PHY_Hawkeye 0 Posted February 3, 2003 Even if NASA wanted to keeo their findings from the public, I think they'd have a hard time doing so. After all we've already seen one leaked document from this mission. Hopefully they will find a way to make the docking system for coupling with the ISS a permanent fixture. So when a danger of re-entre arises, they can dock and figure something out. On the subject of a new propulsion system for escaping into space, SCRAM jets have been considered as another option, although I don't think this is feesable. I'm gonna have a few conversations with some of my Physics Professors, see what they think. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bernadotte 0 Posted February 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 04 2003,00:o4)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I find it unbelievable that NASA doesn't have far better radars then that.<span id='postcolor'> A good friend's dad works for NASA developing radar. Â They launch needles into space and develop the means to track them. Â The project name is: Haystack Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted February 3, 2003 I found this on a Swedish newspaper's site. I havn't seen it on CNN or anywhere else for that matter but its quite possible that I've just missed it. The picture shows two cracks on the left wing. The picture was taken during a video conference between Ariel Sharon and Ilan Ramon. During the conversation Ramon wanted to show Sharon what a view of the earth he had. He happend to capture the left wing on tape too. Edit: Found another refrence to that 'Photograph shows cracks on shuttle's wing' </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Jerusalem - The Israeli newspaper Maariv on Monday published a picture of the American space shuttle Columbia apparently showing two cracks on its left wing. The picture was taken 11 days before the shuttle broke up on its way back to Earth on Saturday, killing all seven crew members. The photograph was extracted from footage taken by a camera onboard the shuttle during a live satellite video conference between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Colonel Ilan Ramon, the first Israeli to travel to space. During the 15-minute conversation with Sharon and other Israeli officials, Ramon offered to share his view of Earth from the shuttle. The video caught part of the shuttle's left wing, showing two "long" cracks, according to the newspaper. The fissures could have been the cause of the technical problems experienced by the shuttle which led to its breakup over Texas, 16 minutes before it was due to land, the newspaper stated. "Even if Nasa had discovered the cracks that appeared at take-off, it would not have been able to do anything to save the crew," the article read. The newspaper report drew a guarded response from Tim Stevenson, an engineer at the Space Research Centre at Britain's University of Leicester. In a telephone interview Stevenson said that although he had not seen the pictures, what appeared to be cracks might actually be a trick of light. "You can't see very much of the wing from inside the space station," he said. "It may be that the shot you see there is of antennas. There are thin wires that run along the hinge of the payload bay doors and (in a picture) they would appear in contrast. They would appear over the wing as a thin line." He added: "To be honest, the crew would have observed (a big crack) very quickly, particularly if it was big enough to be observed in any kind of video footage, and they would have acted very differently if they had observed it." Another point, he said, was that a large, visible crack on the top surface of the wing "would manifest itself as a structural failure very early on. "Given the point at which Nasa said the break-up occurred, the shuttle would have already undertaken its S-turn manoeuvres (to slow its descent), which are relatively stressful. "To put it bluntly, if the wing was going to break up, it was going to break up a long time before that point," he said. Nasa's space shuttle programme director Ron Dittemore said on Sunday that Columbia had seen a significant rise in temperature on the left side in the minutes leading to its disintegration. Dittemore said the drag on the left increased and the onboard computer tried to correct it by bringing the shuttle to the right. The drag could be "indicative" of a missing heat tile or a rough tile on one of the wings. The shuttle had 24 000 protective tiles that resist the intense heat which envelopes the craft as it re-enters the Earth's atmosphere. Dittemore emphasised that there was no firm theory as to the cause of the disaster, stressing that the investigation was continuing. - Sapa-AFP <span id='postcolor'> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted February 3, 2003 Well, they did mention the rate of descent etc. I don't believe they were referring to radar data when they said all contact was lost. The problem is, shortly after contact was lost the shuttle was in pieces, and what they really want to know is the alignment of the shuttle before and after the first peice fell off, and what pice actually came off first. (like leading edge of wing, or wheel assembly) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted February 3, 2003 I'll be honest with everyone here, the piece that hit the wing looks much bigger than 32x20in. they estimated the size from the missing material on the tank. Unfortunately, there is little depth perception from a camera and so.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Harnu 0 Posted February 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Feb. 04 2003,00:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Feb. 03 2003,17:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(Please note these guys are still hopless with the imperial system, the cause of many errors  )<span id='postcolor'> I assume you mean the English system?<span id='postcolor'> Inches, feet, miles, pounds.  I am watching.<span id='postcolor'> That way when some other country steals our blueprints they have a hell of a time trying to read them. Well no, but ya know what I mean. But in America we do use both systems, metric (Kilo, and gram mostly), but that's more so for drugs Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted February 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Even if Nasa had discovered the cracks that appeared at take-off, it would not have been able to do anything to save the crew,"<span id='postcolor'> I don't know about that one... if they actually thought that the wing wouldn't make it back in, I think they might have gotten it through the atmosphere by sacrificing the rest of the vehicle. (abandoning asap) Also they could have probably joined the 3 on the space station. EDIT: What you do is you reorganize the sequence of banking on approach to dissipate more of the energy through the center-right side of the craft. What you do NOT do is pitch left at the worst stress point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PHY_Hawkeye 0 Posted February 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 03 2003,23:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I found this on a Swedish newspaper's site. I havn't seen it on CNN or anywhere else for that matter but its quite possible that I've just missed it. The picture shows two cracks on the left wing. The picture was taken during a video conference between Ariel Sharon and Ilan Ramon. During the conversation Ramon wanted to show Sharon what a view of the earth he had. He happend to capture the left wing on tape too. Edit: Found another refrence to that 'Photograph shows cracks on shuttle's wing' </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Jerusalem - The Israeli newspaper Maariv on Monday published a picture of the American space shuttle Columbia apparently showing two cracks on its left wing. The picture was taken 11 days before the shuttle broke up on its way back to Earth on Saturday, killing all seven crew members. The photograph was extracted from footage taken by a camera onboard the shuttle during a live satellite video conference between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Colonel Ilan Ramon, the first Israeli to travel to space. During the 15-minute conversation with Sharon and other Israeli officials, Ramon offered to share his view of Earth from the shuttle. The video caught part of the shuttle's left wing, showing two "long" cracks, according to the newspaper. The fissures could have been the cause of the technical problems experienced by the shuttle which led to its breakup over Texas, 16 minutes before it was due to land, the newspaper stated. "Even if Nasa had discovered the cracks that appeared at take-off, it would not have been able to do anything to save the crew," the article read. The newspaper report drew a guarded response from Tim Stevenson, an engineer at the Space Research Centre at Britain's University of Leicester. In a telephone interview Stevenson said that although he had not seen the pictures, what appeared to be cracks might actually be a trick of light. "You can't see very much of the wing from inside the space station," he said. "It may be that the shot you see there is of antennas. There are thin wires that run along the hinge of the payload bay doors and (in a picture) they would appear in contrast. They would appear over the wing as a thin line." He added: "To be honest, the crew would have observed (a big crack) very quickly, particularly if it was big enough to be observed in any kind of video footage, and they would have acted very differently if they had observed it." Another point, he said, was that a large, visible crack on the top surface of the wing "would manifest itself as a structural failure very early on. "Given the point at which Nasa said the break-up occurred, the shuttle would have already undertaken its S-turn manoeuvres (to slow its descent), which are relatively stressful. "To put it bluntly, if the wing was going to break up, it was going to break up a long time before that point," he said. Nasa's space shuttle programme director Ron Dittemore said on Sunday that Columbia had seen a significant rise in temperature on the left side in the minutes leading to its disintegration. Dittemore said the drag on the left increased and the onboard computer tried to correct it by bringing the shuttle to the right. The drag could be "indicative" of a missing heat tile or a rough tile on one of the wings. The shuttle had 24 000 protective tiles that resist the intense heat which envelopes the craft as it re-enters the Earth's atmosphere. Dittemore emphasised that there was no firm theory as to the cause of the disaster, stressing that the investigation was continuing. - Sapa-AFP <span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'> I saw it today on UTV and CNN. I dunno, but I don't see how that can be the wing. Look at the Orbiter, to me it looks like there are no viewports that would allow a crewember that kind of view tof he wing from inside. Maybe it's just me. bn880: They couldn't have docked with the ISS, there was no docking mechanism onboard the Orbiter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted February 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PHY_Hawkeye @ Feb. 03 2003,18:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">bn880: They couldn't have docked with the ISS, there was no docking mechanism onboard the Orbiter.<span id='postcolor'> Okay, so scratch that one out... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted February 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PHY_Hawkeye @ Feb. 04 2003,00:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">bn880: They couldn't have docked with the ISS, there was no docking mechanism onboard the Orbiter.<span id='postcolor'> They could have probably "parked" near ISS and gotten the crew over through the cargo bay. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted February 4, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 03 2003,18:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PHY_Hawkeye @ Feb. 04 2003,00:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">bn880: They couldn't have docked with the ISS, there was no docking mechanism onboard the Orbiter.<span id='postcolor'> They could have probably "parked" near ISS and gotten the crew over through the cargo bay.<span id='postcolor'> I don't know, did they have any equipment for space walks at all?? PS: if they had just one suit, maybe they could have figured out a way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bernadotte 0 Posted February 4, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 02 2003,12:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...And apparently NASA was unable to inspect this shuttle in orbit for possible damage from the insulation foam that broke off during launch. Â They didn't have adequate spacewalking capabilities and there was no robotic arm with camera. Â Besides they've not yet developed a technique for repairing tile damage in space, so there wasn't much point, they say. Two Questions: 1. Â If spy satellites can read an earthbound coin from space couldn't earthbound (or even U2 aircraft born) spy cameras have inspected the shuttle's left wing? 2. Â And if seriously damaged couldn't a rescue craft have been sent up? Â Or couldn't they have sought shelter at the ISS? In fact, I suspect that all this may have been considered and the final decision to risk a re-entry simply came down to economics. <span id='postcolor'> Adding to what I said 2 days ago, I strongly suspect that NASA knew about the damage and the associated risk at re-entry. Perhaps they left it up to the shuttle crew to decide whether a rescue craft should be sent. Perhaps the crew chose to risk it. Perhaps they'd have been paraded as extraordinary heroes had they survived, but now it's best kept secret. And if any of this turns out to be the case I wonder if they had a chance to involve their loved ones in the decision. Â It could explain why Ilan Ramon's wife chose the wake-up song that she did. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PHY_Hawkeye 0 Posted February 4, 2003 I think they only carry two suits on each mission. If even that many. Also, I dought they would have had an MMU abord. Without one of those, leaving the Orbiter is very dangerous. Edit: It would take AT LEAST a week (and thats streaching pre-flight to the bare minimum and putting the crew at extream risk, if it's even possible) to prep another shuttle. And a heck of allot longer to send up a shuttle and crew that could actually do some good. The Columbia wouldn't have had enough life support to wait that long. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Warin 0 Posted February 4, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Feb. 04 2003,00:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't know about that one... if they actually thought that the wing wouldn't make it back in, I think they might have gotten it through the atmosphere by sacrificing the rest of the vehicle. Â (abandoning asap) Also they could have probably joined the 3 on the space station. EDIT: What you do is you reorganize the sequence of banking on approach to dissipate more of the energy through the center-right side of the craft. Â What you do NOT do is pitch left at the worst stress point.<span id='postcolor'> There was no way for the Shuttle to match orbits with the ISS (As far as I know), They were in a lower orbit, and likely wouldnt have had enough fuel for a burn to match orbits. And I am pretty sure it could have docked with the ISS. Shuttles have been docking there for ages. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PHY_Hawkeye 0 Posted February 4, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 04 2003,00:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And I am pretty sure it could have docked with the ISS. Â Shuttles have been docking there for ages.<span id='postcolor'> Yes, but the docking mechanism isn't standard on the shuttle, it's only fitted on missions to the ISS. Columbia didn't have one on this mission. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted February 4, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 03 2003,19:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Feb. 04 2003,00:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't know about that one... if they actually thought that the wing wouldn't make it back in, I think they might have gotten it through the atmosphere by sacrificing the rest of the vehicle. (abandoning asap) Also they could have probably joined the 3 on the space station. EDIT: What you do is you reorganize the sequence of banking on approach to dissipate more of the energy through the center-right side of the craft. What you do NOT do is pitch left at the worst stress point.<span id='postcolor'> There was no way for the Shuttle to match orbits with the ISS (As far as I know), They were in a lower orbit, and likely wouldnt have had enough fuel for a burn to match orbits. And I am pretty sure it could have docked with the ISS. Shuttles have been docking there for ages.<span id='postcolor'> Maybe, this kind of boarding speculation we are doing is interesting, but, the problem remains that they somehow were not worried enough to do anything about it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bernadotte 0 Posted February 4, 2003 Additional info: - they could do space walks but lacked enough tether to safely reach the wing's underside - they were in a completely different orbit than the ISS coming no nearer than a few hundred kms - another shuttle could have been sent in time with enough room to return all 7, but without completing any safety checks - Â had they been able to reach the ISS they would have had to do a spacewalk to its airlock because there was no docking ring - there were enough spacesuits but no handheld propulsion units Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted February 4, 2003 I wanted to say, that a difference in orbit of a few hundred meters doesn't take all that much energy to match... I think they had the fuel, but we might never know. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted February 4, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 03 2003,19:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">- there were enough spacesuits but no handheld propulsion units<span id='postcolor'> 3 words: boot in ass Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted February 4, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 04 2003,01:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">- they were in a completely different orbit than the ISS coming no nearer than a few hundred kms<span id='postcolor'> They still had their maneuvering thrusters and probably some auxiliary cryogenic fuel for the main engines. I don't see why it would be impossible to move to another orbit. Especially since the space station is in a low orbit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PHY_Hawkeye 0 Posted February 4, 2003 But rember we're not just talking about the vertical distance (in relation the the earths surface). There is also the matter of the period of their orbits. The Coulmbia would have had to use a fare amount of fuel to match angular velocity with the ISS. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted February 4, 2003 Time to ask NASA about this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted February 4, 2003 Absolutely, but since they had enough fuel for a precise re-entry, I think it would be possible. I did some checking however and found that Columbia was on a height of about 278 km while the ISS is orbit on a height of 340 km. It is very unlikely that they would have the fuel to go in that direction and to get an appropriate angular velocity. Gravity is a bitch Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PHY_Hawkeye 0 Posted February 4, 2003 Well there's a guy in our Physics department who just got back from a years placement with NASA. Maybe I'll find him and get some answers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bernadotte 0 Posted February 4, 2003 The NASA interview posted earlier by theavonlady is where I found much of my info. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Because Columbia was in an entirely different orbit than the space station, it did not have enough fuel to fly to the orbiting outpost.<span id='postcolor'> ...also... </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NASA did not attempt to examine Columbia's left wing with high-powered telescopes on the ground, 180 miles below, or with spy satellites. The last time NASA tried that, to check Discovery's drag-chute compartment during John Glenn's shuttle flight in 1998, the pictures were of little use, Dittemore said. Besides, he said, "there was zero we could have done about it." Similarly, NASA did not ask the crew of international space station to use its cameras to examine the wing when the two ships passed within a few hundred miles of each other several times over the past two weeks.<span id='postcolor'> I find that rather hard to believe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
