Replies

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.

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...

Thanks for the perspective and detailed explanations. I had a bit of an epiphany because of it. I was really missing the boat with regards to the difficulties and complexities involved in the pursuit of a spacecraft by another spacecraft attempting orbital syhchronization. My head hurts- just from thinking about it.

If fuel is a problem (volume and weight) why doesn't NASA pursue the idea of powering a shuttle rescue vehicle with a nuclear propulsion system ? Is that feasible ?

As snopercod suggested, one or more rescue vehicles could be prepositioned in orbit, loitering, and the shuttle could then be launched into an orbit containing a rescue vehicle.