EVA inspection of STS-107 was "easy" possible

Seems pretty expensive testing to be crappy thinking.. I think the tax
payers should demand there money back on the test if its so crappy. Or
course it was hole. And if they can see license plate detail from space
they should be able to see a big crack or hole. Either way its the only
logical explanation that hot gases got in, or do you have another theory
Dosco?

"Dosco Jones" wrote in message
rthlink.net...

"Jim Ancona" wrote in message
4.196...
"Dosco Jones" wrote in
thlink.net:

"Jim Ancona" wrote in message
4.196...
Note that the gas cannon test blew a 16" x 16" hole in RCC 8.
See: http://cbsnews.cbs.com/network/news/space/current.html

I think they would have been able to see that.

You're assuming the hole in the wing was the same as the hole
created during the final test. Big assumption. Bad logic.

The article I linked also says that the radar data that showed an
object separating from Columbia the day after launch "likely was a
large section of RCC 8 that worked its way free in the weightlessness
of orbit". So it's an assumption that's consistent with what the
investigation board is thinking. Where's the bad logic?

Jim


That would be another assumption that is consistent with the first
assumption. So now you're two levels deep into the same crappy thinking
that killed Columbia.

What killed Columbia was the inability for any of the people inside to put
their job on the line and go to the press if they weren't heard about the
damage. Just like on Challenger.. take your engineering hat off and put
your management hat on. :? If somebody had said the hell with my job I'm
going to CNN or holding a press conference you can be damned sure NASA would
have imaged Columbia and done an EVA. And its bull**** that they can't
cause I have the tape of an engineer saying they can do an EVA to close the
ET camera door if it doesn't work. So there has to be a contingency plan.
And what about Atlantis? Why are we just now hearing about hot gases
getting into the wing on that flight? Seems to be bad news is always
hidden from the press, not a way to improve relations. Not to mention
loss of crew and vehicle if they had made it through the atmosphere and then
they tried a belly landing, as they said in the letters that flew back and
forth, "A very bad day." All we can do is improve the future now. And
hope that more foresight for an escape pod is a requirement for the next
generation spacecraft. Launch dangers still haven't evaporated. Like the
bolts for instance on the SRBs? but that's the way it goes... back to
flying ASAP with problems solved, if you please. I watched those people
for 14 days on Nasa TV so I'm a little bitter...anyway..

"Jonathan Waggoner" wrote in message
...
Seems pretty expensive testing to be crappy thinking.. I think the tax
payers should demand there money back on the test if its so crappy. Or
course it was hole. And if they can see license plate detail from space
they should be able to see a big crack or hole. Either way its the only
logical explanation that hot gases got in, or do you have another theory
Dosco?

"Dosco Jones" wrote in message
rthlink.net...

"Jim Ancona" wrote in message
4.196...
"Dosco Jones" wrote in
thlink.net:

"Jim Ancona" wrote in message
4.196...
Note that the gas cannon test blew a 16" x 16" hole in RCC 8.
See: http://cbsnews.cbs.com/network/news/space/current.html

I think they would have been able to see that.

You're assuming the hole in the wing was the same as the hole
created during the final test. Big assumption. Bad logic.

The article I linked also says that the radar data that showed an
object separating from Columbia the day after launch "likely was a
large section of RCC 8 that worked its way free in the weightlessness
of orbit". So it's an assumption that's consistent with what the
investigation board is thinking. Where's the bad logic?

Jim


That would be another assumption that is consistent with the first
assumption. So now you're two levels deep into the same crappy thinking
that killed Columbia.

You're changing the subject and wasting my time.

Dosco


"Jonathan Waggoner" wrote in message
...
Seems pretty expensive testing to be crappy thinking.. I think the tax
payers should demand there money back on the test if its so crappy. Or
course it was hole. And if they can see license plate detail from space
they should be able to see a big crack or hole. Either way its the only
logical explanation that hot gases got in, or do you have another theory
Dosco?

"Dosco Jones" wrote in message
rthlink.net...

"Jim Ancona" wrote in message
4.196...
"Dosco Jones" wrote in
thlink.net:

"Jim Ancona" wrote in message
4.196...
Note that the gas cannon test blew a 16" x 16" hole in RCC 8.
See: http://cbsnews.cbs.com/network/news/space/current.html

I think they would have been able to see that.

You're assuming the hole in the wing was the same as the hole
created during the final test. Big assumption. Bad logic.

The article I linked also says that the radar data that showed an
object separating from Columbia the day after launch "likely was a
large section of RCC 8 that worked its way free in the weightlessness
of orbit". So it's an assumption that's consistent with what the
investigation board is thinking. Where's the bad logic?

Jim


That would be another assumption that is consistent with the first
assumption. So now you're two levels deep into the same crappy thinking
that killed Columbia.

"Dosco Jones" wrote in
rthlink.net:
That would be another assumption that is consistent with the first
assumption. So now you're two levels deep into the same crappy
thinking that killed Columbia.

Note that the articles I'm quoting are reporting what the CAIB members
are saying. Perhaps you can explain why you think their thinking is
"crappy", instead of just asserting it.

Some quotes from the latest update at
http://cbsnews.cbs.com/network/news/space/current.html:

"[Board member Scott] Hubbard said a similar fragment, having a surface
area of 90 square inches or more, is perhaps the best explanation for a
mysterious object detected by ground radar systems the day after launch
that was seen slowly separating from the shuttle. The idea is a large
fragment could have lodged in the breach during launch and then floated
free after a day of maneuvering in orbit."

"Board member James Hallock said the actual breach probably was in the
six- to 10-inch-wide range. A larger hole would have let so much heat
into the wing during the initial stages of re-entry that Columbia
probably would not have survived all the way to Texas."

Getting back to the original point of this thread, it still seems like
a 6 to 10 inch wide hole would have been visible during an EVA
inspection.

Jim

I don't have time to give classes in logical thinking. Go about your
business.


"Jim Ancona" wrote in message
4.196...
"Dosco Jones" wrote in
rthlink.net:
That would be another assumption that is consistent with the first
assumption. So now you're two levels deep into the same crappy
thinking that killed Columbia.

Note that the articles I'm quoting are reporting what the CAIB members
are saying. Perhaps you can explain why you think their thinking is
"crappy", instead of just asserting it.

Some quotes from the latest update at
http://cbsnews.cbs.com/network/news/space/current.html:

"[Board member Scott] Hubbard said a similar fragment, having a surface
area of 90 square inches or more, is perhaps the best explanation for a
mysterious object detected by ground radar systems the day after launch
that was seen slowly separating from the shuttle. The idea is a large
fragment could have lodged in the breach during launch and then floated
free after a day of maneuvering in orbit."

"Board member James Hallock said the actual breach probably was in the
six- to 10-inch-wide range. A larger hole would have let so much heat
into the wing during the initial stages of re-entry that Columbia
probably would not have survived all the way to Texas."

Getting back to the original point of this thread, it still seems like
a 6 to 10 inch wide hole would have been visible during an EVA
inspection.

Jim

"Dosco Jones" wrote in
thlink.net:
I don't have time to give classes in logical thinking.

Oh well.

Just to finish up, I wasn't arguing that an EVA was either feasible or
a good idea. I was simply responding to the assertion that:

"There would have been no reason for Brown and Anderson
to pay much attention to the RCC, and from all accounts the likely
damage there would have been *extremely* hard to detect on orbit,
whether from a reconsat image or through a helmet visor."

I pointed out the _new_ information that the gas cannon test had shown
that the actual RCC breach might be quite a bit larger, and hence more
visible, than previously thought.

I still fail to see the flawed logic.

Jim

"Dosco Jones" writes:

You're changing the subject and wasting my time.

Your top posting one line responses on top of dozens of lines of
included text is wasteful.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

....Yes, it is. And he should know better, too.

On 14 Jul 2003 14:34:00 -0400, jeff findley
wrote:

"Dosco Jones" writes:

You're changing the subject and wasting my time.

Your top posting one line responses on top of dozens of lines of
included text is wasteful.

Jeff

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr