Columbia

[Roadtoad]

The Columbia has been lost.

Shalom.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
The Columbia has been lost.

Shalom.

Is that supposed to be funny or clever? I ask, because you've failed on both counts.

There are at least three separate threads going on about this event, and you start a top level thread with no new information, no links to new reports, not even any speculation about the cause of the disaster. Why?

What's your damned point?

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Hazelip


Is that supposed to be funny or clever? I ask, because you've failed on both counts.

There are at least three separate threads going on about this event, and you start a top level thread with no new information, no links to new reports, not even any speculation about the cause of the disaster. Why?

What's your damned point?

It was neither. I was opening the thread. That's all. Frankly, I'm out of words on this one.

For current info:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=Science&cat=Space_Shuttle

[Roadtoad]

Still hearing nothing from anyone that makes any sense. Is anyone hearing anything REASONED on possible causes?

[Roadtoad]

This is what the shuttle was doing on its last mission.

http://spaceresearch.nasa.gov/sts-107/

In spite of what some might be saying, my suspicion, (given my time with things mechanical), is that something simply wore out. That was all. Nothing to back it at this point. No one is showing anything about this yet.

[Roadtoad]

Spoke too soon. From CNN/Time:

"Seven astronauts, including the first Israeli in space, were lost Saturday when the space shuttle Columbia broke apart in the skies of Texas. The incident occurred at an altitude of some 200,000 feet, shortly after reentry and 15 minutes before Columbia had been scheduled to land at Cape Canaveral. TIME science correspondent Jeffrey Kluger explains some of the possible causes and consequences of the accident:

TIME.com: What are the possible scenarios that could have caused this disastrous accident on the shuttle's reentry into the Earth's atmosphere?

Jeffrey Kluger: There are three possible scenarios that explain this event. The first, which I believe is the likeliest explanation, would be an aerodynamic structural breakup of the shuttle caused by it rolling at the wrong angle. Remember, after reentry, the shuttle is descending without power, which means astronauts at the controls can't compensate for a loss of attitude by using the engines, they can only do so using the flaps. And that's extremely hard. Astronauts describe piloting the shuttle on reentry as like trying to fly a brick with wings. It's very difficult to operate, and even more so to correct any problems.

A second explanation might be a loss of tiles leading to a burn-through. (The shuttle is covered with heat-resistant tiles to protect the craft and those inside it from burning up in the scorching temperatures caused by the friction of reentry.) But I think that explanation is unlikely, because the tile-loss would have had to have been quite substantial for that to become possible. You'll hear a lot in the next few days about things falling off the shuttle during liftoff. But it often happens that they lose a few tiles, and I'd be surprised if it happened on a scale that could make an accident of this type possible.

The last option is some kind of engine failure leading to fuel ignition. Although the main tanks are mostly empty, there should still be fuel left in the maneuvering tanks. But probably not enough for an explosion that could have caused this breakup.

And just in case anybody was wondering, you can almost certainly rule out terrorism as a cause. This incident occurred well above the range of shoulder-fired missiles. And it would probably be easier to sneak a bomb onto Air Force One than to get one onto the shuttle."

[Hazelip]

My theory:

The insulation that struck the wing removed protective tiles. The wing was burned off, causing the lift from the other wing to spin the shuttle in a corkscrew fashion. This exposed the unprotected sections of the hull to atmospheric friction. Rocket fuel tanks possibly mixed igniting in chemical combustion as they are designed to do, thusly lighting the whole thing into a mach 16 fireball.

I honestly do not know what it was, but with the information I have gathered to date, that is the best I can figure.

You need to think how better to start a thread.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Hazelip
My theory:

The insulation that struck the wing removed protective tiles. The wing was burned off, causing the lift from the other wing to spin the shuttle in a corkscrew fashion. This exposed the unprotected sections of the hull to atmospheric friction. Rocket fuel tanks possibly mixed igniting in chemical combustion as they are designed to do, thusly lighting the whole thing into a mach 16 fireball.

I honestly do not know what it was, but with the information I have gathered to date, that is the best I can figure.

You need to think how better to start a thread.

You're right. I apologize. I was acting on impulse, out of shock. There's too much going on at once right now.

As an FYI, if you're interested in this, Fox News' link:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77253,00.html

Reading the Fox News story almost came across as a "Just Seen Elvis" tale. Lots of stuff from witnesses, but nothing that CNN didn't already have.

[Roadtoad]

This is the latest from Reuters:

NASA Statement on Space Shuttle Columbia
Sat February 1, 2003 01:00 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The following is the text of a statement issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on loss of communications with space shuttle Columbia:
"A Space Shuttle contingency has been declared in Mission Control, Houston, as a result of the loss of communication with the Space Shuttle Columbia at approximately 9 a.m. EST Saturday as it descended toward a landing at the Kennedy Space Center, Fla. It was scheduled to touchdown at 9:16 a.m. EST.

Communication and tracking of the shuttle was lost at 9 a.m. EST at an altitude of about 203,000 feet in the area above north central Texas. At the time communications were lost, the shuttle was traveling approximately 12,500 miles per hour (Mach 18). No communication and tracking information were received in Mission Control after that time.

Search and rescue teams in the Dallas-Fort Worth and in portions of East Texas have been alerted. Any debris that is located in the area that may be related to the Space Shuttle contingency should be avoided and may be hazardous as a result of toxic propellants used aboard the shuttle. The location of any possible debris should immediately be reported to local authorities.

Flight controllers in Mission Control have secured all information, notes and data pertinent to today's entry and landing by Space Shuttle Columbia and continue to methodically proceed through contingency plans.

News media covering the Space Shuttle should stay tuned to NASA Television, which is broadcast on AMC-2, transponder 9C, C-Band, located at 85 degrees West longitude. The frequency is 3880.0 MHz. Polarization is vertical and audio is monaural at 6.8 MHz. Reporters can also go to any NASA center newsroom to monitor the situation."


I've a few questions here:

(1.) At Mach 18, and at 203,000 ft, there was as near as I could tell no chance that anyone could have bailed out of the Columbia, nor could any ejection system have worked. Am I right about this?

(2.) If, as has been suggested on another thread, there had been a rupture of any sort, deforming part of the shuttle, is it possible that it caused damage to the wing, therefore disrupting airflow and causing the situation described by Time's reporter?

(3.) If there had been a tear or a break in the surface, at Mach 18, wouldn't this have been a cause of a midair breakup? (To take Hazelip's scenario, with lost tiles.)

I'm not a pilot or an engineer, but I am interested in hearing more from those who are.

[Roadtoad]

Additional information from Space.Com

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sts107_lost_030201.html

[Roadtoad]

There are reports from NBC News that a large chunk of ice may have dislodged from the external fuel tank and struck the shuttle itself. The possible line of investigation here is that they believe it may have knocked loose several tiles from the heat shielding.

At present, this is just a preliminary investigation. However, it's one possibility. According to NBC, this is one area that engineers are examining. Richard Houck, from NASA, is saying it's unlikely ice did that sort of damage.

Alan Bean (Apollo 12) is saying we need to simply get back to work, build another shuttle, and get back to work.

I see emotions are running high on the JREF board, maybe even more than usual. Usually this happens more on the R&P board more than the Science board but stranger things have happened...

I think it's appropriate to have a thread in Science on the disaster, and thank Roadtoad for starting one.

Having said that, I think it's most possible that we will never know for sure what happened. Maybe, there will be a few good dueling theories but we may never know. I am interested in hearing the various theories debated here although I am not qualified to participate.

[Roadtoad]

Thanks, Denise. I'm more concerned with another point, which I've mentioned on the thread on P&CE: I'm concerned that this will become another time for the Luddites to decry the notion of people actually going into space.

How can we conduct science (and I realize, I'm not the most scientific of individuals here) if we don't actually go into space? We have an obligation to go, if for no other reason than simply because it is there, and we've demonstrated we can get there. The effects of space on the human body, the potential in medicine, manufacturing, and the like, is incredible.

Alan Bean said that we ought to be putting guys like Bill Gates and Richard Branson into space, and let them get a feel for it; see what they could do with space flight and get business involved. If this advances the cause of scientific exploration of space, I'm all for it.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Hazelip
My theory:

The insulation that struck the wing removed protective tiles. The wing was burned off, causing the lift from the other wing to spin the shuttle in a corkscrew fashion. This exposed the unprotected sections of the hull to atmospheric friction. Rocket fuel tanks possibly mixed igniting in chemical combustion as they are designed to do, thusly lighting the whole thing into a mach 16 fireball.


Sounds like you may be onto something. From the AP:

By MARCIA DUNN, AP Aerospace Writer

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - Investigators trying to figure out what destroyed space shuttle Columbia immediately focused on the left wing and the possibility that its thermal tiles were damaged far more seriously than NASA realized by a piece of debris during liftoff.

Just a little over a minute into Columbia's launch Jan. 16, a chunk of insulating foam peeled away from the external fuel tank and smacked into the ship's left wing.

On Saturday, that same wing started exhibiting sensor failures and other problems 23 minutes before Columbia was scheduled to touch down. With just 16 minutes remaining before landing, the shuttle disintegrated over Texas.

Just the day before, on Friday, NASA's lead flight director, Leroy Cain, had declared the launch-day incident to be absolutely no safety threat. And an extensive engineering analysis had concluded that any damage to Columbia's thermal tiles would be minor.

"As we look at that now in hindsight, we can't discount that there might be a connection," shuttle manager Ron Dittemore said on Saturday, hours after the tragedy. "But we have to caution that we can't rush to judgment, because a lot of things in this business that look like the smoking gun but turn out not to be close."

The shuttle's more than 20,000 thermal tiles protect it from the extreme heat of re-entry into the atmosphere.

He said that the disaster could have also been caused by a structural failure of some sort.

As for other possibilities, however, NASA said that until the problems with the wing were noticed, everything else appeared to be working fine.

Dittemore said there was nothing that the astronauts could have done in orbit to fix damaged thermal tiles and nothing that flight controllers could have done to safely bring home a severely scarred shuttle, given the extreme temperatures of re-entry.

The shuttle broke apart while being exposed to the peak temperature of 3,000 degrees on the leading edge of the wings, while traveling at 12,500 mph, or 18 times the speed of sound.

Dittemore said that even if the astronauts had gone out on an emergency spacewalk, there was no way a spacewalker could have safely checked under the wings, which bear the brunt of heat re-entry and have reinforced protection.

Even if they did find damage, there was nothing the crew could have done to fix it, he said.

"There's nothing that we can do about tile damage once we get to orbit," Dittemore said. "We can't minimize the heating to the point that it would somehow not require a tile. So once you get to orbit, you're there and you have your tile insulation and that's all you have for protection on the way home from the extreme thermal heating during re-entry."

The shuttle was not equipped with its 50-foot robot arm because it was not needed during this laboratory research mission, and so the astronauts did not have the option of using the arm's cameras to get a look at the damage.

NASA did not request help in trying to observe the damaged area with ground telescopes or satellites, in part because it did not believe the pictures would be useful, Dittemore.

Long-distance pictures did not help flight controllers when they wanted to see the tail of space shuttle Discovery during John Glenn's flight in 1998; the door for the drag-chute compartment had fallen off seconds after liftoff.

It was the second time in just four months that a piece of fuel-tank foam came off during a shuttle liftoff. In October, Atlantis lost a piece of foam that ended up striking the aft skirt of one of its solid-fuel booster rockets. At the time, the damage was thought to be superficial.

Dittemore said this second occurrence "is certainly a signal to our team that something has changed."


My question would be "Why couldn't the astronauts have made repairs, and can some sort of fix be created now that we know a little more about this sort of thing?" Perhaps some form of epoxy could have been created for use in space, and appropriate replacement tiles set up for a fast fix in space. Or, if nothing else, perhaps they could have rendevouzed with the space station, and another shuttle sent up with the means of repair, and to bring other astronauts home. Any thoughts?

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
My question would be "Why couldn't the astronauts have made repairs, and can some sort of fix be created now that we know a little more about this sort of thing?" Perhaps some form of epoxy could have been created for use in space, and appropriate replacement tiles set up for a fast fix in space. Or, if nothing else, perhaps they could have rendevouzed with the space station, and another shuttle sent up with the means of repair, and to bring other astronauts home. Any thoughts?

Well, I don't know about an epoxy that would work without oxygen, but I can tell you one thing. The underside of the shuttle has no hand-holds for a space walk. With no robot arm attached for this mission, I'm unsure how any such epoxy would have even been applied.

Basically, NASA needs one more contingency plan. Measure twice, cut once as it were...

I also want to apologize for how hard I came down on you. I'm not a religious person and I may have misinterpreted your initial post as sarcasm. That was my mistake, not yours. I'm sorry for any possible confusion on my part.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Hazelip


Well, I don't know about an epoxy that would work without oxygen, but I can tell you one thing. The underside of the shuttle has no hand-holds for a space walk. With no robot arm attached for this mission, I'm unsure how any such epoxy would have even been applied.

Basically, NASA needs one more contingency plan. Measure twice, cut once as it were...

I also want to apologize for how hard I came down on you. I'm not a religious person and I may have misinterpreted your initial post as sarcasm. That was my mistake, not yours. I'm sorry for any possible confusion on my part.

Gratefully accepted.

[BillyJoe]

What can be achieved by manned space missions that cannot be achieved by unmanned missions and at greatly reduced cost?

As for business as usual, the families of the astronauts may not quite see it this way right at the moment.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
What can be achieved by manned space missions that cannot be achieved by unmanned missions and at greatly reduced cost?


The knowledge and skills to take humans beyond our solar system in the future?

[Goshawk]

The Moon missions wouldn't have meant squat to us if they had all been unmanned. We would have finished the space program with nothing more than a whole trunkful of robot-snapped photos of Moon landscapes and "The-Earth-Seen-from-Space", which would have had about the same emotional value as the trunkful of gift shop postcards that you bring back from your once-in-a-lifetime vacation to Antarctica.

But it's that one photo you took yourself, that brings it all back. You were there. You were really, really--there.






























http://www.farthestshots.com/photos/apollo/apollo11/photos/A008.jpg

[Ravenwood]

At this time, all I can say is summed up on another memorial.
"Ad Astra Per Aspera"
(A rough road leads to the stars)

[Roadtoad]

When they say in this story they're leaving no stone unturned, I tend to believe them. I wasn't aware of how much telemetry was being given by the shuttle itself as was in flight. I'm not sure how they'd be able to recover the lost data, particularly since the flight computers would have been obliterated along with the rest of the shuttle itself.

As for another point, I'm confused: I thought the flight was handled entirely by the Astronauts themselves, rather than being handled by the Kennedy Space Center. (I may have misread this.) Would anyone have more information on this? I'm checking NASA after I finish here...

By PAUL RECER, AP Science Writer

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - Just before it disintegrated, the space shuttle Columbia experienced a sharp and sudden rise in temperature on its fuselage, NASA said Sunday.

The sharp rise was followed by increased drag on the spacecraft that caused its flight system to adjust its path.

NASA space shuttle program manager Ron Dittemore cautioned that the information was preliminary but said it could suggest that the thermal tiles that are designed to protect the shuttle from burning up during re-entry into Earth's atmosphere were damaged or missing, possibly from an episode earlier in the shuttle's flight.

"We've got some more detective work. But we're making progress inch by inch," Dittemore said.

Dittemore said the engineering data showed a temperature rise of 20 to 30 degrees in the left wheel well of the shuttle about seven minutes before communication was lost with the spacecraft. There was an even more significant temperature rise — about 60 degrees over five minutes — in the middle left side of the fuselage, he said.

The drag on the left wing began a short while later, causing the shuttle's automated flight system to start to make adjustments.

Across Texas and Lousiana, meanwhile, officials were marking the exact satellite measures of the locations where debris was found in hopes it would help reconstruct the accident.

Dittemore said NASA engineers are still trying to recover 32 seconds worth of additional data from the flight computers. But he said the combination of new engineering data and an observer who reported seeing debris from the shuttle while it was still passing over California may create "a path that may lead us to the cause."

The shuttle broke up shortly before landing Saturday, killing all seven astronauts. Most of its debris landed in eastern Texas and Louisiana.

Earlier Sunday, NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe named a former Navy admiral to oversee an independent review of the accident, and said investigators initially would focus on whether a broken-off piece of insulation from the big external fuel tank caused damage to the shuttle during liftoff Jan. 16 that ultimately doomed the flight 16 days later.

"It's one of the areas we're looking at first, early, to make sure that the investigative team is concentrating on that theory," O'Keefe said.

The insulation is believed to have struck a section of the shuttle's left side.

The manufacturer of the fuel tank disclosed Sunday that NASA used an older version of the tank, which the space agency began phasing out in 2000. NASA's preflight press information stated the shuttle was using one of the newer super-lightweight fuel tanks.

Harry Wadsworth, a spokesman for Lockheed, the tank maker, said most shuttle launches use the "super-lightweight" tank and the older version is no longer made. Wadsworth said he did not know if there was a difference in how insulation was installed on the two types of tanks.

Wadsworth said the tank used aboard the Columbia mission was manufactured in November 2000 and delivered to NASA the next month. Only one more of the older tanks is left, he said.

O'Keefe emphasized that the space agency was being careful not to lock onto any one theory too soon. He vowed to "leave absolutely no stone unturned."

For a second day, searchers scoured forests and rural areas over 500 square miles of East Texas and western Louisiana for bits of metal, ceramic tile, computer chips and insulation from the shattered spacecraft.

State and federal officials, treating the investigation like a multi-county crime scene, were protecting the debris until it can be catalogued, carefully collected and then trucked to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.

The effort to reconstruct what is left of Columbia into a rough outline of the shuttle will be tedious and painstaking.

When a shuttle piece was located this weekend, searchers left it in place until a precise global position satellite reading could be taken. Each shuttle part is numbered; NASA officials say experts hope to trace the falling path of each recovered piece.

The goal is to establish a sequence of how parts were ripped off Columbia as it endured the intense heat and pressure of the high-speed re-entry into the atmosphere.

At least 20 engineers from United Space Alliance, a key NASA contractor for the shuttle program, were dispatched to Barksdale for what is expected to be a round-the-clock investigation.

Other experts, including metallurgists and forensic medicine specialists, are expected to join the investigation. Their focus will be on a microscopic examination of debris and remains that could elicit clues such as how hot the metal became, how it twisted and which parts flew off first.

In addition to NASA's investigation, O'Keefe named an independent panel to be headed by retired Navy admiral Harold W. Gehman Jr., who previously helped investigate the 2000 terrorist attack on the USS Cole .

Gehman's panel will also examine the Columbia wreckage, and come to its own conclusions about what happened. O'Keefe described Gehman as "well-versed in understanding exactly how to look about the forensics in these cases and coming up with the causal effects of what could occur."

Joining Gehman on the commission are four other military officers and two federal aviation safety officials.

Officials used horses and four-wheel-drive vehicles to find and recover the shuttle pieces. Divers were being called in to search the floor of Toledo Bend Reservoir, on the Texas-Louisiana line, for a car-sized piece seen slamming into the water.

Some body parts from the seven-member astronaut crew have been recovered and are being sent to a military morgue in Dover Air Force Base in Delaware.

Columbia came apart 200,000 feet over Texas while it was streaking at more than 12,000 miles an hour toward the Kennedy Space Center. A long vapor trail across the sky marked the rain of debris.

----
How can we conduct science (and I realize, I'm not the most scientific of individuals here) if we don't actually go into space?
----


We could send really intelligent computers. Once we perfect those, then how about sending people?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Goshawk
But it's that one photo you took yourself, that brings it all back. You were there. You were really, really--there.


No they weren't. It was all done on a soundstage. ;)

Originally posted by Goshawk
The Moon missions wouldn't have meant squat to us if they had all been unmanned. We would have finished the space program with nothing more than a whole trunkful of robot-snapped photos of Moon landscapes and "The-Earth-Seen-from-Space", which would have had about the same emotional value as the trunkful of gift shop postcards that you bring back from your once-in-a-lifetime vacation to Antarctica.

You're right in that regard. The robot we sent to Mars didn't generate anywhere near the sense of wonder. And it wasn't a national event. I remember the night they landed on the moon like it was yesterday.

[Badger]

What I thirst for is information from people who habitually watch re-entries. There must be space fans in Hawaii and the western seaboard who watch these, and possibly take pictures every chance they get.

NASA has probably thought of this already.

[BillyJoe]

The fact remains that, at a fraction of the cost, a great deal more can be learnt from unmanned as opposed to manned space missions and at no threat to human life.

At present and into the forseeable future there is no need and no ability to populate other planets (let alone other solar systems!). Manned missions into space are really just an enormously expensive feel good public relations exercise not an intelligent cost-effective scientific enterprise.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
The fact remains that, at a fraction of the cost, a great deal more can be learnt from unmanned as opposed to manned space missions and at no threat to human life.

At present and into the forseeable future there is no need and no ability to populate other planets (let alone other solar systems!). Manned missions into space are really just an enormously expensive feel good public relations exercise not an intelligent cost-effective scientific enterprise.

This may not be the most sound reasoning in the world, but it would seem to me that the fact that we can get there at all is sufficient reason to go in the first place. Yes, there will be losses, but ultimately, what we gain is far greater in the long run.

I disagree about these missions being "feel good" exercises. What we learn with each mission about human anatomy alone would seem to me to be worth each flight. Add to that what we gain in every other scientific endeavor, and I think these missions must continue.

[hgc]

Roadtoad,
Roadtoad:

This may not be the most sound reasoning in the world, but it would seem to me that the fact that we can get there at all is sufficient reason to go in the first place. Yes, there will be losses, but ultimately, what we gain is far greater in the long run.

I disagree about these missions being "feel good" exercises. What we learn with each mission about human anatomy alone would seem to me to be worth each flight. Add to that what we gain in every other scientific endeavor, and I think these missions must continue.
So which is it? Should we go only because it's possible to go or should we justify the effort, expense, alternate focus, danger, etc? I'm all for discovery for discovery's sake, since I recognize that the benefits are often unknown beforehand. But the other exploration that we are not undertaking because of the expense of putting humans in space has a hell of a lot of unrealized benefits. What are we learning about human anatomy from manned missions that's not relevant only to the effects of microgravity and other effects of being in space? (I'm not saying it's nothing, but what?) Of all other scientific experimentation, what cannot be accomplished with unmanned missions.

I am not advocating eliminating all manned space flight. For instance, the Hubble telescope repair would not have been possible with an unmanned mission. But the manned space station is a giant resource drain away from a lot of what can be accomplished with unmanned exploration. Why do we do it? To keep the public interested enough to want to favor putting any money toward space.

[Roadtoad]

HGC, I remain convinced the space station can eventually be justified. How easily at this early stage, I don't know. Yes, costs are high, but perhaps this will lead to space flight being accomplished a lot cheaper in the future. But the only way I believe it will work is if we are there aboard the thing.

Just as an FYI: Don't know if anyone has seen this one, but I've heard about this from Kitplanes magazine. Eric Lindbergh is on the board of this organization. Maybe NASA ought to be spending a little more time with these folks. Some incredible possibilities are showing up. I don't think this can be limited to "Tourism."

http://www.xprize.org/

[Goshawk]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
It was all done on a soundstage. Baked beans snorked out through nose make Baby Jesus cry.

:D

[patnray]

I have to agree with hgc (and others). While there is a limited role for manned space flight, far more science can be accomplished with robots. The Voyager probes were fantastically successful. Equipment failures were overcome and mission parameters changed enroute, with breath taking results.

When a Martian probe crashed because of a metric to english unit error, it was a disaster, but not a tragedy.

With human space missions, 99% of the mission costs are related to life support. It is unfortunate that our space program relies so heavily on manned flight. The shuttle has not proven to be the cheap, reliable vehicle originally envisioned, but there is no alternative launch vehicle for civilian use in this country.

One ironic consequence of the Cold War was Russia's development of relatively cheap and reliable heavy booster rockets. THe Shuttle program is one reason we have not developed a similar capability...

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by patnray
One ironic consequence of the Cold War was Russia's development of relatively cheap and reliable heavy booster rockets. THe Shuttle program is one reason we have not developed a similar capability...

What you're talking about is the "Big Dumb Booster" which NASA rejected years ago. This was about launch vehicles which were made of steel as opposed to aluminum, using cheaper fuels, and simpler electronics. They were a lot slower, and not as spectacular, but for pennies on the dollar (comparatively), we could have launched satellites into orbit, and had more cash on hand for other purposes.

With liquid fuels, apparently, they have greater control, and it's a safer burn, consequently, and would have prevented some of the problems that resulted in the loss of Challenger. What's bothering me is that we could still go with the BDB program, but there's no will in Congress to go along with that. Congress would need to approve it, and instead there's too much support at home for the more expensive programs. Go figure that one out.

[Roadtoad]

Let's see what comes of this. I recall this sort of thing was reported in regards to Challenger...

NEW YORK (Reuters) - After an expert panel warned that its space shuttles were facing safety troubles if the agency's budget was not raised, NASA removed five of the panel's nine members and two consultants in what some of them said was a move to suppress their criticism, The New York Times reported on Monday.

The incident was recalled after the space shuttle Columbia broke up over Texas on Saturday, killing all seven astronauts aboard.

Retired Adm. Bernard Kauderer, was so upset at the firings that he quit NASA's Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, a group of experts charged with monitoring safety at the space agency, the newspaper said.

NASA conceded the individuals were forced out, but told the Times it changed the charter of the group so that new members who were younger and more skilled could be added. "It had nothing to do with shooting the messenger," a NASA spokeswoman told the newspaper.

NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said he was surprised by the report and that each member of the panel head served out his full term.

"There's no abnormality I'm aware of, but I'll certainly look into it and see if we can satisfy ourselves that there's no other intrusion involved," he told CNN.

The panel's most recent report, which came out last March and included analyzes by the six departed members, warned that work on long-term shuttle safety "had deteriorated," the article said. Tight budgets, the panel report said, were forcing an emphasis on short-term planning and adding to a backlog of planned improvements.

"I have never been as worried for space shuttle safety as I am right now," Dr. Richard D. Blomberg, the panel's chairman, told Congress in April. "All of my instincts suggest that the current approach is planting the seeds for future danger," the Times reported.

His worry was "not for the present flight or the next or perhaps the one after that." He added, "One of the roots of my concern is that nobody will know for sure when the safety margin has been eroded too far," the newspaper said.

Members of Congress who heard testimony from the panel last spring told the Times that they would re-examine whether budget constraints had undermined safety, but several said they doubted it.

O'Keefe said Blomberg "was concerned about the future process at that time, of exactly what would be the upgrades as well as the safety modifications necessary. We took those ideas aboard."

President Bush will propose a nearly $470 million boost in NASA's budget for fiscal 2004, an administration official said on Sunday, promising investigators would look into whether past cutbacks played any part in the Columbia disaster.

[patnray]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Members of Congress who heard testimony from the panel last spring told the Times that they would re-examine whether budget constraints had undermined safety, but several said they doubted it.


On virtually any issue, congress hears testimony, but it's a political process where they listen to the experts who say what they want to hear. Congress is unlikely to find any fault in their own processes. Remember that they were warned, annually, by security experts that emphasis on missile defense was misplaced because any attack was far more likely to come from planes or automobile. Nevertheless they lined their pockets with contributions from the defense industry, voted billions for missile defense, and did nothing to bolster security in other areas. Since 9/11 they have been vocal in criticizing the agencies they ignored, but have never questioned their own misplaced priorities.

Expect them to put the heat on NASA but absolve themselves...

[xouper]

bump