- Dec 21, 2001
- Total Time
I was listening as they landed to the NASA channel. (I know, get a life) They were 45 miles at 81k at 1000knts. They were hauling butt. Nice view though...Welcome back..
They use up about 13K of the 15K of runway.... Talk about not much margin of error for landing long...crash-proof said:Gotta love msnbc.com! Saw it live, nite landing but clear as day to watch.
I tried looking it up but couldn't find the runway length used for landing. I know Edwards is 15,000 but how much of that does it need to land? They come down at around 190kts.
VampyreGTX said:They use up about 13K of the 15K of runway.... Talk about not much margin of error for landing long...
I'd find it hard to believe that NASA couldn't send it up on "auto pilot" without anyone on board.bizijet said:If the standby shuttle is damaged also we lose 14 Astronauts instead of 7. Which begs the question. Can they configure the shuttle with 14 seats or does the rescue shuttle merely replace the rescued crew on the ISS. If they replace the rescued crew on the ISS then the rescuers become the stranded crew. Sounds like a dog chasing its tail.
Nope, sorry, Columbia could not have docked with the ISS as they were not fitted for a station docking and they were also too heavy to acheive the orbit to reach the station on liftoff. The shuttles acheive orbit during liftoff and they don't have enough fuel or power to increase orbit once they are established.bizijet said:Columbia's crew was told of the problem while they were in orbit. The shuttle could have docked with the space station and another shuttle launched to rescue the crew. This was as much a possibility now as it was two years ago. NASA knows the world is watching.
I might be regurgitating some oversimplifid half-truth or BS, but I think it's because there is no automatic system in place for lowering the landing gear, which is the case because they didn't want to introduce the chance of it going off by itself (the gear is actuated by explosive charges and can not be raised.)minitour said:I'd find it hard to believe that NASA couldn't send it up on "auto pilot" without anyone on board.
All of it...raw data, I think.KigAir said:Good question. How much "flying" does the crew actually do?
Every Shuttle mission has returned with some degree of tile damage. Most of it has been limited to small chips and dents from on-orbit debris. The damage to Columbia was unprecidented in its severity, and NASA definitely would have performed a spacewalk to repair it had they known about it. The trouble was, we weren't checking the tiles for damage in orbit, which was foolish.bizijet said:Has anyone ever imagined how many shuttles were damaged on launch and returned to earth with enough damage to disentigrate during return but didn't. The crew of Discovery was told that if the shuttle was damaged enough on lift-off, they will be rescued by Atlantis. Why wasn't the crew of Columbia offered the same advice even though the engineers knew the shuttle's wing was damaged during lift-off?
Columbia was not only too heavy to reach the station, it was in a different orbit. Columbia was launched into a 28 degree inclination (the maximum angle between the orbit and the equator), while the ISS was orbiting at 51 degrees. The orbit's inclination is decided at launch, and changing it just a little once in orbit requires a huge amount of fuel.Columbia's crew was told of the problem while they were in orbit. The shuttle could have docked with the space station and another shuttle launched to rescue the crew. This was as much a possibility now as it was two years ago. NASA knows the world is watching.
True. The launch is mostly automated.P-Dawg_QX said:Actually, I heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone (read: no factual basis) that during the launch, the crew is mostly along for the ride. They throw a few switches, but it's almost completely automated. Again, that could be completely untrue.