Actually they can't. Unlike the Apollo or other spacecraft that came before there's no escape tower to pull the part of the ship with the astronauts away from the rest.
In case you don't know in those early ships for take off a tower was mounted on top of the capsule containing rockets that would ignite in an emergency and pull the capsule away. Of course coming back to earth there was nothing. Even on take off we're talking much faster than any jet and eventually much higher . Ejecting at those speeds or that altitude isn't an an option.
according to a search on google. apparently they can. i thought, this became a big issue afer Challenger. i guess depends on much of the flight has progressed
I stand corrected. Here's some info: " The in-flight crew escape system is provided if the orbiter is unable to reach a runway, an alternative to water ditching or to landing on terrain other than a landing site. The probability of the flight crew surviving a ditching is very small.
The bailout sequence begins with the orbiter in a autopilot glide. Crew depressurizes the cabin to equalize the outside pressure and pyrotechnically jettison the hatch. A long escape pole is quickly deployed out the hatch. One by one, each crew member attaches a lanyard hook which is connected to his or her parachute harness to the escape pole and jumps out the door. Attached to the escape pole, the crew member slides down the pole and off the end. The escape pole provides a trajectory that takes the crew members below the orbiter's left wing. An automatic activation device deploys the parachute canopy.
A typical exit altitude begins at about 30,000 to 20,000 feet. Spacesuits provide protection against sudden cabin depressurization since the normal orbiter cabin pressure is at sea level pressure. For emergency bailout, the astronauts will not have time to do a proper pre-breath like skydivers jumping from 30,000 feet. Also, the suit provides protection against the highspeed air blast while exiting the orbiter and extreme exposure protection if landing in frigid North Atlantic waters. This crew escape system cannot be used during ascent (main engines and SRBs burning).
The first four Space Shuttle flights were equipped with ejection seats, similar to those on SR-71, for the commander and pilot (the only two crew on board for STS-1 thru STS-4). The ejection envelope was good to 100,000 feet. The ejection seats take up a considerable amount of room on the upper flight deck. "
This unfortunately wouldn't have worked for the crew of Columbia and it doesn't sound like it could have helped Challenger ether.
Had anyone noticed that there seemed to be a lot more attention being given to the Israeli than all of the Americans put together.
CNN, FOX and most local news had reports from Israel with interviews and personal reactions, along with the Israeli Astronauts Bio within the first hour of the tragedy. But it wasn't until the evening news hour when they started showing the Bio of the Americans. Which is also when they started mentioning the one women was Indian born and had some reactions of Indian people.
Ask yourself how much you really know about each of the individuals that lost thier lives and how much you learned about them from the News before jumping in to say I am anti-Jewish or anti-Isreal.
I noticed the same thing, and frankly, I was really tired of it after a while.
But then I realized that all the major news sources already have significant resources in Israel, where this flight has been dominating the local news. Their resources in Racine, WI, or Spokane, WA, weren't as readily available.
I *am* glad to see that it is balancing out a bit.
<strong>nope. i believe that this was the only shuttle wasn't configured not to be able to dock with the space station</strong><hr></blockquote>
I haven't been following the shuttle missions, so this is pure heresay:
This mission was one of the few which was not designed to visit the ISS. Flights to the ISS are launched for a particular attitude and orbit. This mission was launched at a different attitude.
This does not exclude the possibility that this shuttle could have visited the ISS. I don't know whether it has been speculated or published whether or not there was sufficient fuel to alter this shuttle's orbit, including whether or not that would mean having to transfer all the crew to the ISS and abandoning the shuttle.
If I remember correctly, the Orbiter has several oppurtunities to jettison from the SRBs and ETF. There are 3 or 4 emergency landing points available to the shuttle all of which have to be available (weather-wise) before launch. So if NASA believed the foam hitting the left wing was going to be a serious problem, they could have had the orbiter jettison from the SRBs and ETF and land at one of these spots.
This mission was one of the few which was not designed to visit the ISS. Flights to the ISS are launched for a particular attitude and orbit. This mission was launched at a different attitude.</strong>
Station inclination is 51 degrees. STS-107 was at 39 degrees inclination.
<strong>This does not exclude the possibility that this shuttle could have visited the ISS. I don't know whether it has been speculated or published whether or not there was sufficient fuel to alter this shuttle's orbit, including whether or not that would mean having to transfer all the crew to the ISS and abandoning the shuttle.</strong>
Plane changes are humungously explensive. A 90 degree plane change requires as much velocity change as a launch. This 12 degree plane change requires about 5000 fps while the OMS engines on the orbiter provides about 1000 fps. There wasn't much of a chance to rendesvous with ISS. (All these are approximations however).
However, this is pretty much an irrelevent point. All signs indicated the Columbia was in fine shape, so it pretty much doesn't matter.
Yea but the could have looked at it and said "gosh this doesn't look good. Lets not try reentry". That parts not rocket science. It's common sense.</strong>
It was looked at. Backwards, forewords and sideways. Video of each and every launch is looked at frame by frame for debris or any problems. Simulations of those debris are done to determine impact sites on the orbiter.
Yea but the could have looked at it and said "gosh this doesn't look good. Lets not try reentry". That parts not rocket science. It's common sense.</strong>
It was looked at. Backwards, forewords and sideways. Video of each and every launch is looked at frame by frame for debris or any problems. Simulations of those debris are done to determine impact sites on the orbiter.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
<strong>If I remember correctly, the Orbiter has several oppurtunities to jettison from the SRBs and ETF. There are 3 or 4 emergency landing points available to the shuttle all of which have to be available (weather-wise) before launch. So if NASA believed the foam hitting the left wing was going to be a serious problem, they could have had the orbiter jettison from the SRBs and ETF and land at one of these spots.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is the thing with both the Columbia and the Challenger. They didn't think there was a problem. Of course with the Challenger there wasn't much time to act on a problem. With that they should have paid more attention to the O Rings on the SRBs and their condition in cold weather on the pad. As I recall before they are supposed to jettison the SRBs they increase thrust. They " Throttle up". That's when the leak in the O-Rings became a blow toarch on the fuel tank and the damage was done.
With Columbia maybe there was damage that wasn't apparent for long range photography. Does anybody know if the crew could see the damage from inside the shuttle? I don't think that part of the wings are visable from their position.
Maybe they should spend more time going over the fuel tank on the pad. Which of course is more expensive. One thing to look at is they have had many successful launches. For almost twenty years now since the last time something like this happened. That's a pretty good record.
Of course this isn't the last. The more we go into space there's going to be more tragedy. Like Kickaha was saying risk really is part of their job. But compare it to say the airlines where they lose 200 people at once. This seems more serious to us because we're new at this.
THT,
I have to admit I wasn't following this flight closely ether but I suspected that they may not have had the ability to reach the ISS when the flight wasn't intended to go there. Perhaps given these conditions and didn't think that a serious problem existed as soon as they launched their fate was sealed.
Heh, I could only imagine Microsoft powered spacecraft.
"You have lost a heat tile. Windows will now restart."</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I can imgaine an Apple-powered Space Craft...not only would it be incompatible with most forms of fuel or launchers, but its rocket engines would be more than 50% smaller than other space craft, even though they'd put out more than 50% more thrust. (in certain Photoshop tests, of course.)
On a more serious note, how do you think NASA will recoup the loss of the Columbia? I wonder if NASA will be able to afford building a new Orbiter, since such a proposition would seem to go against the "Faster, Better, Cheaper" mantra that they've been trying to follow.
I'm thinking that they might borrow the Russian Buran shuttle. After all, it can be completely remotely piloted.
Makes me wonder if the loss of Columbia is going to hit NASA even harder with the loss of the VentureStar project a few years back.
NASA will be fine. They are going to learn from this and make the space program better. We need NASA. They are the only way for us to explore our future, which is inevitably space. It was mentioned earlier that Nasa had 17 years without major incident...thats a damn good track record. Airlines have 10 times more tragedies and claim 10 times more lives in each one. The space shuttle is the most compliated machine on the planet, and to keep it running as long as it has is simply amazing. NASA isnt going anywhere, and the U.S. will soon have an improved shuttle fleet with a new fleet on its heels.
There was a gentleman about ten years ago who designed a vertical takeoff vehicle which also landed vertcally.
Last I heard much of his work was 'borrowed' by Nasa and his design just kind of disappeared. There was a lot of hassles, I recall, from Nasa about granting permission to build it to various contractors he was showing it to.
Real unique ship... Totally different design.
With this most recent tragedy, perhaps Nasa will get their thumbs out of their butts and begin innovating again instead of being just a cargo business.
<strong>this comes as a precursor to the hundreds if not thousands of people who will shortly be losing their lives fighting for what they believe in. it's a shame that on this occasion money (or oil at least) will be the true reason.</strong><hr></blockquote>
it sounds a little harsh, but i nevertheless agree. Yes, we should mourn for the intrepid people who died on Columbia, but we should also remember the people who will die and are dying right now in Palestine/Israel, and in Iraq.
<strong>There was a gentleman about ten years ago who designed a vertical takeoff vehicle which also landed vertcally.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you talking about the Delta Clipper? That was a cool machine. Why NASA chose X-33/VentureStar over it I will never know. At least the people at McDonell-Douglas proved their concept could work. The SkunkWorks people who were behind the design of the VentureStar had a great design on paper...pity that like the X-30 or the "Orient Express", it just didn't work that well in practice.
From a purely logistical standpoint, though, it's gonna be rough. There's really no chance of building a new STS orbiter - the parts, machinery, and expertise are probably all gone and would be too expensive to reconstitute. I heard they actually assembled Endeavour out of extra parts - even then they didn't re-open the "factory". Hopefully this will be a spur to get a new launch vehicle designed and built, rather than an excuse to scale back NASA. NASA has zero margin for error now, with only three remaining shuttles. Lose one more and manned flight in general, and ISS in particular, is done for. Even with four shuttles they've been stretched to the limit - this had been the first pure-science shuttle flight in years.
Quote: The F-111 can exceed twice the speed of sound (Mach 2) by sweeping its wings rearward while in flight. The wings are swept forward for takeoffs, landings or slow speed flight.The two-person cockpit was also an advanced design module that served as an emergency escape vehicle and as a survival shelter on land or water. (Italics added).
Woulda, coulda, shoulda....
By the way, I don't believe that NASA has ever said anything about it, but rumors suggest that the Challenger crew survived the explosion of the external tank and the subsequent break up of the orbiter (reports that some of the crew's oxygen masks were deployed...). I understand that they had nine minutes to fall from altitude to the ocean. They could/should have had parachutes on the crew module so that some of the astronauts would have had a chance to survive. (We can parachute incredibly heavy things like trucks).
With the Columbia, man... I don't know. If the left wing failed/folded at what is supposed to have been maximum aerodynamic pressure, then that would have caused an asymetric aerodynamic load straight from hell. The vehicle would have rolled left from the aerodynamic pressure from the intact right wing (and probably pitched upward from the loss of countering force). The force would have probably sheared both rudder and remaining wing. If the astronauts had survived that,then it would have been nice to have had a way to eject the crew compartment so that it could reenter on its own. Even better would have been a sensor system throughout the wings and the rest of the aerostructure to tell the computer that a burn-through was in process and that, while the vehicle was stable, it was time to get the hell out of Dodge.
<strong>With Columbia maybe there was damage that wasn't apparent for long range photography. Does anybody know if the crew could see the damage from inside the shuttle? I don't think that part of the wings are visable from their position.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Watched the press conference with NASA where they covered this in detail...
They *can* view the top of the shuttle from ground based scopes (remember, it flies 'upside-down'). They can't see the bottom. Neither can the crew.
If the shuttle has the CanadArm with a camera on the end, it can look around the top and sides of the shuttle, and *just* reach around the edge to peer at the bottom. Unfortunately, the angle is such that they can't determine bottom surface tile damage. Also unfortunately, STS-107 didn't have the arm.
The crew did a visual inspection from the portholes, but that only let them see the leading edge of the wing (the only portion thought to be potentially damaged by the falling tank foam). They (crew and ground) did not believe the damage was significant.
So, bottom line... they did the inspections they thought necessary, nothing led them to believe that further inspection via ground based scopes was needed, and even if they had, they wouldn't have been able to see the bottom, where the majority of the heat shielding is.
Comments
<strong>
Actually they can't. Unlike the Apollo or other spacecraft that came before there's no escape tower to pull the part of the ship with the astronauts away from the rest.
In case you don't know in those early ships for take off a tower was mounted on top of the capsule containing rockets that would ignite in an emergency and pull the capsule away. Of course coming back to earth there was nothing. Even on take off we're talking much faster than any jet and eventually much higher . Ejecting at those speeds or that altitude isn't an an option.
[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
according to a search on google. apparently they can. i thought, this became a big issue afer Challenger. i guess depends on much of the flight has progressed
<a href="http://nasaexplores.com/lessons/02-040/fullarticle.html"; target="_blank">everybody out</a>
<a href="http://www.nasaexplores.com/lessons/02-010/"; target="_blank">from NASA itelf</a>
[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: burningwheel ]</p>
The bailout sequence begins with the orbiter in a autopilot glide. Crew depressurizes the cabin to equalize the outside pressure and pyrotechnically jettison the hatch. A long escape pole is quickly deployed out the hatch. One by one, each crew member attaches a lanyard hook which is connected to his or her parachute harness to the escape pole and jumps out the door. Attached to the escape pole, the crew member slides down the pole and off the end. The escape pole provides a trajectory that takes the crew members below the orbiter's left wing. An automatic activation device deploys the parachute canopy.
A typical exit altitude begins at about 30,000 to 20,000 feet. Spacesuits provide protection against sudden cabin depressurization since the normal orbiter cabin pressure is at sea level pressure. For emergency bailout, the astronauts will not have time to do a proper pre-breath like skydivers jumping from 30,000 feet. Also, the suit provides protection against the highspeed air blast while exiting the orbiter and extreme exposure protection if landing in frigid North Atlantic waters. This crew escape system cannot be used during ascent (main engines and SRBs burning).
The first four Space Shuttle flights were equipped with ejection seats, similar to those on SR-71, for the commander and pilot (the only two crew on board for STS-1 thru STS-4). The ejection envelope was good to 100,000 feet. The ejection seats take up a considerable amount of room on the upper flight deck. "
This unfortunately wouldn't have worked for the crew of Columbia and it doesn't sound like it could have helped Challenger ether.
[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
CNN, FOX and most local news had reports from Israel with interviews and personal reactions, along with the Israeli Astronauts Bio within the first hour of the tragedy. But it wasn't until the evening news hour when they started showing the Bio of the Americans. Which is also when they started mentioning the one women was Indian born and had some reactions of Indian people.
Ask yourself how much you really know about each of the individuals that lost thier lives and how much you learned about them from the News before jumping in to say I am anti-Jewish or anti-Isreal.
If you still think so, so be it.
[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: MrBillData ]</p>
But then I realized that all the major news sources already have significant resources in Israel, where this flight has been dominating the local news. Their resources in Racine, WI, or Spokane, WA, weren't as readily available.
I *am* glad to see that it is balancing out a bit.
<strong>nope. i believe that this was the only shuttle wasn't configured not to be able to dock with the space station</strong><hr></blockquote>
I haven't been following the shuttle missions, so this is pure heresay:
This mission was one of the few which was not designed to visit the ISS. Flights to the ISS are launched for a particular attitude and orbit. This mission was launched at a different attitude.
This does not exclude the possibility that this shuttle could have visited the ISS. I don't know whether it has been speculated or published whether or not there was sufficient fuel to alter this shuttle's orbit, including whether or not that would mean having to transfer all the crew to the ISS and abandoning the shuttle.
This mission was one of the few which was not designed to visit the ISS. Flights to the ISS are launched for a particular attitude and orbit. This mission was launched at a different attitude.</strong>
Station inclination is 51 degrees. STS-107 was at 39 degrees inclination.
<strong>This does not exclude the possibility that this shuttle could have visited the ISS. I don't know whether it has been speculated or published whether or not there was sufficient fuel to alter this shuttle's orbit, including whether or not that would mean having to transfer all the crew to the ISS and abandoning the shuttle.</strong>
Plane changes are humungously explensive. A 90 degree plane change requires as much velocity change as a launch. This 12 degree plane change requires about 5000 fps while the OMS engines on the orbiter provides about 1000 fps. There wasn't much of a chance to rendesvous with ISS. (All these are approximations however).
However, this is pretty much an irrelevent point. All signs indicated the Columbia was in fine shape, so it pretty much doesn't matter.
Yea but the could have looked at it and said "gosh this doesn't look good. Lets not try reentry". That parts not rocket science. It's common sense.</strong>
It was looked at. Backwards, forewords and sideways. Video of each and every launch is looked at frame by frame for debris or any problems. Simulations of those debris are done to determine impact sites on the orbiter.
<strong>[qb]Originally posted by Scott:
Yea but the could have looked at it and said "gosh this doesn't look good. Lets not try reentry". That parts not rocket science. It's common sense.</strong>
It was looked at. Backwards, forewords and sideways. Video of each and every launch is looked at frame by frame for debris or any problems. Simulations of those debris are done to determine impact sites on the orbiter.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Yeah, they used their XBox Shuttle simulator...
it landed Okay, so all was a go.
[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: MrBillData ]</p>
<strong>If I remember correctly, the Orbiter has several oppurtunities to jettison from the SRBs and ETF. There are 3 or 4 emergency landing points available to the shuttle all of which have to be available (weather-wise) before launch. So if NASA believed the foam hitting the left wing was going to be a serious problem, they could have had the orbiter jettison from the SRBs and ETF and land at one of these spots.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is the thing with both the Columbia and the Challenger. They didn't think there was a problem. Of course with the Challenger there wasn't much time to act on a problem. With that they should have paid more attention to the O Rings on the SRBs and their condition in cold weather on the pad. As I recall before they are supposed to jettison the SRBs they increase thrust. They " Throttle up". That's when the leak in the O-Rings became a blow toarch on the fuel tank and the damage was done.
With Columbia maybe there was damage that wasn't apparent for long range photography. Does anybody know if the crew could see the damage from inside the shuttle? I don't think that part of the wings are visable from their position.
Maybe they should spend more time going over the fuel tank on the pad. Which of course is more expensive. One thing to look at is they have had many successful launches. For almost twenty years now since the last time something like this happened. That's a pretty good record.
Of course this isn't the last. The more we go into space there's going to be more tragedy. Like Kickaha was saying risk really is part of their job. But compare it to say the airlines where they lose 200 people at once. This seems more serious to us because we're new at this.
THT,
I have to admit I wasn't following this flight closely ether but I suspected that they may not have had the ability to reach the ISS when the flight wasn't intended to go there. Perhaps given these conditions and didn't think that a serious problem existed as soon as they launched their fate was sealed.
[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
Yeah, they used their XBox Shuttle simulator...
it landed Okay, so all was a go.
Heh, I could only imagine Microsoft powered spacecraft.
"You have lost a heat tile. Windows will now restart."
<strong>
Heh, I could only imagine Microsoft powered spacecraft.
"You have lost a heat tile. Windows will now restart."</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I can imgaine an Apple-powered Space Craft...not only would it be incompatible with most forms of fuel or launchers, but its rocket engines would be more than 50% smaller than other space craft, even though they'd put out more than 50% more thrust. (in certain Photoshop tests, of course.)
On a more serious note, how do you think NASA will recoup the loss of the Columbia? I wonder if NASA will be able to afford building a new Orbiter, since such a proposition would seem to go against the "Faster, Better, Cheaper" mantra that they've been trying to follow.
I'm thinking that they might borrow the Russian Buran shuttle. After all, it can be completely remotely piloted.
Makes me wonder if the loss of Columbia is going to hit NASA even harder with the loss of the VentureStar project a few years back.
Last I heard much of his work was 'borrowed' by Nasa and his design just kind of disappeared. There was a lot of hassles, I recall, from Nasa about granting permission to build it to various contractors he was showing it to.
Real unique ship... Totally different design.
With this most recent tragedy, perhaps Nasa will get their thumbs out of their butts and begin innovating again instead of being just a cargo business.
<strong>this comes as a precursor to the hundreds if not thousands of people who will shortly be losing their lives fighting for what they believe in. it's a shame that on this occasion money (or oil at least) will be the true reason.</strong><hr></blockquote>
it sounds a little harsh, but i nevertheless agree. Yes, we should mourn for the intrepid people who died on Columbia, but we should also remember the people who will die and are dying right now in Palestine/Israel, and in Iraq.
<strong>There was a gentleman about ten years ago who designed a vertical takeoff vehicle which also landed vertcally.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you talking about the Delta Clipper? That was a cool machine. Why NASA chose X-33/VentureStar over it I will never know. At least the people at McDonell-Douglas proved their concept could work. The SkunkWorks people who were behind the design of the VentureStar had a great design on paper...pity that like the X-30 or the "Orient Express", it just didn't work that well in practice.
<a href="http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/phoenix_m_a_small_ssto_launch_vehicle_for_commerci al_space_transport_missions.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/phoenix_m_a_small_ssto_launch_vehicle_for_commerci al_space_transport_missions.shtml</a>
A better picture would be the Kankoa Maru:
<a href="http://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/designs.shtml"; target="_blank">http://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/designs.shtml</a>;
I thought it had disappeared... Gues I was spelling Pheonix wrong...
It all boils down to money.
<a href="http://www.af.mil/history/60s/airpower/f-111a.shtml"; target="_blank">http://www.af.mil/history/60s/airpower/f-111a.shtml</a>;
Quote: The F-111 can exceed twice the speed of sound (Mach 2) by sweeping its wings rearward while in flight. The wings are swept forward for takeoffs, landings or slow speed flight.The two-person cockpit was also an advanced design module that served as an emergency escape vehicle and as a survival shelter on land or water. (Italics added).
Woulda, coulda, shoulda....
By the way, I don't believe that NASA has ever said anything about it, but rumors suggest that the Challenger crew survived the explosion of the external tank and the subsequent break up of the orbiter (reports that some of the crew's oxygen masks were deployed...). I understand that they had nine minutes to fall from altitude to the ocean. They could/should have had parachutes on the crew module so that some of the astronauts would have had a chance to survive. (We can parachute incredibly heavy things like trucks).
With the Columbia, man... I don't know. If the left wing failed/folded at what is supposed to have been maximum aerodynamic pressure, then that would have caused an asymetric aerodynamic load straight from hell. The vehicle would have rolled left from the aerodynamic pressure from the intact right wing (and probably pitched upward from the loss of countering force). The force would have probably sheared both rudder and remaining wing. If the astronauts had survived that,then it would have been nice to have had a way to eject the crew compartment so that it could reenter on its own. Even better would have been a sensor system throughout the wings and the rest of the aerostructure to tell the computer that a burn-through was in process and that, while the vehicle was stable, it was time to get the hell out of Dodge.
Thoughts for the next class of orbiter....
Aries 1B
<strong>With Columbia maybe there was damage that wasn't apparent for long range photography. Does anybody know if the crew could see the damage from inside the shuttle? I don't think that part of the wings are visable from their position.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Watched the press conference with NASA where they covered this in detail...
They *can* view the top of the shuttle from ground based scopes (remember, it flies 'upside-down'). They can't see the bottom. Neither can the crew.
If the shuttle has the CanadArm with a camera on the end, it can look around the top and sides of the shuttle, and *just* reach around the edge to peer at the bottom. Unfortunately, the angle is such that they can't determine bottom surface tile damage. Also unfortunately, STS-107 didn't have the arm.
The crew did a visual inspection from the portholes, but that only let them see the leading edge of the wing (the only portion thought to be potentially damaged by the falling tank foam). They (crew and ground) did not believe the damage was significant.
So, bottom line... they did the inspections they thought necessary, nothing led them to believe that further inspection via ground based scopes was needed, and even if they had, they wouldn't have been able to see the bottom, where the majority of the heat shielding is.