|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Columbia crew not fully suited up during reentry?
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Columbia crew not fully suited up during reentry?
On or about 27 Aug 2003 05:45:00 GMT, Pat Flannery
made the sensational claim that: I was absolutely flabbergasted to read this on MSN I was utterly flabbergasted to read in the CAIB report about the damage on STS-50. (I *think* that's the right flight.) And the 112 bipod loss as well. Nobody thought to ask what's the *worst* place a piece of foam could hit? And what would it do? Also, the scheduling pressure, and the Feb 2004 node 2 date. I know it's easy to say now, but I've had the feeling over the past few years that we were "due" for something like this. Apollo 1 to Challenger is roughly (ok VERY roughly) equal to Challenger to Columbia. The shuttle program was in the midst of enormous pressure from ISS requirements. Maybe we should step back and take a deep breath, and look for *anything* we weren't paying enough respect to. I even had a poster idea, three years ago...a picture of the Challenger breakup with the caption "What's the worst that could happen?" I suppose that's pretty tasteless, but it's the attitude NASA needs to adopt if it doesn't want to go through this again. -- This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Columbia crew not fully suited up during reentry?
Jorge R. Frank wrote: Fine, you *and* Derek want to evade the question of whether you really consider this issue to be the "single most disturbing thing" you've heard about Columbia. I'll ask the question in a different way: Do you really consider the crew putting on their gloves late during entry to be more disturbing than: 1) the fact that NASA knew about the ET foam shedding problem since 1981, but never considered it important enough to ground the fleet to fix? 2) the fact that NASA never performed foam impact testing on the RCC before deciding to live with the foam shedding problem? 3) the fact that, due to the lack of foam impact testing, the Debris Assessment Team had to use a software tool to analyze a foam strike that was far outside the database to which the tool was validated? 4) the fact that the MER manager's presentation of the Debris Assessment Team's conclusions to the Mission Management Team systematically downplayed all the team's uncertainties regarding the validity of said conclusions? 5) the fact that the MMT was unaware that three separate teams were requesting imaging, and in cancelling one of them, inadvertently cancelled all three? 6) the manner and extent to which the crew was notified of the foam strike? Yes I do... and for the following simple reason: all of the above were the results of bureaucratic bumbling and the desire to keep the mission schedule moving forward in an undefended program... they could have fixed the problems but it would have taken both time and money to accomplish (a _lot_ of time and money to completely fix the shedding foam ET problem...and we still don't know how to do that one.) but the pressure suit problem could have been solved by the commander saying "Sit the hell down, and put on your goddamned gloves! That's an order!". a failure to go "by the book" at every phase of the whole operaton....when mission rules state that you should be fully suited up at X minutes before reentry, you should be suited up by that time- not around that time. I suppose you consider Schirra's failure to wear his helmet during Apollo 7's entry to be more disturbing than the Apollo 1 fire? Schirra had a good reason not to want his helmet on...he didn't want to puke into it, and possibly choke to death on his own vomit. Columbia's crew just didn't get around to properly suiting up for reentry in time....and that shows slackness on their part, and on the part of Mission Control in allowing that situation to occur. It is reminiscent of some of the screw-ups that plagued the Soviet/Russian space program; although after Soyuz 11 I'll bet they are very careful to make sure that all of their cosmonauts are fully pressure-suited before reentry...so when did we get slacker than the Soviets? If mission rules say you do it, you do it. Pat |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Columbia crew not fully suited up during reentry?
Jorge R. Frank wrote: ed. Of course it's important, but such incidents of laxness have been occurring at NASA since the 1960s, many of them have been discussed at length in sci.space.history, and *never* *once* did Pat Flannery express that he was "disturbed" by them. Are you stating that I am not disturbed? Did you read some of the replies to my posts on sci.space.history? I can get you hundreds of unbiased opinions that I should be locked away; and the key put under the eternal guardianship of Doctor Strange. Examples include: - Wally Schirra not wearing his helmet during the Apollo 7 entry - Story Musgrave standing up throughout a shuttle entry - Dick Scobee not locking his harness during the 51L ascent But suddenly he thinks that the 107 crew being slow putting on their gloves is the "single most disturbing thing" he's heard about Columbia? Give me a ****ing break! None of the earlier incidents contributed to an accident, and neither did the 107 crew's. Yes...I didn't say it was the single most disturbing thing that _you_ had heard about the Columbia accident; or that it was the single most disturbing thing _about_ the Columbia accident; I said it was the single most disturbing thing that _I_ had heard about the Columbia accident.... and By God Jorge, I demand the simple God-Given right of all Americans to decide what I find disturbing! "Bjork revealed to be Alien-Elf hybrid!"? Not disturbing! "Japanese whaling vessel sunk by Kraken!"? Ho-hum! "318 American troops in Iraq killed by Genie!"? Happens every day! Now _disturbing_ is a whole other ball of wax...like getting to see the interviews with Anna Nicole Smith's relatives in "Dark Roots- The Unauthorized Biography of Anna Nicole Smith" on VH-1....and having it suddenly occur to me that....by Texan standards, both Lyndon Johnson's and George Bush's families were normal in both behavior and genetic makeup... and _that_ was the thought that chilled me to the bone...as I realized that...just like Godzilla...Texas is always going to be out there somewhere...waiting to wreak havoc; and all of our weapons are probably going to be as impotent as Bob Dole in trying to prevent that from happening again. Pat |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Columbia crew not fully suited up during reentry?
On 28 Aug 2003 17:35:05 GMT, in a place far, far away, Pat Flannery
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Are you stating that I am not disturbed? No one would ever credibly accuse you of that, Pat. -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers: |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Columbia crew not fully suited up during reentry?
Jorge R. Frank wrote: Fair enough. I apologize for lumping the two of you together. I am Doctor Doom...he is The Submariner...although both of us have a score to settle with Reed Richards, we should not be lumped together- as frankly Frank, sal****er will make my armor rust. Pat |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Columbia crew not fully suited up during reentry?
LooseChanj wrote: Also, the scheduling pressure, and the Feb 2004 node 2 date. I know it's easy to say now, but I've had the feeling over the past few years that we were "due" for something like this. Apollo 1 to Challenger is roughly (ok VERY roughly) equal to Challenger to Columbia. The shuttle program was in the midst of enormous pressure from ISS requirements. This problem could be greatly alleviated by making the ISS serve a useful scientific function....as an artificial reef somewhere in the South Pacific. Pat |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Columbia crew not fully suited up during reentry?
"Herb Schaltegger I remember watching the reentry video some months ago
and noting how Husband (I think it was) had to remark to the others to basically quit fooling around. There was a lot of chatter coming from the back seat.....goofing around with cameras and nattering about the air glow. Maybe they were nervous. More like just typical females. The failure to suit up *was* surprising. The pilots seemed to be trying to be polite to the back seaters, but were a little tense. The entry is so automated....not much for them to do. What amazes me is the final flare and touchdown. No biggie except it happens in a few seconds and there is only one shot. Good thing they have sims. If they tried to fly the landing like a commercial jet they would roll the thing into a ball. Do not talk to the pilot on final. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Columbia crew not fully suited up during reentry?
Rand Simberg said:
On 27 Aug 2003 05:45:00 GMT, in a place far, far away, Pat Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: What's this about no pressure suits? I assumed that donning pressure suits was required under flight rules for reentry And under what realistic failure mode would their having pressure suits on have saved them? Soyuz 11? -- Kevin Willoughby oSpam Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work for test pilots. -- Mike Collins |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Columbia crew not fully suited up during reentry?
On 28 Aug 2003 22:10:11 GMT, in a place far, far away, Kevin
Willoughby made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: What's this about no pressure suits? I assumed that donning pressure suits was required under flight rules for reentry And under what realistic failure mode would their having pressure suits on have saved them? Soyuz 11? I meant of the Shuttle. -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers: |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|