• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Columbia

When they say in this story they're leaving no stone unturned, I tend to believe them. I wasn't aware of how much telemetry was being given by the shuttle itself as was in flight. I'm not sure how they'd be able to recover the lost data, particularly since the flight computers would have been obliterated along with the rest of the shuttle itself.

As for another point, I'm confused: I thought the flight was handled entirely by the Astronauts themselves, rather than being handled by the Kennedy Space Center. (I may have misread this.) Would anyone have more information on this? I'm checking NASA after I finish here...

By PAUL RECER, AP Science Writer

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - Just before it disintegrated, the space shuttle Columbia experienced a sharp and sudden rise in temperature on its fuselage, NASA said Sunday.

The sharp rise was followed by increased drag on the spacecraft that caused its flight system to adjust its path.

NASA space shuttle program manager Ron Dittemore cautioned that the information was preliminary but said it could suggest that the thermal tiles that are designed to protect the shuttle from burning up during re-entry into Earth's atmosphere were damaged or missing, possibly from an episode earlier in the shuttle's flight.

"We've got some more detective work. But we're making progress inch by inch," Dittemore said.

Dittemore said the engineering data showed a temperature rise of 20 to 30 degrees in the left wheel well of the shuttle about seven minutes before communication was lost with the spacecraft. There was an even more significant temperature rise — about 60 degrees over five minutes — in the middle left side of the fuselage, he said.

The drag on the left wing began a short while later, causing the shuttle's automated flight system to start to make adjustments.

Across Texas and Lousiana, meanwhile, officials were marking the exact satellite measures of the locations where debris was found in hopes it would help reconstruct the accident.

Dittemore said NASA engineers are still trying to recover 32 seconds worth of additional data from the flight computers. But he said the combination of new engineering data and an observer who reported seeing debris from the shuttle while it was still passing over California may create "a path that may lead us to the cause."

The shuttle broke up shortly before landing Saturday, killing all seven astronauts. Most of its debris landed in eastern Texas and Louisiana.

Earlier Sunday, NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe named a former Navy admiral to oversee an independent review of the accident, and said investigators initially would focus on whether a broken-off piece of insulation from the big external fuel tank caused damage to the shuttle during liftoff Jan. 16 that ultimately doomed the flight 16 days later.

"It's one of the areas we're looking at first, early, to make sure that the investigative team is concentrating on that theory," O'Keefe said.

The insulation is believed to have struck a section of the shuttle's left side.

The manufacturer of the fuel tank disclosed Sunday that NASA used an older version of the tank, which the space agency began phasing out in 2000. NASA's preflight press information stated the shuttle was using one of the newer super-lightweight fuel tanks.

Harry Wadsworth, a spokesman for Lockheed, the tank maker, said most shuttle launches use the "super-lightweight" tank and the older version is no longer made. Wadsworth said he did not know if there was a difference in how insulation was installed on the two types of tanks.

Wadsworth said the tank used aboard the Columbia mission was manufactured in November 2000 and delivered to NASA the next month. Only one more of the older tanks is left, he said.

O'Keefe emphasized that the space agency was being careful not to lock onto any one theory too soon. He vowed to "leave absolutely no stone unturned."

For a second day, searchers scoured forests and rural areas over 500 square miles of East Texas and western Louisiana for bits of metal, ceramic tile, computer chips and insulation from the shattered spacecraft.

State and federal officials, treating the investigation like a multi-county crime scene, were protecting the debris until it can be catalogued, carefully collected and then trucked to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.

The effort to reconstruct what is left of Columbia into a rough outline of the shuttle will be tedious and painstaking.

When a shuttle piece was located this weekend, searchers left it in place until a precise global position satellite reading could be taken. Each shuttle part is numbered; NASA officials say experts hope to trace the falling path of each recovered piece.

The goal is to establish a sequence of how parts were ripped off Columbia as it endured the intense heat and pressure of the high-speed re-entry into the atmosphere.

At least 20 engineers from United Space Alliance, a key NASA contractor for the shuttle program, were dispatched to Barksdale for what is expected to be a round-the-clock investigation.

Other experts, including metallurgists and forensic medicine specialists, are expected to join the investigation. Their focus will be on a microscopic examination of debris and remains that could elicit clues such as how hot the metal became, how it twisted and which parts flew off first.

In addition to NASA's investigation, O'Keefe named an independent panel to be headed by retired Navy admiral Harold W. Gehman Jr., who previously helped investigate the 2000 terrorist attack on the USS Cole .

Gehman's panel will also examine the Columbia wreckage, and come to its own conclusions about what happened. O'Keefe described Gehman as "well-versed in understanding exactly how to look about the forensics in these cases and coming up with the causal effects of what could occur."

Joining Gehman on the commission are four other military officers and two federal aviation safety officials.

Officials used horses and four-wheel-drive vehicles to find and recover the shuttle pieces. Divers were being called in to search the floor of Toledo Bend Reservoir, on the Texas-Louisiana line, for a car-sized piece seen slamming into the water.

Some body parts from the seven-member astronaut crew have been recovered and are being sent to a military morgue in Dover Air Force Base in Delaware.

Columbia came apart 200,000 feet over Texas while it was streaking at more than 12,000 miles an hour toward the Kennedy Space Center. A long vapor trail across the sky marked the rain of debris.
 
----
How can we conduct science (and I realize, I'm not the most scientific of individuals here) if we don't actually go into space?
----


We could send really intelligent computers. Once we perfect those, then how about sending people?
 
Goshawk said:
But it's that one photo you took yourself, that brings it all back. You were there. You were really, really--there.

No they weren't. It was all done on a soundstage. ;)

Goshawk said:
The Moon missions wouldn't have meant squat to us if they had all been unmanned. We would have finished the space program with nothing more than a whole trunkful of robot-snapped photos of Moon landscapes and "The-Earth-Seen-from-Space", which would have had about the same emotional value as the trunkful of gift shop postcards that you bring back from your once-in-a-lifetime vacation to Antarctica.

You're right in that regard. The robot we sent to Mars didn't generate anywhere near the sense of wonder. And it wasn't a national event. I remember the night they landed on the moon like it was yesterday.
 
What I thirst for is information from people who habitually watch re-entries. There must be space fans in Hawaii and the western seaboard who watch these, and possibly take pictures every chance they get.

NASA has probably thought of this already.
 
The fact remains that, at a fraction of the cost, a great deal more can be learnt from unmanned as opposed to manned space missions and at no threat to human life.

At present and into the forseeable future there is no need and no ability to populate other planets (let alone other solar systems!). Manned missions into space are really just an enormously expensive feel good public relations exercise not an intelligent cost-effective scientific enterprise.
 
BillyJoe said:
The fact remains that, at a fraction of the cost, a great deal more can be learnt from unmanned as opposed to manned space missions and at no threat to human life.

At present and into the forseeable future there is no need and no ability to populate other planets (let alone other solar systems!). Manned missions into space are really just an enormously expensive feel good public relations exercise not an intelligent cost-effective scientific enterprise.

This may not be the most sound reasoning in the world, but it would seem to me that the fact that we can get there at all is sufficient reason to go in the first place. Yes, there will be losses, but ultimately, what we gain is far greater in the long run.

I disagree about these missions being "feel good" exercises. What we learn with each mission about human anatomy alone would seem to me to be worth each flight. Add to that what we gain in every other scientific endeavor, and I think these missions must continue.
 
Roadtoad,
Roadtoad:

This may not be the most sound reasoning in the world, but it would seem to me that the fact that we can get there at all is sufficient reason to go in the first place. Yes, there will be losses, but ultimately, what we gain is far greater in the long run.

I disagree about these missions being "feel good" exercises. What we learn with each mission about human anatomy alone would seem to me to be worth each flight. Add to that what we gain in every other scientific endeavor, and I think these missions must continue.
So which is it? Should we go only because it's possible to go or should we justify the effort, expense, alternate focus, danger, etc? I'm all for discovery for discovery's sake, since I recognize that the benefits are often unknown beforehand. But the other exploration that we are not undertaking because of the expense of putting humans in space has a hell of a lot of unrealized benefits. What are we learning about human anatomy from manned missions that's not relevant only to the effects of microgravity and other effects of being in space? (I'm not saying it's nothing, but what?) Of all other scientific experimentation, what cannot be accomplished with unmanned missions.

I am not advocating eliminating all manned space flight. For instance, the Hubble telescope repair would not have been possible with an unmanned mission. But the manned space station is a giant resource drain away from a lot of what can be accomplished with unmanned exploration. Why do we do it? To keep the public interested enough to want to favor putting any money toward space.
 
HGC, I remain convinced the space station can eventually be justified. How easily at this early stage, I don't know. Yes, costs are high, but perhaps this will lead to space flight being accomplished a lot cheaper in the future. But the only way I believe it will work is if we are there aboard the thing.

Just as an FYI: Don't know if anyone has seen this one, but I've heard about this from Kitplanes magazine. Eric Lindbergh is on the board of this organization. Maybe NASA ought to be spending a little more time with these folks. Some incredible possibilities are showing up. I don't think this can be limited to "Tourism."

http://www.xprize.org/
 
I have to agree with hgc (and others). While there is a limited role for manned space flight, far more science can be accomplished with robots. The Voyager probes were fantastically successful. Equipment failures were overcome and mission parameters changed enroute, with breath taking results.

When a Martian probe crashed because of a metric to english unit error, it was a disaster, but not a tragedy.

With human space missions, 99% of the mission costs are related to life support. It is unfortunate that our space program relies so heavily on manned flight. The shuttle has not proven to be the cheap, reliable vehicle originally envisioned, but there is no alternative launch vehicle for civilian use in this country.

One ironic consequence of the Cold War was Russia's development of relatively cheap and reliable heavy booster rockets. THe Shuttle program is one reason we have not developed a similar capability...
 
patnray said:
One ironic consequence of the Cold War was Russia's development of relatively cheap and reliable heavy booster rockets. THe Shuttle program is one reason we have not developed a similar capability...

What you're talking about is the "Big Dumb Booster" which NASA rejected years ago. This was about launch vehicles which were made of steel as opposed to aluminum, using cheaper fuels, and simpler electronics. They were a lot slower, and not as spectacular, but for pennies on the dollar (comparatively), we could have launched satellites into orbit, and had more cash on hand for other purposes.

With liquid fuels, apparently, they have greater control, and it's a safer burn, consequently, and would have prevented some of the problems that resulted in the loss of Challenger. What's bothering me is that we could still go with the BDB program, but there's no will in Congress to go along with that. Congress would need to approve it, and instead there's too much support at home for the more expensive programs. Go figure that one out.
 
Let's see what comes of this. I recall this sort of thing was reported in regards to Challenger...

NEW YORK (Reuters) - After an expert panel warned that its space shuttles were facing safety troubles if the agency's budget was not raised, NASA removed five of the panel's nine members and two consultants in what some of them said was a move to suppress their criticism, The New York Times reported on Monday.

The incident was recalled after the space shuttle Columbia broke up over Texas on Saturday, killing all seven astronauts aboard.

Retired Adm. Bernard Kauderer, was so upset at the firings that he quit NASA's Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, a group of experts charged with monitoring safety at the space agency, the newspaper said.

NASA conceded the individuals were forced out, but told the Times it changed the charter of the group so that new members who were younger and more skilled could be added. "It had nothing to do with shooting the messenger," a NASA spokeswoman told the newspaper.

NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said he was surprised by the report and that each member of the panel head served out his full term.

"There's no abnormality I'm aware of, but I'll certainly look into it and see if we can satisfy ourselves that there's no other intrusion involved," he told CNN.

The panel's most recent report, which came out last March and included analyzes by the six departed members, warned that work on long-term shuttle safety "had deteriorated," the article said. Tight budgets, the panel report said, were forcing an emphasis on short-term planning and adding to a backlog of planned improvements.

"I have never been as worried for space shuttle safety as I am right now," Dr. Richard D. Blomberg, the panel's chairman, told Congress in April. "All of my instincts suggest that the current approach is planting the seeds for future danger," the Times reported.

His worry was "not for the present flight or the next or perhaps the one after that." He added, "One of the roots of my concern is that nobody will know for sure when the safety margin has been eroded too far," the newspaper said.

Members of Congress who heard testimony from the panel last spring told the Times that they would re-examine whether budget constraints had undermined safety, but several said they doubted it.

O'Keefe said Blomberg "was concerned about the future process at that time, of exactly what would be the upgrades as well as the safety modifications necessary. We took those ideas aboard."

President Bush will propose a nearly $470 million boost in NASA's budget for fiscal 2004, an administration official said on Sunday, promising investigators would look into whether past cutbacks played any part in the Columbia disaster.
 
Roadtoad said:
Members of Congress who heard testimony from the panel last spring told the Times that they would re-examine whether budget constraints had undermined safety, but several said they doubted it.

On virtually any issue, congress hears testimony, but it's a political process where they listen to the experts who say what they want to hear. Congress is unlikely to find any fault in their own processes. Remember that they were warned, annually, by security experts that emphasis on missile defense was misplaced because any attack was far more likely to come from planes or automobile. Nevertheless they lined their pockets with contributions from the defense industry, voted billions for missile defense, and did nothing to bolster security in other areas. Since 9/11 they have been vocal in criticizing the agencies they ignored, but have never questioned their own misplaced priorities.

Expect them to put the heat on NASA but absolve themselves...
 

Back
Top Bottom