Columbia question

If ground control had seen the shedding and impact on the left wing and
realized it damaged the RCC panels could Columbia have aborted to Morocco or
Spain?

Allen W.

In article , Allen W. McDonnell wrote:
If ground control had seen the shedding and impact on the left wing and
realized it damaged the RCC panels could Columbia have aborted to Morocco or
Spain?

I don't know but I seem to recall that a RTLS or TAL abort has most of the
heat generated of a normal reentry, so it could still be problematic and
possibly not hold up long enough (ie, down to 20,000 feet altitude).

I don't know that for sure -- perhaps one of the abort experts (at least
one lurks here occasionally) can comment on that further. I don't recall
the CAIB report having addressed that question anywhere, but could have
always missed it somewhere.

-Dan

Dan Foster wrote in
:

In article , Allen W. McDonnell
wrote:
If ground control had seen the shedding and impact on the left wing
and realized it damaged the RCC panels could Columbia have aborted to
Morocco or Spain?

I don't know but I seem to recall that a RTLS or TAL abort has most of
the heat generated of a normal reentry, so it could still be
problematic and possibly not hold up long enough (ie, down to 20,000
feet altitude).

TAL entry heating is comparable to a nominal entry, so that would not have
saved the crew.

An RTLS has lower entry heating and might be survivable from a TPS point of
view. But an RTLS is quite risky in its own right. There is no way that
Mission Control would call an RTLS abort unless there were *conclusive*
evidence that the damage was otherwise fatal, *and* such evidence was
available in time to support a decision by the flight director prior to the
Negative Return boundary, beyond which an RTLS is no longer possible
(around 3:40 after launch).

The latter is important because the video cameras available real-time
during the STS-107 launch lacked the resolution necessary to make such a
decision, while the high-resolution cameras used film and weren't available
real-time. Additional HD video cameras are under consideration now, but of
course would not have been available for the 107 ascent in this
hypothetical what-if.

(There is, IIRC, one circumstance where the Flight Rules allow an abort
based on ascent damage: the CDR can declare an RTLS if the window thermal
panes are damaged. But in that case, the damage is visually obvious to the
crew.)

An old flight control axiom is, "When in doubt, do nothing. Don't make
things worse by guessing." In this case, almost always the best thing to do
is to continue to orbit. That buys you time to deal with the problem. There
are a *lot* of ways to make the situation worse with an ill-considered
abort.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

Dan Foster wrote in
:

In article , Allen W. McDonnell
wrote:
If ground control had seen the shedding and impact on the left wing
and realized it damaged the RCC panels could Columbia have aborted to
Morocco or Spain?

I don't know but I seem to recall that a RTLS or TAL abort has most of
the heat generated of a normal reentry, so it could still be
problematic and possibly not hold up long enough (ie, down to 20,000
feet altitude).

TAL entry heating is comparable to a nominal entry, so that would not have
saved the crew.

An RTLS has lower entry heating and might be survivable from a TPS point of
view. But an RTLS is quite risky in its own right. There is no way that
Mission Control would call an RTLS abort unless there were *conclusive*
evidence that the damage was otherwise fatal, *and* such evidence was
available in time to support a decision by the flight director prior to the
Negative Return boundary, beyond which an RTLS is no longer possible
(around 3:40 after launch).

The latter is important because the video cameras available real-time
during the STS-107 launch lacked the resolution necessary to make such a
decision, while the high-resolution cameras used film and weren't available
real-time. Additional HD video cameras are under consideration now, but of
course would not have been available for the 107 ascent in this
hypothetical what-if.

(There is, IIRC, one circumstance where the Flight Rules allow an abort
based on ascent damage: the CDR can declare an RTLS if the window thermal
panes are damaged. But in that case, the damage is visually obvious to the
crew.)

An old flight control axiom is, "When in doubt, do nothing. Don't make
things worse by guessing." In this case, almost always the best thing to do
is to continue to orbit. That buys you time to deal with the problem. There
are a *lot* of ways to make the situation worse with an ill-considered
abort.

--
JRF

Does NASA plan to increase the real time imaging of future launches
using more video cameras and viewing positions? Do you think they might
modify the RTLS or TAL rules to accomodate any irregularities they might
see?


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

starman wrote in :

Does NASA plan to increase the real time imaging of future launches
using more video cameras and viewing positions?

NASA plans to improve imaging of future launches per the CAIB's
recommendations. However, this is directed at post-launch analysis, not
real-time.

Do you think they
might modify the RTLS or TAL rules to accomodate any irregularities
they might see?

Not a chance.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Will there be camera's on the tank to display realtime video during the
launch
looking at the wings and or spacecraft in general ?.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
starman wrote in :

Does NASA plan to increase the real time imaging of future launches
using more video cameras and viewing positions?

NASA plans to improve imaging of future launches per the CAIB's
recommendations. However, this is directed at post-launch analysis, not
real-time.

Do you think they
might modify the RTLS or TAL rules to accomodate any irregularities
they might see?

Not a chance.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"Adrian Powell" wrote:

Will there be camera's on the tank to display realtime video during the
launch looking at the wings and or spacecraft in general ?.

It's not certain that real time video will actually prove to be of any
use. Most events will be over in a fraction of a second, or a few
seconds at best, and there is essentially no time to analyze the video
and make decisions.

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

"Adrian Powell" wrote in
:

Will there be camera's on the tank to display realtime video during the
launch
looking at the wings and or spacecraft in general ?.

Yes, on both the tank and the SRBs. They will not be used for real-time
decision-making, however.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Well that certainly makes sense. I have always wondered why they did put
cameras all
around the shuttle and it's components to look for issues during take off.
It can't be that
expensive to do in the scheme of things!.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
"Adrian Powell" wrote in
:

Will there be camera's on the tank to display realtime video during the
launch
looking at the wings and or spacecraft in general ?.

Yes, on both the tank and the SRBs. They will not be used for real-time
decision-making, however.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Well that certainly makes sense. I have always wondered why they did put
cameras all
around the shuttle and it's components to look for issues during take off.
It can't be that
expensive to do in the scheme of things!.

Probably because more cameras strapped onto the ET equals more crap that can
fall off and strike the orbiter.

What I'm curious about is if a camera could be installed along the lines of the
SILTS that had flown on Columbia for awhile to get images of impacts on the
leading edge. The SILTS from what I understand was essentially an infared
camera poited at the leading edge of the left wing anyway...

-A.L.