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
  #31  
Old January 2nd 09, 03:56 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Craig Fink
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,858
Default 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  
Old January 2nd 09, 04:38 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Craig Fink
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,858
Default 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  
Old January 2nd 09, 07:05 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 554
Default 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  
Old January 2nd 09, 07:16 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 554
Default 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  
Old January 2nd 09, 08:42 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 554
Default 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  
Old January 2nd 09, 10:55 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle
Craig Fink
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,858
Default 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  
Old January 3rd 09, 02:46 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default 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  
Old January 3rd 09, 06:48 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Mark B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default 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  
Old January 3rd 09, 02:01 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Craig Fink
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,858
Default 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  
Old January 3rd 09, 04:41 PM posted to sci.space.history
ReeferGuy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Hey Mark - I **** in your mothers mouth





********************ReeferGuy™

 




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 12:15 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.