Contact with Columbia Lost!

[Willem]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


We've now lost 14 astronauts in space, 3 on the launch pad, several in training, and only a miracle kept us from losing Apollo XIII. Earlier, Ned gave the odds of not returning from any one flight as 1 in 125. So yes, I'd say they're taking big risks and I'm sure since it is their necks they're putting on the line, they're well aware of it.

Your numbers don't add up. There were seven astronauts on both Challenger and the Columbia, plus an Apollo crew. That would make it 17. Actually not bad when you consider how many flights there's been since tthe space program started.

But I have to ask myself why on earth they've let those shuttles get so old!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Willem
But I have to ask myself why on earth they've let those shuttles get so old!

They have major rework done to them from time to time, (avionics and flight deck upgrades) and in flight prep (ablative tile replacements, pumps, etc.), plus a lot of components are modular. What doesn't get changed is the basic airframe and the internal rocket engines.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
They have major rework done to them from time to time, (avionics and flight deck upgrades) and in flight prep (ablative tile replacements, pumps, etc.), plus a lot of components are modular. What doesn't get changed is the basic airframe and the internal rocket engines.

IIRC, the shuttles weren't designed to fly this long. Metal fatigue and general aging must be taking their toll.

[Frozzy]

Surely NASA must be working on a newer model (i.e. new airframe and engines). Although, with their meagre budget I suppose the answer is no or they aren't getting very far

[Ming]

They've been "talking" about the new "space plane" for a long time... However, the costs... sigh...

[Urban Ranger]

Com'on, how much they are spending on this Missile Shield anyway?

[Willem]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


They have major rework done to them from time to time, (avionics and flight deck upgrades) and in flight prep (ablative tile replacements, pumps, etc.), plus a lot of components are modular. What doesn't get changed is the basic airframe and the internal rocket engines.

Still, 20 years is a very long time for an aircraft which takes that kind of a beating. The stresses those shuttles experience on reentry must be enormous. Something was bound to break after flying that long!

Wasn't one of the budget cutbacks awhile back an emergency ejection system? I guess the person who said it was to expensive is feeling a little foolish right about now.

[Frozzy]

I agree, surely the US should step up the NASA budget from $3,000,000. That's nothing.

[MichaeltheGreat]

The pace of missions since the beginning of the program is less than was originally anticipated, because of the delays after the Challenger loss, and much of the airframe on each of the vehicles has been through and passed detailed structural analysis and testing. NASA has been pretty thorough in inspections and replacements (i.e. the fuel line cracks)

Since these are virtually one of a kind vehicles, the cost of simply building an extra one is enormous, and NASA has been forced by a space-cheap Congress (when both parties have been in power) to compromise it's budget between planetary science, unmanned probes, manned flight operations, the ISS, and R&D for a shuttle replacement.

Nobody has come up with an adequate replacement/advancement in terms of cost and performance, but at the same time, nobody has wanted to kill of that R&D work (and other programs) to continue to build the same basic vehicle design with current avionics and materials.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Willem


Still, 20 years is a very long time for an aircraft which takes that kind of a beating. The stresses those shuttles experience on reentry must be enormous. Something was bound to break after flying that long!

Wasn't one of the budget cutbacks awhile back an emergency ejection system? I guess the person who said it was to expensive is feeling a little foolish right about now.

If you go on the NASA site, you will find that Columbia had a major overall of all systems just last year.

As to the cause, if they did take pictures using the spy telescopes as reported, these may have the answer - or at least part of it.

I am beginning to think that someone made a calculated call to go for a landing just like on Challenger someone made a call to reject lower level engineering advice.

The problem is, what could they have done to get the shuttle down safely with damage to the wing? Could they, for example, just parked it at the space station until a repair crew attempted repairs?

(This is beginning to sound like Star Trek.)

[Jack_www]

I just hope that NASA can get more funding so that they can improve safety and build new shuttles.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Willem


Still, 20 years is a very long time for an aircraft which takes that kind of a beating. The stresses those shuttles experience on reentry must be enormous. Something was bound to break after flying that long!

It's not the number of years, it's the number of flights - and they have structural pieces replaced from time to time if they show fatigue. Challenger's loss was not due to structural failure, and nothing so far indicated that was the problem with Columbia.

Wasn't one of the budget cutbacks awhile back an emergency ejection system? I guess the person who said it was to expensive is feeling a little foolish right about now.

Well, expense is relative to usefulness. An ejection system for all seven crew members (the maximum load) would require an ejectable flight-deck module (a la the FB, EF and RF-111 series of aircraft) with completely different structural, instrument cabling, and electromechanical design, that may or may not be refittable in the existing fuselage. Anything less would only be usable in a much narrower variety of scenarios, and for less of the crew.

In any case, in the middle of a 1600 degree C pressurized gas plasma at 63 km altitude and 18,000 kph airspeed, there isn't an ejection system designable that could do anything for the crew. Even if you could design an ejection system that would work, and a compartment that could survive, the crew couldn't survive anything close to the G-forces involved in an ejection under those conditions.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
The problem is, what could they have done to get the shuttle down safely with damage to the wing? Could they, for example, just parked it at the space station until a repair crew attempted repairs?

(This is beginning to sound like Star Trek.)

No. Docking to the ISS takes a special docking hatch which takes up a good portion of the cargo bay, and which would have prevented a large number of the science experiments conducted on this mission.

When docked, the distance from the ISS to the ventral side of the vehicle would make and EVA impossible without extreme risk, and you'd have to know exactly what repairs to make - and many structural repairs would be impossible in any case, even if an EVA to the area of repair was possible.

I don't think it's particularly fair to make a comparison to the Challenger launch - in that case, there wasn't a consensus of opinion anyway, but the contrary advice was merely pointing out that NASA had never made an STS launch on days that cold (7 degrees fahrenheit colder than any previous launch). Making a launch decision (which could have been deferred) on the basis of conflicting advice, some of which was for delay, is not at all the same as making a decision to land a vehicle when there was no choice, and when all indications were that the vehicle was fine - it survived whatever impact it may have had with the piece of foam insulation, it flew flawlessly for 15 days.

[Willem]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


It's not the number of years, it's the number of flights - and they have structural pieces replaced from time to time if they show fatigue. Challenger's loss was not due to structural failure, and nothing so far indicated that was the problem with Columbia.

Well, expense is relative to usefulness. An ejection system for all seven crew members (the maximum load) would require an ejectable flight-deck module (a la the FB, EF and RF-111 series of aircraft) with completely different structural, instrument cabling, and electromechanical design, that may or may not be refittable in the existing fuselage. Anything less would only be usable in a much narrower variety of scenarios, and for less of the crew.

In any case, in the middle of a 1600 degree C pressurized gas plasma at 63 km altitude and 18,000 kph airspeed, there isn't an ejection system designable that could do anything for the crew. Even if you could design an ejection system that would work, and a compartment that could survive, the crew couldn't survive anything close to the G-forces involved in an ejection under those conditions.

Yes, I suppose I should wait until there's a few answers until I jump to conclusions.

Ah yes, I now know what I was thinking about. They scrapped plans to include an emergency escape capsule for the space station crew, not the shuttle.

[Ned]

I live near Santa Cruz, California. I woke up this morning at 5:52 - I looked at the clock. It was still dark out.

Just now I was looking at a timeline chart on CNN. It shows the Shuttle descent path and gives a timeline of sensor losses. It also shows the flight path. The flight path goes directly over Santa Cruz. If my caluculations are correct, the shuttle should have been over my house just around 5:52 a.m. The first sensor loss occurred at 5:53 a.m. Whatever gave way, probably gave way when the shuttle was just above my home at exactly the moment I woke up.

A coincidence?