NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble

So clearly, while the break-up happened DURING re-entry, it wasn't re-entry
itself that doomed the craft, it was the pre-existing condition.

So I would not call it a descent accident.

As there is nothing to hit the craft in reentry, then by your argument, there
can *be* no reentry accident.

(G EddieA95) wrote:

So clearly, while the break-up happened DURING re-entry, it wasn't re-entry
itself that doomed the craft, it was the pre-existing condition.

So I would not call it a descent accident.

As there is nothing to hit the craft in reentry, then by your argument, there
can *be* no reentry accident.

True, for the class of accidents that is limited to 'something strikes
TPS deranging it'. OTOH, that's not the only class of accident
possible.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

So clearly, while the break-up happened DURING re-entry, it wasn't re-entry
itself that doomed the craft, it was the pre-existing condition.

So I would not call it a descent accident.

Noticing the classification of "descent accident" is getting shadey here.

I shall assume then that Soyuz 1 and 11 were then what you'd call "descent
accidents"? As what went wrong occured completly during the re-entry and
landing phase.

Question then, let's say Apollo 13's heat shield had been damaged during the
explosion and during entry the CM was destroyed. Would that be classified as a
descent failure? Or for that matter, if Apollo 12's chute pyros had been
damaged when it was struck by lightning? Would that be a launch failure in your
book?

Frankly, I see a "ascent failure" as something that results in the vehicle
being unable to complete the launch phase. A "descent failure" results in the
vehicle being unable to land. The damage in the case of STS 107 however was
caused during the launch phase.

I can see how this defenition is difficult. Things that might cause a launch
failure can only happen within a few short minutes. Whereas something that
could cause a landing failure can crop up from T+1 till touchdown.

-A.L.

In article , derekl1963
@nospamyahoo.com says...
(G EddieA95) wrote:

So clearly, while the break-up happened DURING re-entry, it wasn't re-entry
itself that doomed the craft, it was the pre-existing condition.

So I would not call it a descent accident.

As there is nothing to hit the craft in reentry, then by your argument, there
can *be* no reentry accident.

True, for the class of accidents that is limited to 'something strikes
TPS deranging it'. OTOH, that's not the only class of accident
possible.

You could always strike an orbital object after the de-orbit burn.
Since everything from de-orbit to rollout is considered "descent," then
you *could* have a collision-induced TPS failure that occurs during the
dscent.

Doug

Doug... wrote:
You could always strike an orbital object after the de-orbit burn.
Since everything from de-orbit to rollout is considered "descent," then
you *could* have a collision-induced TPS failure that occurs during the
dscent.

But would that be a descent accident? The act of getting hit by
orbital debris or meteors is not inherent to the act of descending,
but is inherent to the act of being on orbit.

Assigning accidents to their proper place is a major part of
understanding and mitigating them.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.