Australian astronomer's 'extraordinary account' of mishap

Austrailian Associated Press/World Net Daily ^ | 02 Feb. 03 | Staff Writer

[txradioguy]

Australian astronomer's 'extraordinary account' of mishap February 2 2003

An Australian astronomer in California could be a key eyewitness to solving the mystery of today's space shuttle disaster.

Anthony Beasley, an Australian working at an observatory north of Los Angeles, said he saw what could be tiles falling off the Columbia as it flew over California and on its way to the scheduled landing in Florida.

Most video footage and eyewitness reports of the shuttle breaking up came from witnesses in the central US state of Texas.

If Beasley is correct, it indicates the shuttle began to disintegrate on the west coast above California.

Beasley telephoned US television network ABC to tell of his sighting.

advertisement

advertisement "After the first few flashes I thought to myself that I knew the shuttle lost tiles as it re-entered and quite possibly that was what was going on," Beasley, speaking live, told ABC news anchor Peter Jennings.

The Australian told how he saw "a couple of flashes" and "things clearly trailing" the shuttle.

"I think that after the particularly bright event I started to wonder whether or not things were happening how they should," Beasley said.

Two US space experts who were listening to Beasley's description said the information was highly valuable.

They said tiles falling off the shuttle would be too small to be picked up by NASA radar.

"This says that something was coming off the shuttle far earlier than what happened over Texas would suggest," former space shuttle astronaut, Norm Thagard, told ABC.

"It leads in the direction that tile loss or some type of structural loss like that was likely to be a cause. But it still doesn't rule out other possibilities."

Former NASA engineer, Jim Oberg, described Beasley's eyewitness report as "an extraordinary account".

"If the left wing is losing tiles you then not only have over-heating in that wing but you have extra drag and it's like flying along and having your wing run into something," Oberg said.

"It could violently turn, twist the nose of the ship to the left and that would be it. That would be the point where it would be torn apart."

[LibWhacker]

Yep, amazing to me that they couldn't fit in a spacewalk to check out that wing. I'm just a regular Joe and could be wrong, but this strikes me as incredible negligence on the part of NASA management.

Yesterday I saw this old quote by Richard Feynman regarding creeping laxness at NASA:

We have also found that certification criteria used in Flight Readiness Reviews often develop a gradually decreasing strictness. The argument that the same risk was flown before without failure is often accepted as an argument for the safety of accepting it again. Because of this, obvious weaknesses are accepted again and again, sometimes without a sufficiently serious attempt to remedy them, or to delay a flight because of their continued presence.

By the 107th mission, you've got a whole boatload of weaknesses you're willing to live with. Oh, something hit the wing? that's cool; it's happened before.

[Verginius Rufus]

"There's no more terrible pain a man can endure than to see clearly and be able to do nothing."

--Herodotus (quoting a Persian in 479 B.C., just before a disastrous battle)

[Tax Government]

We can learn from this.

1) Standardize the docking equipment, so people have an option to move into the space station if necessary.

2) Ability for shuttle to inspect & repair tiles in-orbit.

3) Redesign the crew compartment to be a separate emergency reentry vehicle.

4) Ability for shuttle to re-enter crew-less, so a lower-risk reentry can be attempted if tiles are damaged.

5) Embed an ultrasonic transducer/sensing unit into each tile where it is bonded to the airframe, to report any shearing damage inside the tile or detachment of the tile from the airframe.

6) Abort the mission before reaching orbit if the shuttle experiences debris impact during ascent. (Use sensore embedded in tile to detect debris impact and assess its effect.)

[lodwick]

I'm guessing because Houston told them things were fine 1, they'd had a great mission 2, and there was no way to repair the tiles in space had any damage been visible to them 3.

A quick summary from living on the threads yesterday. Someone else may have some other reasons.

[cpdiii]

If the foam insulation on the main fuel tank was compromised prior to lift and moist air was able to get behind it the possibility of a large ice build up behind the foam insulation exists. During ascent a large piece of ice weighing several pounds could break loose and hit the shuttle wing and take out some tiles. They may have been flying a craft that was doomed from the launch.

[winodog]

I bet they have film of the entire reentry. I also would bet they have communication that we do not hear. In other words everything the astronaut's say is not relayed to us. NASA has to filter it before they release it.
While I am betting I have money that says NASA knows what happened, when it happened and what can be done to prevent it from happening again.

[Cicero]

I hesitate to second-guess them now, but it does surely look as if NASA is more focused on public relations than on the mission. Some EVA ability would seem to be a basic safety precaution that shouldn't be neglected. If it's a weight problem, leave one of those multicultural crew members or one or two experiments behind so you can pack a space suit and repair tools instead. Failing that, include enough fuel to get up to the space station if necessary.

There was an article on an astronomer who observed the reentry yesterday. It didn't mention that he was an Australian, but said he was accompanied by his wife. I don't know if it's the same guy.

[txradioguy]

"If it's a weight problem, leave one of those multicultural crew members or one or two experiments behind so you can pack a space suit and repair tools instead. Failing that, include enough fuel to get up to the space station if necessary."


The Shuttle, no matter what the mission carries the same amount of fuel. Whether or not the can manuver to the ISS depends on the launch. As for the tiles. There's no way for them to be replaced anywhere but at the KSC in Florida.

[jammer]

The lessons we SHOULD learn from this are (from Jerry Pournelle, except #1):

1. End this Rube Goldbergian program whose highest vision is to achieve low earth orbit.

2. Pass the following act:
Be it enacted by the Congress of the United States:

The Treasurer of the United States is directed to pay to the first American owned company (if corporate at least 60% of the shares must be held by American citizens) the following sums for the following accomplishments. No monies shall be paid until the goals specified are accomplished and certified by suitable experts from the National Science Foundation or the National Academy of Science:

1. The sum of $2 billion to be paid for construction of 3 operational spacecraft which have achieved low earth orbit, returned to earth, and flown to orbit again three times in a period of three weeks.

2. The sum of $5 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a space station which has been continuously in orbit with at least 5 Americans aboard for a period of not less than three years and one day. The crew need not be the same persons for the entire time, but at no time shall the station be unoccupied.

3. The sum of $12 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a Lunar base in which no fewer than 31 Americans have continuously resided for a period of not less than four years and one day.

4. The sum of $10 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a solar power satellite system which delivers at least 800 megaWatts of electric power to a receiving station or stations in the United States for a period of at least two years and one day.

5. The payments made shall be exempt from all US taxes.

[Jael]

Reading these two comments gives one a different slant on the whole issue. I came across them in two differnt threads, or maybe the top one I found at Spacenews, I can't remember and I am too tired to go back and read through all of my history. But just think, if they took out the freon, and it caused this problem??????

AEDC Performs Shuttle Materials Test for NASA/Lockheed Martin

ARNOLD AFB, Tenn.
-Arnold Engineering Development Center is assisting the National Aeronautics Space Administration with improvements in existing Space Shuttle materials. According to NASA, during several previous Space Shuttle flights, including the shuttle launched Nov. 29, 1998, the shuttle external tank experienced a significant loss of foam from the intertank. The material lost caused damage to the thermal protection high-temperature tiles on the lower surface of the shuttle orbiter.
The loss of external tank foam material and subsequent damage to reentry tiles is a concern because it causes tile replacement costs to significantly increase,,u. however, it is not a flight safety issue. As a result, NASA-Marshall Space Flight Center selected AEDC to perform flight hardware materials tests on the shuttle's external tank panels in the center's von Karman Facility Supersonic Tunnel A.

The purpose was to establish the cause of failure for the tank thermal protection materials at specified simulated flight conditions. "NASA chose AEDC due to its technical expertise and historical program successes," Steve Holmes, a NASA-MSFC technical coordinator, said

A review of the records of the STS-86 records revealed that a change to the type of foam was used on the external tank.
This event is significant because the pattern of damage on this flight was similar to STS-87 but to a much lesser degree. The reason for the change in the type of foam is due to the desire of NASA to use "environmentally friendly" materials in the space program.
Freon was used in the production of the previous foam. This method was eliminated in favor of foam that did not require freon for its production. MSFC is investigating the consideration that some characteristics of the new foam may not be known for the ascent environment."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/834139/posts?page=54#54

[prisoner6]

I just hope it happened fast and they didn't suffer.

Yes to that! And as W mentioned...they are all now safely home.

prisoner6

[Jael]

http://www.floridatoday.com/columbia/debrisvideo.htm

THis is a video of some kind of debris hitting the Shuttle at lift off. I have read it was ice, or maybe insulation foam.

[prisoner6]

Hey...I LIKE your thinking!

prisoner6

[jammer]

Thanks, but Jerry Pournelle, as he has been in many,many areas of life over the last 20-30 years, is responsible for the incisive, original thinking. Don't know about a link, but you can cut and paste his URL: www.jerrypournelle.com

I think the man has done everything: best selling science fiction, ph.d. in psychology, chair of all sorts of strategic military and science committees, and, of course, a mainstay for over 20 years in byte magazine. What a genius.

[chaosagent]

Basically, if the tiles were damaged on liftoff, they had no chance.

1. No Arm aboard this flight to look at underside

2. No EVA suits on board this flight.

3. An onboard tile repair kit doesn't exist. Each one of the 30,000 or so tiles is custom-made for its position. This was looked into at one time, but I don't think they ever did anything.

4. There were also problems with coming up with a tile adhesive that was workable in the cold and vacuum of space, yet would stand up to the heat of re-entry.

5. They did not have enough delta-vee to reach the ISS. The orbits were too different.

6. If they could reach the ISS, they didn't have the correct docking adapter to mate with it.

7. They did not have the consumables to stay in orbit until another Shuttle reached them (a minimum of 20 days). They had already been on-orbit for 16 days.

[don-o]

Jammer:

That is the ticket!!

Off the top of my head, yesterday, I spoke of private enterprise being the next step in the exploration and exploitation of space. I don't know much about real plans, but your five steps are a definite start.

Are there any congress critters who are sympathetic?

[RightOnline]

Re: Your #21........

This horrible event will be analyzed to death over the next months or years.....but I'm absolutely convinced that what you wrote / described in your reply will ultimately be seen to be the real cause. Excellent points, and well-said.

[Zebra]

Spacewalk was not an option, as the mission had no scheduled spacewalk, so no suitable gear was stowed.

My instincts tell me that the mission was doomed from the moment the foam insulation impacted the left wing, although the assessment may have been several hours in making and the probability of catastophic loss may still have been assessed at anywhere from "possible" to "highly likely."

I understand that there is an abort option within 4 minutes of lift off, but this is to save the crew and means complete loss of the orbiter. As such, no one is going to make a snap decision to scrap a $2 billion piece of equipment absent compelling evidence of mission failure. I would suggest that from the visual data we have seen, it would not be possible to make this call within four minutes of lift off.

That said, the possibility of rescue was zero. Columbia could not dock with the space station to drop the crew, even assuming the station could accept seven inhabitants and permit another orbiter to launch in time to effect a recovery. A mid-orbit rescue also seems unlikely, although I confess to know less about the shuttle's capabilities in this regard.

If this is so, I doubt NASA would have made this public. To have the news follow a doomed shuttle for days--weeks--would have led to the kind of scrutiny and criticism of NASA that it could not survive. It is one thing to lose a crew and craft on re-entry--it is quite another to acknowledge to the world that the agency is helpless to rescue a crew in circumstances where mission failure is a certainty.

Something is not right about all of this, and my best guess is that we are going to discover over the next several months that (a) structural damage to the left wing caused by impacting foam insulation was the sole or primary reason for the disintegration of the shuttle, (b) engineers had observed this phenomenon in prior launches and had speculated in writing that something like what happened to the Columbia would eventuate given enough launches if design changes were not made and (c) budget considerations would not allow for a design change at this time to ameliorate this problem.

[jammer]

I'm just a regular Joe and could be wrong, but this strikes me as incredible negligence on the part of NASA management.

I'm just a regular Joe, also, LibWhacker, but think about it for a second. Others have established that there is no docking maneuver possible. As for repairs, each tile is individually milled and individually shaped. Even if they could get to a broken tile, they ability to repair it would cost many, many payload pounds and, in order to do a repair, there would be many, many more payload pounds, since a copy of each tile would have to fly. At that point, it is probably not even reasonable to lift off--all the payload that can be lifted is in rescue equipment and materials.

Space flight is inherently dangerous. Space flight by an organization which adheres to principles of affirmative action (i.e., minimum requirements to do a job, not the best available) is trebly so.

It will be a long time before that first sentence is false. The second sentence will never be false.

[jammer]

don-o, I don't think so. Go to Jerry's site--he says that Newt was going to propose it until he became aware that he wouldn't be speaker much longer. No one else seems to be interested. But, hey, we have a core of four--you, prisoner6, me, him--that think alike. Now is the time to make it happen!