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  
•       •       •

27031 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 11:14:16 AM  

StokeyBob: STS-107 Columbia Debris Strike and Foam Strike Tests


Holy fark.
 
2013-02-02 11:15:58 AM  

OnlyM3: costermonger
Like a double-hull dealy? Module within the shuttle? That'd still be weight they didn't want to add to the design, and unless you can somehow eject it to clear the tumbling wreckage, it probably doesn't save you from all the g-forces and such associated with in-flight breakup at those kinds of speeds. Even if it could maintain a livable atmosphere. Your weight comment is certainly on the money, but you are aware that the Challenger astronauts survived the explosion and decent, right? (It was the impact w/ the Atlantic that killed them all).


The challenger accident involved lower speeds and less heat/stresses on the crew compartment, which continued on an upward trajectory. There was not an "explosion" and the cabin followed a ballistic trajectory to it's initial impact with the ocean.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE1Xl5BtqbU for more info)
 
2013-02-02 11:19:52 AM  
Quite frankly I'm not sure what the issue is. Astronauts are quite aware of the risk and compensated accordingly.  Everything relating to the mission is to serve the interests of the State on behalf of the tax payers.  While their lives are a tragedy, the shuttle is arguably more valuable than lives of the astronauts. Their controllers thought there were more important considerations than communicating every detail solely for personal reasons, the importance of the mission comes first.
 
2013-02-02 11:26:04 AM  

The Snow Dog: DrPainMD: 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"?


/Eat, drink, Fark and be merry, folks

I would rather have the opportunity to say good-bye to my family.


I would like the opportunity to rampage, fornicate, steal some really expensive booze, do a bunch of heroin, and set some really big fireworks off sideways.


This is precisely why, if a planet-killing asteroid were inbound, those in the know (if we're not blindsided) would choose not to tell us. There'd be pure chaos in our final hours and mankind would be wiped out, less what little dignity we have.
 
2013-02-02 11:27:23 AM  

bluorangefyre: Oh sure if they could've made it to the ISS they could've probably risked spacewalking into one of the airlocks, but both the shuttle and ISS only carried so many spacesuits.


If the choice is walk or fry you do the transfer even without suits.  Get the airlock to airlock and have someone in a suit there stuff them in the ISS lock as they'll probably pass out before they make it on their own.

bluorangefyre: Had it been caught on launch instead of on replay, a TAL abort could've been called, but then again you're flying Mach 2+ at that point with a hole in your wing. Cutting the main engines, jettisoning the SRBs but leaving the ET hooked up would probably slow you down to subsonic speeds a lot quicker than jettisoning the ET right away, good enough to bail out. But again, that's assuming the hole in the wing didn't severely alter the aerodynamic profile, rendering it pointless to try.


If it were caught on launch why jump?  (And was jumping even an option on Columbia??)  The damage didn't render the shuttle unairworthy.  Just fly it back.  The hard part here is the timeframe--even if they saw it how long would it take them to figure out that the strike was enough to scrub the mission?

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


Some of us have already worked out the delta-v requirements--they were horribly short on fuel to make it.  They would come nowhere near the ISS and they would burn their re-entry fuel in the process.  That means they wouldn't even be able to try to come down, it would be certain death.

Lsherm: Where is this belief that CO2 poisoning is painful coming from? They'd lose consciousness and die. They still wouldn't know they were going to die - they'd just pass out. Death would come later.


Dying of CO2 buildup isn't fun especially if it's slow.  What you are thinking of is dying of oxygen depletion--that is entirely painless and you're likely not even aware of it.
 
2013-02-02 11:28:04 AM  

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.


There's also limited oxygen on the ISS that's calculated for the assigned needs of the crew and their duration.  Adding 7 more bodies which generate heat individually and who must metabolize oxygen themselves with an already limited supply would put the others in danger if the systems can't keep up.  So instead of 7 possible dead bodies, you now have 10.
 
2013-02-02 11:30:19 AM  
g4lt
Yet, the CAIB recommended no charges, and the people involved got promotions. Almost as if THE CAIB DIDN'T FIND ANYONE AT FAULT
Because accountability is the hallmark of government.
 
2013-02-02 11:32:35 AM  

OnlyM3: First I said this months ago ... I'll not hold my breath for the apology from the tools that said I was wrong.


13 parents got to bury their children due to NASA administrators purposeful actions.
If karma exists at all, karma will grant those responsible the same privilege.


In all fairness, there wasn't much to bury.
 
2013-02-02 11:44:22 AM  
This just in: Space travel is kind of dangerous. Next up: Lowering the danger is expensive, and later on, no new taxes? It's your call.
 
2013-02-02 11:47:41 AM  

edmo: The ending might have been inevitable but it's in NASA's and America's DNA to go down fighting. There are a slew of things that could have been attempted before just sending them home on schedule.


QFT. Without going into details, I have personally kept swinging as I went down fighting, thinking I had no chance, and was lucky enough to grab death by the balls on the way down and yank myself back up.

impaler: But between the choice of 100% death, and less than 100% death, the choice is obvious.


You use Mudd's logic, of course...

Spock: The guilty party has his choice. Death by electrocution, death by gas, death by phaser, death by hanging.

kingtheory.xomba.com 
Mudd: The key word in your entire peroration, Mister Spock, was, death. Barbarians. Well, of course, I left.


 
2013-02-02 12:00:53 PM  

aerojockey: costermonger: 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.

Don't be too sure (Not safe for fark picture):

http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2011/05/02/134597833/cosmonaut-cra sh ed-into-earth-crying-in-rage


yeah, but that guy was a cosmonaut.
 
2013-02-02 12:02:54 PM  

OnlyM3: First I said this months ago ... I'll not hold my breath for the apology from the tools that said I was wrong.

Second... gat is F.O.S. as usual...
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.

1) Abort the assent. They saw the impact DURING launch and immediately knew it would was a terminal event.
Yes, launches can be aborted mid flight
Ask an Astronomer at Cornell University
space-shuttle.com
I know some have claimed otherwise. The same liars that will now have to admit they were lying all this time.

2) Resuce was possible.
The Columbia Accident Investigation Board ("the Board") Report Volumes II through VI, containing Appendices D through H, will be made public in the coming weeks. Appendix D.13 in Volume II will contain Board technical documents covering the rescue mission that NASA, completely reversing course, finally admitted was feasible

--and --

Pages 173-176 of Volume I (Section 6.4) summarize the Board's conclusion that an attempt to rescue the Columbia crew by using Atlantis was indeed feasible, contradicting the numerous previous statements by NASA.
Much like previous statement from NASA saying "we didn't know" were a lie.

Sink in yet? Rescue WAS POSSIBLE. NASA decided to murder those 7 instead.

13 parents got to bury their children due to NASA administrators purposeful actions.
If karma exists at all, karma will grant those responsible the same privilege.


cdn.smosh.com
 
2013-02-02 12:16:12 PM  
That decision strikes me as disrespectful and undignified. They should have told them so they had the opportunity to close out their life properly, saying goodbye and anything else they needed to say to their loved ones. They could have received a warm flood of thank you for your sacrifice from the world.

These people were highly trained, highly disciplined, courageous individuals. They could have handled it and probably would have appreciated the respect. Then, they could still TRY to make it anyway, knowing the likely outcome.

\had a summer internship at NASA JSC doing research on the heat resistant tiles in the nineties
 
2013-02-02 12:18:50 PM  

LewDux: 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"?


/Eat, drink, Fark and be merry, folks

[oi49.tinypic.com image 320x214]



i1121.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-02 12:44:26 PM  

OnlyM3: Your weight comment is certainly on the money, but you are aware that the Challenger astronauts survived the explosion and decent, right? (It was the impact w/ the Atlantic that killed them all).


Yeah, the Challenger didn't actually explode either, it was just water vapour that made it look like it did. The Challenger was broken up by the off-axis airflow it experienced after the stack started to fail. The thing that made it's breakup relatively survivable was that it occurred at relatively (compared to re-entry) slow speed and in thicker atmosphere, so heat wasn't really a concern and the denser air broke the shuttle apart very quickly, separating the crew module. Columbia was a lot faster and a lot higher, so it was less of an aerodynamic failure than a thermal one - so it failed a lot more gradually and could conceivably induce a lot more physical strain on the crew because the crew module wouldn't get spat out the front neatly like Challenger. Interestingly (sadly, maybe) the Columbia's crew module did remain intact remarkably long too (something like a minute after the breakup started).

The problem for some kind of escape capsule for use in re-entry vehicle failure is that if it's flight is anything other than stable, it's useless. It needs to orient it's heat shield into the oncoming air *and* not induce physiologically unacceptable g-forces while doing so.

Four Horsemen of the Domestic Dispute: [www.popsci.com image 525x394]
Ice and foam had always been falling off that tank.  They could never figure out how to stop it.  The damage had always been a few tiles here and there.  They examined the launch video and determined that there wasn't damage.   This guy that is blogging is full of crap.  They came to the conclusion that there wasn't any damage.  These guys just hate to admit they were wrong.  By making up this crap he's basically saying 'we knew there was damage'  we weren't wrong.  Notice he says this now,  AFTER his boss died.  Because his boss would have called him on the BS.


Columbia happened because NASA management allowed 'that isn't behaving the way it was designed to, but it didn't hurt anything important' to turn into - over the length of the shuttle program - 'it's not supposed to do that, but it can't do any real damage'. They knew there was potential for some damage - in fact their simulations said it might be so bad that they actually believed there was some error in the simulation - but they effectively brushed it off because none of the previous 105 cycles had led to serious problems.

From a safety management perspective, it's fascinating. So many smart people making so many false assumptions.
 
2013-02-02 12:44:27 PM  
For anyone wondering why they just didn't bailout and parachute like the red bull guy did from the balloon, it's because the shuttle was moving at Mach 17 and like the shuttle, you would simply burn up from the heat generated by friction and/or be torn apart by the Mach 17 speed.

Or you could try this suit on I guess...

images1.wikia.nocookie.net

Happy Landings.

A Rescue Shuttle was their only chance and I didn't see that addressed in the article.
 
2013-02-02 12:47:57 PM  

Amos Quito: LewDux: 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"?


/Eat, drink, Fark and be merry, folks

[oi49.tinypic.com image 320x214]


[i1121.photobucket.com image 426x452]


profile.ak.fbcdn.net
 
2013-02-02 01:53:01 PM  
fark nasa...and all of their lies.
 
2013-02-02 01:57:20 PM  
i know they are liars....about everything.

i have seen our future.

"nasa"...is not invited.
 
2013-02-02 02:26:54 PM  
AlwaysRightBoy:
It's a real hard call, if they knew what the odds were, it's rather disturbing that they wouldn't let them have a last conversation with their loved ones.

Isn't that something to be done before taking off?
 
2013-02-02 02:27:00 PM  
... getting in a space suit and strapping his ass over the hole in the shielding on the outside just for the off hand chance that the rest manage to make it while he's incinerated totally, it would at least be doing something.

cache.wists.com

Obligatory.
 
2013-02-02 02:37:02 PM  

namatad: 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"?


/Eat, drink, Fark and be merry, folks

because you farking asshole
they had families and children and friends
they could have spent their last hours saying their goodbyes
instead the nasa pukes "killed" them ....

so sad


This isn't "Armageddon," idiot
 
2013-02-02 02:43:39 PM  
On the early Shuttle missions, there was the recurring problem of the insulation tiles falling off. During those missions, one of the crew would space walk and replace the missing heat resistant tiles with some type of Space Shuttle "Bondo".

Why couldn't that have been done with Columbia?
 
2013-02-02 02:48:14 PM  

EngineerAU: faeriefay: But what about that red bull guy, the one who supposedly jumped from space this summer...
/he lived?

He jumped from 1/8th the distance above Earth than that of the Space Shuttle.


From effective standstill, not orbital velocity.

I'd think that if you jumped out of anything in orbit, it would take you a LOOOONG time to come down, what with also being in orbit and all.
 
2013-02-02 02:49:04 PM  
Maestro1701

>>> they had families and children and friends
>>> they could have spent their last hours saying their goodbyes
>>> instead the nasa pukes "killed" them ....
>>> so sad

This isn't "Armageddon," idiot
he didn't say it was. Why is lying the only way you know to refute a point?
 
2013-02-02 03:12:27 PM  

pedrop357: DrPainMD: I would rather have the opportunity to say good-bye to my family.

THIS!

I would have wanted to orbit until my air ran out.  Make peace with people, etc.


You wouldn't have done that before you left?

You're going into space, not down the road to the chemist.
 
2013-02-02 03:16:54 PM  

Nayman: The one thing I haven't heard anyone mention is the landing gear...

I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but...

I seem to remember reading that what ultimately caused the breakup was the heating of the main tires. They heated to the point of exploding, and that sheared the wing clean off, causing tumbling and breakup and such...

I'm wondering if that tire had been deflated, maybe the structure would have held together just long enough to make it through the deceleration and then maybe they could have bailed (I think shuttles had an in-atmosphere escape system) or just landed on deflated gear and hoped for the best.

Of course, this is all hindsight, and deflating the main gear would have been adding tons of danger to what might have been a non-problematic landing... Also, maybe you can't get to the tires in space... Might only open those doors in atmosphere...

And also maybe you can't deflate them without special tools, and I doubt you're gonna want to just slash them...

Also, maybe the air venting would screw up their attitutude due to venting...

WHO KNOWS! CONSPIRACY~!¿!?!
 "W?



It was apparently the increased drag from the damaged wing which caused Columbia to yaw off-axis beyond the capacity of the attitude-control thrusters to compensate for. The shuttle was then no longer stable and started to tumble, and at Mach 17 the aerodynamic forces literally tore the shuttle apart.

If the tires did actually burst (instead of leaking air gradually), the crew would have heard and/or felt it. No mention was made of anything like that before communications were lost, and by that time the shuttle was already yawing at the maximum rate the sensors could read out (10 deg/sec, IIRC)
 
2013-02-02 03:26:50 PM  

namegoeshere: pedrop357: DrPainMD: I would rather have the opportunity to say good-bye to my family.

THIS!

I would have wanted to orbit until my air ran out.  Make peace with people, etc.

You wouldn't have done that before you left?

You're going into space, not down the road to the chemist.


No no, going into space is perfectly safe!  You're not strapping yourself to a giant tube of combustibles specifically made to be JUST not fragile enough to fall apart, and flicking your Bic.

Why, if you told the astronauts that it might be dangerous, they might refuse to go!
 
2013-02-02 03:27:25 PM  
couldn't they have sent up bruce willis and ben afflack to rescue them? surely no?
 
2013-02-02 03:47:54 PM  
Everyone knew. I did.

"Sir, the heat shield is damaged, part fell off."

"Oh, what do they need that for?"

"Re-entery sir"

"Oh, well they probably don't really need it, tell em to come back in anyhow."

"Sir?"
 
2013-02-02 03:50:25 PM  

C18H27NO3: 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.


I have this same memory. I also am not 100% sure about it though.
 
2013-02-02 03:52:57 PM  

C18H27NO3: 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.


And they still occasionally end up driving cross country in diapers to try (and fail) to kill their pretend-lover's lover.
 
2013-02-02 04:02:32 PM  
If the tires did actually burst (instead of leaking air gradually), the crew would have heard and/or felt it. No mention was made of anything like that before communications were lost, and by that time the shuttle was already yawing at the maximum rate the sensors could read out (10 deg/sec, IIRC)

Actually, the tire pressure sensors DID indicate increased pressures (heat) then failed....well documented in the transcripts and in the board's final report in telemetry sections. And there is no indicator that the crew felt or heard a burst, just the sensor data they were sharing with ground.  They did know that something major was wrong causing [apparently] anomalous readings in multiple systems -- never a good thing.

Keeping them in the dark about the probabilities and theories -- a HORRIBLY wrong thing, on every level.
 
2013-02-02 04:39:25 PM  

jerrytaylor: If the tires did actually burst (instead of leaking air gradually), the crew would have heard and/or felt it. No mention was made of anything like that before communications were lost, and by that time the shuttle was already yawing at the maximum rate the sensors could read out (10 deg/sec, IIRC)

Actually, the tire pressure sensors DID indicate increased pressures (heat) then failed....well documented in the transcripts and in the board's final report in telemetry sections. And there is no indicator that the crew felt or heard a burst, just the sensor data they were sharing with ground.  They did know that something major was wrong causing [apparently] anomalous readings in multiple systems -- never a good thing.

Keeping them in the dark about the probabilities and theories -- a HORRIBLY wrong thing, on every level.



Yes, the tires were being heated, but that wasn't the cause of the shuttle's breakup. And (again, IIRC from the CAIB report) the specific cluster of anomalous readings, including the tire pressures, pointed to overheating of the left wing. Given the known foam strike to the wing, at least some of the NASA people on the ground knew exactly what was happening as the catastrophe developed.

I agree that keeping the astronauts ignorant was wrong. After all, nobody was more aware of the fact that they were putting their lives on the line with every flight. In this case, they would have had several minutes after the telemetry pattern became clear to say their good-byes, but that's about all they could have done.
 
2013-02-02 04:43:53 PM  

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.


that's a lie.

according to the article about the door and escape scenarios the it faces out and is pyrotechnically ejected.
the door is literally blown off the shuttle with explosives you lying sob. if anything the presence of a vacuum in space would make it easier, not harder, and obviously not impossible, to blow off the door. that said they astronauts need to get in their suits and equalize pressure between the inside and outside before blowing the hatch so they don't get blown out with the atmosphere inside the shuttle.
it was in the first link I posted. here it is again.
http://mfwright.com/shuttlejump.html


first you lie about there being no way out because of a lack of a door on the shuttle besides in the cargo bay, then you make up a ridiculous lie about the hatch not opening in a vacuum.

seriously, wtf do you get out of spending 6 hours of your time dissembling, misinforming, and straight creating fantastic and incredible fabrications out of whole cloth about the Columbia disaster and the death of 7 of our finest on this forum?

wtf is wrong with you?
 
2013-02-02 05:04:13 PM  

jerrytaylor: If the tires did actually burst (instead of leaking air gradually), the crew would have heard and/or felt it. No mention was made of anything like that before communications were lost, and by that time the shuttle was already yawing at the maximum rate the sensors could read out (10 deg/sec, IIRC)

Actually, the tire pressure sensors DID indicate increased pressures (heat) then failed....well documented in the transcripts and in the board's final report in telemetry sections. And there is no indicator that the crew felt or heard a burst, just the sensor data they were sharing with ground.  They did know that something major was wrong causing [apparently] anomalous readings in multiple systems -- never a good thing.

Keeping them in the dark about the probabilities and theories -- a HORRIBLY wrong thing, on every level.



the theory was that nothing was wrong.
the shuttle had never experienced life threatening damage in 100 missions even though those foam strikes on the tiles happen quite often and tiles had even been knocked off.

the assumptions, theories, and estimations of mission control proved faulty, and perhaps with a different organizational structure these problems would have gotten worked out prior to a disaster, but I think that also means there absolutely wasn't an active decision taken to withhold information from the crew. they knew that there was a possibility of serious structural damage, but they thought it was extremely unlikely, and this affected the decision making all down the line.

it's just an unfortunate example of how bad humans can be at rating risk, especially after a long series of examples of successfully avoiding it are presented, and the tendency of groups of people to reinforce their bad decisions or something.
 
2013-02-02 05:32:17 PM  

relcec: 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.

that's a lie.

according to the article about the door and escape scenarios the it faces out and is pyrotechnically ejected.
the door is literally blown off the shuttle with explosives you ly ...


C'mon, farking REALLY?!  Are you that stupid?  Hatches that have to get blown off aren't meant to be resealed in space, nor are they airlocked.  Opening that hatch was a one-way trip, and if anyone wasn't suited up, they're a casualty.  But of course, go rightafarkinghead and say that in 20/20 hindsight, it was plausible to pop that hatch and walk the hell over to the ISS.  Physics, how does it farking work? At reentry, that shuttle crew cabin was literally the only 15PSI air within thousands of miles, yet you wanted to blow that out a hatch, yet it's *NASA* that was irresponsible?  Dipshiat.
 
2013-02-02 06:08:34 PM  

g4lt: according to the article about the door and escape scenarios the it faces out and is pyrotechnically ejected.
the door is literally blown off the shuttle with explosives you ly ...

C'mon, farking REALLY?! Are you that stupid? Hatches that have to get blown off aren't meant to be resealed in space, nor are they airlocked. Opening that hatch was a one-way trip, and if anyone wasn't suited up, they're a casualty. But of course, go rightafarkinghead and say that in 20/20 hindsight, it was plausible to pop that hatch and walk the hell over to the ISS. Physics, how does it farking work? At reentry, that shuttle crew cabin was literally the only 15PSI air within thousands of miles, yet you wanted to blow that out a hatch, yet it's *NASA* that was irresponsible? Dipshiat.



exactly, a one way trip to the SHUTTLE ATLANTIS which is the only rescue mission I've mentioned in about 20 posts now. the columbia could never reach the ISS anyway - too far sway. why are you lying about the shuttle not having a hatch and a hatch that doesn't open in space? are you really this dumb, or are you one something?
 

this was your Weeners to me, to a reply I sent someone else:


http://www.fark.com/comments/7570363/Watubi: The choice wasn't how they were to die, it was whether or not NASA wanted to have a permanent grave floating in space.  The public would have demanded they retrieved the bodies and NASA, not being able to do it, would have to deal with two publicity disasters instead of one


relcec: except for the entire part about The Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) saying the crew could have been saved by the shuttle Atlantis. nevermind that your idea that they couldn't retrieve bodies or anything similarly sized from orbit at a later date is incredibly asinine. if you aren't even cognizant of the fact that the shuttle can pick shiat up in space, really wtf are you doing in here? you know most nine year old boys are probably aware of that.


"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#Possi bl e_ emergency_procedures

g4lt: You have AMAZING hindsight, almost 20/20
 
2013-02-02 06:45:15 PM  

relcec: g4lt: according to the article about the door and escape scenarios the it faces out and is pyrotechnically ejected.
the door is literally blown off the shuttle with explosives you ly ...

C'mon, farking REALLY?! Are you that stupid? Hatches that have to get blown off aren't meant to be resealed in space, nor are they airlocked. Opening that hatch was a one-way trip, and if anyone wasn't suited up, they're a casualty. But of course, go rightafarkinghead and say that in 20/20 hindsight, it was plausible to pop that hatch and walk the hell over to the ISS. Physics, how does it farking work? At reentry, that shuttle crew cabin was literally the only 15PSI air within thousands of miles, yet you wanted to blow that out a hatch, yet it's *NASA* that was irresponsible? Dipshiat.


exactly, a one way trip to the SHUTTLE ATLANTIS which is the only rescue mission I've mentioned in about 20 posts now. the columbia could never reach the ISS anyway - too far sway. why are you lying about the shuttle not having a hatch and a hatch that doesn't open in space? are you really this dumb, or are you one something?


this was your Weeners to me, to a reply I sent someone else:


http://www.fark.com/comments/7570363/Watubi: The choice wasn't how they were to die, it was whether or not NASA wanted to have a permanent grave floating in space.  The public would have demanded they retrieved the bodies and NASA, not being able to do it, would have to deal with two publicity disasters instead of one


relcec: except for the entire part about The Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) saying the crew could have been saved by the shuttle Atlantis. nevermind that your idea that they couldn't retrieve bodies or anything similarly sized from orbit at a later date is incredibly asinine. if you aren't even cognizant of the fact that the shuttle can pick shiat up in space, really wtf are you doing in here? you know most nine year old boys are probably aware of that.


"The CAIB determined that ...


Yeah, be cause you would have farking solved the problem, amirite?  Farking ITG
 
2013-02-02 07:12:35 PM  

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


You're thinking of Challenger.
 
2013-02-02 07:55:31 PM  
I wonder if the Russians could have had a capsule or two ready quicker, and if they could even dock with the space shuttle.

I wonder how much longer they could have stayed up there, I have to think that they would have been able to survive for a week or two.  I would have to think that they could have launched a mission with a shuttle to get them in that time to get the astronauts.   And then once you figure out how to fix the problem, figure out who would go back up there to pilot it back down.
 
2013-02-02 08:33:15 PM  

Witness99: That decision strikes me as disrespectful and undignified. They should have told them so they had the opportunity to close out their life properly, saying goodbye and anything else they needed to say to their loved ones. They could have received a warm flood of thank you for your sacrifice from the world.

These people were highly trained, highly disciplined, courageous individuals. They could have handled it and probably would have appreciated the respect. Then, they could still TRY to make it anyway, knowing the likely outcome.

\had a summer internship at NASA JSC doing research on the heat resistant tiles in the nineties


As has been clarified in the thread, NASA did NOT know ahead of time.

As far as the whole argument that the crew should be told in a situation like this in order to allow them to say their goodbyes, etc...I will leave you with this thought:

I'm rather sure that these highly trained, highly disciplined and courageous individuals were smart enough to get their emotional and personal affairs in order LONG BEFORE they strapped their asses to a thousands of gallons of highly flammable material and rode it into space.  Astronauts and their families ARE prepared for these types of situations in every way possible.
 
2013-02-02 08:44:49 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: jerrytaylor: If the tires did actually burst (instead of leaking air gradually), the crew would have heard and/or felt it. No mention was made of anything like that before communications were lost, and by that time the shuttle was already yawing at the maximum rate the sensors could read out (10 deg/sec, IIRC)

Actually, the tire pressure sensors DID indicate increased pressures (heat) then failed....well documented in the transcripts and in the board's final report in telemetry sections. And there is no indicator that the crew felt or heard a burst, just the sensor data they were sharing with ground.  They did know that something major was wrong causing [apparently] anomalous readings in multiple systems -- never a good thing.

Keeping them in the dark about the probabilities and theories -- a HORRIBLY wrong thing, on every level.


Yes, the tires were being heated, but that wasn't the cause of the shuttle's breakup. And (again, IIRC from the CAIB report) the specific cluster of anomalous readings, including the tire pressures, pointed to overheating of the left wing. Given the known foam strike to the wing, at least some of the NASA people on the ground knew exactly what was happening as the catastrophe developed.

I agree that keeping the astronauts ignorant was wrong. After all, nobody was more aware of the fact that they were putting their lives on the line with every flight. In this case, they would have had several minutes after the telemetry pattern became clear to say their good-byes, but that's about all they could have done.


The tire was destroyed (what was left was found in the debris) but the wjng broke up because the hot air going in the hole in the RCC acted like a plasma cutting torch and cut through some of the structure.
 
2013-02-02 09:01:27 PM  

SarcasticFark: Witness99: That decision strikes me as disrespectful and undignified. They should have told them so they had the opportunity to close out their life properly, saying goodbye and anything else they needed to say to their loved ones. They could have received a warm flood of thank you for your sacrifice from the world.

These people were highly trained, highly disciplined, courageous individuals. They could have handled it and probably would have appreciated the respect. Then, they could still TRY to make it anyway, knowing the likely outcome.

\had a summer internship at NASA JSC doing research on the heat resistant tiles in the nineties

As has been clarified in the thread, NASA did NOT know ahead of time.

As far as the whole argument that the crew should be told in a situation like this in order to allow them to say their goodbyes, etc...I will leave you with this thought:

I'm rather sure that these highly trained, highly disciplined and courageous individuals were smart enough to get their emotional and personal affairs in order LONG BEFORE they strapped their asses to a thousands of gallons of highly flammable material and rode it into space.  Astronauts and their families ARE prepared for these types of situations in every way possible.


Also, I'd be shocked if NASA, a highly regimented, risk analysis oriented organization didn't already have policy in place on whether or not to tell the crew of a hopeless situation, and the astronauts would know the policy and the reasoning behind it.

/whether or not that policy would've been relevant in this case is irrelevant to this point
 
2013-02-02 09:31:47 PM  
If this is truly what happened, that's a total BS dick move from whomever made the decision.  These are astronauts we're talking about, they know taking a ride on a rocket to outer space, then falling back down to Earth is risky business.  I sincerely hope they would not freak out if they were given the bad news, if so, we really need to review the entire Astronaut selection process.  I'm fairly certain they would be logical enough to know they're nothing that could be done and there best chance of survival was still re-entry, but they could of delayed re-entry at least until everyone had a chance to say goodbye to their loved ones.

Here's how you break the news to them:

"Challenger, we have reports that some significant damage was sustained to the ship during take-off.  We have looked into the possibility of launching a rescue mission, but as you know, by the time the shuttle is prepared and ready for take-off your ship would have been starved for oxygen for over a week.  Our recommendation is that you take your chances with re-entry.  We think you'll be alright, but wanted to give you the opportunity to say goodbye to your loved ones incase we're wrong."

Don't say:

"Challenger, this is NASA... ha ha, of course it's us, who else can call you?  Okay, but seriously, the heat shield on the ship has been severly damaged, you're all probably going to die.  Sorry for the bad news, just wanted to give you a heads up"
 
2013-02-02 10:37:41 PM  
When we were kids, we used to ask "what's the worst death".  I'm not sure what happened up there on that day, but I hope it was quick.
/godspeed
 
2013-02-02 10:39:05 PM  

GRCooper: As far as the whole argument that the crew should be told in a situation like this in order to allow them to say their goodbyes, etc...I will leave you with this thought:

I'm rather sure that these highly trained, highly disciplined and courageous individuals were smart enough to get their emotional and personal affairs in order LONG BEFORE they strapped their asses to a thousands of gallons of highly flammable material and rode it into space. Astronauts and their families ARE prepared for these types of situations in every way possible.

Also, I'd be shocked if NASA, a highly regimented, risk analysis oriented organization didn't already have policy in place on whether or not to tell the crew of a hopeless situation, and the astronauts would know the policy and the reasoning behind it.

/whether or not that policy would've been relevant in this case is irrelevant to this point


QFT
 
2013-02-02 10:41:33 PM  
Part of me is mad at the US for spending billions on weapons but just letting the astronauts burn up. I guess corporations are people, so why not put a price tag on human lives?
 
2013-02-02 10:57:27 PM  
You couldn't have just had them change orbit to get to the ISS, could you, NASA? Sure it might have been cramped there but at least they wouldn't have died, and could have been useful while awaiting rescue.
 
2013-02-02 11:20:24 PM  

khyberkitsune: You couldn't have just had them change orbit to get to the ISS, could you, NASA? Sure it might have been cramped there but at least they wouldn't have died, and could have been useful while awaiting rescue.


Two of us gave the numbers on why this was utterly impossible.  (DarthBart pulled a NASA with the units on the OMS Δv which understated the problem by a factor of 3.)
 
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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report