Uneasy Pleistocene Leftover
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Gone, but not forgotten apparently?! All forums marked "Private"...
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NoD,
No problem, but thanks for your message!
It is true that I am guilty of jumping to conclusions. There could not be a discussion if we were to wait for the official declarations...
Regarding the sensors, I understood from the NASA press conference that there were 12 or more temperature sensors in the left wing area, all of which operated normally until moments before the accident. There was also some mention that simultaneous "failure" of sensors can also be due to malfunction of the signal processor or multiplexer unit through which their signals are processed. However, I understand that not all of these sensor's signals went through the same "avionics box". Needless to say, it was probably by far too late to abort re-entry by the time these anomalies occurred? If there had been significant damage to the heat-shield after launch, would these same sensors have not registered anomalies during the shuttle's orbits, when the underside would have been (repeatedly) exposed to wide fluctuations in temperature from exposure to the sun?
Your comments concerning:
1. The designers never considered the shuttle "unsinkable" - granted.
2. They are not able to incorporate or launch "lifeboats" - just as the lunar module on one of the Apollo missions provided relief (or was that just a film?!), an EVA airlock and docking system are both valid and pre-requisite for would-be rescues of near-Earth missions.
3. "and sending an SOS would have been an entire waste of effort" - frankly yes. - in this case there was no "Houston, we have a problem" message because Houston didn't think it had a problem. In space, nobody cries "Wolf"!