Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

shuttle columbia

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

jsoceanlord

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2001
Posts
367
i took a vow of being incognito on the forum, but i changed my mind.

this is second guessing, but;

i'd like to see once in the history of the shuttle where they bit the bullet and make an abort between launch and going into space; as in - we just had insulation bounce off the wing and, to be safe, we're gonna turn around at 60,000 feet and go back to florida or to africa or easter island or wherever they go

so what if they waste 25 million dollars in fuel in the aborted launch?
 
The reason they didn't is because the maneuver you are referring to- a RTLS abort- is probably the most dangerous maneuver in all of aviation. It's been described as a miracle followed by an Act of God.
They have several abort options- Return to launch site, abort once around, and abort to orbit, and they can also land at their primary emergency field in Rota, Spain, or several others around the world. They would only abort for major emergencies, like a fire on board or multiple engine failures. Anything minor that happens during the launch has to be evaluated on the fly to determine if it poses a problem, and in the case of the insulation, it's likely they didn't even review the tapes until the shuttle was already in orbit.

There's a lot of talk right now about why we don't have ejection seats or escape capsules for the crew. The press and public doesn't seem to realize that there are lengthy periods of flight during a shuttle mission when escape from the vehicle simply isn't possible.
The shuttle currently has a crew escape system that consists of a telescoping pole the crew can slide down and parachute to the ground, after firing explosive bolts on the entry hatch. To use it though, the shuttle must be subsonic and under some semblance of controlled flight.
 
At what point...

...do you decide that the risk isn't worth it?

There is inherent risk in everything that you do. Sitting on several MILLION pounds of propellants, flanked by the worlds biggest NON-SHUTDOWNABLE, NON-SEPARATABLE (under thrust), NON-THROTTLEABLE solid rocket motors, going from 0 to Mach 25...from 14.7 to 0 PSI...oh, and getting rid of all that energy you've built up when you come back.

Can we ever call such a thing safe?

Js, I'm not ragging on you...far from it. But, we know, as pilots especially, that in 'judgement' calls that we balance safety vs mission accomplishment...most pilots leaning toward conservative. And certainly no engineer or flight ops manager wants a 'Challenger' (and now Columbia) on their watch. I've actually handled the material they use to cover the ET (got a tour of the Palmdale factory...got to see the Endevour being built...very cool). I wouldn't have thought it would be a factor (even assuming it WAS a factor).

Bottom line, in addition to the RTLS abort dangers EagleRJ clearly talked about, everyone used their judgement to make the best decision possible. Only time will tell if it was right.

I would sign up today to fly if they would let me...

FastCargo
 
The only way for the Shuttle to abort to the ISS would be for it to be on or above the orbit of the ISS. If I remember correctly it was Colimbia was orbiting at 150nm, while the ISS is about 122nm.

Now for the missions like this one, if they only need to orbit at 145nm, don't have to carry the robot arm, and don't need the EVA suits then they won't carry them since each pound costs $1000's of dollars to send up.

Edit: Should also mention that the degree of inclination was wrong too. The ISS is at 51.6 degrees, and Columbia was at about 39 degrees. Had to change the the distances, checked on NASA site.
 
Last edited:
shuttle

I also thought of the ISS option--if they knew something was wrong, why not abort, dock with the ISS and wait for another shuttle to pick them up?

I saw Sally Ride on TV this AM and she answered that; they did not carry the docking ring necessary for entering the ISS and were not equipped to make any space walk, so the ISS was never an option. In addition, she indicated there was no way to inspect the bottom of the shuttle, and even if they did, there was no way to repair the thing in orbit. Now if they knew there was a problem, did they have the supplies to wait for a possible rescue? After 16 days in orbit, I doubt they had the necessary reserves to wait for rescue, but I suppose we will know eventually.

Brought back bad memories of the Challenger Disaster; I was in
DC at an ROA (Reserve Officers Association) conference and they stopped the conference to tell us all. Kind of my generation's JFK assasination of sorts...
 
The last reports I've been reading said that they didn't know about the potential wing tile damage until reviewing launch video the next day after launch......A little late to abort....
 
Well this thread helps clear up some things. I was wondering why they would'nt inpect the tiles before reentry but thats kinda hard if you dont have a space suit.
 
There was an article written by the Associated Press (AP) out today, I first saw it in my local newspaper but I found it online here http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2003/2/3/latest/10006CouldNASA&sec=latest here.

"Could NASA have pulled an 'Armageddon'-style space rescue?"

It discusses how Columbia did not have enough fuel to reach the space station, and if it did, Columbia was the only shuttle that was not equipped to dock with it (that is why this shuttle was used for the science experiments). Also the crew did not have jet-packs making a spacewalk potentially suicidal. At the time NASA did not deem, after a long study, that the foam caused damage which could have been a threat.

Personally I think we should keep in mind it could be a coincidence that foam happened to hit the left wing and the left wing is what started acting up on reentry.
 
Seems kind of strange that they would not have the capability to go outside the shuttle in orbit. They do it all the time. Are they trying to save on the weight of the space suit?
 
dmspilot00 said:
Personally I think we should keep in mind it could be a coincidence that foam happened to hit the left wing and the left wing is what started acting up on reentry.

am i the only person who thinks there's no way it could NOT be a coincidence? seriously, i don't see a wing surface designed to withstand the forces of reentry being crippled by a chunk of insulation foam...
 
bunnyfufu said:
am i the only person who thinks there's no way it could NOT be a coincidence? seriously, i don't see a wing surface designed to withstand the forces of reentry being crippled by a chunk of insulation foam...

And I'm sure no one foresaw a tire blowout taking down the Concorde and killing everyone aboard.

The impact of the foam striking the wing created a rather dramatic puff of smoke in the video released today (I think today).
 
Even if they could have inspected the left wing in orbit, it's possible that no damage would have been visible to the naked eye (or the naked camera lens).

I don't like to speculate about what I saw when Columbia went in because I don't want to contaminate my observations. However, it'd be awful easy to believe that the thin, wispy trails I saw falling behind the orbiter's contrail were tiles or sections of tile peeling away from that left wing, and that the "shower of sparks" marked the moment the wing failed completely. That would have made Columbia tumble and break apart...just like what we saw before we lost sight of it.

I wrote up a detailed description of my crew's observations and mailed it to the JSC. I hope it helps...

I just can't get over the idea that I was right there watching the instant those people died...and not knowing what I was seeing...
 
bunnyfufu said:
seriously, i don't see a wing surface designed to withstand the forces of reentry being crippled by a chunk of insulation foam...
*IF* you follow this current thread of speculation, it's not the physical damage to the structure caused by the foam tank insulation impact. It's the heat acting on the wing structure due to the possible missing insulating tile(s).

What's all this monday morning QB'ing about inspecting the tiles before reentry, spacesuits and spacewalks? Someone made a call that the damage wasn't significant in their opinion based on experience and education. Had they thought otherwise, I'm sure some repair or other contingency plan would have been enacted. To know the crew was doomed, but choosing not to tell them would be bizarre and unbelievale - and sell newspapers!

I know quite a few NASA, USA and other shuttle/space station employees. I don't believe this was anything close to the situation as occurred in '86 with management overriding significant concerns of technical experts.

As for these boneheads coming out of the woodwork saying I told you so..." Bull! Operation of the shuttle system is a *very* delicate engineering balance. Early in the 80's, there were people saying "the cooling systems would fail, the landing gear wouldn't extend, the computers would fail, the structure couldn't withstand the flight loads, they'd overrun/undershoot the runway..." Heck, there were even a lot of people complaining that the toilet wouldn't work right!

They've made over 100 flights with this immensely complex system, and I'm still impressed. They'll find the problem and fix it. I appreciate the astronauts' sacrifice, but they knew the risks. It's wasn't a tragedy, it was a setback. Little kids killed by a drunk drivers is a tragedy.
 
Last edited:
Tiles

I saw again this am another former astronaut explaining on GMA that the loss of a single tile could have caused this problem. that is, if that tile was knocked off and the tile underneath was knocked off as well. This would expose the metal skin of the a/c to 2000 degree heat where it melts at 900 degrees. He explained that the tiles are actually two layer and if the first layer is lost (as designed), there is no major problem. However if the outer tile does not shear off the inner, and the entire assembly is taken off at once, then there is a major problem.

This astronaut also worked on a program in the 80s to try and develop a repair kit for use in space. They were completely unable to develop an adhesive compound which would work in a vacuum and abandonded the project as impossible.

They explained the tiles themselves are not much more a foam-like material; they cannot withstand even light impacts. I was surprised, as I thought also that the tiles were somewhat solid, so how could foam insulation damage them? They have also tried many different foams, each time one had a problem with flaking off on takeoff. He did not specify if this was a new type of foam on the shuttle this flight.
 
They have now found scorched pieces of what appears to be a carbon fabric on the ground near Phoenix. It looks like it could be either a layer from the leading edge, or the insulation that is under the tiles. Hmmm...
 
From The New York Times, today 4 February:


Columbia Was Beyond Any Help, Officials Say
By KENNETH CHANG


HOUSTON, Feb. 3 — Even if flight controllers had known for certain that protective heat tiles on the underside of the space shuttle had sustained severe damage at launching, little or nothing could have been done to address the problem, NASA officials say.

Virtually since the hour Columbia went down, the space agency has been peppered with possible options for repairing the damage or getting the crew down safely. But in each case, officials here and at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida say, the proposed solution would not have worked.

The simplest would have been to abort the mission the moment the damage was discovered. In case of an engine malfunction or other serious problem at launching, a space shuttle can jettison its solid rocket boosters and the external fuel tank, shut down its own engines and glide back down, either returning to the Kennedy Space Center or an emergency landing site in Spain or Morocco.

But no one even knew that a piece of insulation from the external tank had hit the orbiter until a frame-by-frame review of videotape of the launching was undertaken the next day. By then, Columbia was already in orbit, and re-entry would have posed the same danger that it did 16 days later.

Four other possibilities have been discussed at briefings or in interviews since the loss of Columbia, and rejected one by one by NASA officials.

First, repairing the damaged tiles. The crew had no tools for such a repair. At a news conference on Sunday, Ron D. Dittemore, the shuttle program manager, said that early in the shuttle program, NASA considered developing a tile repair kit, but that "we just didn't believe it was feasible at the time." He added that a crew member climbing along the underside of the shuttle could cause even more damage to the tiles.

Another idea, widely circulated on the Internet in the last few days, was that the shuttle could have docked with the International Space Station once the damage was discovered. But without the external fuel tank, dropped as usual after launching, Columbia had no fuel for its main engines and thus no way it could propel itself to the station, which circles the earth on a different orbit at a higher altitude. "We have nowhere near the fuel needed to get there," said Bruce Buckingham, a spokesman at the Kennedy Space Center.

Another shuttle, Atlantis, was scheduled for launching on March 1 to carry supplies and a new crew to the space station, and it is possible to imagine a Hollywood-type series of events in which NASA rushed Atlantis to the launching pad, sent it up with a minimal crew of two, had it rendezvous with Columbia in space and brought everyone down safely.

But Atlantis is still in its hangar, and to rush it to launching would have required NASA to circumvent most of its safety measures. "It takes about three weeks, at our best effort, to prepare the shuttle for launch once we're at the pad," Mr. Buckingham said, "and we're not even at the pad." Further, Columbia had enough oxygen, supplies and fuel (for its thrusters only) to remain in orbit for only five more days, said Patrick Ryan, a spokesman at the Johnson Space Center here.

Finally, there is the notion that Columbia's re-entry might have been altered in some way to protect its damaged area. But Mr. Dittemore said the shuttle's descent path was already designed to keep temperatures as low as possible. "Because I'm reusing this vehicle over and over again, so I'm trying to send it through an environment that minimizes the wear and tear on the structure and the tile," he said at his news conference on Sunday.

Today he added that he did not know of a way for the shuttle to re-enter so that most of the heat would be absorbed by tiles that were not damaged, on its right wing. "I'm not aware of any other scenarios, any other techniques, that would have allowed me to favor one wing over the other," he said.

Even if that had been possible, it would probably have damaged the shuttle beyond repair and made it impossible to land, requiring the crew to parachute out at high speed and at high altitude. He said there was no way managers could have gotten information about the damaged tiles that would have warranted so drastic a move.

Gene Kranz, the flight director who orchestrated the rescue of astronauts aboard the crippled Apollo 13 in 1970, said that from what he knew about the suspected tile damage, there was probably nothing that could have been done to save the flight. "The options," he said in a telephone interview, "were just nonexistent."
 
Last edited:
Heard today on Rush that NASA changed the external tank insulation system in ~1997 to a more "environmentally friendly system".

Damage to the underside of the shuttle due apparently to lost external tank insulation was noted following this change.

If this theory stands, here's a perfect case of the impulsive, emotional and often scientifically sparse environmental movement d@mning effective existing processes & systems for little or no benefit *and* possibly killing humans in the process.

Aside from the deaths of the astronauts, the environment has been impacted by orders of magnitude greater with the loss of the shuttle (spreading debris, propellants and particulates) as compared to the controlled shop application of this insulation where these tanks are manufactured.

Should this turn out to be the case, I wouldn't blame NASA. The extremists pushing bunk science and emotional policies called the environmental whackos carry the blame.
 
Last edited:
The tank being used with Columbia was of the older design. NASA wanted to use them up. They now have one left. The principal reason for the tank redesign was to save 7500 pounds. Since this mission was not carrying a lot of weight they were able to use an old tank.

CNN.com article "Explainer: External Tank" page 2:
The tank used on the Columbia mission was a lightweight tank, the type used for every shuttle mission from 1983 to 1998; the super-lightweight tank, which weighs 7,500 pounds less, has been used on many missions since 1998. The lighter-weight tank is necessary for the higher orbits and large payloads of visits to the international space station. The tank used in the Columbia mission was, like all shuttle external tanks, built at Lockheed Martin's Michoud Assembly Plant in New Orleans, Louisiana. It was delivered to Kennedy Space Center on December 20, 2000.
 
Last edited:
Just a few thoughts.....

From surfnole:
Seems kind of strange that they would not have the capability to go outside the shuttle in orbit. They do it all the time. Are they trying to save on the weight of the space suit?
Here's the thing. In zero G, how do you get "still" in relatiuon with what you want to look at or repair. A tether runs the risk of scrpaing across the tiles and causing even more damage. Jusat trying to "hover" with some kind of jetpack (whatever they call them) runs the risk of bumping into it or worse. At some point you have to conclude that trying to fix it may actually make the problem worse by causing more damage. I think that's NASA's issue.

from bunnyfufu
am i the only person who thinks there's no way it could NOT be a coincidence? seriously, i don't see a wing surface designed to withstand the forces of reentry being crippled by a chunk of insulation foam...
1) Don't be irresponsible in speculating like this.
2) On the "abort" thread I posted the equatrion and the math the find the kinetic energy of a piece of foam striking the wing. Assuming a pretty low delta V its something like 3000 pounds of force (feel free to check my math, college physics class was a long time ago).
3) You ask about a wing that is designed to take a load, but you need to consider that the damage it incurred was sustained in a way that the wing was not necesarily designed to support. IE, the tiles work fine at disipating 2000 degree heat, but are NOT designed to be scraped off by 3000 pounds of force. If they are scraped off then of course it changes the ability of the airframe to endure the heat of reentry.
4) On the YGTBSM board Eagleflip asked when someone would start with the conspiracy theories.... please don't start that cr@p here.
 
dmspilot00 said:
By the way your comments about environmentalism are offensive. It had nothing to do with anything.
What's offensive about pointing out that environmentalist minded people sometimes fail to see beyond their immediately stated goals and in the end do more damage?

I guess you have the right to be offended if you want, but flywithastick presents a logicaly consistent argument (a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion that follows the premises). Maybe instead of being offended, you could show how his logic might be flawed....?

...Or are youy saying it is offensive purely because it chalenges something you believe and you don't want to consider that what you believe may not necessarily be right??
 

Latest resources

Back
Top