Could Columbia have been Saved?

In article , Joann Evans wrote:

Second, even if it did, the crew would have to know or suspect that
there was a problem that required such inspection. Your policy would
require that all future shuttle missions be such that ISS rendezvous is
possible, further limiting its usefulness.

Joann - this is a somewhat misplaced point. All future STS flights are
slated for ISS, with the exception of two or three Hubble servicing
flights. Columbia was planned to be (and is now likely to remain) the
last of the free-flying self-contained flights - to remove a capacity
that NASA and/or Congress had chosen not to use (wasn't 107 added at
political request?) is unlikely to limit usefulness significantly.

(Moving back to the original point, AIUI replacing or repairing RCC
panels on the ground would be enough of a problem, much less doing it
reliably on-orbit)

And we've already seen that catastrophic accidents can happen on
shuttle ascent and Soyuz descent, too.

And Soyuz has shown they can happen on-orbit, as has Mir... accidents
can come and bite you anywhere, not just the times you're looking for
them.

--
-Andrew Gray

Andrew Gray wrote in message ...

{snip]

And Soyuz has shown they can happen on-orbit, as has Mir... accidents
can come and bite you anywhere, not just the times you're looking for
them.

About fixing a damaged shuttle in orbit?

It's seems impossible to load up every shuttle to foresee all
improbable causes of a shuttle problem threw launch and
in orbit.

Is it possible to use an ICBM to shoot up what might be
needed?

Of course, this is a dedicated USAF SAC old silo rapid
response missle, with a last stage able to maneuver to the shuttle.
At the silo location, NASA has a warehouse with every
conceivable thingy that could help a distressed orbiting
shuttle (or Alpha).

I also wonder if the astronauts had something sticky on the
bottom of their shoes if they may have been able to adhere
to the shuttle gently while inspecting.

Regards Ken S. Tucker

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

I also wonder if the astronauts had something sticky on the
bottom of their shoes if they may have been able to adhere
to the shuttle gently while inspecting.

"Sticky" and "hard vacuum" don't go well together. To the point...
anything sticky will dry out like decades-old duct tape on a fence post
in very short order when exposed to space.

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer

"Any statement by Edward Wright that starts with 'You seem to think
that...' is wrong. Always. It's a law of Usenet, like Godwin's."
- Jorge R. Frank, 11 Nov 2002

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 00:16:07 -0700, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

"Sticky" and "hard vacuum" don't go well together. To the point...
anything sticky will dry out like decades-old duct tape on a fence post
in very short order when exposed to space.

Well, there's velcro, but it probably wouldn't hold up very well
during entry. Or ascent, for that matter...

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message ...

"Henry Spencer" wrote:

Current US ICBMs have little or no payload to orbit, as I recall --
they're just not designed for it. They definitely don't have upper
stages capable of significant orbital maneuvering.

Yes of course, their design is sub-orbital.

Which is not to say that such a rapid-reaction launcher couldn't be built.
But it's not something that's available off the shelf right now, not quite.

Little payload is correct. And actually, as I understand it
there is a rapid-reaction launcher (modified ICBM) on the
shelf right now. I'll have to dig up the details but I think
it has a payload to LEO of around a few hundred kg. I gather
that it's supposed to be mostly secret, since the mention of
the capability was rather vague.

Well these new Tridents being installed into subs look fast and
reliable. Of course there would be a need for a fouth stage to have
the ability to effectively rendevous. But as pointed out by Henry
this capability is 60's state-of-the-art, (Gemini and Titan).

While reading threw this thread many posters had various solutions
to the befuddled Columbia, but most solutions involved jury-rigging
onboard materials, with questionable results.

My general thinking is this, if America can keep 1000 minuteman
missiles on standby to destroy something, they should be able to
keep 2 to repair something, leaving an effective deterrent of 998
missiles.

Evidentally the Russians specialized in unmanned replenishment
capsules, but in some emergency to either a shuttle or alpha the
capsule could be a piloted craft, with supplies, and a capable
pilot dealing with anomalies.

Reagards
Ken S. Tucker