|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
New Columbia loss report out today
Stuf4 wrote:
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. You forgot, one standing up no helmet (and gloves), two more with no gloves. The guy standing up (Shuttle Surfing) was one end of the spectrum. What about the other end of the spectrum, the safety conscious types, a couple of the four that were ready? Sad, but true, no real need for helmets, glove, parachutes in the Shuttle at that point of the entry in this Disaster. Just prolong the Disaster slightly, but it was pretty much a slow motion crash anyway. Although, reading the report, it looks like it's debatable, and there probably were debates, that two of the crew did close and lock their visors. Page 3-53... http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/298870main_SP-2008-565.pdf ...."Mechanical separation of the bailer bar would be accompanied by fracture of the latch assembly if the visor was down and the bailer bar was locked. The other two helmets experienced latch mechanism separation due to failure of the fasteners that attach the latch mechanism to the helmet... followed by some hand waving about how the latch failure wasn't... When I heard the none, zero, of the occupants had the presents of mind to close their visors, it just sound right. A real time, new, procedure implemented as a last ditch effort to get hydraulic pressure, while working formal procedures to restart two APUs? And, the passengers with nothing to do, other than lock your visor and pray, don't? Impressive presents of mind by some, yet a lack of it by all, just doesn't sound right. -- Craig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
New Columbia loss report out today
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
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. or 3) take a few pictures of the damage, because ?We couldn?t do anything about it anyway. We were in the best possible position, and so we elected not to take any pictures... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077590/ Again, one end of the spectrum, but not the other...could even be argued a majority view point among certain groups at NASA at the time. If your interested, here is one of the better articles from back then on this subject of being in the "best possible position" http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200311/langewiesche ....The caib investigator who asked the engineers what conclusion they had drawn at the time from management's refusal later said to me, "They all thought, 'Well, none of us have a security clearance high enough to view any of this imagery.' They talked about this openly among themselves, and they figured one of three things: "'One: The "no" means that management's already got photos, and the damage isn't too bad. They can't show us the photos, because we don't have the security clearance, and they can't tell us they have the photos, or tell us the damage isn't bad, because that tells us how accurate the photos are?and we don't have the security clearance. But wait a minute, if that's the case, then what're we doing here? Why are we doing the analysis? So no, that can't be right. "'Okay, then, two: They already took the photos, and the damage is so severe that there's no hope for recovery. Well ... that can't be right either, because in that case, why are we doing the analysis? "'Okay, then, three: They took the photos. They can't tell us they took the photos, and the photos don't give us clear definition. So we need to do the analysis. That's gotta be it!'" So, the both ends of the spectrum were present at NASA during the disaster. -- Craig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
New Columbia loss report out today
From Jorge:
(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. Thanks for reminding me about that, Jorge. It's been a long time. ~ CT |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
New Columbia loss report out today
From Craig Fink:
When I heard the none, zero, of the occupants had the presents of mind to close their visors, it just sound right. A real time, new, procedure implemented as a last ditch effort to get hydraulic pressure, while working formal procedures to restart two APUs? And, the passengers with nothing to do, other than lock your visor and pray, don't? Impressive presents of mind by some, yet a lack of it by all, just doesn't sound right. You don't climb to that pinnacle of the pyramid without having a keen presence of mind in extremely stressful situations. More so for the pilots, considering the dozens of selection levels they succeeded in through the military and then NASA. I myself tend to think that they all had a solid understanding of how far outside of their egress survivability envelope they were, and that suit pressure would have just passed their survival along to the next fatal wicket. One of many. ~ CT |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
New Columbia loss report out today
On Jan 2, 1:30 pm, OM wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 02:19:13 -0600, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote: 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.) ...It never fails. A new Columbia report comes out, and CT shows up to troll the group. 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. ...Jorge, the little ******* KNOWS this. He was around here when Columbia happened, and when everyone who wasn't a dogsucking troll was working on the FAQ. Just killfile the ****heel and put him out of our misery, PLEASE! OM I never left the group. It's just been a long time since I saw a thread that I wanted to post to. Actually, I was concerned about your health there, Bob, but decided that there were no words coming from me that you would take in a helpful way. ~ CT -- ]=====================================[ ] OMBlog -http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
New Columbia loss report out today
Stuf4 wrote:
From Craig Fink: When I heard the none, zero, of the occupants had the presents of mind to close their visors, it just sound right. A real time, new, procedure implemented as a last ditch effort to get hydraulic pressure, while working formal procedures to restart two APUs? And, the passengers with nothing to do, other than lock your visor and pray, don't? Impressive presents of mind by some, yet a lack of it by all, just doesn't sound right. You don't climb to that pinnacle of the pyramid without having a keen presence of mind in extremely stressful situations. More so for the pilots, considering the dozens of selection levels they succeeded in through the military and then NASA. I myself tend to think that they all had a solid understanding of how far outside of their egress survivability envelope they were, and that suit pressure would have just passed their survival along to the next fatal wicket. One of many. Ahh, I see, your visor would have been open, a conscious logical decision. Mine would have been closed, ever hopeful that someone with an infinite improbability drive just might happen along... Well, that is if I wasn't Shuttle Surfing at the time... Is that the proper NASA term for standing throughout entry? Interesting x-link discussion, page 2-37 through 2-45, looks like Titanium performed well and it didn't. It caught fire too, along with all the aluminum. (the aluminum fire seems to be absent from the discussion)... http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/298870main_SP-2008-565.pdf .... So, the best choice for an ascent/entry vehicle seems to be graphite, silicon-carbonate or glass. The fiberglass performed really well Page 3-51, Figure 3.2-22. I wonder what material NASA chose for the upcoming Apollo Capsule v2.0? Here is an intersting video... http://www.popsci.com/node/30347 The aluminum is stripping oxygen from the titanium-dioxide to make titanium metal. -- Craig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
New Columbia loss report out today
Craig Fink wrote: Interesting x-link discussion, page 2-37 through 2-45, looks like Titanium performed well and it didn't. It caught fire too, along with all the aluminum. (the aluminum fire seems to be absent from the discussion)... http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/298870main_SP-2008-565.pdf What's interesting is that the titanium caught fire _before_ the aluminum did based on the deposits on the recovered fragment of the top window. Pat |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
New Columbia loss report out today
"Blake" wrote in message
m... Why those dirty rotten sick twisted Texan *******s! Blake Also heard there are photos online taken after they finished their perverted act and it looks like a glazed donut. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
New Columbia loss report out today
John Doe wrote:
Craig Fink wrote: Ahh, I see, your visor would have been open, a conscious logical decision. Mine would have been closed, ever hopeful that someone with an infinite improbability drive just might happen along... Would middeck crewmembers have had ANY indication (verbal or otherwise) or anomalies being worked upstairs before decompression began ? Would they have had any sensation that the shuttle was in an unusual attitude with nose way up ? Any unusual sensation of G force (especially if this was their first flight) ? If not, then they would have had no reason to drop their visor. (Middeck crew would have only seen a orange glow in the side hatch, no horizon to give them any hint of attitude. Another aspect not dealt with the report is that of "macho" behaviour. This is pure specualtion on my part, but is it possible that a crew member lowering his visor would be seen as being "chicken" and exhibiting fear and that there would be some resistance of crew members to lower their visors at the first sign of what they may see as trouble but what might be perfectly normal ? (especially for first time fliers) The report has also repeated many times that lowered visor are not "OK" for the shuttle because it causes the release of too much O2 for cabin. Looks to me like there are dis-incentives to lower the visor. If one crew member was still busy getting into his seat at the time power went out, it is likely that the crew member next to him might have had his hands busy trying to help him, holding straps etc. And without sufficient light, they may not have had sufficient visual cues on decompression. (I assume there would have been instant fog in the cabin as humidity would have condensed ?) Obviously, there would have been immense noise of air flowing out. Is it fair to assume that this would have been heard upstairs as well ? Would the CDR/PLT have had visual indication of bad attitude (nose way up) looking out the windows ? Or does the plasma glow pretty much obliterate any view of the horizon ? I'm sure the passengers on the middeck would have had plenty of information about their situation, starting with the loss of tire pressured discussion. The Commander and Pilot most likely would have noticed the diverging control surface trim as the aerodynamics slowly changed, possibly some discussion about it. Watching the trims would have been like watching a countdown clock to loss of control. When the trim hits it's limit of movement, 1, 2, and 3 degrees, their out of control. Towards the end, yaw jets comming on, the last ditch effort of the flight control system. Prior to loss of control, the Commander may have asked someone to take a look behind to see if they could see anything in the plasma trail. A logical and reasonable request. A view out the upper windows, back towards the tail might (probably would) have revealed differences in the plasma between the left and right side. Burning aluminum and disturbed flow, possibly even super bright white flashes as globs of liquid aluminum get instantly dispersed and burn in the slipstream. The bright flashes might have even been visible to those in their seat, like a giant flash bulb going off behind them, flashing through the upper windows and on to the floor. There was quite a bit of time between the first indications of something amiss and loss of control. After loss of control, during the initial pitch up and yaw, he may have been able to get back in his seat and buckle his lap belt. But, apparently not enough time to get his shoulder straps or helmet on before the gyrations built up. Shuttle Surfing during a normal entry, walking around the cabin would be like walking around an airline's cabin, except the gee force would be very small initially, then slowly build. The equivalent of walking on an asteroid for a little while, then the Moon for a bit, then Mars, Earth, and a mega-Earth. And all this fun would start at entry interface as the vehicle began to decelerate. The time in each regime would be fairly long. A planetary simulator. Kind of surprising we don't hear about more astronauts taking this opportunity to experience walking around on other planets, especially the ones on the middeck who normally have nothing to do, and lots of space to do it in. An interesting environment. Just a bunch of speculation. -- Craig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Hey Mark - I **** in your mothers mouth
********************ReeferGuy™ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |