View Single Post
  #25  
Old November 14th 06, 04:11 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 224
Default NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)


Gutierrez is wrong. And it turns out, so were NASA's results from the CAIB
report. The three years of work that have gone into RCC repair capability
since that report have made clear that the in-flight repair options for
Columbia would not have worked.


It's not even clear whether the proposals would have delayed breakup


Jim, Gutierrez looks not like a guy who gives such a statement light handed.
Thats why I copied his credentials (engineer, AF testpilot, now at Sandia)
from the article. He has some more knowledge on the subject then we have.
He may well have some insider knowledge NASA was eager to supress.
Remember the clandestine knowledge path from the astronaut corps to
Feynman after Challenger?

The statement

He said something as simple as wet towels forming a several-inches-thick
layer of ice would have been enough to keep hot gasses from burning into
the crack in the leading edge.

could be read as slight exageration by mentioning wet towels. Meaning
anything could have worked. Its not my impression that it was intented
that way. Wet towels are indeed an interesting option to fix it. Its
better then a plastic bag of ice. The towels gives the pack cohesion even
past melting. It protects liquid from blown away and forces better
vapourization. And it may carbonize to give some further flow protection.

Remember that the main element of the destruction of Columbia was not
the shock front at the RCC but the flow of plasma from the RCC cavity
out of small venting holes behind the leading edge. To prevent this
plasma flow from the RCC cavity to the outside would already be a crucial
step.

a few minutes, or hastened it due to higher drag. I'd like to believe that
an attempted repair would have given the ship another minute or two
to get lower and slower, and perhaps cross the boundary where
suited crewmembers thrown free by the cabin break-up might, might,
just might have survived to low enough that their parachutes would
have saved them. But at any altitude, co-existing even briefly with a
debris cloud of jagged metal is problematical. It's what I was saying the
first hour of the live coverage with ABC, when I talked on-air from my
home: the odds of survival were low but not zero and in the initial hours


yea, had the crew cabin survived the heat somewhat longer they had
had a real chance.

post-breakup all efforts must focus and looking for parachutes on the
ground because anybody getting out of the ship alive would need help
really bad.

Had there been warning, you also bet that there wouldn't have been
anybody in the ship doing entry without helmets and gloves -- an


yes, good point. I see it that way too.

appalling failure of safety practices, in real life, but sadly consistent
with safety standards that had crept up on some (not all, or even most)
of the team.


I think thats not realy fair. This issue did not affect their chance for
survival, the CAIB was very clear on it. And I assume the astronauts
were aware of their chances. Almost any failure during this phase of
reentry would lead to a break up of the orbiter. The crew compartment
would survive the initial break up. Thats probably a design reminescent
of early structural development were the crew compartent was thought as
survival capsule. But the Columbia compartment had no thermal protection
at its rear break up side. As it tumbled in the hypersonic plasma the
aluminium structure there was fast penetrated. Those without helmets
and gloves had more luck than.

## CrossPoint v3.12d R ##