NASA was warned of impending disaster concerning re-entry for years!! Link inside!!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Tiger

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,312
0
0
Once they are bellow 30,000ft the crew can jump and use parachutes.
Any mission can be aborted to Spain or Africa during ascent if they know they have to.
There is no way to know about damaged tiles during ascent.
 

Antisocial Virge

Diamond Member
Dec 13, 1999
6,578
0
0
Any mission can be aborted to Spain or Africa during ascent if they know they have to

Do you have a link to this? I would have thought the details of landing it unexpected and unpowered would cause too many problems to pull off.
 

speed01

Golden Member
Jan 23, 2001
1,167
0
0
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Not to be an ass, but you do know the orbiter's bottom faces away from the earth while in space right? Telescope wouldn't do jack.

Yes, I am aware of that. They do have thrusters to adjust the orientation of the orbiter when needed (otherwise they would re-enter the atmosphere from the top instead of the bottom where the heat shields are).

Speed
 

Tiger

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,312
0
0
Do you have a link to this
No, familial experience.
My father and uncle both worked in the space program.
If you notice they will not launch unless the weather and available light is good on the other side of the atlantic as well as KSC.
I believe Discovery was scrubbed at least once on it's last mission because of weather in Spain.
 

speed01

Golden Member
Jan 23, 2001
1,167
0
0
Selection of an ascent abort mode may become necessary if there is a failure that affects vehicle performance, such as the failure of a space shuttle main engine or an orbital maneuvering system. Other failures requiring early termination of a flight, such as a cabin leak, might require the selection of an abort mode.There are two basic types of ascent abort modes for space shuttle missions: intact aborts and contingency aborts. Intact aborts are designed to provide a safe return of the orbiter to a planned landing site. Contingency aborts are designed to permit flight crew survival following more severe failures when an intact abort is not possible. A contingency abort would generally result in a ditch operation.
There are four types of intact aborts: abort to orbit, abort once around, transatlantic landing and return to launch site.
The ATO mode is designed to allow the vehicle to achieve a temporary orbit that is lower than the nominal orbit. This mode requires less performance and allows time to evaluate problems and then choose either an early deorbit maneuver or an orbital maneuvering system thrusting maneuver to raise the orbit and continue the mission.
The AOA is designed to allow the vehicle to fly once around the Earth and make a normal entry and landing. This mode generally involves two orbital maneuvering system thrusting sequences, with the second sequence being a deorbit maneuver. The entry sequence would be similar to a normal entry.
The TAL mode is designed to permit an intact landing on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. This mode results in a ballistic trajectory, which does not require an orbital maneuvering system maneuver.
The RTLS mode involves flying downrange to dissipate propellant and then turning around under power to return directly to a landing at or near the launch site.
There is a definite order of preference for the various abort modes. The type of failure and the time of the failure determine which type of abort is selected. In cases where performance loss is the only factor, the preferred modes would be ATO, AOA, TAL and RTLS, in that order. The mode chosen is the highest one that can be completed with the remaining vehicle performance. In the case of some support system failures, such as cabin leaks or vehicle cooling problems, the preferred mode might be the one that will end the mission most quickly. In these cases, TAL or RTLS might be preferable to AOA or ATO. A contingency abort is never chosen if another abort option exists.
The Mission Control Center-Houston is prime for calling these aborts because it has a more precise knowledge of the orbiter's position than the crew can obtain from onboard systems. Before main engine cutoff, Mission Control makes periodic calls to the crew to tell them which abort mode is (or is not) available. If ground communications are lost, the flight crew has onboard methods, such as cue cards, dedicated displays and display information, to determine the current abort region.
Which abort mode is selected depends on the cause and timing of the failure causing the abort and which mode is safest or improves mission success. If the problem is a space shuttle main engine failure, the flight crew and Mission Control Center select the best option available at the time a space shuttle main engine fails.
If the problem is a system failure that jeopardizes the vehicle, the fastest abort mode that results in the earliest vehicle landing is chosen. RTLS and TAL are the quickest options (35 minutes), whereas an AOA requires approximately 90 minutes. Which of these is selected depends on the time of the failure with three good space shuttle main engines.
The flight crew selects the abort mode by positioning an abort mode switch and depressing an abort push button.

I copied this from here.
 

HombrePequeno

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2001
4,657
0
0
Originally posted by: Munchies
Why couldnt nassa just be catious damnit. Have them dock atg the ISS and wait for a replacement part. Or at least do a Space Walk to see what the hell happened. There was that Soyoz that lifted off the day after the accident. Why couldnt a replacemnt tile be sent up along with what it was carrying. JEEZ

The Columbia can't dock at the ISS. The ISS orbits too high. I think there should have been a space walk to see if there was any damage but hind sight is twenty-twenty my friend.
 

Tiger

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,312
0
0
I think there should have been a space walk to see if there was any damage but hind sight is twenty-twenty my friend.
Would have done no good.
 

LH

Golden Member
Feb 16, 2002
1,604
0
0
The robotic arm was not on the shuttle, therefore they COULD NOT do a space walk to the underside of the wing. Meaning if there was damage, they could have never gotten to see it, let alone be able to repair it, even though it would likely not have been fesible to repair in space.

If there was damage and they were able to find out about. The best case scenario would be to ditch the shuttle. But that creates a bigger issue. How would you go about getting the crew off the shuttle in a fairly quick matter of time.

Right now its all speculation on what caused it, its way to early to jump from point A to point B.
 

dakata24

Diamond Member
Aug 7, 2000
6,366
0
76
Originally posted by: Elemental007
Originally posted by: KDOG
Nasa was warned

Grrr.....

An escape module would not have worked to save Columbia. Mach 17 ejections........

are you saying this guy (who was a NASA engineer that was part of the team for shuttle?s initial design and upgrades) is talking out of his arse?
 

numark

Golden Member
Sep 17, 2002
1,005
0
0
Originally posted by: LH
The robotic arm was not on the shuttle, therefore they COULD NOT do a space walk to the underside of the wing. Meaning if there was damage, they could have never gotten to see it, let alone be able to repair it, even though it would likely not have been fesible to repair in space.

If there was damage and they were able to find out about. The best case scenario would be to ditch the shuttle. But that creates a bigger issue. How would you go about getting the crew off the shuttle in a fairly quick matter of time.

Right now its all speculation on what caused it, its way to early to jump from point A to point B.

I guess about the only option they would have had was to dock with the ISS and leave the people there. But, this was an unforeseeable event, and NASA probably did what they thought was best. It's easy to look back and say "maybe this or that should have been done" but what it all comes down to is that this event was a tragedy that happened not because of any glaring mistake but merely an accident, and to speculate on what could have been done different will do no good.
 

dawheat

Diamond Member
Sep 14, 2000
3,132
93
91
Originally posted by: dakata24
Originally posted by: Elemental007
Originally posted by: KDOG
Nasa was warned

Grrr.....

An escape module would not have worked to save Columbia. Mach 17 ejections........

are you saying this guy (who was a NASA engineer that was part of the team for shuttle?s initial design and upgrades) is talking out of his arse?

Actually yes- it does sound as if he's just trying to take a swipe at Nasa. An escape pod which could withstand the dynamics, heat, and speed of the shuttle when Columbia disintegrated sounds unrealistic, especially with the current orbitors. Retrofitting an orbitor to be made up of a fully independent forward pod with its own internal systems, thermal protection, and who knows what else doesn't sound possible, regardless of the enourmous weight penalty- which would reduce the shuttle's payload ability to nearly nothing. IMO he proabably was a bit of a nut who thought up an idea which maybe is therotically possible but realisitcally impossible.


 

GoingUp

Lifer
Jul 31, 2002
16,720
1
71
Originally posted by: Elemental007
Originally posted by: KDOG
Nasa was warned

Grrr.....

An escape module would not have worked to save Columbia. Mach 17 ejections........

Thank you. Exactly what I was thinking. It probably would have worked in the challenger explosion but not in the columbia tragedy.
 

ReiAyanami

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2002
4,466
0
0
the MIR space station was a hazard for years, falling apart, broken parts. Russia's space program which was also strapped for cash abandonded the MIR before it became a liability. some also say budget restraints on the military led to the submarine disaster two years ago that killed 200 sailors.
 

ReiAyanami

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2002
4,466
0
0
no large government is infalliable. although they should put the money where it needs to be when it comes to safety.
 

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
Originally posted by: dakata24
Originally posted by: Elemental007
Originally posted by: KDOG
Nasa was warned

Grrr.....

An escape module would not have worked to save Columbia. Mach 17 ejections........

are you saying this guy (who was a NASA engineer that was part of the team for shuttle?s initial design and upgrades) is talking out of his arse?

I am saying that IN THIS SITUATION an escape pod would not have worked. Period.

In the Challenger, it would have.

Generally, deorbit-manuever catastrophes mean death. Too much energy.
 

B00ne

Platinum Member
May 21, 2001
2,168
1
0
Originally posted by: speed01
Originally posted by: Munchies
Why couldnt nassa just be catious damnit. Have them dock atg the ISS and wait for a replacement part. Or at least do a Space Walk to see what the hell happened. There was that Soyoz that lifted off the day after the accident. Why couldnt a replacemnt tile be sent up along with what it was carrying. JEEZ

It was explained the the crew of the shuttle does not not have the capability to perform "spacewalks" to look under the spacecraft because there is nothing to hold on to therefore, if there was a problem the only way to detect it would have been through earth based telescopes. My personal opinion is that they should have aborted the mission when debris was seen coming off during launch (but then again I don't work for NASA and am far from a "rocket scientist").


the problem with that is: Once they have "Liftoff", I dont think there is a way to abort.....
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Everything is cost vs. benefits and nobody can tell the future. Unless there is more than one man that warned against this I wouldn't give him much thought.
 

LeeTJ

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2003
4,899
0
0
Originally posted by: Zim Hosein
Originally posted by: Dari
isn't there an escape mechanism for a space shuttle? Shouldn't the astronauts be able to escape a catastrophic disaster by ejecting from the larger aircraft via an escape pod (that makes-up the front of the aircraft but is detachable)?

Or am I just dreaming?

Currently, there isn't any "escape module" from the shuttle, it was deemed to expensive :(

No, if you read the article you would see that it said it was because nasa didn't like the idea of the pilot in an escape pod and not in control of the ship.
 

Armitage

Banned
Feb 23, 2001
8,086
0
0
On the early missions, they were very concerned about tile loss and did inspections once on orbit to check for missing or damaged tiles. I remember seeing video of this. Don't know if they could inspect the bottom of the vehicle.

I'm suprised that this sort of inspection isn't still being done in some manner. Even if they don't have the ability to effect on orbit repairs ... better the devil you know then the devil you don't. If you know there is a problem, you may be able to address it in some manner. Maybe that progress that the russians launched yesterday could have rendevoued and been of some assistance.

I suspect that future flight will have some sort of inspection capability, possibly done by a autonomous nanosat released from the shuttle. Maybe something like this. Of course, having something else flying in close proximity to the shuttle has its own set of risks.

With regard to some of the other comments...
I haven't looked at the orbits, but it's unlikely that Columbia could have reached ISS. Plane changes are enormously expensive. I don't have time to look it up right now, but if the inclination or raan difference between columbia & iss was more then a few degrees, they could never do it.

Yes, I think this guy is talking out his arse, at least with respect to this incident. While an ejectable capsule may be a good idea for other contingencies, it would have done nothing in this case. The forces & altitude were just to great.