New shuttle video

MSNBC

[Henk]

New video apparently released showing parts coming off shuttle during launch. Nothing further...video was inconclusive due to MSNBC screwup.

[cmsgop]

So I guess I won't be seeing it.....

[RightWhale]

Too late to play the game of IF, but if the shuttle had flown to the ISS like most shuttle launches instead of flying a separate mission in an entirely different orbit, the shuttle would have been thoroughly examined all around at the ISS and the crew would have been put up in the hotel until repairs were made.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Do you mean that the "video was inconclusive due to MSNBC screwup" was when they just aired it or when it was originaly recorded"

[Dog]

NASA releases a video.....but MSNBC screwed it up .......you lost me??

[FReepaholic]

>>... but if the shuttle had flown to the ISS ...<<

Columbia could not go on missions to the ISS. It was too heavy.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

...but if the shuttle had flown to the ISS like most shuttle launches instead of flying a separate mission in an entirely different orbit...

The 40,000 lb. science lab they carried in the cargo bay pretty much ensured that Columbia could not have carried enough fuel to achieve synchronous orbit with the ISS. Unfortunate.

[Lokibob]

The ISS is not a space hotel. It has limited resources and a job to do.

[NonZeroSum]

If they'd been going to ISS, they wouldn't have been carrying the Spacehab.

[roadcat]

">>... but if the shuttle had flown to the ISS ...<<

Columbia could not go on missions to the ISS. It was too heavy."

And it didn't have the docking components. Even if columbia got there, no dock. The crew wasn't prepped for spacewalks either.

[Physicist]

Furthermore, Columbia had no mechanism by which it could have docked with the ISS.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

If they'd been going to ISS, they wouldn't have been carrying the Spacehab.

If they'd been going to the ISS, they probably wouldn't be dead.

That was the gist of my reply. It wasn't their mission to go to the ISS. Moot point.

[NonZeroSum]

If the Columbia's mission had been to ISS, it would have had a docking adaptor. People are missing the point. It's not that this particular mission could have gone to ISS, but that if an Orbiter did go to ISS, it would have had a much better chance than one that, like Columbia, went out into the wilderness.

[RightWhale]

Columbia could not go on missions to the ISS. It was too heavy.

Interesting. Atlantis, Discovery, and Endeavor went to the ISS, but it doesn't appear that Columbia did.

[RightWhale]

It has limited resources

The main limitation is the ability to recover everyone on the ISS at once in case of emergency. They could put up an extra 7 astronauts for a period of time.

[aristeides]

Columbia was considerably heavier than the other shuttles. That being the case, loading it with the new superheavy Space Hab 2 lab on its last, fatal flight now looks like a serious mistake. None of the experiments conducted on that flight that we have been told about sound as if they were all that vital.

The weight increased the kinetic energy, and thus heat, on the reentry.

[NautiNurse]

Columbia could not go on missions to the ISS.

Good point. Atlantis, Discovery, and Endeavor are the three shuttles with ISS capabilities.

[Procyon]

The folly of the Space Shuttle and ISS: The space station can't do much science and the Columbia couldn't service the space station -- so NASA gives the otherwise useless Columbia a science mission.

Now we have three shuttles. How many total flights a year can go to the ISS to finish the construction? And how many years before more Soyuz "rescue" capsules can be manufactured to replenish ISS three-man escape system? On future Shuttle missions to ISS, how long could ISS support it's crew of three and the shuttle's crew of 4 to 7 if a later Shuttle is deemed damaged and unable to safely return to earth?

[meia]

Actually, as I understand it, Columbia was scheduled to visit the ISS later this year. I think for this mission it was too heavy to visit the ISS.

[roadcat]

"Interesting. Atlantis, Discovery, and Endeavor went to the ISS, but it doesn't appear that Columbia did."

The point others are making, is that Columbia as the first space-going shuttle was not built to support a docking mechanism. The later shuttles were designed with docking in mind. Columbia could not be retrofitted without exorbitant costs.

The original designs for space shuttles were for a lighter smaller craft to achieve high orbit and docking with space stations, but the NASA engineers were over-ruled by military dictates for a larger shuttle to put big payloads into low Earth orbit (recon-satellites etc.). As built, it was too heavy to go beyond a few hundred miles up, and wasn't designed to dock.