I thought it had disappeared... Gues I was spelling Pheonix wrong...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, I see now. Thanks for the link; it was nice to see some old favourites like the British HOTOL and the German Sanger/Horus up there. It reminds me of a really nice two-stage space place project that NASA did a feasbility study on which used a lot of off the shelf parts, such as the engines from the F-22. It still makes me wonder why NASA chooses to overlook promising stuff like this.
What really caught my eye was the little blurb on the X-15. 199 flights without incident? Wow...
<strong>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).</strong>
Err, the F-111 flight envelope is a mere speck compared to the orbiters. Saying that there is an F-111 escape module, B-1 escape module for that matter, belittles the complexities involved in an escape system from pad to touchdown. An escape pod is definitely possible. It was even studied, and studied, and studied for the orbiters. Do not think it wasn't considered. It's all about weight traded off for capability. And, yes, also money.
<strong>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...). </strong>
Yes. Some of the Challenger crew were most likely conscious during its descent. It's not much of a rumor. Btw, Challenger didn't blow up, it was torn apart by aerodynamic forces, and the external tank did a slow burn (than seen in explosions) due to lack of oxygen at altitude.
<strong>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.</strong>
Columbia was just past maximum heating. Maximum dynamic pressure would have been around Mach 2. If they lost tile, it means the heat (2000+ degrees) would have melted the internal structure; and wings, tail, panels, and such would have broke apart as it tumbled.
<strong>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.</strong>
Reenter is the keyword. The crew compartment has to have a heatshield system around it to be operational above 200,000 ft.
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><hr></blockquote>
That aint the same thing. Duh? If someone had just gone out there and looked at the fscking thing 7 people could still be alive working on a better plan to get home. NASA as some 'plaining to do.
That aint the same thing. Duh? If someone had just gone out there and looked at the fscking thing 7 people could still be alive working on a better plan to get home. NASA as some 'plaining to do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Scott,
You have no real way of knowing that. The debris didn't fall off and hit the shuttle until after lift off. It could be that the piece that fell might not have been visually obvious. So an inspection might have done nothing.
That aint the same thing. Duh? If someone had just gone out there and looked at the fscking thing 7 people could still be alive working on a better plan to get home. NASA as some 'plaining to do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Would you mind explaining how they were supposed to 'just go out there and look' without EVA equipment??
*Think* man, *think*!
"They should have space walked to take a look!"
"They didn't have space suits."
"They should have anyway, so they could have lived!"
And you say you're in medicine. Sheesh. Cluestick: human + vacuum = dead. m'kay?
No suit. No walk. No look-see.
As it happens, CNN has some pics up that appear to show that foam/ice hitting the leading left wing edge, then bouncing *between* the wing and the tank, and impacting the trailing edge. On the bottom. Where no one could see during orbit, period. No suit, no arm-based camera, no ground-based scope, no ISS.
If there was any damage to the bottom of the Shuttle, no one could see it, no matter where they were. There *may* have been enough fuel to get to the ISS, but nobody here knows for sure. Honestly, I doubt it - this was a mission stuffed to the gills with science payload, and had been stripped down to make room. Fuel weighs a lot... I suspect they left enough margin for 'standard' anticipated adjustments such as bad weather at the landing site.
Anyone can armchair-engineer.
Now the only question I have is that if they suspected wing-bottom damage, could they have asked Columbia to roll belly-down for a ground-based inspection? I know I've seen the Shuttles orbit in that position.
A: Nope. Just talked to a buddy at JPL. They've attempted ground-based inspections before, but the resolution doesn't allow for the detail they need for determining tile damage on anything less than a *massive* scale. Seems to me that this may be the answer though - development of a ground-based inspection system for visual confirmation of ship damage.
Edit: Nevermind, thought it through. If you're going to have any prayer of repair, you have to have EVA suits, and if you have those, you can do on-site inspections. I guess the real answer is to have EVA suits on at all times.
<strong>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". </strong><hr></blockquote>
Does anyone know what state Enterprise is in? I wonder how difficult it would be to make it flight ready? Or is that where most of the parts for Endeavour came from? Hmmm... they DO have similar names after all..
I'M SAYING IT WAS FSCKING STOOPID TO SEND THEM UP WITHOUT AT LEAST ONE SUIT! You'd have to be NASA to do that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
they had suits.... 2 suits are quired for every mission.
they are incapable of doing a spacewalk on the bottom of the shuttle... they cant go over the sides of the shuttle.... its too dangerous and there are no guiderails on the bottom for obvious reasons. even if they could have, they would not have been capable of repairing anything and could not have docked with the ISS.
nevermind the fact that everything was virtually perfect until the unfortunate disaster. so they didnt even think about inspection.... and even if they had, it would have been impossible. and if they even had the ability, it would have been more risky for them to inspect the bottom since the spacewalk could have just further damaged tiles.
the only thing that could have possibly happened is if they had the robotic arm.... the arm can be equiped with a camera and inspect the shuttle but what good would that do?
Does anyone know what state Enterprise is in? I wonder how difficult it would be to make it flight ready? Or is that where most of the parts for Endeavour came from? Hmmm... they DO have similar names after all..</strong><hr></blockquote>
Endeavour used most of the structural spares left over in the factory...
Building a new orbiter is hard (no structural parts without restarting factory)
Enterprise doesn't need structural parts... at least not a scratch build... it might require a docking ring for ISS use, but it ought to represent a big shortcut in getting a 4th Orbiter back into service
plus... all trekkies long to hear that Enterprise actually earned it's "Starship" tag
the Smithsonian (Air & Space) might not want to give up Enterprise, but maybe they can have it back after some renewed service
--
as for the technology for inspecting the underside, there is a prototype robotic "ball" equipped with cameras and thrusters that was designed for just such a remote sensing job... methinks it'll get a new boost in research
not quite luke's lightsaber test target, but similar principles... proposed for ISS use too, and actually tested on STS-87 in 1997
they had suits.... 2 suits are quired for every mission.
they are incapable of doing a spacewalk on the bottom of the shuttle... they cant go over the sides of the shuttle.... its too dangerous and there are no guiderails on the bottom for obvious reasons. even if they could have, they would not have been capable of repairing anything and could not have docked with the ISS.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How dangerous do you think it is to try reentry without a proper heat shield? Don't bother answering that. WE KNOW ALREADY How about giving them half a chance at another way down?
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>nevermind the fact that everything was virtually perfect until the unfortunate disaster. so they didnt even think about inspection.... and even if they had, it would have been impossible. and if they even had the ability, it would have been more risky for them to inspect the bottom since the spacewalk could have just further damaged tiles.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well they sure were wrong huh? Oooops. Better "luck" next time.
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>the only thing that could have possibly happened is if they had the robotic arm.... the arm can be equiped with a camera and inspect the shuttle but what good would that do? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Ummm I don't know? Maybe it would tell them to get on the stick and figure something else out. Maybe a slower more shallow reentry with a ditch at the end. Naw fsck that. Send them to their death!
I'M SAYING IT WAS FSCKING STOOPID TO SEND THEM UP WITHOUT AT LEAST ONE SUIT! You'd have to be NASA to do that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They had suits. They had options, but they didn't know. That's the whole damned point. If they knew, they would have exercised some options...some hack-job plans to save their asses.
...but they didn't know.
because what happened before the crash really didn't seem to be that big of a concern. The fuel in the external fuel tank is freaking cold...Ice always builds up on it. The ice always comes crashing down during launch. The ice has never damaged the tiles before...why should they believe insulation foam would have damaged the heat tiles under the wing?
Ummm I don't know? Maybe it would tell them to get on the stick and figure something else out. Maybe a slower more shallow reentry with a ditch at the end. Naw fsck that. Send them to their death!</strong><hr></blockquote>
How do you propose they slow down? The atmosphere is what slows them down. Too shallow a descent and you become a skipping stone. I don't know how far the Canada Arm (which wasn't in the payload bay this time) can reach, but it definitely can't reach over the side and under the wing.
The only real option would have been to wait for some kind of sci-fi'esque rescue mission by another shuttle...which might barely make it in time before life support runs out.
...but they still didn't know there might have been damage under the wing. It's still up in the air whether the debris from the launch was the cause.
I don't know if this has been previously mentioned:
But I find it AWFULLY CONVENIENT that yet another unthinkable disaster has occurred as matters at home were reaching a boiling point- this time Bush submitted to Congress RECORD DEFICITS. This is entirely similar to 9/11 in that it shifted focus from flailing domestic matters.
[quote]Enterprise doesn't need structural parts... at least not a scratch build... it might require a docking ring for ISS use, but it ought to represent a big shortcut in getting a 4th Orbiter back into service<hr></blockquote>
Enterprise/Constitution was never designed to fly into space, just to test and practice the landings. It's a museum piece now (Smithsonian A&S) and I imagine it would have to be completely rebuilt, structurally, to withstand actual space flight. Be cool, though, Enterprise to the rescue!
<strong>I don't know if this has been previously mentioned:
But I find it AWFULLY CONVENIENT that yet another unthinkable disaster has occurred as matters at home were reaching a boiling point- this time Bush submitted to Congress RECORD DEFICITS. This is entirely similar to 9/11 in that it shifted focus from flailing domestic matters.
<strong>I don't know if this has been previously mentioned:
But I find it AWFULLY CONVENIENT that yet another unthinkable disaster has occurred as matters at home were reaching a boiling point- this time Bush submitted to Congress RECORD DEFICITS. This is entirely similar to 9/11 in that it shifted focus from flailing domestic matters.
Comments
<strong>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...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, I see now. Thanks for the link; it was nice to see some old favourites like the British HOTOL and the German Sanger/Horus up there. It reminds me of a really nice two-stage space place project that NASA did a feasbility study on which used a lot of off the shelf parts, such as the engines from the F-22. It still makes me wonder why NASA chooses to overlook promising stuff like this.
What really caught my eye was the little blurb on the X-15. 199 flights without incident? Wow...
It all boils down to money.</strong>
Actually weight.
<strong>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).</strong>
Err, the F-111 flight envelope is a mere speck compared to the orbiters. Saying that there is an F-111 escape module, B-1 escape module for that matter, belittles the complexities involved in an escape system from pad to touchdown. An escape pod is definitely possible. It was even studied, and studied, and studied for the orbiters. Do not think it wasn't considered. It's all about weight traded off for capability. And, yes, also money.
<strong>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...). </strong>
Yes. Some of the Challenger crew were most likely conscious during its descent. It's not much of a rumor. Btw, Challenger didn't blow up, it was torn apart by aerodynamic forces, and the external tank did a slow burn (than seen in explosions) due to lack of oxygen at altitude.
<strong>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.</strong>
Columbia was just past maximum heating. Maximum dynamic pressure would have been around Mach 2. If they lost tile, it means the heat (2000+ degrees) would have melted the internal structure; and wings, tail, panels, and such would have broke apart as it tumbled.
<strong>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.</strong>
Reenter is the keyword. The crew compartment has to have a heatshield system around it to be operational above 200,000 ft.
<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><hr></blockquote>
That aint the same thing. Duh? If someone had just gone out there and looked at the fscking thing 7 people could still be alive working on a better plan to get home. NASA as some 'plaining to do.
<strong>
That aint the same thing. Duh? If someone had just gone out there and looked at the fscking thing 7 people could still be alive working on a better plan to get home. NASA as some 'plaining to do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Scott,
You have no real way of knowing that. The debris didn't fall off and hit the shuttle until after lift off. It could be that the piece that fell might not have been visually obvious. So an inspection might have done nothing.
We may never know for sure.
<strong>
That aint the same thing. Duh? If someone had just gone out there and looked at the fscking thing 7 people could still be alive working on a better plan to get home. NASA as some 'plaining to do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Would you mind explaining how they were supposed to 'just go out there and look' without EVA equipment??
*Think* man, *think*!
"They should have space walked to take a look!"
"They didn't have space suits."
"They should have anyway, so they could have lived!"
And you say you're in medicine. Sheesh. Cluestick: human + vacuum = dead. m'kay?
No suit. No walk. No look-see.
As it happens, CNN has some pics up that appear to show that foam/ice hitting the leading left wing edge, then bouncing *between* the wing and the tank, and impacting the trailing edge. On the bottom. Where no one could see during orbit, period. No suit, no arm-based camera, no ground-based scope, no ISS.
If there was any damage to the bottom of the Shuttle, no one could see it, no matter where they were. There *may* have been enough fuel to get to the ISS, but nobody here knows for sure. Honestly, I doubt it - this was a mission stuffed to the gills with science payload, and had been stripped down to make room. Fuel weighs a lot... I suspect they left enough margin for 'standard' anticipated adjustments such as bad weather at the landing site.
Anyone can armchair-engineer.
Now the only question I have is that if they suspected wing-bottom damage, could they have asked Columbia to roll belly-down for a ground-based inspection? I know I've seen the Shuttles orbit in that position.
A: Nope. Just talked to a buddy at JPL. They've attempted ground-based inspections before, but the resolution doesn't allow for the detail they need for determining tile damage on anything less than a *massive* scale. Seems to me that this may be the answer though - development of a ground-based inspection system for visual confirmation of ship damage.
Edit: Nevermind, thought it through. If you're going to have any prayer of repair, you have to have EVA suits, and if you have those, you can do on-site inspections. I guess the real answer is to have EVA suits on at all times.
[ 02-03-2003: Message edited by: Kickaha ]</p>
<strong>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". </strong><hr></blockquote>
Does anyone know what state Enterprise is in? I wonder how difficult it would be to make it flight ready? Or is that where most of the parts for Endeavour came from? Hmmm... they DO have similar names after all..
That's an Italian page that I ran through Google translations, and it has a picture of cracks on the top of the left wing.
[Edit: Shortened link]
[Edit: Really shortened link this time]
[ 02-03-2003: Message edited by: Logan Cale ]</p>
<strong>
Would you mind explaining how they were supposed to 'just go out there and look' without EVA equipment??
*Think* man, *think*!
I'M SAYING IT WAS FSCKING STOOPID TO SEND THEM UP WITHOUT AT LEAST ONE SUIT! You'd have to be NASA to do that.
<strong>
I'M SAYING IT WAS FSCKING STOOPID TO SEND THEM UP WITHOUT AT LEAST ONE SUIT! You'd have to be NASA to do that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
they had suits.... 2 suits are quired for every mission.
they are incapable of doing a spacewalk on the bottom of the shuttle... they cant go over the sides of the shuttle.... its too dangerous and there are no guiderails on the bottom for obvious reasons. even if they could have, they would not have been capable of repairing anything and could not have docked with the ISS.
nevermind the fact that everything was virtually perfect until the unfortunate disaster. so they didnt even think about inspection.... and even if they had, it would have been impossible. and if they even had the ability, it would have been more risky for them to inspect the bottom since the spacewalk could have just further damaged tiles.
the only thing that could have possibly happened is if they had the robotic arm.... the arm can be equiped with a camera and inspect the shuttle but what good would that do?
But if they did, would YOU have told the astronauts?
<strong>
Does anyone know what state Enterprise is in? I wonder how difficult it would be to make it flight ready? Or is that where most of the parts for Endeavour came from? Hmmm... they DO have similar names after all..</strong><hr></blockquote>
Endeavour used most of the structural spares left over in the factory...
Building a new orbiter is hard (no structural parts without restarting factory)
Enterprise doesn't need structural parts... at least not a scratch build... it might require a docking ring for ISS use, but it ought to represent a big shortcut in getting a 4th Orbiter back into service
plus... all trekkies long to hear that Enterprise actually earned it's "Starship" tag
the Smithsonian (Air & Space) might not want to give up Enterprise, but maybe they can have it back after some renewed service
--
as for the technology for inspecting the underside, there is a prototype robotic "ball" equipped with cameras and thrusters that was designed for just such a remote sensing job... methinks it'll get a new boost in research
not quite luke's lightsaber test target, but similar principles... proposed for ISS use too, and actually tested on STS-87 in 1997
<a href="http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/assembly/sprint/"; target="_blank">AERCam Sprint "sensorball" robot from NASA pages</a>
let's start the petition to refit and fly Enterprise
-- edit: added link to sensor robotic ball
[ 02-03-2003: Message edited by: curiousuburb ]</p>
<strong>
they had suits.... 2 suits are quired for every mission.
they are incapable of doing a spacewalk on the bottom of the shuttle... they cant go over the sides of the shuttle.... its too dangerous and there are no guiderails on the bottom for obvious reasons. even if they could have, they would not have been capable of repairing anything and could not have docked with the ISS.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How dangerous do you think it is to try reentry without a proper heat shield? Don't bother answering that. WE KNOW ALREADY How about giving them half a chance at another way down?
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>nevermind the fact that everything was virtually perfect until the unfortunate disaster. so they didnt even think about inspection.... and even if they had, it would have been impossible. and if they even had the ability, it would have been more risky for them to inspect the bottom since the spacewalk could have just further damaged tiles.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well they sure were wrong huh? Oooops. Better "luck" next time.
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>the only thing that could have possibly happened is if they had the robotic arm.... the arm can be equiped with a camera and inspect the shuttle but what good would that do? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Ummm I don't know? Maybe it would tell them to get on the stick and figure something else out. Maybe a slower more shallow reentry with a ditch at the end. Naw fsck that. Send them to their death!
<strong>
I'M SAYING IT WAS FSCKING STOOPID TO SEND THEM UP WITHOUT AT LEAST ONE SUIT! You'd have to be NASA to do that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They had suits. They had options, but they didn't know. That's the whole damned point. If they knew, they would have exercised some options...some hack-job plans to save their asses.
...but they didn't know.
because what happened before the crash really didn't seem to be that big of a concern. The fuel in the external fuel tank is freaking cold...Ice always builds up on it. The ice always comes crashing down during launch. The ice has never damaged the tiles before...why should they believe insulation foam would have damaged the heat tiles under the wing?
<strong>
Ummm I don't know? Maybe it would tell them to get on the stick and figure something else out. Maybe a slower more shallow reentry with a ditch at the end. Naw fsck that. Send them to their death!</strong><hr></blockquote>
How do you propose they slow down? The atmosphere is what slows them down. Too shallow a descent and you become a skipping stone. I don't know how far the Canada Arm (which wasn't in the payload bay this time) can reach, but it definitely can't reach over the side and under the wing.
The only real option would have been to wait for some kind of sci-fi'esque rescue mission by another shuttle...which might barely make it in time before life support runs out.
...but they still didn't know there might have been damage under the wing. It's still up in the air whether the debris from the launch was the cause.
[ 02-03-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
But I find it AWFULLY CONVENIENT that yet another unthinkable disaster has occurred as matters at home were reaching a boiling point- this time Bush submitted to Congress RECORD DEFICITS. This is entirely similar to 9/11 in that it shifted focus from flailing domestic matters.
[ 02-03-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]
[ 02-03-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
Enterprise/Constitution was never designed to fly into space, just to test and practice the landings. It's a museum piece now (Smithsonian A&S) and I imagine it would have to be completely rebuilt, structurally, to withstand actual space flight. Be cool, though, Enterprise to the rescue!
<strong>I don't know if this has been previously mentioned:
But I find it AWFULLY CONVENIENT that yet another unthinkable disaster has occurred as matters at home were reaching a boiling point- this time Bush submitted to Congress RECORD DEFICITS. This is entirely similar to 9/11 in that it shifted focus from flailing domestic matters.
[ 02-03-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]
[ 02-03-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Shawn are you feeling ok? Why even post such a thing?
Fellowship
<strong>I don't know if this has been previously mentioned:
But I find it AWFULLY CONVENIENT that yet another unthinkable disaster has occurred as matters at home were reaching a boiling point- this time Bush submitted to Congress RECORD DEFICITS. This is entirely similar to 9/11 in that it shifted focus from flailing domestic matters.
[ 02-03-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]
[ 02-03-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
ya know.... just shut the hell up.
bullshit like this is just ****ing pathetic.
enough is enough.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />