If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   NASA reveals that it knew ahead of time that Columbia's re-entry was probably going to end badly   (rawstory.com) divider line 419
    More: Sad, NASA, Space Shuttle Columbia, re-entry, Columbia disaster, flight controls, TPS, Johnson Space Center  
•       •       •

27024 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Feb 2013 at 12:14 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



419 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-02 02:45:17 AM
Just to beat the dead horse a little more, Columbia was the one shuttle that could not reach the ISS, let alone dock with it. It was too heavy and had not been fitted with ISS docking hardware, although there were plans to upgrade Columbia to allow it.
 
2013-02-02 02:51:09 AM

MissFeasance: DarthBart: Launches are extremely expensive per pound.  Every pound of cargo that goes up takes more fuel.

Yeah, but what I said was have a pod to bring them back, not something to launch.  Still crazy expensive, yeah, but why is there no bailout procedure?  It still wouldn't be a guarantee, but geez.  Given the choice of being in a craft that is probably going to fail and taking my chances with parachutes and possibly landing in the middle of nowhere, I'd take the latter.


cdni.wired.co.uk

?
 
2013-02-02 02:51:26 AM
Before bed, I'll re-state that NASA's Max Faget had a better shuttle design in every way that counts. It perched atop the booster so it could abort and fly away from the explosion under it.  But due to mission creep and the DOD adding too many requirements for space warefare scenarios, the design went from a sort of spacegoing Porche to a space-going mack truck. From a titanium airframe around the size of a Grumman G-6 Gulfstream, with an all steel and alloy thermal protection system to a ship the size of a commercial jetliner, with the aluminum airframe with ceramic bricks on it.   The Smaller Faget styled ship had  amore vertical, fully-stalled decent profile, very similar to what Rutan's Space Ship One used, which was slower and less hot and safer. But DOD wanted huge cross-range and the ability to launch and retrieve  spy sats, not necessarily just our own, and land any farking where with enough runway.  Original shuttle even had jet engines for self-ferrying and go-around capability on the landing approach, deleted to save weight.

The Rockwell design was a camel, you know, the horse as designed by committee. Only more like a camel after a ride in a blender.

The HL-20-like private commercial shuttle design in development will be more like Max's original idea and it will work better.
 
2013-02-02 02:51:59 AM

relcec: g4lt: "The CAIB determined that a rescue mission, though risky, might have been possible provided NASA management had taken action soon enough.[48][49] They stated that had NASA management acted in time, two possible contingency procedures were available: a rescue mission by shuttle , and an emergency Normally a rescue mission is not possible, due to the time required to prepare a shuttle for launch, and the limited consumables (power, water, air) of an orbiting shuttle. However, Atlantis was well along in processing for a planned March 1 launch on Columbia carried an unusually large quantity of consumables due to an Columbia to stay in orbit until flight day 30 (February 15). NASA investigators determined that Atlantis processing could have been expedited with no skipped safety checks for a February 10 launch. Hence if nothing went wrong there was a five-day overlap for a possible rescue. As mission control could deorbit an empty shuttle but could not control the orbiter's reentry and landing, it would likely have sent Columbia into the Pacific Ocean;[48]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster#Possibl e_ emergency_procedures

You have AMAZING hindsight, almost 20/20

that's not hindsight.
it's not ...

And how in FARK were you going to get off the SPACEHAB module without a VAB so they could dock?

how about they go out the f*cking door like normal people you nitwit!

http://mfwright.com/shuttlejump.html

[www.aero-news.net image 300x225]


That door doesn't open in vacuum.  The only way out in space is through the Airlock (woah, you need to use an airlock to go from pressure to vacuum?   who knew!), WHICH HAPPENED TO BE OCCUPIED BY SPACEHAB.  There wasn't an EVA scheduled on STS107, BECAUSE IT WASN'T POSSIBLE TO DO, THE AIRLOCK WAS BLOCKED IN.
 
2013-02-02 02:52:54 AM
 
2013-02-02 02:56:05 AM

zekeburger: Couldn't the shuttle dock

at the ISS

I seem to recall something at the time that Columbia (being the oldest shuttle) was not designed for high orbits, so it had never been retrofit with the proper collar to dock with the ISS. Though that could have just been part of all the talk that came after the accident.
 
2013-02-02 02:57:47 AM

Nem Wan: C18H27NO3: rickythepenguin: gotta love getting through postgrad school, usually getting a Ph.D., logging thousands of hours of flight time, then being the 1 in 400 or whatever people that apply for and complete NASA training, then of that pool of people, become one of the maybe 35-40 that get into outer space per year, all to become the functional equivalent of Uncle Eddie shouting, "shiatTER'S FULL!" 85 miles above the earth.

Blurb from NASA Astronaut Selection Office:

Applications were accepted for two months with the deadline expiring on January 27, 2012. This year the response to the announcement was tremendous with NASA receiving 6,372 applications. This is the largest number of applications since 1978 which had more than 8,000 submissions.

I just saw the word apply and thought I'd throw that in here.

Interesting. 1978 was also during a long hiatus in U.S. launch capability (post-Apollo, pre-shuttle).


Enterprise tests ended in March, '78
 
2013-02-02 03:02:11 AM

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: I still think they should have at least tried to make it to the ISS.


My understanding is that the Columbia, being the first Shuttle, was just too damn heavy to get up to the altitude of the ISS with a decent sized payload. The other Shuttles took lessons learned from building Columbia and were built lighter. Once NASA started building the ISS, Columbia got all the oddball missions like Hubble servicing flights and deploying Chandra. With the SAPCEHAB inside, Columbia probably couldn't have made it to the ISS even if they were specifically trying to get there (not to mention SPACEHAB  being installed meant they didn't have the right airlock for the ISS).

Basically, if any other Shuttle had had been hit by the ice, it would have been no problem, because it would have been an ISS mission. Send up a few extra Progress capsules with supplies until a new Shuttle could be dispatched or a couple of empty Soyuz capsules could be sent up to retrieve the crew, and it's all good. For Columbia, it meant its doom.

The really sad part of it all is that Columbia's last mission was basically just busy work because Columbia wasn't really worth the trouble to fly once the ISS missions were in full swing. Because of the heavier weight, the other Shuttles could haul a lot more cargo. Outside of the occasional Hubble servicing mission, it was basically the fat kid who got picked last (they were only planning to use it for the ISS mission STS-118 because one of the better Shuttles was in the shop). If they just retired Columbia around 2000 and stuck with ISS missions only (with a Hubble mission here and there), we might not have lost any crew.
 
2013-02-02 03:05:51 AM

Lsherm: Where is this belief that CO2 poisoning is painful coming from?


From medical science. I think you're thinking of CO poisoning - carbon monoxide causes rapid unconsciousness.  CO2, however, does not.

They'd lose consciousness and die.

At extremely high levels, yes.  Levels need to get up to about 10% for 15 minutes to cause unconsciousness.  Shortness of breath starts at around 2%, headache around 4%, tachycardia around 5%, shortness of breath and mental problems around 8%, etc.

The cabin is around 74 cubic meters (74,000 L) of air.  One person produces about 300 mL of CO2 per minute, so seven people produce a little over 2 liters per minute.  To reach the level where unconsciousness occurs (7400 L) takes about sixty hours of exhalation.  They would start feeling symptoms about six hours after CO2 scrubbers have failed.  They then have 54 hours before losing consciousness.
 
2013-02-02 03:06:31 AM

g4lt: relcec: g4lt: "The CAIB determined that a rescue mission, though risky, might have been possible provided NASA management had taken action soon enough.[48][49] They stated that had NASA management acted in time, two possible contingency procedures were available: a rescue mission by shuttle , and an emergency Normally a rescue mission is not possible, due to the time required to prepare a shuttle for launch, and the limited consumables (power, water, air) of an orbiting shuttle. However, Atlantis was well along in processing for a planned March 1 launch on Columbia carried an unusually large quantity of consumables due to an Columbia to stay in orbit until flight day 30 (February 15). NASA investigators determined that Atlantis processing could have been expedited with no skipped safety checks for a February 10 launch. Hence if nothing went wrong there was a five-day overlap for a possible rescue. As mission control could deorbit an empty shuttle but could not control the orbiter's reentry and landing, it would likely have sent Columbia into the Pacific Ocean;[48]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster#Possibl e_ emergency_procedures

You have AMAZING hindsight, almost 20/20

that's not hindsight.
it's not ...

And how in FARK were you going to get off the SPACEHAB module without a VAB so they could dock?

how about they go out the f*cking door like normal people you nitwit!

http://mfwright.com/shuttlejump.html

[www.aero-news.net image 300x225]

That door doesn't open in vacuum.  The only way out in space is through the Airlock (woah, you need to use an airlock to go from pressure to vacuum?   who knew!), WHICH HAPPENED TO BE OCCUPIED BY SPACEHAB.  There wasn't an EVA scheduled on STS107, BECAUSE IT WASN'T POSSIBLE TO DO, THE AIRLOCK WAS BLOCKED IN.


CAIB, the official Columbia Accident Investigation Board, determined that it was possible to send a rescue mission, <i>and</i> that it was possible to do an EVA to try to MacGyver together some repairs. I assume that the NASA engineers were aware of whether or not the astronauts could have gotten outside.
 
2013-02-02 03:07:25 AM
Or they could have gone out in style -- like that guy in SPACE COWBOYS!

Loaded into space suits and hot wired the engines to fire them at the moooooon......

Go big or go home right?
 
2013-02-02 03:15:16 AM

fusillade762: BarkingUnicorn: Amos Quito: Yeah, that's sad, but I suppose that sometimes ignorance is bliss - comparitively.

Apparently their fate was sealed, and nothing could have been done to change the probable outcome. Why make them live their last few hours freaking out?

So given their decision in this case, do you suppose NASA would bother to tell us if they spotted a huge, dark space rock on a collision course for Earth, or just let it be a "surprise"?

I'd rather read about it first on Fark.

Meh. That'd just be a half dozen or so Farkers trying to blame the asteroid on Obama.


But...but...but...Bush?!!!?
 
2013-02-02 03:16:32 AM
Didn't NASA give the very first generation of astronauts cyanide capsules...In case of a scenario akin to this?
Why would they not do the same in this case and let them choose?

They could have made their peace with their families, at least...
 
2013-02-02 03:19:10 AM
i.imgur.com
I don't want another god damn estimate!
 
2013-02-02 03:20:09 AM
Is death like that really instantaneous and so quick so the person really doesn't know what's happening? I've been in a horrific car wreck, and i can still remember every second of it, and it felt like it lasted an eternity. After that, I don't ever believe it when people say "oh, they didn't know what hit them."
 
2013-02-02 03:22:46 AM

NOLA_farkette: Didn't NASA give the very first generation of astronauts cyanide capsules...In case of a scenario akin to this?
Why would they not do the same in this case and let them choose?


Carl Sagan insisted it was true but the astronauts said there were no pills since they could simply vent the air from the cabin for a quick death.
 
2013-02-02 03:25:02 AM

parahaps: g4lt: relcec: g4lt: "The CAIB determined that a rescue mission, though risky, might have been possible provided NASA management had taken action soon enough.[48][49] They stated that had NASA management acted in time, two possible contingency procedures were available: a rescue mission by shuttle , and an emergency Normally a rescue mission is not possible, due to the time required to prepare a shuttle for launch, and the limited consumables (power, water, air) of an orbiting shuttle. However, Atlantis was well along in processing for a planned March 1 launch on Columbia carried an unusually large quantity of consumables due to an Columbia to stay in orbit until flight day 30 (February 15). NASA investigators determined that Atlantis processing could have been expedited with no skipped safety checks for a February 10 launch. Hence if nothing went wrong there was a five-day overlap for a possible rescue. As mission control could deorbit an empty shuttle but could not control the orbiter's reentry and landing, it would likely have sent Columbia into the Pacific Ocean;[48]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster#Possibl e_ emergency_procedures

You have AMAZING hindsight, almost 20/20

that's not hindsight.
it's not ...

And how in FARK were you going to get off the SPACEHAB module without a VAB so they could dock?

how about they go out the f*cking door like normal people you nitwit!

http://mfwright.com/shuttlejump.html

[www.aero-news.net image 300x225]

That door doesn't open in vacuum.  The only way out in space is through the Airlock (woah, you need to use an airlock to go from pressure to vacuum?   who knew!), WHICH HAPPENED TO BE OCCUPIED BY SPACEHAB.  There wasn't an EVA scheduled on STS107, BECAUSE IT WASN'T POSSIBLE TO DO, THE AIRLOCK WAS BLOCKED IN.

CAIB, the official Columbia Accident Investigation Board, determined that it was possible to send a rescue mission, <i>and</i> that it was possible to do an EVA to try to MacG ...


Great, now we have TWO idjits that think they know more about bringing in a Shuttle than LeRoy Cain.
itsfanart.com
 
2013-02-02 03:26:01 AM

TV's Vinnie: The next time Texas whines about not getting a Space Shuttle, remind them that they got the Columbia.


Oh for farks sake don't make me laugh at something like that.
 
2013-02-02 03:31:18 AM
I think I'd rather know than not. We could poke around out there with some spiffy suits and hoses, maybe get Click and Clack on the line while we're troubleshooting.. HAHAHAHAHA. And then say some prayers and tell my mom to take care of my dogs if anything happens.

Astronauts know the risk and I think they should know what is going on with their spacecraft. "Just... let me look at this beautiful planet a little longer, and then we'll give it a go."
 
2013-02-02 03:34:24 AM

rfenster: But...but...but...Bush?!!!?


I actually have a totally insane theory that I came up with blaming Bush for creating the bad karma that led to the Columbia disaster. As I explained above, the other Shuttles were doing ISS missions, and a similar accident there would have been easily identified (possibly fixed) and the crew would would been easily rescued. The Columbia was rarely flown at that point in time because it was not ideal for ISS missions, so there must have been some really bad mojo at work to have a debris strike during the ONE mission where it would have doomed both the vehicle and crew. So why did this bad mojo happen?

My weird theory is that the gods needed to send us an ill omen to try to warn us of the folly of the Iraq War. You typically had comets act as ill omens in the past, and the Columbia coming apart looked much like a comet in the sky. Columbia is also named after the female personification of USA, and to have it explode over the home state of President Bush right before the Iraq War seems to be a clear portent that it is not going to work out well.

So clearly, it is Bush's fault that the Columbia disaster happened. If he had not invaded Iraq, the gods would not have needed to send us the bad omen ahead of time.

/Totally NOT serious, just a crazy theory occurred to me one day
 
2013-02-02 03:36:27 AM
 
2013-02-02 03:38:24 AM

parahaps: g4lt: Hurrrrrrrrrrr

DERP

itsfanart.com
 
2013-02-02 03:40:07 AM

Treygreen13: I admit I chuckled sadly to myself when they said that their spacesuits and helmets wouldn't adequately protect them from the craft exploding and then falling to earth. I mean, that's awful... but... uh... duh.


When the Challenger blew up back in the 80's, the crew cabin survived the explosion and several crew members were found to have manually turned on their emergency oxygen supplies, so they did survive the shuttle breaking up.

The impact with the ocean is what killed them.
 
2013-02-02 04:09:07 AM

g4lt: parahaps: g4lt: Hurrrrrrrrrrr
DERP


So NASA's own investigation says they could have mounted a rescue operation, but you want to claim it isn't true?

Aren't you the most special kind of idiot of all?

The problem here is that NASA threw up it's hands and didn't even try to see if there was a problem when they knew there was a very large chance that the shuttle had suffered damage in the launch.

They intentionally didn't even try to find out how bad it was.

If they had known the truth of the situation, then they could have kicked into Apollo 13 mode and prepped Atlantis  for a rescue mission in record time.
 
2013-02-02 04:13:17 AM

parahaps: g4lt: Hurrrrrrrrrrr

CAIB determined that a rescue mission was possible.
CAIB determined that a rescue mission was possible.
CAIB determined that a rescue mission was possible.
CAIB determined that a rescue mission was possible.

dl.dropbox.com
 
2013-02-02 04:26:25 AM
relcec:

mission control did not KNOW THE SHUTTLE HAD A F*CKING PROBLEM.
they knew there was the potential for one, but they never knew god damit.
they refused an engineer request to get a NSA satellite to take photos of the shuttle because a fatalistic momentum with regard to serious problems developed, BUT STILL THEY DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING WAS WRONG. they knew it was but a possibility.
I'm gonna stay here all night until you f*ckwits get that basic fact into your brains.


They didn't know because they didn't want to know.  They had very good reasons to want to know (like the shuttle might farking disintegrate), but they were criminally incurious and/or lazy.  It's sad really.  The greatest minds the country has to offer and the decision that was made was "fark it, we can't fix it if there's a problem, so why find out if there's a problem ... or even consider ways to fix it."  Embarrassing and depressing, the more I read about it.
 
2013-02-02 04:28:23 AM

Rreal: I've no clue is this bullshiat or not.

Honestly though? think about your neighbors or even your family for a while, think of seven of them locked into something the size of a mobile home.  Now imagine how they'd react if you told them they were going to all die within, say six hours, it was going to be a slow messy death, and there was absolutely nothing they could do about it.

How many of you can honestly say your family would choose to die bravely and nobly, going out in a blaze of glory.   On the other hand, how many would panic, lose their shiat, and try to claw out the throats of everybody else in the place to buy themselves a couple hours of air

Worse, how many would you say would choose to do something Pants on head retarded, and open the door, killing everybody, because damned if -they- were going to go out like a punk.


Given the capacity of the human animal for self destructive panic, I would argue that letting them die quickly and ignorant of their fate would be merciful.




As someone who came extremely close to death once... closer than anyone I know, I can honestly say that's complete bullshiat and almost borderline offensive. While you do feel mildly sorry for yourself, when confronted with death that you have absolutely no control over, in my experience you become extremely accepting of it... and while you certainly don't want to die, a great comfort is found in having dignity in death, which to someone who sees the writing on the wall, is very important.

Id come up with some very special words for my loved ones, and probably say something inspirational about continuing the space program even after we all died... its why we were there, to explore space at the risk of our lives.

These are trained astronauts for farks sake... not walmart employees. They even carry cynide pills.
 
2013-02-02 04:35:25 AM

parahaps: g4lt: Hurrrrrrrrrrr

CAIB determined that a rescue mission was possible.
CAIB determined that a rescue mission was possible.
CAIB determined that a rescue mission was possible.
CAIB determined that a rescue mission was possible.


It was determined that by accelerating the schedule for the above areas, a launch of Atlantis on February 10, 11, or 12 was possible. All three launch dates could have provided a rendezvous and EVA transfer of the crew prior to the depletion of consumables. Two major assumptions, apart from the already stated assumption that the damage had to be visible, have to be recognized - the first is that there were no problems during the preparation and rollout of Atlantis, and the second is the question of whether NASA and the government would have deemed it acceptable to launch Atlantis with exposure to the same events that had damaged Columbia. At this point, at least two of the last three flights (STS-112 and STS-107) had bipod ramp foam problems, and the flight in-between these two, STS-113, was a night launch without adequate imaging of the External Tank during ascent. This new risk to the Orbiter would weigh heavily in the decision process on launching another shuttle and crew. Based on CAIB direction, it was assumed that the Atlantis would have been launched without processing time added to modify the External Tank.

That is from the CAIB report. So yes they could have scrambled together a rescue mission, but it seems that they didn't think it was safe to send the Atlantis because what had happened with the Columbia wasn't fully understood, and something else on the Atlantis needed to be modified because of another issue.
 
2013-02-02 04:45:33 AM
"Not enough air"?

Meanwhile, how much H and 02 did they use up for the de-orbital rocket firing?

"Roger that explosion Apollo 13 - everything's fine".

The Columbia crew were alive until the cabin hit the ocean surface.

I think NASA didn't want to lose the SHIP and the crew was expendable. The Space Orbiter was lost with 100% certainty if abandoned without a de-orbital burn capability.

Disgusting if what I'm thinking is true.
 
2013-02-02 04:51:46 AM
I didn't think the strike looked that bad.


STS-107 Columbia Debris Strike and Foam Strike Tests
 
2013-02-02 04:57:56 AM

Loren: GAT_00: There was nothing they could have done to fix it and telling them would have done nothing.  I don't blame them for that.

That's how I see it, also.  Besides, there was no certainty of loss.

Ed Willy: Obviously this has been updated, but theoretically no way they couldn't move over to the International Space Station as a life line and an international rescue mission be launched? I assume there could be a Space Walk to fix the panels, or at worst jettison it and send it out or orbit, or as a dead satellite until repairs could be made.

No.  Columbia was at 191 mi/39 degrees.  The ISS is at 250..263 mi/51.6 degrees.

If I didn't fark up too badly googling for the formulas the delta-v just to move to the ISS's orbital plane is 3783mi/hr.  It's going to be another 120 ft/sec to climb to the ISS's altitude, 81 mi/hr.  Thus we are up to 3867 mi/hr of delta-v.  Changing orbital planes is an extremely expensive maneuver, you simply don't do it to any substantial degree.

The OMS engines (all that still work at that point--while the mains are still there they have no fuel nor do they have any ignition system even if they did have fuel) only have 681 mi/hr of delta-v when sitting on the pad and some of that is used to circularize their orbit.


nice farking post dude.  Thank you.
 
2013-02-02 04:58:08 AM

acanuck: I think NASA didn't want to lose the SHIP and the crew was expendable. The Space Orbiter was lost with 100% certainty if abandoned without a de-orbital burn capability.

Disgusting if what I'm thinking is true.




This actually seems very plausible.
 
2013-02-02 05:03:44 AM
"At what point did we forget that the Space Shuttle was, essentially, a program that strapped human beings to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math?"

Maybe from Robert Brockway.
 
2013-02-02 05:08:30 AM
Um, not to put to fine a point on it:

1. Literally everyone on the ground knew it was going to end badly, that shiat was in the news basically from launch day unless you lived under a rock.

2. The implication of sinister conspiracy is somewhat undermined by the fact that anything that happens after launch time minus five minutes or so  literally cannot be dealt with because the farking shuttle is already in space, you insufferable douchebag.
 
2013-02-02 05:12:49 AM

NOLA_farkette: Didn't NASA give the very first generation of astronauts cyanide capsules...In case of a scenario akin to this?
Why would they not do the same in this case and let them choose?

They could have made their peace with their families, at least...


I believe I read that the capsule era craft had USAF bomber crew survival kit in it which would have had cyanide pills, enough morphine to od on, and a M1911 .45 calibre handgun so I guess its literally pick your poison.
 
2013-02-02 05:17:26 AM

BullBearMS: g4lt: parahaps: g4lt: Hurrrrrrrrrrr
DERP

So NASA's own investigation says they could have mounted a rescue operation, but you want to claim it isn't true?

Aren't you the most special kind of idiot of all?

The problem here is that NASA threw up it's hands and didn't even try to see if there was a problem when they knew there was a very large chance that the shuttle had suffered damage in the launch.

They intentionally didn't even try to find out how bad it was.

If they had known the truth of the situation, then they could have kicked into Apollo 13 mode and prepped Atlantis  for a rescue mission in record time.


coulda, woulda, shoulda, DIDN'T.  It farking happened a decade ago, LET IT GO ALREADY
 
2013-02-02 05:20:49 AM

ongbok: parahaps: g4lt: Hurrrrrrrrrrr

CAIB determined that a rescue mission was possible.
CAIB determined that a rescue mission was possible.
CAIB determined that a rescue mission was possible.
CAIB determined that a rescue mission was possible.

It was determined that by accelerating the schedule for the above areas, a launch of Atlantis on February 10, 11, or 12 was possible. All three launch dates could have provided a rendezvous and EVA transfer of the crew prior to the depletion of consumables. Two major assumptions, apart from the already stated assumption that the damage had to be visible, have to be recognized - the first is that there were no problems during the preparation and rollout of Atlantis, and the second is the question of whether NASA and the government would have deemed it acceptable to launch Atlantis with exposure to the same events that had damaged Columbia. At this point, at least two of the last three flights (STS-112 and STS-107) had bipod ramp foam problems, and the flight in-between these two, STS-113, was a night launch without adequate imaging of the External Tank during ascent. This new risk to the Orbiter would weigh heavily in the decision process on launching another shuttle and crew. Based on CAIB direction, it was assumed that the Atlantis would have been launched without processing time added to modify the External Tank.

That is from the CAIB report. So yes they could have scrambled together a rescue mission, but it seems that they didn't think it was safe to send the Atlantis because what had happened with the Columbia wasn't fully understood, and something else on the Atlantis needed to be modified because of another issue.


And what, the crew is going to resurrect because someone might have actually had more information on the scene than the 101st keyboard brigade?
 
2013-02-02 05:24:51 AM

BullBearMS: g4lt: parahaps: g4lt: Hurrrrrrrrrrr
DERP

So NASA's own investigation says they could have mounted a rescue operation, but you want to claim it isn't true?

Aren't you the most special kind of idiot of all?

The problem here is that NASA threw up it's hands and didn't even try to see if there was a problem when they knew there was a very large chance that the shuttle had suffered damage in the launch.

They intentionally didn't even try to find out how bad it was.

If they had known the truth of the situation, then they could have kicked into Apollo 13 mode and prepped Atlantis  for a rescue mission in record time.


The CAIB CLEARED THE GROUND CREW.  You all are forgetting that part.
 
2013-02-02 05:25:48 AM

g4lt: LET IT GO ALREADY


I'm not the asshat trying to convince everyone that NASA's own investigation into the matter showing that a rescue was entirely possible is just a load of derp.

If anyone needs to let it go and quit making excuses for a decade old failure, that would be you.

They knew right from the start of the mission that damage to the leading edge of the wing had occurred, but actively shut down any attempts to see how bad it was.

That's a pretty massive cockup.
 
2013-02-02 05:29:33 AM

BullBearMS: g4lt: LET IT GO ALREADY

I'm not the asshat trying to convince everyone that NASA's own investigation into the matter showing that a rescue was entirely possible is just a load of derp.

If anyone needs to let it go and quit making excuses for a decade old failure, that would be you.

They knew right from the start of the mission that damage to the leading edge of the wing had occurred, but actively shut down any attempts to see how bad it was.

That's a pretty massive cockup.


Yet, the CAIB recommended no charges, and the people involved got promotions.  Almost as if THE CAIB DIDN'T FIND ANYONE AT FAULT
 
2013-02-02 05:39:31 AM

g4lt: ongbok: parahaps: g4lt: Hurrrrrrrrrrr

CAIB determined that a rescue mission was possible.
CAIB determined that a rescue mission was possible.
CAIB determined that a rescue mission was possible.
CAIB determined that a rescue mission was possible.

It was determined that by accelerating the schedule for the above areas, a launch of Atlantis on February 10, 11, or 12 was possible. All three launch dates could have provided a rendezvous and EVA transfer of the crew prior to the depletion of consumables. Two major assumptions, apart from the already stated assumption that the damage had to be visible, have to be recognized - the first is that there were no problems during the preparation and rollout of Atlantis, and the second is the question of whether NASA and the government would have deemed it acceptable to launch Atlantis with exposure to the same events that had damaged Columbia. At this point, at least two of the last three flights (STS-112 and STS-107) had bipod ramp foam problems, and the flight in-between these two, STS-113, was a night launch without adequate imaging of the External Tank during ascent. This new risk to the Orbiter would weigh heavily in the decision process on launching another shuttle and crew. Based on CAIB direction, it was assumed that the Atlantis would have been launched without processing time added to modify the External Tank.

That is from the CAIB report. So yes they could have scrambled together a rescue mission, but it seems that they didn't think it was safe to send the Atlantis because what had happened with the Columbia wasn't fully understood, and something else on the Atlantis needed to be modified because of another issue.

And what, the crew is going to resurrect because someone might have actually had more information on the scene than the 101st keyboard brigade?


Uhh, I'm agreeing with you, well in most part. A rescue mission was feasibly possible, but the risk was to great to attempt it.

I just think it is funny how some people want to believe there was some great conspiracy involved or that the people involved were incompetent, and that they know what could have been done. It is even funnier that these people keep pointing to the CAIB report to support their claims a rescue mission could have been done and should have been attempted, when the CAIB itself points out major concerns that would make anybody involved rethink sending anybody else up in those conditions. It seems these people don't understand risk assessment and they think real life space travel is what they see in Star Wars.
 
2013-02-02 05:40:15 AM

relcec: Jensaarai: GAT_00: There was nothing they could have done to fix it and telling them would have done nothing.  I don't blame them for that.

Usually, I appreciate your "defense of government" posts on this site, but in this case you need to go fark yourself raw.

There's the standard risk inherent in space travel, then there is "you will probably die shortly, would you like to wait it out, get yourself in order (spiritually) record any last words now that you know it's likely etc.

Even if there's nothing that can be done, you give the heroes the choice. They are trained to handle it. You don't make the choice for them. NASA farked up here, and none of the people who made this choice deserve to hold a government job ever again.

mission control did not KNOW THE SHUTTLE HAD A F*CKING PROBLEM.
they knew there was the potential for one, but they never knew god damit.
they refused an engineer request to get a NSA satellite to take photos of the shuttle because a fatalistic momentum with regard to serious problems developed, BUT STILL THEY DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING WAS WRONG. they knew it was but a possibility.
I'm gonna stay here all night until you f*ckwits get that basic fact into your brains.


Dude, nobody is going to get that into their heads. There have been at least two books written about the subject and still nobody has gotten the basic idea that the engineers had to convince the top brass that there was enough of  a problem to get photos that would have confirmed there was a problem before they could get the photos that would have convinced the brass there was a problem.

Anything after that (i.e. "They could have attempted a rescue") is Tuesday-evening rehashing of Monday-morning quarterbacking at this point, because without those photos, there's no way to know what might have been seen, let alone done.
 
2013-02-02 05:42:40 AM
Stuff like this is the main reason I don't work for NASA.  That and the fact I can barely count to potato.  But mostly the former.
 
2013-02-02 05:55:26 AM
Idiots, Take One:  It was impossible to mount a rescue mission no matter what, so it doesn't matter that NASA actively shut down any attempt to see how much damage the shuttle took in the launch.

NASA:  It wasn't impossible to mount a rescue mission.

Idiots, Take Two:  It still doesn't matter that NASA actively shut down any attempt to see how much damage the shuttle took in the launch.
 
2013-02-02 06:01:07 AM

Gyrfalcon: There have been at least two books written about the subject and still nobody has gotten the basic idea that the engineers had to convince the top brass that there was enough of a problem to get photos that would have confirmed there was a problem before they could get the photos that would have convinced the brass there was a problem.


It's been long enough so it's difficult to remember what was happening at the time and what has been conflated since then and now but I seem to remember something about them wanting to get a view from inside the shuttle and/or doing a spacewalk to have a look.
I can't recall specifically but I vaguely remember them having ideas on how to see potential damage but something was causing an issue with it so they couldn't, or not as well as desired.
Though as I typed that last sentence it occurred to me that I may be confusing it with a post-Columbia mission that they were taking preventative steps with because of a different anomaly during launch.

Now I'm more confused than when I first started commenting.
 
2013-02-02 06:04:44 AM

costermonger: Rreal: I've no clue is this bullshiat or not.

Honestly though? think about your neighbors or even your family for a while, think of seven of them locked into something the size of a mobile home.  Now imagine how they'd react if you told them they were going to all die within, say six hours, it was going to be a slow messy death, and there was absolutely nothing they could do about it.

How many of you can honestly say your family would choose to die bravely and nobly, going out in a blaze of glory.   On the other hand, how many would panic, lose their shiat, and try to claw out the throats of everybody else in the place to buy themselves a couple hours of air

Worse, how many would you say would choose to do something Pants on head retarded, and open the door, killing everybody, because damned if -they- were going to go out like a punk.


Given the capacity of the human animal for self destructive panic, I would argue that letting them die quickly and ignorant of their fate would be merciful.

I'd suggest that if there's any group that could be told 'there's a good chance what you're about to do will kill you' and  not freak the fark out and do something stupid, it's a group of astronauts.

That said, no point in telling them if there wasn't anything they could do either way.


These people go through an arduous screening process with hours and hours of psychological testing. It's not like they fill out a one page application and are on the space shuttle 10 days later. Either way, it was a terrible thing. I think I would have wanted a chance to say my goodbyes.
 
2013-02-02 06:04:47 AM
A lot of people are mentioning they would have wanted the chance to say good bye to their families. Personally, I think they made those goodbyes before launch. Looking at the odds of dying on a space ship. I'll bet they would have assumed if they are gonna die, it will be during launch; obviously preventing the opportunity for one last good bye. I have to believe that whatever they would have said with those last few hours, they had already said before the launch.
 
2013-02-02 06:07:23 AM
As many said, Columbia wasn't in the proper orbit to make it to the ISS.  However, and I may have missed it, there was another thing.

Columbia couldn't dock with the ISS.  As the oldest (And heaviest) shuttle, it wasn't planned for Columbia to be making that trip, so it was never fitted with the External Airlock/Docking Adapter required to dock with ISS. (Ironically, it was planned to fit this into Columbia for it's next mission as the other shuttles would not be available for an ISS construction mission).

One thing someone brought up, is that Atlantis was well along in processing for a March 1 launch and Columbia carried more consumables than usual, which would have allowed them to stay in orbit until Day 30 (Feb. 15).  The CAIB report indicated that NASA investigators determined that Atlantis could have been sped through processing with no skipped safety checks and launched on Feb 10, giving them 5 days to catch up to Columbia and effect a rescue.

NASA should have used the DoD resources and checked that wing, why they didn't is anybody's guess (Like them not listening to the Morton Thiokol Engineers telling them not to launch Challenger because they knew the O-Rings were affected by cold weather)
 
2013-02-02 06:07:26 AM

Soulcatcher: These people go through an arduous screening process with hours and hours of psychological testing. It's not like they fill out a one page application and are on the space shuttle 10 days later.


From what I've read, NASA astronauts train for 2 years before considered mission-ready.
 
2013-02-02 06:15:56 AM
Read the full CAIB report and you'll learn that the NSA offered to take high rez photos of the shuttle to determine the damage. 

A high NASA official rejected the offer.

It shows me that a $500 million launch is too expensive to save 7 astronauts.

fark NASA
 
Displayed 50 of 419 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report