It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by TrueAmerican
Could they not somehow get them extra air shipped up until they could figure something out? Even if they were moving them into on of those little re entry capsules and dropping them in the ocean?
SO what, was it building it self, the thing is I doubt if they even bother to think about it, would of been chance to inspect damage and send rescue mission.
Originally posted by Ramcheck
Originally posted by OOOOOO
reply to post by TrueAmerican
I would have tried to figure a way to send them to the space station, to check things out first.
At least that's what I was thinking at the time.
If that was even remotely possible it would have been done, the ISS was only 50% complete in 2003.
They would run out of a way to remove carbon dioxide a day earlier than the oxygen would run out. But they knew about the foam strike on day 2 and the consumables could have lasted 30 days. In order to effect the rescue within the 30 days, they would have needed to assess the damage no later than day 7.
Originally posted by C0bzz
1. How much air supply did they have?
The limiting consumable was the lithium hydroxide canisters, which scrub from the cabin atmosphere the carbon dioxide the crew exhales. After consulting with flight surgeons, the team concluded that by modifying crew activity and sleep time carbon dioxide could be kept to acceptable levels until Flight Day 30 (the morning of February 15). All other consumables would last longer. Oxygen, the next most critical, would require the crew to return on Flight Day 31
This rescue was considered challenging but feasible. To succeed, it required problem-free processing of Atlantis and a flawless launch countdown. If Program managers had understood the threat that the bipod foam strike posed and were able to unequivocally determine before Flight Day Seven that there was potentially catastrophic damage to the left wing, these repair and rescue plans would most likely have been developed, and a rescue would have been conceivable.
Originally posted by dogstar23
Originally posted by syrinx high priest
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by TsukiLunar
In the blog post on which this is centered, Hale says this:
After one of the MMTs when possible damage to the orbiter was discussed, he gave me his opinion: “You know, there is nothing we can do about damage to the TPS. If it has been damaged it’s probably better not to know. I think the crew would rather not know. Don’t you think it would be better for them to have a happy successful flight and die unexpectedly during entry than to stay on orbit, knowing that there was nothing to be done, until the air ran out?”
I was hard pressed to disagree. That mindset was widespread. Astronauts agreed.
He then goes on to say that the real problem is in deciding that there is nothing to be done.
After the accident, when we were reconstituting the Mission Management Team, my words to them were “We are never ever going to say that there is nothing we can do.” That is hindsight.
waynehale.wordpress.com...edit on 2/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)
just bumping so y'all can see this thread is a massive dose of fail
"astronauts agreed"
/end thread
Um...huh? Bold proclamation saying the thread is a massive dose of fail, and then declaring "end thread" based on some apparent pearl of wisdom you dropped on us...especially considering, I doubt anyone, including myself, knows what point you were making with this.
Are you saying because there were astronauts who agreed with that opinion, that the right thing to do was to withold such information from the crew, and there is no point in having a different opinion on the matter? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, that really is the best explanation I can come up with for what the "end all, be all" point you were trying to make might be. Personally, I think if one is going to make bold statements, indicating one holds the final word and all others' ideas are worthless, well, at least say something of substance, so *somebody* out there might agree with you.
Originally posted by C0bzz.
I don't really know why those who suggest it would have been possible to move Columbia to the ISS don't do the math themselves or do some research on their own to see if an actual rescue would be possible, for example by figuring out:
Originally posted by C0bzz
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Thanks. It looks like if they knew about the damage relatively early on, it would likely be possible to rescue them with another shuttle.edit on 3/2/13 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by wulff
It was a gamble pure and simple that NASA got away with all to often except this time it caught up with them!
An analysis carried out by Boeing concluded that while possibly severe heat damage to the underlying skin might require post-landing repairs, the impact did not pose a "safety of flight" issue.
... As it turned out, the analysis was deeply flawed. The engineers extrapolated from an earlier tile-impact study involving much smaller pieces of debris and had virtually no data at all regarding how such strikes might affect RCC panels.
Post-accident analyses, impact tests using a nitrogen gas cannon, enhanced launch video and sensor data all indicated the 1.67-pound chunk of foam, which hit the leading edge at more than 500 mph, caused a breach that allowed super-heated air to burn its way inside during Columbia's re-entry Feb. 1. .
But NASA's mission management team accepted the results of the Boeing analysis, quashed efforts to obtain spy satellite photography that might have resolved the issue one way or the other and informed the crew about the impact only in passing.
NASA would feel better for having tried the rescue and the media would love the story but the odds against pulling it off are higher than winning the Powerball Lottery.
The experts say it was challenging but possible. What makes you think you know more than the experts? They figured they needed three weeks and they would have had it if they identified the problem by day 7.
Originally posted by wulff
Originally posted by C0bzz
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Thanks. It looks like if they knew about the damage relatively early on, it would likely be possible to rescue them with another shuttle.edit on 3/2/13 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)
It takes several weeks just to ready a shuttle for flight, there are (in addition to obvious life support tests and fueling) there was no way to get another shuttle up there in time.
There were three ground-based cameras that saw the foam from three different angles. I think a typical shuttle launch had dozens of cameras all shooting different things.
Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by desert
Yes test pilots job is a scary one.
But the supposed 500 mph? so early in the launch, how did the foam attain such a speed?
something doesn't add up here.
what was the camera speed when they showed the falling foam