The Last Flight of Columbia - BBC2 at 2100hrs tonight.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Lancashire, United Kingdom
Age: 53
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good programme spoiled by a vast amount of "if only" and hindsight.
Has anyone else noticed that the media are becoming more and more concerned with telling us what should or could have happened, after the event?
We want facts, not your (often ill advised) opinion!!!
and........... relax.
Has anyone else noticed that the media are becoming more and more concerned with telling us what should or could have happened, after the event?
We want facts, not your (often ill advised) opinion!!!
and........... relax.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hindsight?
Do you REALLY need hindsight to know that a visual inspection of the impact area would have been a good idea? After all, in an aeroplane you would like a post-birdstrike visual inspection from your wingman (if you have one) and these guys had the ability to go outside and take a good, hard look at the impact area.
One question: Could they have bunked down at the ISS whilst awaiting "rescue"? The Apollo 13 guys were able to use the lunar module as a lifeboat and the ISS must have huge oxygen/CO2 scrubber reserves by comparison.
Do you REALLY need hindsight to know that a visual inspection of the impact area would have been a good idea? After all, in an aeroplane you would like a post-birdstrike visual inspection from your wingman (if you have one) and these guys had the ability to go outside and take a good, hard look at the impact area.
One question: Could they have bunked down at the ISS whilst awaiting "rescue"? The Apollo 13 guys were able to use the lunar module as a lifeboat and the ISS must have huge oxygen/CO2 scrubber reserves by comparison.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with moggie about the in-flight inspection. Presumably the video of the take off had been studied while Columbia was still spaceborne and the crew should then have been advised of the detached panels and the wisdom of an inspection, JIC.
But the whole manned space programme doesn't appear to be achieving very much, does it? Just think back to 1969 and remember what hopes we had for space travel and what it might bring in the future (like now).
But the whole manned space programme doesn't appear to be achieving very much, does it? Just think back to 1969 and remember what hopes we had for space travel and what it might bring in the future (like now).
I'd have liked just a tad more information in the speculative segment of the programme. Instead of simply saying that they could have bailed out at 40,000 ft, it would have been interesting to know exactly what the speed/altitude envelope for bailout was, and what factors affected those limitations. Presumably it was only possible once the Shuttle had finished re-entry, in which case it's surely irrelevant. It would also have been interesting to know how easily they could have reached that envelope with a modified re-entry profile, or how much longer the aircraft would have had to 'hold together' using the existing re-entry profile.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers for your blanket condemnation of "the media", Jockspice! I should really respond by making some over-arching comment about "RN helo jocks", but I'm sure you're all thoroughly sound chaps.
I thought the programme was good on the whole, but the most intersting part was when they talked about the possibility of putting Atlantis into the same orbit. Rather than just say "ooh, it would have been difficult, but NASA are very clever and could have done it", it would have been good to get some more detail. I thought the programme finished very abruptly also - was expecting another 10 minutes on the suggested rescue pacakges.
As for "the media" telling us what should or could have happened, after the event - it's analysis, and its by no means a new or emerging trend.
I thought the programme was good on the whole, but the most intersting part was when they talked about the possibility of putting Atlantis into the same orbit. Rather than just say "ooh, it would have been difficult, but NASA are very clever and could have done it", it would have been good to get some more detail. I thought the programme finished very abruptly also - was expecting another 10 minutes on the suggested rescue pacakges.
As for "the media" telling us what should or could have happened, after the event - it's analysis, and its by no means a new or emerging trend.
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Croydon (but really from Barnsley)
Age: 64
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
moggie: I don't think the Columbia was capable of reaching the ISS orbit. It was the oldest Shuttle and the heaviest. Even then, if it could have got to the ISS, it couldn't have docked because it lacks the special docking adaptor fitted in shuttles used on ISS missions such as the Atlantis. So unless someone had a long rope, they couldn't have done it.
Man of the Marsh
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: LGW
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to add to what Dop posted, there was absolutely no way for Columbia to rendezvous with the ISS. They were on completely different orbital inclinations. The Shuttle (nor any other craft I know of) does not carry the enormous quantity of fuel that would be required to achieve an inclination change of that magnitude.
As Jackonicko premises, with the known damage, there was no re-entry profile which the orbiter could have survived. The "right-wing first" scenario was speculated on during the early days of the investigation but not, as far as I know, by anyone who works with the craft! Therefore the bailout option was indeed irrelevant.
The only practicable scenario, had the damage been properly assessed, would have been an on-orbit crew rescue by Atlantis, leaving the Columbia to its inevitable fate. Even then this would have been a highly risky operation, albeit very worthy of the NASA spirit of old.
The programme was moderately interesting, reasonably accurate when dealing with straight facts and somewhat misleading in its speculation. I shan't be keeping a copy of it.
As Jackonicko premises, with the known damage, there was no re-entry profile which the orbiter could have survived. The "right-wing first" scenario was speculated on during the early days of the investigation but not, as far as I know, by anyone who works with the craft! Therefore the bailout option was indeed irrelevant.
The only practicable scenario, had the damage been properly assessed, would have been an on-orbit crew rescue by Atlantis, leaving the Columbia to its inevitable fate. Even then this would have been a highly risky operation, albeit very worthy of the NASA spirit of old.
The programme was moderately interesting, reasonably accurate when dealing with straight facts and somewhat misleading in its speculation. I shan't be keeping a copy of it.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: SE England
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Dr Syn says, no way could the Shuttle reach the space station.
3 factors;
Altitude: Shuttle = 150nm, ISS=210nm. This is actually the easiest thing to change (ie requires the least fuel) but still requires fuel and I don't think Columbia ever docked with the ISS, it is heavier than other shuttles and simply can't get high enough.
Inclination: Shuttle 39 degrees, ISS 52 degrees. This is the 'biggy'. It's the angle of the orbit makes with the equator and it takes a tremendous amount of fuel to change inclination.
Ascending node: Basically the point at which the orbit crosses the equator. Again, requires lots of fuel to change.
All of the above have to 'match' perfectly if two craft are to meet in space, hence very small 'launch windows' of just a few minutes, often 10 or 11 days apart, when docking is planned.
Someone calculated how much fuel would have been needed for Columbia to dock with the ISS and I think it worked out that landing and taking off again would actually require less.
3 factors;
Altitude: Shuttle = 150nm, ISS=210nm. This is actually the easiest thing to change (ie requires the least fuel) but still requires fuel and I don't think Columbia ever docked with the ISS, it is heavier than other shuttles and simply can't get high enough.
Inclination: Shuttle 39 degrees, ISS 52 degrees. This is the 'biggy'. It's the angle of the orbit makes with the equator and it takes a tremendous amount of fuel to change inclination.
Ascending node: Basically the point at which the orbit crosses the equator. Again, requires lots of fuel to change.
All of the above have to 'match' perfectly if two craft are to meet in space, hence very small 'launch windows' of just a few minutes, often 10 or 11 days apart, when docking is planned.
Someone calculated how much fuel would have been needed for Columbia to dock with the ISS and I think it worked out that landing and taking off again would actually require less.
Last edited by Smoketoomuch; 28th Nov 2003 at 22:07.
Alba Gu Brath
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Merseyside
Age: 55
Posts: 738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't think the programme was that bad. OK the speculation was slightly on the sensational side, but all in all I thought it was fairly well put together. I am still confused about the video tape of the launch though. Did NASA actually analyse this whilst Columbia was in orbit or was this analysis done as part of the crash investigation?
The Bail-Out scenario was quite fanciful considering the orbiter was destroyed well above the 40,000' level required.
I must say I was concerned about NASA's seeming blind reliance on computer program results. They seem to disregard any advice from the engineers if it differs from what the computer says. Seem to recall that there were similar computer/engineer disagreements over the Challenger.
The Bail-Out scenario was quite fanciful considering the orbiter was destroyed well above the 40,000' level required.
I must say I was concerned about NASA's seeming blind reliance on computer program results. They seem to disregard any advice from the engineers if it differs from what the computer says. Seem to recall that there were similar computer/engineer disagreements over the Challenger.
Columbia
"I must say I was concerned about NASA's seeming blind reliance on computer program results. They seem to disregard any advice from the engineers if it differs from what the computer says. Seem to recall that there were similar computer/engineer disagreements over the Challenger."
I filmed a doc about the Callenger a few years ago. We interviewed the engineer who tried to stop chaellenger taking off as well as the manager who wasn't convinced of the engineers presentation, namely that the seals were not up to the job at low temperatures.
The manager discarded the engineers report.
The manager said the engineers presentation via video conference phone was not convincing.
When we finished I aked him off camera "would their be further accidents?" he said yes there would, accidents due to human error.
If human error is inevitable, why can't NASA engineeer a space craft taking this into account I asked?
Blank look... "we don't work that way, we expect things to work"
Interesting that all along he was saying it was the *engineers* human error (for not making a good enought case) and not his....
The doc last night showed a similar element of managers not believing engineers.
My hat goes off to anyone strappping themselves into a shuttle.
Mickjoebill
I filmed a doc about the Callenger a few years ago. We interviewed the engineer who tried to stop chaellenger taking off as well as the manager who wasn't convinced of the engineers presentation, namely that the seals were not up to the job at low temperatures.
The manager discarded the engineers report.
The manager said the engineers presentation via video conference phone was not convincing.
When we finished I aked him off camera "would their be further accidents?" he said yes there would, accidents due to human error.
If human error is inevitable, why can't NASA engineeer a space craft taking this into account I asked?
Blank look... "we don't work that way, we expect things to work"
Interesting that all along he was saying it was the *engineers* human error (for not making a good enought case) and not his....
The doc last night showed a similar element of managers not believing engineers.
My hat goes off to anyone strappping themselves into a shuttle.
Mickjoebill
