NASA news conference~~~ Live Thread

MSNBC | 1-05-03 | Dog

[Frank_Discussion]

I'm not saying that you as a spectator can't speculate on things about this disaster, and anybody out there can add value to what's going on. What I am saying is that there are some people that envision some big conspiracy to hide something, and I think this tendency is damn annoying.

Look, there are things that Dittemore has said that were not merely taken out of context, they were misrepresented. The "defeatist" attitude that some folks decry is a statement that they couldn't do anything if they had known a catastrophe lurked in the future. First of all, he's right: If (BIG If) tile loss threatened failure, there was nothing available to fix the system. It wasn't there, and there was no way to send it up. Sad but true, and quite defeating. Life Sucks, and the Shuttle investigator know that better than anyone else right now.

Imagine that you have been poisoned fatally, and no antidote exists. No doctor in sight, you're all alone. It's especially difficult to address your poisoning if you just collapse, never knowing the poison was in your system. If, you die, and the historians can't invent a solution to heal you in hindsight, would the historians be "defeatist" if they accurately described your death as unavoidable?

However, there's something else here that really bothers me, and that's the idea that the Shuttle program knew of a problem, but did nothing. It's not provable by you or me, and it's not even a logical path to follow. I'm all for possible validity of conspiracy theories - the world is stranger than we can imagine, and real secrecy and illusion exist. But one can't put one's blinders on to causes of events based on a mistrust of a system. NASA is being mistrusted because it's part of the gubmint, and the gubmit lies. "If the feds don't think the way I do, the MUST be lyin'! Them NASA boys must be hiding somethin' 'caus theys looking at 'nother idea!"

We were all told in the very first briefing that the story would change as more data and analysis churned by. Gee, that's exactly what happened, huh? You know what though? The team just might come back to the "Broken-Tiles-on-Launch" theory in the end, and that's okay. As long as they aren't railroaded into it, and as long as it is true. If they only find the convenient solution, to exclusion of the truth, they've done the worst possible thing.

What I know of Engineering, Physics, and the way NASA works, I can follow Dittemore's lead. He and team aren't discarding the favored theory, but I believe them when they say the data doesn't support the tile loss issue very well. At least at the moment.

Now, all of that said, I have to tell you, I like your idea of a contingency patch kit for the tiles. Just something to limp home on, if such damage is that great a risk. The only problem with the scenario, is that reaching the tiles is very difficult. Maybe they could bring back the MMU, and jet around to the damaged tiles. I think the only real reason they dumped that particular equipment is for funding to fix its problems. Barring that, a tethered approach isn't feasable with shuttle, not on the wings anyhow. The access isn't there to get where you want to go, restrained or not. It wasn't built for that sort of thing, no handholds, etc. And there aren't really mods that would alleviate that situation.

Providing a rescue vehicle is a hugely difficult proposition, merely due to orbital mechanics. For a ground launch, to synch up for a rendezvous you have to plot an orbit in advance, and even then it takes some time for the launch orbit to match up with the target's orbit. Can it be done? If you have a quick launch vehicle, sure, but the time to get to the wounded shuttle would at least be a couple of days, if you're very lucky. For a ISS-based rescue craft, your fuel on-orbit would have to be very large, on the order of a shuttle launch itself. This would be hard to maintain, and still doesn't alleviate the time to synch up, in fact it makes it worse. ISS and Non-ISS orbits are at very different angles, which GUARANTEES that you will not be in synch, so the time to rendezvous will be long. This is not "defeatist", but realistic. I expect answers to the rescue problem in the future, but it will take time and technical applications that haven't been acheived yet.

To sum up, I expect the story we're getting to change, and everyone should keep an open mind. Of course, I realize that anyone has the right to close their minds, too.

[Frank_Discussion]

BTW, freepersup, isn't directed to you personally, as your mind is still open and working the problem. It's more for the folks who've already "solved" the mystery.

Obviously, I's be rantin' a bit...

[r9etb]

5- a rescue vehicle prepositioned at the ISS for the express purpose of emergency rescues via orbital navigation docks with shuttle
6- shuttle personnel transfer into orbital rescue vehicle for return trip to ISS

There's your problem right there. At a minimum, this little maneuver requires a plane change of 24 degrees, and in reality a net plane change much larger.

The delta-V required to perform a plane change is given by:

delta-V = 2 * V * sin(plane change/2)

At LEO, the orbital velocity V is about 7700 m/sec, so the minimum net delta-V is 3200 m/sec -- which requires an enormous amount of propellant. (In reality, you'd probably have to budget at least 10,000 m/sec for a generic rescue capability, which is ruinously expensive.)

[freepersup]

If the shuttle expends it's remaining onboard fuel in an all out effort to reposition itself into the deepest (?) orbit possible (under the circumstances),

and if the ISS expends it's remaining onboard fuel in an all out effort to reposition itself into the shallowest (?) orbit possible (under the circumstances),

would there now be a realistic chance for a rescue with such a proposed rescue vehicle ?

Granted, it's all hypothetical as we play out the 'what if' scenarios.

One cannot dismiss the possibility that someday, something else may go wrong with the shuttle (in this example) while in Earth orbit. re: Murphy's Law

As an 'after market' add on to the ISS, a unit or module expessly designed as a berth for a rescue vehicle, seems conceiveable from a design and production stand point. One of the future modules could be re-engineered to accept and support the rescue vehicle, with costs proportional to what other modules of unique and specific purpose and or design cost.

I believe this aspect is realistic.

I must confess that I am illiterate regarding the discipline of aeronautical engineering and likewise in the sister field of astronomical physics, so I am not going to portend otherwise.

However, I would like to participate in pro-active problem solving, concerning the 'what if's' of future emergencies in space flight, and more particular, specific to the shuttle program.

If we close the gap between the shuttle and the ISS, would a rescue vehicle now be a viable option ?

Could fuel, of sufficient quantity, (to propel the rescue vehicle), be shuttled to the ISS for storage and future use ?

In this scenario, it is a given that the shuttle would be sacrificed (if need be) to save the lives of the crew, and it is a given that the ISS would be sacrificed (if need be) to save the lives of the crew, in an all out effort to rescue the stranded, imperiled shuttle occupants.

For obvious reasons, the current occupants of the ISS would have to escape the ISS using the onboard capsule, once re-positioned, should such a rescue maneuver result in the future demise of the ISS.

The rescue vehicle could be designed to either return to Earth, along the lines of a Mercury capsule, or, return to the ISS, where the crew would await rescue by more traditional space vehicles of the US of A, or Russia.

Granted the US of A would have to implement a major space program akin to the Apollo project, if a space rescue vehicle lacked the ability to return to Earth. Otherwise, dependency for rescue would fall to the Russians exclusively, as they would have to launch a 'taxi service' to the ISS in order to return the shuttle crew to Earth.

[Bryan24]

Several of us at MSFC were discussing some of your ideas earlier this week.

Sadly, there has been very little contingency planning done since Challenger.

[r9etb]

If the shuttle expends it's remaining onboard fuel in an all out effort to reposition itself into the deepest (?) orbit possible (under the circumstances)

The Shuttle has no more than about 200 m/sec of delta-V available, which translates to about 1.5 degrees of plane change. The ISS propulsion capabilities are similarly limited.

Even supposing that this was possible, actually changing the ISS inclination to something like 39 degrees makes it unreachable by Russian launchers.

By far the cheapest and most efficient way to reach a Shuttle that is stranded on-orbit would be from the ground -- one need merely wait for the Earth to rotate to the right position, and then launch into the proper inclination. This saves hundreds of thousands of pounds of propellant costs.

The downside to any generic rescue vehicle approach is that you've got to have it ready to go on short notice -- a very expensive prospect in its own right.

[Bryan24]

I wonder if the guys at Lockheed-Martin have taken 20x30x6 pieces of foam and shot them at objects with the same angle that the orbiter wing was at?

I wonder if they can replicate the total disintegration of the foam as it did in the video?

I wonder what speed they have to get the foam up to in order to make it disintegrate like that?

I wonder if foam shot at that (the above question's) speed does damage to tiles? If so, how much?

[freepersup]

I was leaning towards the theory that the debris object was a chunk of ice, until I viewed the video. The 'dance' of the debris object is- IMHO, uncharateristic of how a heavier piece of debris, such as a chunk of ice would behave, versus a piece of foam.

IMHO If it's foam, damage seems less likely.
IMHO If it's ice, damage seems more likely.

Yes, I did see the other debris object, impact video capture. It's hard to reach a conclusion as to what the debris object is, by watching it, and the moment of impact by the debris object is visually distorted. You can tell there was a debris object impact and you can summize that it was near where you mentioned (wheel well).

[freepersup]

check-

[Bryan24]

Actually, the solution is rather simple.

Before any shuttle is launched with a regular payload, the next shuttle to be launched is prepped with a CRC (Crew Recovery Capsule) in the cargo bay.

The CRC would have seating for 8; food, water and air for 3 days; a quick connect com link to the shuttle; and an airlock for spacewalks.

Once the mission shuttle is deorbited, the "ready" shuttle is moved back to the Vehicle Assembly Building and the regular payload is mated. This shuttle then becomes the primary mission shuttle and the next shuttle becomes the "rescue ready" shuttle.

The cost of the CRC would be very minimal, compared to other shuttle projects. The only cost imposed would be having to have 2 shuttles and 2 launch pads ready simultaneously. plus the 50 million or so for the CRC.

In the event of a major shuttle accident, the "ready shuttle" would be launched into the same orbit as the stricken shuttle. Crew members from the "rescue shuttle" would transport spacesuits necessary for EVA. Rescued Crew members would enter the airlock of the CRC, strap in and wait on de-orbit.

The rescue shuttle would then de-orbit with the rescued crew in the CRC.

[Redleg Duke]

Hey, don't forget to include us FreeMasons in the conspiracy! :-)

[Redleg Duke]

"And I wouldn't be so critical if Dittemore hadn't made his defeatist statement during the first press conference."

Yep, he sure shouldn't have let something as minor as the loss of seven close collegues, a space shuttle and God knows what else distract him from the perfection you demand!

It is a shame that you might have something valuable to contribute to the discourse, but your approach causes many to just ignore you for a crank!

[Rockitz]

I've been saying since Monday on this forum that it's not foam. The aerodynamics is not right. It would never make it over to the orbiter from the ET. It's too light and the aero forces are too high. I have a colleague doing a calculation that I believe will confirm this.

[Moonman62]

It is a shame that you might have something valuable to contribute to the discourse, but your approach causes many to just ignore you for a crank!

I'm not demanding perfection. His statement was odd, and deserving of criticism. Dittemore seems like an intelligent man, and above average in many ways, and this is probably the toughest week of his life, so I can recognize the good things about him, too.

I do notice that just about everyone on your side of the issue resorts to personal attack. I'll leave it at that.

[freepersup]

The light came on-

As I have a non aerospace background, my thinking has lacked the industry perspective. Your idea is plausible and seems to mate with industry practices. The schedule would have to be robust and agressive. Perhaps the people at NASA are turning 'like' ideas over, as they go about solving the break up of the shuttle.

I was slow to grasp the enormous complexities of differing orbital angles, and what is required for synchronization. Now I get it-

To do so, I pictured two spacecraft in orbit above the planet and then visualized how they would maneuver towards each other while remaining in constant orbital motion. As an example, one object is in an equatorial orbit, and another object is in a polar orbit.

[XBob]

I went to my neighbor's house yesterday to watch the mpegs. His brand-new computer choked on them, too. So there is not much hope that I will ever see them..

---

sorry. I think they are about 1 mb, and should fit on a floppy or two or 3.

Why don't you go to a computer store with them.

Your insights are too valuable to miss out on this important item.

[Redleg Duke]

"I do notice that just about everyone on your side of the issue resorts to personal attack. I'll leave it at that."

If it were only one or two folks attacking you, I wouldn't be concerned, but the fact that so many resort "to personal attack" might indicate that you might...just might...have posted something exceptionally offensive.

You might just want to consider that aspect. Just a suggestion...not a "personal attack".

[XBob]

168-"I was leaning towards the theory that the debris object was a chunk of ice, until I viewed the video. The 'dance' of the debris object is- IMHO, uncharateristic of how a heavier piece of debris, such as a chunk of ice would behave, versus a piece of foam. "

Glad you saw the 'dance' too. You apparently are one of the very few who can see it on your equipment, besides me.

I just read another response where he said that ice would be heavier and thus more likely to maintain it's momentum with the vehicle than would the foam, therefore, be traveling slower relative speed.

[XBob]

your 'simple' rescue on standby theory in 'simple' only in theory.

Each shuttle mission is different, and different cargo, and different payloads, etc. It takes about 4-6 months to prepare 1 shuttle for launch for oee mission.

It would be easier to build a completely new, unmanned rescue vehicle on a a titan 3 or something similar.

[snopercod]

Actually, the solution is rather simple.

Not meant as a flame, but you have no clue as to what is required prep a shuttle for one payload vs. another. It's not like removing a suitcase from the trunk of your car and tossing in another one. It would take literally months to do what you suggest.

But the big idea-killer is that NASA will not allow (with good reason) a liquid-fueled craft in the payload bay. They forbid the Centaur upper stages for just that reason.

It would be much better to have several CRV's launched into various orbits ahead of time, then launch the shuttles into the same orbit.