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

New Columbia loss report out today



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 31st 08, 09:14 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default New Columbia loss report out today

"Mark B." wrote:
:
:Not according to the audio, that has never been released to the public.
:Even the men were screaming like little girls.
:

Never been released to the public so you just make it up?

Jesus, go try to find a clue. See you in 30.

plonk


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #22  
Old December 31st 08, 09:49 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Mark B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default New Columbia loss report out today

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message It's probably pretty
merciful that they were either unconscious or dead
before this all happened due to the loss of cabin pressure.

Not according to the audio, that has never been released to the public.
Even the men were screaming like little girls.


  #23  
Old December 31st 08, 09:54 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Mark B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default New Columbia loss report out today

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
ne...
in that three of them didn't have their gloves on when things started to

go wrong (as well as one not having their helmet on);

As if any of this would have made a difference at 10,000 degrees fahrenheit.


  #24  
Old December 31st 08, 09:57 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Mark B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default New Columbia loss report out today

"Craig Fink" wrote in message But, to me, it looks like
for some future vehicle's occupants might survive
such a breakup.


Congratulations for the dumbest post yet. You would have a higher chance
for survival swimming in the lava of an active volcano, than in a shuttle
disintegration during reentry.


  #25  
Old January 1st 09, 03:57 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 687
Default New Columbia loss report out today

Orion Program Drawing On Columbia Report

See:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...&channel=space
  #26  
Old January 1st 09, 05:20 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default New Columbia loss report out today



wrote:
Orion Program Drawing On Columbia Report

See:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...&channel=space


"That reel system has since been redesigned, according to Wayne Hale,
former shuttle program manager. 'That is a huge, I think, safety
improvement,' he says."

Yes, it would be a huge safety improvement...because in this case it
might actually do what the design specification said it was supposed to
do on the Shuttle, rather than suffering a 100% failure rate as it did
on Columbia.
I don't know if that was a fundamental design or manufacturing fault on
the part of the builders of the reel system, or a failure of upkeep by
the NASA Shuttle maintenance team as the Shuttle aged - but whatever it
was was completely unacceptable.
This was a fairly simple system that had direct analogs in the auto
industry going back years before the Shuttle was ever built, that failed
miserably when put to the test.

Pat
  #27  
Old January 1st 09, 04:40 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Craig Fink
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,858
Default New Columbia loss report out today

Alain Fournier wrote:

Craig Fink wrote:

Making an ascent/entry vehicle crash worthy, to protect the occupants.
Again, NASCAR comes to mind and they are way ahead of NASA in many
respects. The car is designed to come apart protecting the occupant,
reducing the loads all along the way, during the crash. Something that
could be incorporated in a future design.

Although unintended in it's design, this happened when the crew
compartment separated from the fuselage. 3 gees down to 1 gee. Designing
it structurally and aerodynamically to continue coming apart around the
occupants would keep the force loads down, just like a NASCAR car.


In a car accident, you want to protect the occupants by keeping the g
forces to a minimum. In an orbital reentry accident, the g forces on the
occupants are a secondary issue, not to be ignored completely, but not the
main issue. You want the occupants to have breathable air and you don't
want them to fry. Keeping the pressure vessel around the occupants intact
is a wise choice for a reentry vehicle.


Gee forces can go both ways as the vehicle breaks up. Many parts probably
went the other way. 3 gee to 10 or 20 gees, depending on the ballistic
coefficient. Keeping the Vehicle pressure vessel intact is preferable, but
not necessary, as long as the personal pressure vessel is intact. Keeping
the some temperature resistant part between the occupant and slip stream
keeps them from frying.

The statement that it wasn't survivable is really only applicable for that
particular vehicle, and really isn't even true in this case. There were
survivors who lived through the Columbia Disaster, just not human ones.
http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules...cle&sid= 1821

A couple of seats essentially few together, side by side reasonably well,
page 2-31. With or without occupants.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/298870main_SP-2008-565.pdf
Page 2-129 shows the a almost intact middeck accommodation rack, very close
to the size and weight of an astronaut and seat. Pages 3-10, 3-11 are
interesting. "Nearly all seat fractures occurred at minimum thermal
cross-sectional areas (minimum thermal mass), away from any large heat sink
locations." The Aluminum really didn't perform well, essentially
melting/burning apart. Like flying in a burning wooden airplane.

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @
  #28  
Old January 1st 09, 09:45 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,516
Default New Columbia loss report out today

In accordance with their training, they spent that time trying to
regain control of the orbiter, rather than sealing up their suits.
"The crew was doing everything that they had been trained to do, and
they were doing everything right," Melroy said during a press
conference Dec. 30.

seems that a priority should be suits sealed, so if they regain
control they can breathe and remain concious
  #29  
Old January 2nd 09, 08:21 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 554
Default New Columbia loss report out today

From Craig Fink:

Your being a bit harsh aren't you. The report is the culmination of years of
work by what is probably a relatively small group of people. The purpose of
the report is to improve the state of the art. Although NASA has chosen to
take the Space Program backwards, back to the 60s, with a remake of Apollo,
improvements can be made. It's a nice detailed report, maybe I'll read the
entire report.


"Nice" is not a word that entered my mind in skimming through that
myself. But yes, it's certainly detailed.

But, to me, it looks like for some future vehicle's occupants might survive
such a breakup. Haven't read the specific recommendation yet, but what I've
gathered so far...

The bubble helmets aren't good ascent/entry helmets. The "non" conformal
bit. They should be more like crash helmets, NASCAR comes to mind, a helmet
that fits snuggly and protects the head from impacts as well as maintaining
pressure. Helmets that move with the head.

Another, manual closure of the helmets didn't work. A pressure sensing,
automated visor/pressurization safety system would be a good idea.

Another, the paracutes didn't work, no pressure sensing deployment.

Another, seat belts didn't work, maybe active restraints (not just locking)
like an ejection seat that pulls the occupants legs, arms, and in this case
shoulders back into the seat. Fully (or mildly) restraining the occupant
motion when activated would be a good thing.


Helmets, parachutes, seat belts didn't work? What kind of a
conclusion is that? Didn't work to do what? I hope that someone on
this investigation team had a flash of insight that the reason why the
crew didn't bother with putting on a helmet, putting on gloves,
closing visors and locking inertial reels was because they were all
well aware that these actions would only *prolong their death* in a
situation where the vehicle fell apart above 200kft. And an altitude
sensing HiTech chute deploy would spare their charred corpses from
that final impact with the ground.

If you want a mishap like Columbia's to be survivable, the critical
first step is to decide that you value the crew's lives enough to
design it to be survivable. It is of little productive value to later
tell us how their seat belts sliced their bodies to pieces after their
inertial reels didn't lock, and all that other gory stuff.

Making an ascent/entry vehicle crash worthy, to protect the occupants.
Again, NASCAR comes to mind and they are way ahead of NASA in many
respects. The car is designed to come apart protecting the occupant,
reducing the loads all along the way, during the crash. Something that
could be incorporated in a future design.

Although unintended in it's design, this happened when the crew compartment
separated from the fuselage. 3 gees down to 1 gee. Designing it
structurally and aerodynamically to continue coming apart around the
occupants would keep the force loads down, just like a NASCAR car.

Aerodynamic bucket seats, like a NASCAR roll cage, the most structural part
surrounding the occupant. Designed to fly right, if ever thrown out into
the slipstream. Graphite/Epoxy, High temperature conformal foam/insulation,
The titanium tub of the A-10 that someone else mentioned.

High temperature materials aren't heavy, they're actually probably the
materials of choice from a weight perspective, just a bit harder to
manufacture. Use titanium or carbon/epoxy liberally around the occupants.
Stay away from low temperature materials, like aluminum.


The sport of autoracing has had phenomenal improvements in safety.
Katherine Legge walking away from her Road America mess and Ryan
Briscoe surviving his Chicagoland inferno are dramatic examples of
Jerry Bruckheimer proportion. And I don't think that either driver
even had the HANS device.

Maybe some occupants of some future vehicle will survive such a Disaster
that Columbia was.


We are in total agreement on your last statement. You may remember
how much I have emphasized on this forum in years past of how easy it
would have been to design the shuttle with crew escape capability
where Challenger & Columbia scenarios could have been survivable.
Just design the rigid pressure vessel to separate from the debris in
an aerodynamically stable way similar to the F-111/B-1 capsules
(drogue chutes, etc), thermally protect it to prevent it from burning
up itself, then when it has decelerated sufficiently, the crew can pop
the hatch, bail out and parachute to safety.

So now we are given these 400 pages of technobabble detailing how each
crew member was killed 11 times over. Talk about missing the forest
for the trees. It was never designed to be survivable (as
deliberately decided by NASA). Detailing their deaths is rubbing salt
into the wound in the worst way possible. I am particularly sickened
to see it publish statements like, "the crew had no role in causing
the accident". All of that CAIB analysis, and we didn't even learn
that it was a horribly bad decision for the crew to board Columbia and
launch STS-107. The SOFI damage alarm was sounded just 3 months prior
with STS-112, ironically the first flight of the ETcam. This SCSIIT
report has brought back a flood of memories in my disappointment on
how the CAIB report fell way short. (I don't even remember it
addressing the option of sending an astronaut on EVA at the end of the
arm to look at the wing from the top to get an idea of how badly it
was damaged.)


~ CT
  #30  
Old January 2nd 09, 09:19 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,089
Default New Columbia loss report out today

Stuf4 wrote in
:

(I don't even remember it
addressing the option of sending an astronaut on EVA at the end of the
arm to look at the wing from the top to get an idea of how badly it
was damaged.)


1) Columbia did not carry the RMS on STS-107.

2) The CAIB addressed the option of an inspection EVA - without the arm -
in Volume 1, Section 6.4, page 173.
 




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
Followup [FAQ] Minor notice Columbia Loss FAQ dave schneider Space Science Misc 1 July 10th 04 05:58 PM
[FAQ] Minor notice Columbia Loss FAQ OM Space Shuttle 2 July 9th 04 06:16 PM
[FAQ] Minor notice Columbia Loss FAQ OM Policy 2 July 9th 04 06:16 PM
[FAQ] Minor notice Columbia Loss FAQ OM History 2 July 9th 04 06:16 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:32 AM.


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.