Replies

The crew was had EV suits on the mission. Dittemore explained that in one news conference, explaining they might need to manually close the shuttle cargo bay doors. Evidently there are always EV suits.

Teathers would have allowed them access to the bay, something else he admitted. The damage we are now hearing about talks about damage to the leading edge of the wing. Peering over the edge of the cargo bay, an astronaut could have likely seen the damage as desribed from the photo.

It seems to me that NASAs can't do attitude screwed this pooch from day one. No photos were requested, couldn't help. No EVA was requested, couldn't possibly see any damage.

There were two EVA suits onboard. I have read that there is a disagreement as to whether an EVA could have been performed through the hatch in the tunnel leading to the SpaceHab. Maybe it could.

Even if a tethered EVA could have been performed there was no way that the underside of the orbiter could have been examined. No handholds on the fuselage or wing in order to pull onesself along and remain stationary. Had they had an MMU onboard, which they didn't, then they should have tried that option.

Seems as though NASA has gotten complacent along with most of the public about the Shuttle. After reviewing quite a few of the flight synopses one can see that there is a certain amount of damage to the tiles that occurs on every single flight. Should the fleet have been grounded until a better insulating system was developed and a zero tolerance policy been adapted? From now on a "worst case" mindset should probably be adopted on every flight. Limit the size of the crew. Always carry enough fuel and a docking collar to get to the ISS. Always carry at least one MMU and an EVA suit for each crewmember. The possibility that the leading edge of the port wing was damaged wasn't thought of until the telemetry data from reentry was gone over and they still haven't determined with certainty that that did in fact occur. Based on previous experience with the ET shedding insulation the conclusion was reached that damage serious enough to cause a problem had not occurred.

The decision to leave the orbiter and tanks exposed to nearly two weeks of rain while on the pad will be looked at. Should a cocoon encasing the whole pad be developed that can be opened/removed prior to fueling and launch. Did water penetrate the insulation during the rain and then freeze as it ascended causing it to fracture and dislodge. A high speed computer should be examining every frame of video shot in real time of the launch so a decision to execute a TAL can be made before the Shuttle reaches orbit. Should the decision to abort be made by a computer and not the launch director. Is the idea of a reusable spacecraft and all the safety measures that would have to be in place to virtually guarantee that there would be no danger of a loss too cost prohibitive to make it worthwhile. Should everyone at NASA be fired and should the space program be privatized.