Columbia Rescue Was Possible With Atlantis

Florida Today ^ | May 21, 2003 | John Kelly

[AJFavish]

CAPE CANAVERAL -- A rushed launch of a rescue shuttle. Two orbiters drifting in tight formation at 17,500 mph. A series of harrowing spacewalks to move astronauts from one crippled shuttle to one that could bring them safely back to Earth.

[AJFavish]

[The stupidity of NASA officials was a primary cause of the death of the Columbia astronauts, in my opinion. My reasons were presented by Hugh Sprunt on February 5, 2003, just 4 days after the deaths at http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/5/92140.shtml The rest of the media has ignored Sprunt's work. And now we get the article posted above.

Regards,

Allan J. Favish
http://www.allanfavish.com

[Travis McGee]

Past time to dump the shuttle.

[jlogajan]

First attempts at test blasting foam into tile sections has shown little damage -- just as their impact models suggested.

At the time there was no reason to suspect significant tile damage -- and the actual reason has not yet been established.

Past experience had shown that earth based images of the shuttle were too low of resolution to identify even significant tile damage.

Talk about a rescue mission is simply day dreaming by Monday morning quarterbacks.

[Freedom4US]

What I want to know is how well adhesives and such operate in zero grav and/or space. As on old crew-chief, we don't go anywhere without a "walk-around" prior to taking off. In this case I guess they were taking on, or down or whatever. But anyway, I woulda been out there with J-B Weld and some asbestos mats or something. Surely inspection procedures will change prior to re-entry.

[Fredsterman]

J-B Weld has "Saved the day". I guess that high-tech engineers could learn from the people actually doing the work?

[Timesink]

The new scenario came out of a request by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, which asked NASA to study what flight controllers might have done to save the crew if decision-makers realized early on that Columbia's heat shield would not hold up under the intense heat of atmospheric re-entry.

Which they didn't, making all of this moot.

[Wacka]

One BIG problem. The science lab was attacheed to the airlock. How could the rescuers get space suits to the crew? The orange suits are for launch + re-entry,not for orbit.

[Fledermaus]

Why couldn't they have just docked with the space station and wait until we could pick them up with either another shuttle or a few Russian rockets?

I have yet to hear why this wasn't possible.

[Dave S]

Why couldn't they have just docked with the space station and wait until we could pick them up with either another shuttle or a few Russian rockets? I have yet to hear why this wasn't possible.

Well then you never read any of the shuttle threads on FR. The shuttle doesnt have enough propulsion for it to move up to the higher orbit and catch the internationl space station. It may look like a jet fighter but its really a glidder. Its raised into orbit by the huge rocket on which its attached at launch. Its onboard propulsion system is good only for course correction burns or changing attitude of the craft. Sending the craft several hundred miles higher wasnt in the cards. Shuttle was stuck in orbit or land.

[DoughtyOne]

IMO the sons of bit-hes that run the program should be mothballed first!

[quietolong]

Never heard of Gemini 6 & 7 or Apollo 13.
If they can fix a satellite they could fix the shuttle. I would have tried. And do a “ Walk around before you fly. This also could be done.
And if we could keep ICBM’s ready to blow up the world for years. How hard would it be to have a rescue capsule ready to go.

The other day I was reading Life’s Man in Space issue. And realized some interesting numbers

All US loss of life Space disasters came at the end of Jan.
Apollo 1 --- Jan 27 1967
Challenger - Jan 28 1986 ( almost a digit flip here with Apollo 1)
Columbia -- Feb 1 2003 ( haven’t checked yet but I think it was still Jan 31 over were it was when started retro firing.) ( 31-13 )

This was the 113th shuttle flight

And Apollo 13 13’s
Lift off 13:13 on Apr 11 1970 explosion happend on the 13th.
This has me looking for more “ interesting numbers “ in these events.

[capitan_refugio]

Unlike the remaining orbiters, Columbia was not capable of docking with the space station, even if it had the fuel to get there.

[Jay D. Dyson]

Why couldn't they have just docked with the space station and wait until we could pick them up with either another shuttle or a few Russian rockets?

I have yet to hear why this wasn't possible.

Even if the shuttle had possessed enough fuel to make it to the ISS (which it didn't), there would have been nothing that could have been done since the couplers to dock with the space station were not loaded on that mission. That's standard operating procedure: anything that's not planned for use isn't loaded.

What these monday morning rocket scientists really need to do is stop thinking everything they see on the Sci-Fi channel is real. Because, contrary to popular belief, space travel is neither easy nor risk-free. NASA simply has both the blessing and curse in having made it look that way since the 1960s.

-Jay

[mewzilla]

A) I wouldn't call it Monday morning quarterbacking since lives depend on correcting mistakes. 2) I just wish they'd do it before lives are placed at risk. No extra fuel and no docking ring on that flight. What were they planning on doing if they realized the shuttle couldn't land? Why couldn't they have asked that question before lift-off?

[Poohbah]

The Columbia couldn't even REACH that orbit. She was the heaviest shuttle. She couldn't carry enough fuel to reach the ISS; and she wasn't equipped to dock.

[hchutch]

The fact is, we need to get the shuttle up and running until we can get the Venture Star and the NASP back on track. Plus the new crew escape vehicle/shuttle for the ISS.

And time for Enterprise to be re-fitted and upgraded to fill the gap.

[Poohbah]

NASP was never going to meet its performance projections--basic laws of aerothermodynamics were getting in the way.

And VentureStar was 99% hype.

[hchutch]

We clearly need replacements, though. And I do not like the idea of putting all our eggs in one basket. It would not hurt to develop two or three systems and get them moving. Maybe this competition among private sector companies will get some answers.