Colombia shuttle

[Enlightenment]

Well how long is it anyway until the ISS enters the atmosphere.

The ISS can reboost itself if need be. It has sufficient fuel to remain in orbit for a year without external support.

The Russian orbital vehicles (Soyuz etc) are powerful enough to reboost the ISS.

[Admiral Piett]

To put it mildly. I wouldn't even bother with one. Straight to Mars on nuclear power; we don't need an Orbiter to help with that. Funding the Russians to keep the ISS up would just be for symbolic and research value, in that order.

A ship capable of going to Mars will be quite bulky.It will probably need to be assembled in orbit,that will be impossible without a space station or an orbiter.
A NERVA rocket still requires a lot of hydrogen for the propulsion.I doubt you can build something that can go directly from Cape Canaveral to Mars.
And besides even assuming it was possible I doubt people would be happy of having NERVA rockets for the earth to orbit flight after the Shuttle has disintegrated over Texas.
That is one of the reason which killed the nuclear powered strategic bomber
concept and the NERVA.
Call them irrational but people will not like it.
Finally explain me why you should spend a lot for money for a single symbolic trip that once made would leave you without a space program.
What you are suggesting is precisely what happened in the 60's.You spent a lot of money for the earth to moon trip,declared victory and then nearly dismantled the NASA.
Surely it satisfied the american ego but for a continued presence of man in space this approach is a non start.

[kojikun]

Right now Sir. Newton is flying that thing.

And Kepler..

[Enlightenment]

A ship capable of going to Mars will be quite bulky.It will probably need to be assembled in orbit,that will be impossible without a space station or an orbiter.

A ship used for a Mars shot would need to be assembled in orbit but this doesn't require an orbiter or a space station. Indeed most of the concepts that have been floated around for mars missions don't involve the ISS at all.

The general idea would be to design and build the Mars vehicle as a set of modules which would be lifted into orbit by ELVs. These modules would then dock and mate either automatically or under ground control. Once the vehicle had been assembled the cew module would then be launched and the mission would begin.

[Perinquus]

Holy Shit! I just woke up after working the night shift and came across the story quite by accident while browsing the internet. I was looking at fark.com where there was a story that some sick fuck was already trying to auction Columbia debris on e-bay. I thought: "huh? Columbia debris? What the fuck?" Then I read further. I'm absolutely stupefied.

[Admiral Piett]

The general idea would be to design and build the Mars vehicle as a set of modules which would be lifted into orbit by ELVs. These modules would then dock and mate either automatically or under ground control. Once the vehicle had been assembled the cew module would then be launched and the mission would begin.

That would eventually solve the assembly problem,provided that you can assembly something so complex without human assistance.Nothing of unsolvable probably.
Still you have a one shot mission.
Go to Mars,go back at home,get the political dividend and then there will not be manned space flight for a long,long time.

[Cpt_Frank]

Well how long is it anyway until the ISS enters the atmosphere.

The ISS can reboost itself if need be. It has sufficient fuel to remain in orbit for a year without external support.

The Russian orbital vehicles (Soyuz etc) are powerful enough to reboost the ISS.

Well that gives some hope.

[Shaka[Zulu]]

My theory (from hearing various pieces of data) is that the falling object off the fuel tank damaged something over the port wing landing gear bay. The last message to come through at all was a somewhat garbled message about tire pressure. If the bay door was damaged, the first area to heat up would be the tires, filled with nitrogen. As the gas heated, it would expand, changing pressure. The tire would eventually explode, and quite possibly cut hydraulic lines. High-pressure hydraulic fluid can cut through dense metals, let alone the alumnium/ceramic hull of the orbiter. Additionally, it's flammable, which would cause any fire to spread throughout the orbiter rapidly.

Known facts:
Columbia was traveling ~39 miles in altitude and ~12,500 mph upon breakup
Columbia was in a 57 degree port bank
An unknown piece of debris collided with the port side of Columbia during launch
The last received message included a report of abnormal tire pressure

Before I begin, let me express my grief for the families and friends of the victims of this tragedy, the crew of STS-107.

I absolutely agree here... Considering the fact that they (ground controllers) KNEW the shuttle had suffered a collision with debris from the ET striking the left wing, the fact that current data suggests that failure began in the left wing is extremely worrisome. The fact that it was ASSUMED that this debris consisted of insulating foam (solely) is nearly damning in my view. At the very least an EVA to check the integrity of the tiles and underlying surface of the vehicle was warranted, and I dont know if the controllers even bothered to inform the crew of the incident (thus meaning they were ignorant of the potential danger, and wouldnt have thought to do it themselves in that case). I dont want to jump to conclusions, but this whole debacle has begun to reek of managerial negligence, given NASA's track record.

To illustrate my charge of managerial negligence, I cite 2 major precedents which cost lives, yet should have been easily avoided:

1) The Apollo 1 fire -- I wonder to this day how a supposedly man-rated flight certified module managed to pass design review with a life support system than ran on pure O2 at full sea-level pressure... what group of dimwits authorized that???? even an average middle-school student can tell that such a thing is a very bad idea.

2) The Challenger disaster -- I dont think I need to remind anyone here that flight engineers had requested a scrub of that ill-fated mission on the grounds that the weather had been too cold for the O-rings in the boosters (among other components), yet were overridden once again by mangement.

Unless an alternate theory comes about that is supported by a preponderance of evidence, such as an error in reentry setup, the frontrunner is that the impact of the ET debris caused serious damage to the underside of the orbiter. My only hope is that the agency survives this and either overcomes its' issues, or stands aside to back the upstarts like XCOR aerospace, and becomes more of a regulatory than an operations agency... This mismanagement has gone on long enough.

[Anarchist Bunny]

I woke up this morning about the same time that they lost contacted with the shuttle, about thirty minutes later I walk down and, by the entire chance that there was nothing on one channel, I went back to the news and noticed the breaking news announcement. This really sucks, from what I heard on the news, NASA expected to lose a shuttle ever 75 launches, and they lost 2 in 113 launches, they seemed completely incompetent to NOT have built or started a new shuttle program by now, with those expected firgures.

[GREAHSIAM]

WTF???. Auctioning a piece of debris??. Wotta sick puke. Lock 'em up in the deepest, darkest, most fetid prison cell in existance.

[Enlightenment]

At the very least an EVA to check the integrity of the tiles and underlying surface of the vehicle was warranted, and I dont know if the controllers even bothered to inform the crew of the incident (thus meaning they were ignorant of the potential danger, and wouldnt have thought to do it themselves in that case).

It's not possible to conduct an EVA on the underside of the shuttle. There are no handholds, lights, or other necessary hardpoints. Furthermore, there would be no point in conducting an EVA as the crew would have no means to repair any damage that they might have found.

[SWPIGWANG]

They can camp on the ISS until another reentry vehicle can be launched.

[Shaka[Zulu]]

It's not possible to conduct an EVA on the underside of the shuttle. There are no handholds, lights, or other necessary hardpoints. Furthermore, there would be no point in conducting an EVA as the crew would have no means to repair any damage that they might have found.

I was under the impression that the shuttles typically carried at least 1 MMU for untethered EVAs... They also have both suit lights and small floods on the MMUs. If I am mistaken, then it only makes the whole thing even more tragic. Had they the ability to do an EVA inspection of the underside upon establishing orbit, they could have diverted to the ISS if something was found to be amiss, where the crew could have debarked and returned home from. Columbia could have been better inspected and possibly either repaired or modified for space-only work in that case. At the very least we wouldn't have lost both a crew and a vehicle, and be threatened with such a potentially disastrous (from a program perspective) multi-year hiatus.

[kheegster]

I hope this won't be the end of the ISS.
The Europs are decades away from sending men to space and the russians don't have the money.

"The Europs"?

ESA is planning to go to Mars sometime next decade and the UK is sending the Beagle 2 to Mars soon for a more thorough examination of the planet.

CSA is also in the race, they may be aiming for the Moon as of yet, but we all start somewhere.

Like it or not, this is setting NASA back and there is nothing to say ESA or CSA can't takeover.

When the first manned Shenzhou goes into orbit late this year, it will be kick in face to the US space program, coming as it is in the tail of all this. I doubt the US will just sit back and watch someone else take all the political brownies in space. Like it or not, space still is a lot about the prestige, and I believe that the US reaction to this will be forward, not backward...

[Shaka[Zulu]]

the above only serves to further illustrate my point about managerial negligence, possibly extending its' scope to procedural negligence as well.

[phongn]

I'm hearing rumors that the vertical stabilizer was destroyed on reentry, which would have doomed the orbiter. Only rumours, though.

[The Dark]

I'm hearing rumors that the vertical stabilizer was destroyed on reentry, which would have doomed the orbiter. Only rumours, though.

I personally doubt this. They had already begun the first S-turn, and were banked at 57 degrees before contact was lost. Also, rising temperatures were reported in the hydraulic systems and other systems before contact was lost, though it was not considered outside operational parameters. Given that it was lost during the first S-turn and had abnormal heat buildup before contact was lost, I would say heat tile damage is the most likely culprit, though complete structural failure or computer failure cannot be discounted yet.

[Shaka[Zulu]]

actually from the previously posted theories about the left wing, it sounds very much like a heat-induced tire explosion, or other type of damage to the ventral surface and structure of the wing which caused the vehicle to zipper at the left wing root. It wouldnt have taken much of a breach in the wing skin for such an event to occur.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I'm hearing rumors that the vertical stabilizer was destroyed on reentry, which would have doomed the orbiter. Only rumours, though.

It could have come off from tidal forces produced by erratic airflow, no doubt due to the damaged wing. Any slight movement at that speed and you're fucked, it is not a cruise on a millpond.

[The Dark]

I did not realize the shuttle passed over us. Is it possible to see it at that point? I guess it is moot anyway, there is 100% cloud cover where I am.

IMHO, not a chance. We in Orlando have trouble seeing it much of the time. They use a VERY steep descent angle and flare at the last second fto prevent stalling. Remember, it was 39 miles up over Texas.

actually from the previously posted theories about the left wing, it sounds very much like a heat-induced tire explosion, or other type of damage to the ventral surface and structure of the wing which caused the vehicle to zipper at the left wing root. It wouldnt have taken much of a breach in the wing skin for such an event to occur.

Yeah, I tried to reason out a theory for that based on what I heard from NASA via CNN (namely, 39 mile altitude, 12500 mph, 57 degree left bank, tire pressure abnormal, hydraulic temperature abnormal). I posted my theory on page 5, post 3.

[Burak Gazan]

They can camp on the ISS until another reentry vehicle can be launched.

Columbia didn't have the required docking adapter to mate with the ISS, so even if she could change orbit, all she could do is sit next to it.
After 16 days in orbit, her consumables would nearly be expended too, so even if the crew had conducted an EVA to check for damage, there was little they could do, except de-orbit and hope for the best

[BenRG]

I don't know how accurate this report is, but I understand that the Columbia was not carrying any EVA suits, nor did it have an EVA airlock fitted for this mission. A crew-based damage survey was impossible. However, during STS-1, NASA checked out the ship's underside using a USAF spy satellite, so a remote damage survey was not impossible.

There were two problems standing in between the Columbia and an evacuation to the ISS:

1. First was the lack of EVA suits. I'm not sure they were even carrying the 'rescue ball' pressurised soft-walled unpowered escape pods. Even if they were, one of the ISS's crew would have needed to space-walk over to the shuttle (probably on the ISS's Canadarm 2) to 'tow' the Shuttle crew over.
2. Secondly (and far more critically), the ISS was at a different orbital inclination and orbital altitude from the Columbia. I'm not sure if the OMS had enough fuel for the neccessary course corrections (changing orbital inclination is the most power-intensive orbital manouevre, IIRC).

Both these problems make it highly probable that it would have been logistically impossible to evacuate the crew of the Columbia to the ISS.

The very real possibility is that NASA might have cynically decided to let the crew die in a moment of fire and glory, rather than leave them in orbit to die by inches (there is no way another Shuttle could have reached them before they ran out of life support consumables). To quote Astronaut Jack Swiggert in the film version of 'Apollo 13': "If there was a problem and there was nothing they could do about it, would they tell us? There is no reason to tell us!" To quote the old Cosmonaut credo: "A dead hero is worth more than a live embarrassment."

[Strafe]

There were two problems standing in between the Columbia and an evacuation to the ISS:

1. First was the lack of EVA suits. "

From what I heard during NASA's press conference is that the Shuttle did indeed have EVA suits, however they had no MMUs, so checking the underside of the shuttle was not possible anyways.

[phongn]

There were two problems standing in between the Columbia and an evacuation to the ISS:

1. First was the lack of EVA suits. "

From what I heard during NASA's press conference is that the Shuttle did indeed have EVA suits, however they had no MMUs, so checking the underside of the shuttle was not possible anyways.

The MMU was removed from service after Challenger was destroyed.

[Cal Wright]

First off, there is now a new avatar in place of the 'Blight' that will remain there for the time being.

Second, and this is hard to believe, but twice now I have witnessed a tragic event of such. However, the crawl on Headline News has Bush stating that the space program will go on. 'Their deaths will not be in vain.'

I do agree with this line of reasoning. Yes, we have a great loss today. Yes, this is the second time we lost a shuttle. That doesn't mean we just throw our hands in the air and give up. How many times have those ships flown past the reaches of our world? How many times have they come back? This is only reinforces the fact that we need to work harder at our goal of space travel. We need to work harder at keeping it up. Why are we still flying rust buckets to perform magnificant tasks. This is exactly why we need to fund the space project instead of cutting back. New and better craft. The space age is were everyone is heading. We should be in the lead.

¤§¤

2-1-03

¤§¤