->> survivability of re-entry.  I envision two courses of 
->action that could
->> have been explored: 1) rendezvous/offload of crew to the 
->ISS followed by
->> an attempted remote re-entry
->
->This was deemed not possible since the orbits of the ISS and Columbia 
->were on different orbits.  Columbia is not equipt with engines to 
->transfer to the ISS orbit.
->
->The only possible solution would have been to send another 
->shuttle up to 
->retrieve the astronauts.  Typically preparing a shuttle for launch is 
->3-4 months.  In such a situation, the claimed the could be ready in a 
->couple of weeks.
->
->Â  2) (and this is specious) a re-entry
->> attempt with a skewed yaw and/or roll to ease up on the 
->damaged side (I
->> say specious because an analysis may have also shown that 
->this wouldn't
->> have mattered.  If it turned out that coming in with a few 
->degrees of
->> intentional yaw would have dropped the temp where the 
->damage was, well,
->> it would be worth having to land it God knows where or even 
->do a water
->> ditch to spare the crew.
->
->I don't know that this would be possible either.  The actual 
->portion of 
->the landing when the problems occurred is controlled by an 
->auto pilot. 
->Further, it apparently will attempt such maneuvers when it 
->detects such 
->adverse heating.  Also, it would not be possible for the 
->pilot to take 
->control of the ship at that time in order to attempt the same.
->
->> 
->> According to a recent MSNBC article, "Dittemore said that after the
->> engineers concluded the shuttle would be safe, there was no
->> consideration given to *having it reenter the atmosphere tilted away
->> from the damaged side.* That might have allowed the crew to 
->eject when
->> the shuttle reached a lower altitude, but would have 
->certainly doomed
->> the spacecraft." (emphasis mine).  I saw this this morning but I
->> mentioned the idea of a skewed landing to my wife on Sunday.
->
->Apparently, there were some high tech photos taken of the 
->shuttle while 
->in orbit.  This was not requested by NASA and they did not request to 
->view these photos until after the loss.
->
->> 
->> Also of note:
->> 
->> "There were also no contingency plans to allow the 
->astronauts to escape
->> to the international space station or send a rescue shuttle."
->
->This is the primary issue to me.  The shuttle is designed to 
->operate one 
->way and one way alone.  The escape mechanism was added after the 
->Challenger and could only be used if the shuttle was in a very stable 
->flight, which would not have saved neither the Challenger or the 
->Columbia.  I believe it was no more then a token effort.
->
->The bottom line is, if any of the shuttles deviate from the intended 
->path, up, down or during orbit, disaster is assured.
->
->Also, the tile solution for heat protection was one of three 
->possibilities, chosen because it was the 'most cost effective.'
->
->> 
->> I realize that this flight may have lacked docking adapters to dock
->> cleanly with the ISS.  Fine; go EVA, even if it's in the 
->pumpkin suits. 
->> The Apollo 13 crew was saved primarily because YEARS 
->EARLIER, someone
->> (Max Faget?) decided that TWO independent life support and 
->electrical
->> systems and THREE independent propulsion systems would make 
->the entire
->> trip to the Moon. 
->
->Yes, this kind of safety solution, I believe does not exist in the 
->shuttle for sake of cost.
->
->
->> I think that the Apollo-style decision process and 
->contingency strategy
->> will be shown to be absent with the Shuttle program.  Again.
->
->Agreed.
->
->-- 
->Until later: Geoffrey         esoteric at 3times25.net
->
->The latest, most widespread virus?  Microsoft end user agreement.
->Think about it...
->
->_______________________________________________
->Ale mailing list
->Ale at ale.org
->http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
->