Posted on 02/09/2003 12:45:30 AM PST by Arthalion
After reading some of the skeptical responses to NASA's push towards a "space junk" explanation for the Columbia loss, I did a little searching on the web. You see, I recalled a story from several years back explaining how we almost lost a shuttle once before when a tiny speck of space debris pegged one of the shuttles windows and blew out a good sized chunk of glass.
In my search for background material to support a post about this, I stumbled across something MUCH better: a National Research Council findings document about the dangers of space junk compiled in 1997. Some of the more interesting tidbits:
By 1995, the number of reported window impacts had increased dramatically, and the debris hazard had forced planners to modify plans for shuttle mission STS-73. In September 1995, the space shuttle program manager established a Space Shuttle Meteoroid and Debris Damage Team to review the environment modeling and orbiter modeling, to assess the potential for damage from meteoroids and orbital debris, and to "recommend concepts and methods to reduce risk to critical orbiter areas" (Holloway, 1995).
...
In 1995 and 1996, significant impacts occurred on the orbiter's payload bay door and rudder speed brake, as well as on the tethered satellite pallet....[shuttle program manager] further stated that "mission planning and design should be implemented with the objective of not exceeding a probability of critical penetration of 1/200...
...
The allowable risk of 1/200 means that the hazard from meteoroids and orbital debris is, on some missions, the single greatest threat to the shuttle and crew, slightly larger than the hazard from ascent...
...
The shuttle orbiter has been struck many times by small meteoroids and orbital debris, but it has not yet been damaged severely. Because it was not designed with the meteoroid and orbital debris hazard in mind, however, some orbiter components are at risk of being damaged by meteoroids or debris. This damage can range from damage that does not affect a mission but increases refurbishment costs (such as pitting of window surfaces) to damage that could force the crew to abort a mission (such as penetration of a radiator pipe) to damage that would prevent the orbiter from successfully returning to Earth (such as a large hole in the leading edge of a wing) to damage that would rapidly result in the loss of life or the vehicle (such as a collision with a large fragment from the breakup of a spacecraft). Astronauts conducting extravehicular activities are also at risk from meteoroids and orbital debris.
http://www.nap.edu/html/shuttle/
Not quite true. In order for the closing velocity to be this high, the bolt would have to be orbiting in a retrograde fashion- hard to imagine, since launches are done to the East to take advantage of the rotational speed of the Earth. Of course, this does not apply to meteors, which could approach from any direction (except for the portion of the orbital shell protected by the Earth itself...)
Perhaps- but it is also a very CONVENIENT theory for NASA, isn't it? Pretty much would get them off the hook.
I expect to see a public disagreement between NASA engineers and NASA management over this accident. Of course, the press will "spin" it the way management wants- because they have the flacks and control the money.
Now that NASA is out of the shuttle business for the next couple of years, I see that they've created a new mission: covering management's asses.
Hey there,HiTech . . . I'm not doin' anything special next Wednesday . . . so wuddaya say we zip upstairs and capture a few itty-bitty meteoroids . . . ya know, kinda sorta just so's we can also capture some nifty FReeper Braggin' Rights ???
.
Alright, here is the main problem.
The flying camel was not designed with running into space junk in mind.
Stop the presses. We're going to send the camel around space at 17,000+ MPH. but we are going to make it out of styrofoam.
Dittemore and company didn't design this POS, they are just charged with flying a disaster waiting to happen.
Sh!t happens, if they keep flying this POS, it will happen again.
Ground them and design something mission specific, not a flying camel!
What makes you think that is a NEW mission? That has been their primary mission since CHALLENGER blew up. And the press goes along, printing self-serving NASA press releases as though they were real news stories.
By the way, try to dig through the dense fog of obfuscation and downright lies that NASA spreads over the country like a blanket, and find out what the REAL, TOTAL cost of a space shuttle is. Don't neglect maintenance and launch costs. Is what we get from the manned space program worth it? I'm not sure anymore.
Seriously, I have never seen a convincing argument that the useful things the STS does could not be handled by unmanned (and MUCH cheaper) rockets. The ONLY reason there are people on these things is for the media exposure, and the fund-raising clout that goes along with that in Congress.
I know that someone will bring up the repair of the Hubble- but it would undoubtedly have been cheaper to send up a new one than to spend what we have on the Shuttle program.
And the Space Station is a very questionable endeavor, as well. Has NASA stopped to think that if they manage to convince us that low Earth orbit is so full of "space junk" that it is unsafe for a Shuttle for a few days, they are making the argument as well that the ISS is doomed???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.