[quote]I love the space program, but, obviously things need to change.<hr></blockquote>
Not sure I agree with the conclusion. There's a certain risk of doing business in such a hostile environment that you can't reasonably eliminate. Like I suggested, they could/should make those new little robot cameras standard cargo, but beyond that...nothing they could have reasonably done, even in hindsight, could have saved the crew. And from what Kickaha said (which seems like it's becoming the favored theory), it was just dumb, piss-poor, sh1tty luck that the foam happened to hit in the precise spot where it could do fatal damage. You can never engineer probability to zero. You can radically change the technology, but all that does is change the nature of what can randomly go wrong. So is it worth the risk in the end? Yes. Learn lessons if you can, and drive on.
Staying "modern" with frequent updates is not necessarily the "solution". We could be in a far worse situation if we had a brand new space shuttle design every 2 years (if it were even possible). The sheer complexity of this craft would ensure a steady amount of new bugs and defects to contend with. Being "old" does not automatically mean "obsolete". Things like this are built with the most reliable technologies available to date to ensure safety and integrity. They are designed and built with longevity in mind (we not talking about consumer cars with planned obsolescence). So various aerospace crafts may seem "old" in car years, but that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is really "old" in its own terms. IIRC, Columbia was, at best, "middle-aged" as far as its intended lifespan.
The Columbia crew was a crew made up of individuals who took great risk to chase their dreams. These individuals came together without political, religious or any other consideration to put mankind ahead via the hopes and deeds of their courage and commitment.
This group of inspired dedicated people set out to participate in the expansion of human knowledge and understanding. The cost was great both measured and realized. We as citizens of the world are forever thankful for their works of science but further for their works of showing the entire world the measure of their human character. Laughter and smiles, with the interface we had with their communication to earth in days past show a quality of mankind to which we must all hold in great humble respect.
We must learn that it is not what goes wrong that is the main story of the day but rather what went right with these men and women in their journey for all of humanity.
The crew did not let fear of the possible dangers stop them from reaching for their dreams. This too is a lesson that we must take hold of as people who will act in the future in their legacy. Discovery and courage with a tremendous level of human emotion of all sorts is what makes us all human.
I am hopeful that with all that is known we come to understand that what drives us all is indeed our humanity and concern for all of us. As we all know planet Earth is not so big when viewed from space. May we all do our best to make the future a better place never to forget the people of all walks of life who inspire us.
i heard a guy interviewed from NASA today, and they were asking him the same question.
they wanted to know, if NASA had known how badly the damage was, what would they have done differently.
he said there was only 1 possiblilty, but that it would be extremely dangerous, and they wouldn't do it unless they were almost 100% sure it couldn't land normally.
he said that in the case of massive damage to one side's tiles, they could try and bring the shuttle in with more heat/emphasis on the good side.
the problem is that it's not designed to take this kind of heat, and it would destroy the shuttle. then he said before the thing blew, they'd have the astronauts bail out and hope for the best.
the real kicker?
it has to be done at under 20,000 ft. and slower than Mach 1.
they were upwards of 200,000 and Mach 18 when it blew.
Not sure I agree with the conclusion.../QB]<hr></blockquote>
I don't know....let's say the little robots and the Canada Arm came as 'standard features' on every shuttle launch from here on out. Would that have prevented this week's tragedy? Probably not. Would it have aided the crew and the controllers in assessing the situation? Sure. Is that reasonable change? I think so. Yes, every kilogram of weight adds to the cost of launch and subtracts from the billable cargo. I get that. But, at what cost/weight/safety standard do we draw ther line? Nobody ever really thinks they need side airbags, until they really need them.
Ok, I'll say it once again. Don't you guys think this sort of thing happened a lot with the early days of flight? If you don't believe me just look at some of those old films from the early part of the last century.
The only difference is that now cutting edge technology costs billions of dollars. However the subject here seems to be lives.
I would be willing to bet there will be many disasters connected with space travel in the next oh say hundred years. At least as many as we have with airplanes. But ironically it will still be safer than driving your car on the freeway right now. We need to see this in perspective.
This will probably be remembered as an historical event. Like some of those early airplane crashes. Not something that caused us to rethink space travel.
I still say they need to give them more money for modern space craft design.
Once again losing two in twenty years isn't a bad record.
I'm not trying to be callous but you can only learn from making mistakes.
<strong>Ok, from a buddy at JPL, this seems to be the leading theory:
The foam insulation impacted on the bottom of the left wing, damaging an area of at *most* 7"x30". That's only five tiles (6"x6"). The foam weighed about 2.5 pounds. Five tiles is basically nothing on an average liftoff, so it wasn't any reason for concern.
However, they now believe that it impacted on the edge of the wheel well, where the well door seals. There would be an opportunity there for buckling of the tiles, since they aren't inter-adhered on the secondary layer.
This buckling would have provided a lip for air to catch early in re-entry, providing the force needed to peel off a tile. Once one tile peels off, the next is exposed, and so on, so they come off like a zipper.
The reports of 'sparks' falling behind the shuttle as far west as CA would reflect this. They were tiles.
It appears it was sheer bad luck that the otherwise unworrisome foam hit precisely where it did. If it had been on a sheer surface (which is the vast majority of the wing surface), it shouldn't have been a problem at all.
No one could have known where the foam hit precisely, but the video supports this theory, or at least doesn't rule it out completely.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>I don't know....let's say the little robots and the Canada Arm came as 'standard features' on every shuttle launch from here on out...Would it have aided the crew and the controllers in assessing the situation? Sure.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That is completely predicated that such damage was even visible or could even be assessed by visual means. Maybe it was, maybe not. This isn't like a videogame where the objective is to find the bad tile, and you find it because it is a slightly different shade than the others and something happens when you target it and press the "action" button. So putting an arm on every shuttle flight whether or not the mission called for one, still wouldn't make such detection a "sure thing". Compounding the situation, do you think an astronaut could really assess the damage of some black tiles with less than ideal lighting just by looking at a lo-res CRT screen from inside the shuttle? Do you think an engineer on the ground could make such a determination by looking at a fuzzy version of an even more lo-res video feed sent to ground control?
That is completely predicated that such damage was even visible or could even be assessed by visual means. Maybe it was, maybe not. This isn't like a videogame where the objective is to find the bad tile, and you find it because it is a slightly different shade than the others and something happens when you target it and press the "action" button. So putting an arm on every shuttle flight whether or not the mission called for one, still wouldn't make such detection a "sure thing".
Um. The controllers had the damage on tape. They knew what happened. Had the shuttle had the capabilities at that time, I'm pretty sure Houston would have swung the camera arm around to have a look-see. Video Game? No. Video? Yes.
...and what would they have said, "Uh yeah. Definitely some scuff marks and missing tiles there. Looks pretty much like the rest of the shuttle. Do I think the shuttle is going to go up in a ball of fire because of it? Beats the hell outta me! It didn't turn out that way for every shuttle mission that preceded this one." Better call off this one, because we have 20/20 hindsight, right?
To clarify, I'm not necessarily saying it would not have been a good idea to have a look. I'm saying that just being able to look at it still guarantees nothing, barring obvious, extreme damage (which has certainly not been indicated at this time). My hunch is that looking at it still probably tells you less than nothing, unless it is a big gaping hole in the wing (at which I'm sure they would have detected a breach by other means long before a visual inspection was done).
Don't be absurd. I'm not trying to insinuate any blame on the lack of tech aboard. There's nothing that could have been done to fix anything on this mission anyways. Period. Hindsight is always 20/20, as you say, I'm just thinking aloud to what could have happened if they had the extra tech on board. Not that it would have saved the crew, but it might have saved months of the upcoming investigation.
I don't know....let's say the little robots and the Canada Arm came as 'standard features' on every shuttle launch from here on out. Would that have prevented this week's tragedy? Probably not. Would it have aided the crew and the controllers in assessing the situation? Sure. Is that reasonable change? I think so. Yes, every kilogram of weight adds to the cost of launch and subtracts from the billable cargo. I get that. But, at what cost/weight/safety standard do we draw ther line? Nobody ever really thinks they need side airbags, until they really need them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For inspection purposes, you only need the little robots to launch from the Space Station. Like Seaquest... manueverable for different camera angles.
Hey... What an idea for international marketing... Let Sony, Kodak or one of the other camera manufacturers pay for it, with exclusivity on the images produced. A manueverable little camera which can inspect for damage and film for posterity using various technologies.
I mean, why put all this on every shuttle mission. They did make it to the station, didn't they?
Because if they had the arm, or robot thingys, or whatever, they could have at least taken a look at any supposed damage.
'Hey, there was a big chunk of foamy stuff that might have knocked some tiles off your wing" "OK, let's have a look"
If indeed there was a huge strip of tiles missing, or none at all, that would at least alleviate some of the guesswork NASA is going through right now. That's all I'm saying.
It's difficult to be so science and callous in these situations, but that's exactly what needs to happen to make sure this doesn't happen again.
...and if the shuttle still crashes after that, they would spend months piecing it back together and reviewing the data just as they are now. They still wouldn't up and chalk it up to some missing tiles. They would still have the huge job of determining and confirming the real mode of failure before them. You have to find the evidence and work your way backwards to the cause. You don't pick a probable failure mode and then try to connect it with the evidence (well, maybe you do if you are the news media).
Fascinating article, which sounds like it was written this week..including the line:
[quote]But you're in luck--the launch goes fine. Once you get into space, you check to see if any tiles are damaged. If enough are, you have a choice between Plan A and Plan B. Plan A is hope they can get a rescue shuttle up in time. Plan B is burn up coming back. <hr></blockquote>
IIRC, the prototype AERCam Sprint robotic inspection ball was equipped with stereo colour television cameras (as the NASA link i provided on p5 confirms)
I have also seen video/animation from ISS proposals where the 2nd generation of this little soccerball sized 'bot is designed with thermal imaging cameras, particle detectors, and either spectroscopic or uv capabilities.
slugging a more advanced sensor package into the ball (even if it's a one-use and lose investment) would thus theoretically provide more than enough data sources to gather detailed information about tile state prior to re-entry
and if the shuttle still disintegrates, at least the engineers will have had an accurate "before" picture (in many wavelengths) to direct investigations
and though there isn't a tile repair kit that would work for the replacement of such unique tiles, how about just slathering on a patching compound that liquifies and distributes re-entry heat in a laminar flow away from any surface divots or freakishly separated seams
such coatings wouldn't need to be cement (and bricking up the landing gear doors wouldn't make landing any softer... but a belly landing beats burning up any day),
even if they cooked off at 3000 degrees, if they provided even a minute of dissipation, if might ameliorate local tile damage with a "second skin" that sheds before subsonic
that or throw a few coats of ding-resistant varnish on the shuttle before launch... sure to smoke off during early re-entry, but maybe enough to provide a barrier to ice and foam damage during liftoff
and if we really want to crowd the life-imitating-art folks, consider this technological fix ... cold plasma shields
caption: Side view of a cold plasma inside a Pyrex glass container. Cold plasmas can cloak satellites and spacecraft from radar view and shield them against attack from certain kinds of energy weapons.
Comments
Not sure I agree with the conclusion. There's a certain risk of doing business in such a hostile environment that you can't reasonably eliminate. Like I suggested, they could/should make those new little robot cameras standard cargo, but beyond that...nothing they could have reasonably done, even in hindsight, could have saved the crew. And from what Kickaha said (which seems like it's becoming the favored theory), it was just dumb, piss-poor, sh1tty luck that the foam happened to hit in the precise spot where it could do fatal damage. You can never engineer probability to zero. You can radically change the technology, but all that does is change the nature of what can randomly go wrong. So is it worth the risk in the end? Yes. Learn lessons if you can, and drive on.
The Columbia crew was a crew made up of individuals who took great risk to chase their dreams. These individuals came together without political, religious or any other consideration to put mankind ahead via the hopes and deeds of their courage and commitment.
This group of inspired dedicated people set out to participate in the expansion of human knowledge and understanding. The cost was great both measured and realized. We as citizens of the world are forever thankful for their works of science but further for their works of showing the entire world the measure of their human character. Laughter and smiles, with the interface we had with their communication to earth in days past show a quality of mankind to which we must all hold in great humble respect.
We must learn that it is not what goes wrong that is the main story of the day but rather what went right with these men and women in their journey for all of humanity.
The crew did not let fear of the possible dangers stop them from reaching for their dreams. This too is a lesson that we must take hold of as people who will act in the future in their legacy. Discovery and courage with a tremendous level of human emotion of all sorts is what makes us all human.
I am hopeful that with all that is known we come to understand that what drives us all is indeed our humanity and concern for all of us. As we all know planet Earth is not so big when viewed from space. May we all do our best to make the future a better place never to forget the people of all walks of life who inspire us.
God Bless..
Fellowship
they wanted to know, if NASA had known how badly the damage was, what would they have done differently.
he said there was only 1 possiblilty, but that it would be extremely dangerous, and they wouldn't do it unless they were almost 100% sure it couldn't land normally.
he said that in the case of massive damage to one side's tiles, they could try and bring the shuttle in with more heat/emphasis on the good side.
the problem is that it's not designed to take this kind of heat, and it would destroy the shuttle. then he said before the thing blew, they'd have the astronauts bail out and hope for the best.
the real kicker?
it has to be done at under 20,000 ft. and slower than Mach 1.
they were upwards of 200,000 and Mach 18 when it blew.
[QB]
Not sure I agree with the conclusion.../QB]<hr></blockquote>
I don't know....let's say the little robots and the Canada Arm came as 'standard features' on every shuttle launch from here on out. Would that have prevented this week's tragedy? Probably not. Would it have aided the crew and the controllers in assessing the situation? Sure. Is that reasonable change? I think so. Yes, every kilogram of weight adds to the cost of launch and subtracts from the billable cargo. I get that. But, at what cost/weight/safety standard do we draw ther line? Nobody ever really thinks they need side airbags, until they really need them.
The only difference is that now cutting edge technology costs billions of dollars. However the subject here seems to be lives.
I would be willing to bet there will be many disasters connected with space travel in the next oh say hundred years. At least as many as we have with airplanes. But ironically it will still be safer than driving your car on the freeway right now. We need to see this in perspective.
This will probably be remembered as an historical event. Like some of those early airplane crashes. Not something that caused us to rethink space travel.
I still say they need to give them more money for modern space craft design.
Once again losing two in twenty years isn't a bad record.
I'm not trying to be callous but you can only learn from making mistakes.
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>Ok, from a buddy at JPL, this seems to be the leading theory:
The foam insulation impacted on the bottom of the left wing, damaging an area of at *most* 7"x30". That's only five tiles (6"x6"). The foam weighed about 2.5 pounds. Five tiles is basically nothing on an average liftoff, so it wasn't any reason for concern.
However, they now believe that it impacted on the edge of the wheel well, where the well door seals. There would be an opportunity there for buckling of the tiles, since they aren't inter-adhered on the secondary layer.
This buckling would have provided a lip for air to catch early in re-entry, providing the force needed to peel off a tile. Once one tile peels off, the next is exposed, and so on, so they come off like a zipper.
The reports of 'sparks' falling behind the shuttle as far west as CA would reflect this. They were tiles.
It appears it was sheer bad luck that the otherwise unworrisome foam hit precisely where it did. If it had been on a sheer surface (which is the vast majority of the wing surface), it shouldn't have been a problem at all.
No one could have known where the foam hit precisely, but the video supports this theory, or at least doesn't rule it out completely.</strong><hr></blockquote>
sounds very plausible to me
<strong>I don't know....let's say the little robots and the Canada Arm came as 'standard features' on every shuttle launch from here on out...Would it have aided the crew and the controllers in assessing the situation? Sure.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That is completely predicated that such damage was even visible or could even be assessed by visual means. Maybe it was, maybe not. This isn't like a videogame where the objective is to find the bad tile, and you find it because it is a slightly different shade than the others and something happens when you target it and press the "action" button. So putting an arm on every shuttle flight whether or not the mission called for one, still wouldn't make such detection a "sure thing". Compounding the situation, do you think an astronaut could really assess the damage of some black tiles with less than ideal lighting just by looking at a lo-res CRT screen from inside the shuttle? Do you think an engineer on the ground could make such a determination by looking at a fuzzy version of an even more lo-res video feed sent to ground control?
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong>
That is completely predicated that such damage was even visible or could even be assessed by visual means. Maybe it was, maybe not. This isn't like a videogame where the objective is to find the bad tile, and you find it because it is a slightly different shade than the others and something happens when you target it and press the "action" button. So putting an arm on every shuttle flight whether or not the mission called for one, still wouldn't make such detection a "sure thing".
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Um. The controllers had the damage on tape. They knew what happened. Had the shuttle had the capabilities at that time, I'm pretty sure Houston would have swung the camera arm around to have a look-see. Video Game? No. Video? Yes.
To clarify, I'm not necessarily saying it would not have been a good idea to have a look. I'm saying that just being able to look at it still guarantees nothing, barring obvious, extreme damage (which has certainly not been indicated at this time). My hunch is that looking at it still probably tells you less than nothing, unless it is a big gaping hole in the wing (at which I'm sure they would have detected a breach by other means long before a visual inspection was done).
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong>Not that it would have saved the crew, but it might have saved months of the upcoming investigation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If it didn't save the crew, then that implies the shuttle crashed. If the shuttle crashed, why would it have saved months of investigation?
<strong>
I don't know....let's say the little robots and the Canada Arm came as 'standard features' on every shuttle launch from here on out. Would that have prevented this week's tragedy? Probably not. Would it have aided the crew and the controllers in assessing the situation? Sure. Is that reasonable change? I think so. Yes, every kilogram of weight adds to the cost of launch and subtracts from the billable cargo. I get that. But, at what cost/weight/safety standard do we draw ther line? Nobody ever really thinks they need side airbags, until they really need them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For inspection purposes, you only need the little robots to launch from the Space Station. Like Seaquest... manueverable for different camera angles.
Hey... What an idea for international marketing... Let Sony, Kodak or one of the other camera manufacturers pay for it, with exclusivity on the images produced. A manueverable little camera which can inspect for damage and film for posterity using various technologies.
I mean, why put all this on every shuttle mission. They did make it to the station, didn't they?
'Hey, there was a big chunk of foamy stuff that might have knocked some tiles off your wing" "OK, let's have a look"
If indeed there was a huge strip of tiles missing, or none at all, that would at least alleviate some of the guesswork NASA is going through right now. That's all I'm saying.
It's difficult to be so science and callous in these situations, but that's exactly what needs to happen to make sure this doesn't happen again.
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
[quote]But you're in luck--the launch goes fine. Once you get into space, you check to see if any tiles are damaged. If enough are, you have a choice between Plan A and Plan B. Plan A is hope they can get a rescue shuttle up in time. Plan B is burn up coming back. <hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/8004.easterbrook-fulltext.html"; target="_blank">Written in 1980</a>
(link shamlessly stolen from a /. poster)
I have also seen video/animation from ISS proposals where the 2nd generation of this little soccerball sized 'bot is designed with thermal imaging cameras, particle detectors, and either spectroscopic or uv capabilities.
slugging a more advanced sensor package into the ball (even if it's a one-use and lose investment) would thus theoretically provide more than enough data sources to gather detailed information about tile state prior to re-entry
and if the shuttle still disintegrates, at least the engineers will have had an accurate "before" picture (in many wavelengths) to direct investigations
and though there isn't a tile repair kit that would work for the replacement of such unique tiles, how about just slathering on a patching compound that liquifies and distributes re-entry heat in a laminar flow away from any surface divots or freakishly separated seams
such coatings wouldn't need to be cement (and bricking up the landing gear doors wouldn't make landing any softer... but a belly landing beats burning up any day),
even if they cooked off at 3000 degrees, if they provided even a minute of dissipation, if might ameliorate local tile damage with a "second skin" that sheds before subsonic
that or throw a few coats of ding-resistant varnish on the shuttle before launch... sure to smoke off during early re-entry, but maybe enough to provide a barrier to ice and foam damage during liftoff
and if we really want to crowd the life-imitating-art folks, consider this technological fix ... cold plasma shields
caption: Side view of a cold plasma inside a Pyrex glass container. Cold plasmas can cloak satellites and spacecraft from radar view and shield them against attack from certain kinds of energy weapons.
from <a href="http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/cold_plasma_000724.html"; target="_blank">here... state of the tech in 2000</a>
Damnit Scotty, I need those shields NOW!