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
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??
 
TXCAP4228 said:
I guess you have the right to be offended if you want, but flywithastick presents a logicaly consistent argument
No he doesn't. Go back and read my post. His argument is based on made-up facts and guesses. The tank was the old design. The "new" tank he is talking about was not even used on this mission. So it is an invalid argument and offensively so, because he is blaming a group of people for events which did not happen!

TXCAP4228 said:
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??

This a bunch of totally irrelevent B.S. but the answer is no. I called it offensive because environmentalism played absolutely no part considering the tank design for this mission was the old one, a design first used in 1983. Even if they had used a new tank I am sure it was NASA's own choosing because they wanted to save weight and utilize technology that is not 20 years old.

Learn to read the whole post next time and spell
CHALLENGES
LOGICALLY
 
Last edited:
dmspilot00 said:
No he doesn't.

This a bunch of totally irrelevent B.S. but the answer is no.
I didn't make any of it up, pal. I just repeated what I heard on a national radio program about an hour before. If they retract their story, I'll post a correction. Until then, I stick with my story.
 
Since we are into speculation, do you think someone could have inspected the shuttle with a telescope? Not that they could have done anything about it.

If we can read a license tag with a satellite from outer space, don't you think there would be a telescope on earth capable of checking out damage?
 
Old tank- new foam

There are usually underlying political decisions that can be blamed for any accident resulting from a design failure. Look at the Challenger accident. The solid rocket boosters did not have to be built in segments- they could have been built on site as a single piece. The segmented design had never been tried before, and engineers warned that there would be problems with the o-rings sealing the joints. The boosters had to be segmented because the winning bidder, Morton Thiokol, had manufacturing facilities in Louisiana and couldn't move them to Florida in one piece. That was a political and economic decision, and it ended up costing us dearly on 1/28/86.

The external tank used to launch Columbia was one of the older, heavier ones, but it had the new environmentally-friendly insulation applied to it. Time will tell what role the new foam played in the disaster, but engineers have said that there have been retention problems ever since they switched.
 
Sorry--I stand corrected concerning the tank. So, although it was an old tank it had new insulation on it. However, only time will tell what happened.

Still, these statements are inappropriate:
"a perfect case of the impulsive, emotional and often scientifically sparse environmental movement"
"The extremists pushing bunk science and emotional policies called the environmental whackos carry the blame."

So according to you we would reject new technology and Boeing would still be cranking out 727s and 737-200s because they were "effective."

I realize there are some inane people out there who call themselves environmentalists, and it's a shame, but that does not mean that all people concerned with the environment are "emotional" and "scientifically sparse." I guess then we should just pollute all we want and not worry about how toxic the environment becomes.

You also can't go around throwing blame at people based on pure speculation.

----------------------------------------------------

As I understand it the Challenger disaster happened after repeated warnings from Thiocal not to launch in temperatures less than 50 degrees (it was 38 that day, icicles had even formed on the launch pad). Thiocal told NASA that doing so would result in a disaster and severe loss of human life. So ultimately it would have been the fault of NASA. Saying the cause was because of the manufacture technique is like saying the cause of a 737 structural failure after doing aerobatics is Boeing's fault for not building them strong enough to do aerobatics, or that getting your hand burned when you put it in flame is the flame's fault for being so hot.
 
dmspilot00 said:
No he doesn't. Go back and read my post. His argument is based on made-up facts and guesses. The tank was the old design. The "new" tank he is talking about was not even used on this mission. So it is an invalid argument and offensively so, because he is blaming a group of people for events which did not happen!

This a bunch of totally irrelevent B.S. but the answer is no. I called it offensive because environmentalism played absolutely no part considering the tank design for this mission was the old one, a design first used in 1983. Even if they had used a new tank I am sure it was NASA's own choosing because they wanted to save weight and utilize technology that is not 20 years old.

Sorry--I stand corrected concerning the tank. So, although it was an old tank it had new insulation on it. However, only time will tell what happened.
Well, I could add more but there's no need.

dmspilot00 said:
Learn to read the whole post next time and spell
CHALLENGES
LOGICALLY
I should read the whole post? And in any case you are critizing my spelling? I am typing fast. Don't you suppose you might come up with something more germane?

Or is it more your speed to attack the messenger if you don't like the ideas that are presented? You may have just gone a long way to support what flywithastick said.

In any case, a couple of posts later you say some things worthy of comment.
Still, these statements are inappropriate:
"a perfect case of the impulsive, emotional and often scientifically sparse environmental movement"
"The extremists pushing bunk science and emotional policies called the environmental whackos carry the blame."

So according to you we would reject new technology and Boeing would still be cranking out 727s and 737-200s because they were "effective."
1) The only reason you give for the statements being inappropriate is that we would reject new tech. You provide no other reason....
2) Flywithastick presupposes that were using safer and more effective tech and went to something else for emotional and not technological reasons. He states this in his premise. So on its face your argument is not legitimate....
3) The analogy you make is not appropriate to the situation because improvements made to the 727's and 737's wer due to better and safer technology and not made for emotional reasons.

You have made a hasty conclusion and then drawn an unsupported anaolgy.


You then say that you can't throw blame around based on speculation. Naturally I have a couple of responses to that too.
1) I think he is saying that IF this is the result then it will be a case of environmentalism gone wrong.
2) He establishes a premise sufficiently that it meets a prima facie burden.

You don't have the right to squelch his opinion just because you don't like his conclusion. If what he said is so wrong then it ought to be easy for you to respond to it instead of attacking the message itself (or the messenger).... or my spelling....
 
I did give more than one reason but like last time you took the post out of context and did not read the whole thing. This is the reason I "attacked" YOUR message (and your spelling while I was at it, to establish that not only can you not read but cannot spell either).

flywithastick presents that the foam falling off the shuttle is automatically the "whacko environmentalists' " fault. We do not know who's decision it was to change the foam, or why that decision was reached. Flywithastick does not present it as a possiblity or hypothesis, but as a true fact. Further he is saying that since the foam falling off may have caused the accident, then the environmentalists may be blamed for the loss of seven lives.

"If this theory [of the foam impact causing the accident] 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. "

I would also like to know how just because a newer technology is more environmentally friendly automatically means that it was hastily implimented by wacko environmentalists. Sticking to aviation examples, 737-600s are more environmentally friendly than 737-200s, does that mean that it was the hippie extreme environmentalists that got Boeing to redesign it? I think not.

The 737-600 is safer as well. Did NASA have any reason to believe that the new foam insulation was less safe? Did the whacko environmentalists say that "we don't care if its dangerous, we want more enviro-friendly foam!"?
 
Last edited:
dmspilot00 said:
these statements are inappropriate:
"a perfect case of the impulsive, emotional and often scientifically sparse environmental movement"
I stand by my statements based upon the assumption that the current theory holds.

So according to you we would reject new technology and Boeing would still be cranking out 727s and 737-200s because they were "effective."
Let's compare the cost versus the benefit. In the case of Boeing building airliners, the benefit was worth the cost. With the foam insulation, I can't help believe that the environmental impact from applying foam to a few tanks, in a shop environment, would be worth any minimal threat to the reliability of the shuttle.

I realize there are some inane people out there who call themselves environmentalists, and it's a shame, but that does not mean that all people concerned with the environment are "emotional" and "scientifically sparse."
No - you're right. But the extremism just doesn't stop. I'm sick of it. I enjoy fishing & swimming in lakes, creeks and the ocean, hiking and biking in the woods and breathing clean air as much as anyone. But when the whackos place the beaches off limits at Camp Pendleton for some bird who's northernmost range overlaps the camp and prevents our Marines from practicing beach landings, that's stupid.

http://www.nctimes.net/news/2002/20020424/53340.html

I guess then we should just pollute all we want and not worry about how toxic the environment becomes.
That's a foolish statement, not helping your side of the argument. Kind of like what the dems said about republicans wanting to kill people as a result of their policies. How about just weighing the cost vs. the benefit. Unchecked environmentalism can be every bit as damaging to our way of life as unchecked polution.

Even if it was the fault of radical extremists you still can't go around throwing blame at people based on pure speculation.
Why not... this is a general discussion board. Or am I not being tolerant and diverse enough in my thinking?! ;)

*** TEXCAP... maybe I should just let you handle this debate!!! thanks.

Happy flying
 
Last edited:
dmspilot00 said:
I did give more than one reason but like last time you took the post out of context and did not read the whole thing. This is the reason I "attacked" YOUR message (and your spelling while I was at it, to establish that not only can you not read but cannot spell either).
whatever.
dmspilot00 said:
flywithastick presents that the foam falling off the shuttle is automatically the "whacko environmentalists' " fault. We do not know who's decision it was to change the foam, or why that decision was reached. Flywithastick does not present it as a possiblity or hypothesis, but as a true fact. Further he is saying that since the foam falling off may have caused the accident, then the environmentalists may be blamed for the loss of seven lives.

"If this theory [of the foam impact causing the accident] 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. "
So you say that Fly presents this as a FACT instead of as a theory, when he actually called it a theory??

How compelling.

I'm not persuaded.

dmspilot00 said:
I would also like to know how just because a newer technology is more environmentally friendly automatically means that it was hastily implimented by wacko environmentalists. Sticking to aviation examples, 737-600s are more environmentally friendly than 737-200s, does that mean that it was the hippie extreme environmentalists that got Boeing to redesign it? I think not.

The 737-600 is safer as well. Did NASA have any reason to believe that the new foam insulation was less safe? Did the whacko environmentalists say that "we don't care if its dangerous, we want more enviro-friendly foam!"?
The 737-600 is newer and better tech that is supportable for reasons other than (I will quote fly here)
impulsive, emotional and often scientifically sparse environmental movement d@mning effective existing processes & systems for little or no benefit
In order for your analogy to hold, the adoption of the 737-600 would have to be based on emotional and scientifically (I have to reread this lest I develop bruises from your criticism of my spellin')sparse reasons. Since the 737-600 is both cheaper to perate, safer, and newer tech, I'd say your analogy fails completely.

dms, I hope you notice I am not attacking yoy (oops, there goes my spellin' again), I am disagreeing with you. You, however, seem content to attack me. Its ok, I am not bruised yet. :)

Hey fly, I hope you don't think I am stealing your thunder... I'll butt out if you want. :D
 
TXCAP4228 said:
Hey fly, I hope you don't think I am stealing your thunder... I'll butt out if you want. :D [/B]
Rock and roll, buddy!! :D you're doing better than me!
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom