20 years since Challenger, 3 since columbia: The shuttle?

Site Issues 2006 Archive Room
#41

Have you seen photos of the tiles after it gets back? Generally they’re all still there but some have deep scratches in them. It isn’t usually a case of them falling off but of mechanical damage to the tiles themselves. What it looks like is pretty irrelevant.
In any case, that’s something of a strawman (be it intentional or not) because IIRC the fatal damage was to the leading edge of the wing, which isn’t protected by ceramic tiles!

Two problems with that:

  1. NASA took a look at the problem and as far as they could tell it wasn’t dangerous.
  2. IIRC, the space shuttle didn’t have sufficient fuel to reach the orbit of the ISS. AIUI they had insufficient oxygen to wait for NASA to get another shuttle ready as a lifeboat, so literally the only way was down.

You’ve still got the intrinsic problems with throw weight, not to mention the fact that you’re still a rocket. The shuttle is in many ways an anachronism, a throwback to the days before people invented staging in rockets.

#42 
Its been a long time since I worked there and I forgot about the landing in NM so I have the landings mixed up. I worked there from 1981 thru 1985. They don't land anything on the lake bed when its wet, all I can say is from the signs it looked like something heavy was in it, maybe it went up heavier ( test ) I have no idea. If it was something secret there not going to print or talk about it.

Its kinda like when they were testing lasers from the converted KC 135, its KC 135 target ship had black and white stripes painted on the side for use in targeting the laser in tests. well one day I was driving around up on the rocket site and found a concrete slab with the same black and white stripes painted on it. The concrete had burn marks and was spalded (sp) The point is I didn’t see them shoot the laser at it but I know ( my opinion ) that’s what happened. I’ve never seen anything in print about that test either.

#43

Doesn’t take a lot to cause spalling in concrete - the water is all still in there, so it generally reacts pretty badly to fire/heat. It may also not have been an official test - people often play around with things they aren’t meant to be just to see what happens. I do it all the time at work.

#44

It generally takes heat. The same black and white stripes painted on the concrete and the roundish spall and burn marks were the signs i saw and this was in an area it takes a government clearance to get into. Are you saying you don’t believe this story either?

#45

I think it’s quite likely that the spalling was caused by a laser, but also that you’re probably going overboard on the “government secrecy” think. If my experience is anything to go by they are just as likely to have been keeping quiet because they didn’t think anyone was interested or because they weren’t meant to have turned the laser power dial up quite that far and were worried about getting in trouble for risking expensive equipment. The latter happens all the time where I work.

#46

I think Ive said this before, but the Shuttle flies in a low Earth Orbit, for it to bring something back, that too would have to occupy a low Earth Orbit. Also if they did bring something its more likely to be their own kit than the Soviets.

http://www.spacetoday.org/Questions/PolarSats.html

The Shuttle cant reach most Spy Sat orbits and also, trying to capture a Soviet one would have been frought with danger for obvious reasons.

Interesting observation though.

#47

The wing tip of Columbia was not dammaged it was in the near the weal bay. The shuttle disintegrated because of heat and gas build up in the weal bay in the wing. If you look at the report about the Columbia dessaster you will see that ground conrtole saw that the heat sensors was not functioning corectly in the weel bay.

The tiles of Columbia had big problems that were just ignored and thus they were weak.

The fact remain that they should have had the right equipment to leave the shuttle and get to the space station.

Henk

#48

And last I checked the most likely cause for hot gas getting in there was thought to be damage to the Carbon-Carbon wing leading edge…

  1. That means permanently flying around with several tonnes of extremely volatile explosives on board - a VERY bad idea from a safety point of view.
  2. The shuttle had been flying for a long time before the ISS was.
#49

Now, I did not mean that they should have more feul on board, they should have had the right space suits and they were supposed to have a kit on board to be able to fix dammage tiles on board.

Then they could have been helped by the guys on the ISS if they had the space suits.

Henk

#50

Please learn even the tiniest amount about orbital mechanics. The ISS is much higher up than the shuttle was flying, and as such it would have needed to burn a lot of fuel to get up there. Fuel it didn’t have. Space suits don’t come into it.

#51

And last I checked the most likely cause for hot gas getting in there was thought to be damage to the Carbon-Carbon wing leading edge…

  1. That means permanently flying around with several tonnes of extremely volatile explosives on board - a VERY bad idea from a safety point of view.
  2. The shuttle had been flying for a long time before the ISS was.[/quote]

The special on the Discovery Channel showed a peice of foam hitting the wing not to long after lauch. This is the most likely culprit. Although it probably didnt make a huge whole it could have been enough to be a disaster on re-entry. This incident was actually noticed by engineers during the lauch and a request for pictures of the wing was submitted to NASA management but denied. Foam hits the plane all the time. Plus they would have had to take pics from a satalite which would have cost time and money. This was in precious demand since another major mission was being planned not to long after Columibia’s return.

So they probably could have caught it but im sure it would have been a huge problem to fix. They would have surely had to find a way to dock with the ISS due to lack of equipment on board. Anyhow if they would have caught it im sure they could have fixed it some how. Sadly NASA was more concerned about funding cuts than safety. I think we all know how this usually works out. As it did.

#52

With regards to the concrete that was found with heat damage and painted up like the laser target.

Surely if it was a true test, the target would have been removed from sight? Possibly for research but maybe just for destruction?

#53

Well since it wasn’t removed maybe it was studied in place. :?: What you have to understand is how remote the rocket site (above Edwards) is. It was a very cool place to work and explore. There was a little testing on solid rocket motors going on at the time so it left a lot of time to explore and my shift was 3 days on 4 days off. The rocket motor test stands from the early Mercury/Saturn programs were still in place along with all the bunkers for viewing the tests. There were even old large rocket engines still laying around.

#54

The space suits they developed that can take a astronoat away from the shuttle to fly through space freely, they could have gotten near the ISS to fly with the suits to the station. So yes it does play a role.

The npoint remain that NASA is recless and they must pull up their socks and start doing something about it.

Henk

#55

Not as clueless as you are about orbital mechanics. I’m not trying to be nasty, but the stuff above betrays just how little you know about space. The energy you need to move from the sort of orbit the shuttle was in to the ISS is phenomenal. Even a little Newtonian mechanics would give you a good idea.

#56

What I said is that they could have just put the shuttle near the ISS and leave the shuttle. The ISS also got boosters and could have moved nearer, yes I know it must remain at a certan speed and the shuttle could have used up all of its feul it was dammaged and what is more importend, the shuttle or the lives of the crew? They knew the shuttle was dammaged why did they not make a plan, they say they are smart but francly I think they are IDEOTS.

Forget the feul and think about the lives.

Henk

#57

Between the two of them they had nowhere near sufficient fuel to get anywhere close. Who’s the “IDEOT” around here?

#58

shuttle orbit = typically 300km
ISS orbit = 360km

Potential energy difference (assuming linear grav field, which it’s not at that altitude) = mgh = 9.81x60,000 = 589KJ/kg. Person + mmu = approx 200kg, so that’s 117.8MJ

Velocity at shuttle altitude = (a x r)^.5 = (9.81 x 300000)^.5 = 1715m/s, so KE = .5mv^2 = 294MJ

V at ISS alt = 1879m/s, KE = 353MJ

Thus total energy difference = 470MJ

In hydrogen, and assuming that rocket efficiency is 10%, (assuming I can remember my chemistry) this would require 31kg hydrogen and 248kg oxygen, i.e. the fuel requirement would weigh significantly more than the man + suit, and this is not including fuel for simple manoevering. You also cannon just rocket up and down orbits - it is rather more complicated than that…

#59

Who’s the “IDEOT” around here?

Thanks mate for your nice complimant :smiley: :smiley: .

Yes, true, but remeber that the shuttle does not use all the feul onboard when it goes up. How do you think Discovery got to the ISS last year on its first mission after the Columbia dessater? With drop tanks. Well then the fact still remains that NASA was dragging their asses and could have done something else to save those people.

NASA must have a shuttle ready or something ready to be able to deal with a sittuation like this and you would expect them to have something like that. Everyone are to sluggish when it comes to space.

What is more importent, Space or us here on earth? So many money is spent on it for what? Those money could have gone for far greater things than that.

Henk

#60

We are talking about NASA (USA) money right? So what do you suggest the U.S. money be spent on?