A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #52  
Old November 15th 06, 09:41 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
Burnham Treezdown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:58:40 -0600, Pat Flannery wrote:



Pat Flannery wrote:


Lookie what I found - Story Musgrave's film:
javascript:LaunchVideo('/tech/2003/02/05/vo.reentry.1997.nasa.','300k');
This has narration.

If that doesn't work, it's on this webpage:
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/spa...ure/index.html
"Video" box on the right hand side.



It's a pay site now. Put it on Youtube for a day.
  #53  
Old November 16th 06, 12:32 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,089
Default NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)

wrote in
:


Remember the question why NASA did not release their results on
the in orbit repair options for Columbia?

Incorrect. The results were released with the CAIB report, both as
a chapter in the main report and as an appendix.

The only "results" they released was a statement that their tests
were inconclusive. No report what they tested, how they tested
neither the results they got.


They did no materials testing, only analysis, and very limited
analysis at that. They didn't just say the analysis was inconclusive.
They said more than that.

"The assessment of the level of difficulty of the repair operation
is high. The level of risk to the crew is moderate and the risk of
doing additional damage to the Orbiter is high (i.e. enlarging the
wing leading edge breach). The overall assessment of the expectation
of task success is moderate to low, depending on damage site
characteristics and the required repair technique."

"The results while inconclusive, do not indicate this option was
likely to succeed."


Actually, what you cite above is a report by a NASA team. It was
published by the CAIB but the CAIB was not involved in its writing.


Yes, I know that, and I never claimed otherwise. I *said* the results
were released *with* the CAIB report.

"Because the NASA team could not verify that the repairs would
survive even a modified re-entry, the rescue option had a
considerably higher chance of bringing Columbia's crew back alive."
(CAIB Vol. 1)

In effect, the same guys who immediately after the diasater openly
stated "there was no way to repair" (they even said it that line as
the astronauts were still alive) did later the task to investigate
whether their statement was correct. They did it the NASA disaster
way: "inconclusive"


That's about all they could do, under the time constraints required by
the CAIB.

It seems the results were too
unwanted obvious:

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.

What is your source? Was it you who said something the same line
over a year ago claiming some knowledge of NASA tests not yet
released? As we got no source it was dismissed as one of the many
Columbia Usenet myths. But maybe there is a report out now. I`m not
the only one eager to read it!


It depends on what you mean by "report". NASA has published no report
directly addressing Columbia repair on STS-107. But then again,
that's not necessary. What I did was to read the CAIB report, both
Volume 1 section 6.4 and Appendix D.13, and make careful note of the
assumptions both stated and implicit. Then I read on NASA's work on
RCC repair and entry aerothermodynamics since the CAIB report was
published. This work does not directly address 107, but the results
of it invalidate the assumptions from CAIB. It's as simple as that.

First, the results of the RCC impact tests at SwRI demonstrate that
the area around the hole in panel 8L almost certainly had surrounding
areas where the RCC was cracked and delaminated. Arcjet tests at Ames
and JSC demonstrate that RCC damage propagates rapidly along these
cracks. So it doesn't matter what the crew puts in the hole behind
the panel to try to stop the flow of superheated air; the damage will
quickly spread and allow the superheated air to simply go around the
repair.


In simple words you assume the hole in the RCC would grow up until
most the RCC was consumed and the ice block was no longer a blockade.
That would be a clear "no way to repair". But I doubt that the
delamination would spread that fast.


What data are you basing that doubt on? As a matter of fact, you're
wrong. A 15-minute arcjet test on an RCC specimen with a 0.03" crack had
to be aborted a little after the five minute mark because the specimen
was eroding so fast.

Its a plasma oxidation of an
otherwise covered RCC layer on the open crack surface. The hole may
be 2 cm wider after reentry, but not 4 times its size. As you read
it otherwise somewhere (or you got that impression there), please
give me your source.


My source was a presentation on RCC arcjet test results given to the
Orbiter Return-To-Flight Working Group, sometime in the spring of 2004.

2. there was no evidence of BL trip related damage by CAIB, it
all developed at the RCC


There was no evidence *remaining*. The RCC panel in question eroded away
quickly; *none* of its lower surface was recovered. Likewise the lower
surface of the wing behind it. The CAIB noted there was very little
debris recovered from the left wing.

3. required smoothness criteria for the shuttle was to protect it
against any thermal damage to the tiles. This was to keep the tiles
reusable. In case of an emergency some tile damage would be
accecptable.


It depends on where the damage is.

4. on other missions Columbia had several early BL trips without
serious damage or without any damage at all.


The earliest of those BL trips was around Mach 19, more than halfway
through the peak heating period. I'm talking about a BL that goes
turbulent from the *very beginning*, at Mach 25.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
  #54  
Old November 16th 06, 12:57 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
awavey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)

In article , "Danny Dot" wrote:
In that case it shares it with every other large organisation. People just
protecting their jobs.


I have worked for several other large organizations, I found NASA to be the
worst. Recall two commissions have found a problem with NASA's culture.
Perhaps the problems is work place bullies. It is certainly worth a look at
in my opinion.


I dont know Ive always felt NASA's culture, although its always viewed as
being this oddly unique thing, can actually be found in any large organisation
that has an engineering or technical focus that involves a level of non
technical decision making.

because that will always produce a conflict where an issue that has to be
resolved technically, has to be decided by someone whose view might well be
more focussed on a balance sheet or a delivery date than why x is really such
a big problem

the difference with NASA is their mistakes make headline news , in a large
business the same kind of cultural mistake occuring might just blip the share
price for a day or two.


Aw
  #55  
Old November 16th 06, 03:46 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)



Craig Fink wrote:

Personally, I from what I've read in the CAIB, it doesn't look to me that
NASA seriously looked at the repair option before putting out the report.
Bags of water



For once and for all, forget the bags of water. Water at cabin
temperature will boil on contact with vacuum, and the bag will explode.
All you are going to end up with is a huge shower of small droplets
spraying all over the airlock's insides as soon as it's depressurized.

Pat
  #56  
Old November 16th 06, 03:56 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
snidely
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,303
Default NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)


Pat Flannery wrote:
[...]
For once and for all, forget the bags of water. Water at cabin
temperature will boil on contact with vacuum, and the bag will explode.
All you are going to end up with is a huge shower of small droplets
spraying all over the airlock's insides as soon as it's depressurized.


I'm not convinced that a gallon ziplock, sealed, in the heavy-duty
gauge, would explode -- the bag would keep the vapor pressure under
control, and the water wouldn't freeze until it had radiated the heat
away, which may take some time.

It isn't until you try to *remove* the water from the bag that you'd
have flash evaporation, so your airlock may be safe, even if you can't
do anything useful with the water.

/dps

  #57  
Old November 16th 06, 03:58 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
Herb Schaltegger[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 442
Default NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:46:01 -0600, Pat Flannery wrote
(in article ):


Craig Fink wrote:

Personally, I from what I've read in the CAIB, it doesn't look to me that
NASA seriously looked at the repair option before putting out the report.
Bags of water



For once and for all, forget the bags of water.


Now you understand why many of us finally killfiled him - he spouts the
same nonsense over and over again and just completely ignores
information to the contrary.

--
Herb Schaltegger
"You can run on for a long time . . . sooner or later, God'll cut you
down." - Johnny Cash
http://www.angryherb.net

  #58  
Old November 16th 06, 05:19 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)



JF Mezei wrote:

Pat Flannery wrote:

For once and for all, forget the bags of water. Water at cabin
temperature will boil on contact with vacuum, and the bag will explode.



Then why is it that water, flowing out of the toilet into space often
freezes up and clogs the outflow hole on the shuttle's surface ?



As the pressure drops the water boils into vapor - this causes it to
drop in temperature and freeze almost immediately:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...1/gen01060.htm
The problem that they ran into with the toilet was that the water froze
as it was coming out the outlet, and each successive "flush" of the
toilet made the icicle grow as more water stuck to its surface and
froze, just the way that water flows down a icicle's exterior and
freezes on its end.

Obviously, if you put the sun on it, it will melt and evaporate.



It will take a while; it's slowly evaporating into the vacuum, and that
evaporation will cause it to cool down yet more.
In the case of the Shuttle's toilet icicle they ended up using the
Remote Manipulator Arm to knock it off after a couple of days.


And "explode" is perhaps a strong word. The bag would burst and let
evaporated water out well before any "explosive" pressures could build
up.



I probably should have said "rupture" instead. It would be a real mess,
as whoever is holding the bag is probably going to end up with ice stuck
all over their EVA suit.
There's a graph for figuring out its boiling point at varous pressures
he
http://designer-drugs.com/pte/12.162...nomograph.html

Pat
  #59  
Old November 16th 06, 09:47 AM posted to sci.space.history
OM[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 806
Default NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:19:50 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Obviously, if you put the sun on it, it will melt and evaporate.


It will take a while; it's slowly evaporating into the vacuum, and that
evaporation will cause it to cool down yet more.


....If evaporation were as rapid as this guy thinks it should be, we'd
have never heard of Halley's Comet, or anything else inside the Oort
Cloud.

In the case of the Shuttle's toilet icicle they ended up using the
Remote Manipulator Arm to knock it off after a couple of days.


....Ah, the great "Cosmic Space Turd". The wire stories for that event
were the first copy editing assignment I had at the _Deadly Texan_,
over 20 years ago. Damn thing came off not quite as easy as they
thought it would; IIRC it took two swipes to knock it off, which led
to quite a few comments about the thing being proof that Space Food
Sticks lead to constipation no matter what the digestive tract :-)

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
  #60  
Old November 16th 06, 10:07 AM posted to sci.space.history
OM[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 806
Default NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:58:50 -0600, Herb Schaltegger
wrote:

Now you understand why many of us finally killfiled him - he spouts the
same nonsense over and over again and just completely ignores
information to the contrary.


....Lessee, if we had to come up with a "Strongly Urged Killfile List",
who'd be on that one permanently?

Brad Guth
Craig Fink
Wbua Znkfba(#)
Charleston
"jonathan"(*)
Thomas Lee Elfritz (**)
~CT aka "Stuff4"
Eric Chomko
Bob Haller aka "hallerb"
William Mook
Alan Erskine (***)
"scott grissom" (**)
Greg Kuperberg
Fred J. McCall
Nicholas Fitzpatrick
Nomen Nescio
Andre Lieven
BlagooBlanaa
Daniel Joseph Min(**)

Secret987

....And, of course, anyone from talk.bizarre or the net.kooks types who
crosspost from their respective pigpens to our group. Note that I may
be missing one or two, like that one moron who was bitching about the
Texas U. AeroEng department for kicking him out because he was a
psychotic, or that fat retarded bitch who was "scott grissom's" little
sycophant a few years back.

....Note that I didn't list Tony Lance there. While his drivel hasn't
been seen around here for a while, the "Big Bertha" posts are
sometimes too stupid to pass up for a laugh, especially since there's
some concensus that Lance might have been using a modded copy of
Racter all along to generate those things.

[Thinks]

....Heh, I finally posted that killfile list after all. Took me long
enough, huh? Either way, this list comprises the most known, regular
or semi-regular trolls that pollute this newsgroup - not to mention
usenet - way too much for most people's tastes.

(#) Filtering on just the last name will be sufficient to remove all
of this psychotic troll's postings and those of his equally psychotic
family's, save for those of "Charleston".

(*) Absolutely NOT to be confused with Jonathan Silverlight, who is a
valued contributor to this group.

(**) Uses many aliases.

(***) Alan's not actually a troll per se, but he's raised the ire of
quite a few trolls who pollute the group with accusations of his being
a child molester/pervert/democrat to the point that it's easier to
just killfile his name to get rid of them all.


OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog -
http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others) [email protected] Space Shuttle 301 December 11th 06 10:34 PM
NASA Spacewalking astronaut completes unique repair Jacques van Oene Space Shuttle 1 August 3rd 05 08:01 PM
NASA Spacewalking astronaut completes unique repair Jacques van Oene News 0 August 3rd 05 07:52 PM
AP: NASA Still Lacks Repair Kits for Astronauts in Orbit, Nearly Two Years After Columbia Disaster Mr. White Space Shuttle 0 December 6th 04 11:41 PM
Navy Recognizes Columbia Astronaut Ron Baalke Space Shuttle 0 July 9th 03 07:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.