Shuttle Columbia breaks up during re-enry
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing has changed
I was a Senior Project Engineer on the Propulsion system of the Saturn-IVB based at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). Prior to each launch each stage contractor had to make a presentation to Werner von Braun and his associates. The presentation dealt with the testing to date and then each stage contractor had to discuss their confidence level relative to the success of that mission. There were three contractors Douglas, North American and Boeing. In just about every presentation Douglas had the highest level of confidence and it averaged around 70%. The other two contractors were consistently lower.
In the case of the shuttle the reliability decreases with each launch even though NASA might change a piece of plumbing that may have a crack in it. They can’t check everything for wear or fatigue and as a result they can run afoul of Murphy’s’ law even at 200,000 feet.
My condolences to the families of the crew and may the crew be flying in formation with God.
In the case of the shuttle the reliability decreases with each launch even though NASA might change a piece of plumbing that may have a crack in it. They can’t check everything for wear or fatigue and as a result they can run afoul of Murphy’s’ law even at 200,000 feet.
My condolences to the families of the crew and may the crew be flying in formation with God.
Rainbow Chaser
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: At home, mostly!
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was listening ...
like Max Angle I have been following this mission (as I do all Shuttle missions) on NASA TV. After being reminded of a couple of checklist items prior to re-entry (241/240B) all seemed well. At just before 2pm London time, Houston advised Columbia that they had noted tyre pressure data, this was acknowledged briefly.. a few moments later there was significant static online and nothing further. Columbia was in the process of easing out of its second of four banking manoeuvres aimed at losing speed and was banked at 53 degrees.
My heart goes out to the families, friends and colleagues of the seven crew - Danny thanks for providing their biogs - and hope they hold in their hearts the fact that the crew of Columbia died in pursuit of their dreams at the pinnacle of their professions.
As to cause? Two factors interest me. (a) the debris situation at launch and (b) the fact that the landing Columbia was going to be the heaviest in the history of shuttle flights.
If there had been damage at launch, what could the crew of Columbia done to remedy it in orbit? would it have been possible to effect repairs? would it have been possible to rendezvous with the ISS and even then could they have effected repairs?
Columbia was the grand old girl of the shuttle stable and only at a quarter of her airframe life ... would the additional payloads referred to by Michael Anderson (one of the astronauts who died today) have been an issue?
Mods - if you consider these latter two remarks inappropriate speculation, please feel free to delete them.
My heart goes out to the families, friends and colleagues of the seven crew - Danny thanks for providing their biogs - and hope they hold in their hearts the fact that the crew of Columbia died in pursuit of their dreams at the pinnacle of their professions.
As to cause? Two factors interest me. (a) the debris situation at launch and (b) the fact that the landing Columbia was going to be the heaviest in the history of shuttle flights.
If there had been damage at launch, what could the crew of Columbia done to remedy it in orbit? would it have been possible to effect repairs? would it have been possible to rendezvous with the ISS and even then could they have effected repairs?
Columbia was the grand old girl of the shuttle stable and only at a quarter of her airframe life ... would the additional payloads referred to by Michael Anderson (one of the astronauts who died today) have been an issue?
Mods - if you consider these latter two remarks inappropriate speculation, please feel free to delete them.
Last edited by brockenspectre; 1st Feb 2003 at 17:39.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's not forget that the Russians have lost four astronauts in the pursuit of space exploration - all in the re-entry phase. I think they also deserve rememberance at a time like this.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was shocked and saddened to see the TV pictures this afternoon. Like so many I had, I guess, begun to accept the work of the space shuttle and the astronauts as a little to "everyday". I was ten years old when the Challenger disaster occured and can still remember it vividly.
I am sure that in the course of time the space program will continue, at the very least it has too to bring those on the ISS back home.
Let our thoughts be with the families of those brave astronauts who were prepared to pay the utilimate sacrifice to further the human race.
I am sure that in the course of time the space program will continue, at the very least it has too to bring those on the ISS back home.
Let our thoughts be with the families of those brave astronauts who were prepared to pay the utilimate sacrifice to further the human race.
Time sequenced audio re-run just on CNN
Last comms were from ground to Shuttle about ''missed your last'' and then something about nominal tyre pressures, the shuttle crew said ''roger and..... '' followed by several comms clicks and interference. Comms/Telemetry reported lost thereafter.
May the peace of God go with them, Shalom and goodbye
Last comms were from ground to Shuttle about ''missed your last'' and then something about nominal tyre pressures, the shuttle crew said ''roger and..... '' followed by several comms clicks and interference. Comms/Telemetry reported lost thereafter.
May the peace of God go with them, Shalom and goodbye
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a sad day!
It´s never been routine, and it will probably never be. But they will find out the cause, and another brave crew will go up again.
The crew of Columbia died exploring the high frontier. May they never be forgotten.
It´s never been routine, and it will probably never be. But they will find out the cause, and another brave crew will go up again.
The crew of Columbia died exploring the high frontier. May they never be forgotten.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: 40N, 80W
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the TV stations is talking as though the debris which is supposed to have hit the wing and dislodged tiles came from the main propellant tank.
It was discussed as probably being ice, and that this is not unusual to have this lose debris sometimes even hitting the windscreen.
If I heard correctly, the piece was referred to as being "as big as a door".
I assume the dislodged tiles were collected immediately, and so some estimate of the magnitude of the problem has probably been known for two weeks.
As mentioned in my post earlier, NASA said they were not concerned about tiles lost on takeoff. Since there was little they could do about it, I suppose there was not much else they could say about it either.
It may be significant that one of the two indepentent enquiry boards formed of people from outside NASA was stated to be at work at 9.30 am EST, only twenty minutes after the planned touchdown time. Makes me wonder if that is much too soon be in response to an unexpected event.
It was discussed as probably being ice, and that this is not unusual to have this lose debris sometimes even hitting the windscreen.
If I heard correctly, the piece was referred to as being "as big as a door".
I assume the dislodged tiles were collected immediately, and so some estimate of the magnitude of the problem has probably been known for two weeks.
As mentioned in my post earlier, NASA said they were not concerned about tiles lost on takeoff. Since there was little they could do about it, I suppose there was not much else they could say about it either.
It may be significant that one of the two indepentent enquiry boards formed of people from outside NASA was stated to be at work at 9.30 am EST, only twenty minutes after the planned touchdown time. Makes me wonder if that is much too soon be in response to an unexpected event.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Notre Dame IN USA
Age: 82
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As to the terrorism speculation:
I think it is necessary to bring this up. It's going to be on the public's mind. So, you take the viewing/listening audience from that point and bring them forward to understanding that it's an extremely remote possibility.
(1) Operative on board?
(2) A piece of equipment rigged to explode on re-entry?
(3) SAM?
(4) What about that airplane a witness said was "near" the shuttle; did it fire an air-to-air?
We know these are not possible, but this is the kind of stuff that rattles around in peoples' heads. It needs to be addressed, because silence, or ridicule, will cause speculation as to why there are no direct answers.
I think it is necessary to bring this up. It's going to be on the public's mind. So, you take the viewing/listening audience from that point and bring them forward to understanding that it's an extremely remote possibility.
(1) Operative on board?
(2) A piece of equipment rigged to explode on re-entry?
(3) SAM?
(4) What about that airplane a witness said was "near" the shuttle; did it fire an air-to-air?
We know these are not possible, but this is the kind of stuff that rattles around in peoples' heads. It needs to be addressed, because silence, or ridicule, will cause speculation as to why there are no direct answers.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: formally Alamo battleground, now the crocodile with palm trees!
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's part of an interview from time.com regarding break-up possibilities:
Seven astronauts, including the first Israeli in space, were lost Saturday when the space shuttle Columbia broke apart in the skies of Texas. The incident occurred at an altitude of some 200,000 feet, shortly after reentry and 15 minutes before Columbia had been scheduled to land at Cape Canaveral. TIME science correspondent Jeffrey Kluger explains some of the possible causes and consequences of the accident:
TIME.com: What are the possible scenarios that could have caused this disastrous accident on the shuttle's reentry into the Earth's atmosphere?
Jeffrey Kluger: There are three possible scenarios that explain this event. The first, which I believe is the likeliest explanation, would be an aerodynamic structural breakup of the shuttle caused by it rolling at the wrong angle. Remember, after reentry, the shuttle is descending without power, which means astronauts at the controls can't compensate for a loss of attitude by using the engines, they can only do so using the flaps. And that's extremely hard. Astronauts describe piloting the shuttle on reentry as like trying to fly a brick with wings. It's very difficult to operate, and even more so to correct any problems.
A second explanation might be a loss of tiles leading to a burn-through. (The shuttle is covered with heat-resistant tiles to protect the craft and those inside it from burning up in the scorching temperatures caused by the friction of reentry.) But I think that explanation is unlikely, because the tile-loss would have had to have been quite substantial for that to become possible. You'll hear a lot in the next few days about things falling off the shuttle during liftoff. But it often happens that they lose a few tiles, and I'd be surprised if it happened on a scale that could make an accident of this type possible.
The last option is some kind of engine failure leading to fuel ignition. Although the main tanks are mostly empty, there should still be fuel left in the maneuvering tanks. But probably not enough for an explosion that could have caused this breakup.
And just in case anybody was wondering, you can almost certainly rule out terrorism as a cause. This incident occurred well above the range of shoulder-fired missiles. And it would probably be easier to sneak a bomb onto Air Force One than to get one onto the shuttle.
TIME.com: So is reentry the Achilles heel of the shuttle program?
JK: No, the Achilles heel has always been liftoff, and the dangers posed by massive fuel load involved. Reentry has, of course, always been a difficult part of the space program. But this is, in fact, our first fatal accident on reentry. Apollo 13 is remembered as our most difficult ever reentry, but the ship and crew survived. The Soviets lost a crew on reentry in 1970 after an oxygen leak that caused the cosmonauts to suffocate on the way down. Reentry is a very difficult process, but the Russians mastered it in 1961 and we did the same a few years later.
TIME.com: Are shuttle crews trained to respond to the scenarios you've described?
JK: Yes, they're trained to deal with loss of attitude on reentry, and a range of other emergencies. But astronauts are not trained to deal with situations that result in certain death, because that would be a bit like training for what you might do if your car went over a cliff — in some situations there simply isn't anything you can do. One irony, though, is that NASA hadn't trained astronauts to deal with the sort of quadruple failure that occurred in Apollo 13, because they assumed that such a scenario would result in certain death. But the astronauts survived.
TIME.com: What are the immediate implications for the space program of Saturday's disaster?
JK: Following the precedent of the Challenger disaster in 1986, it's unlikely that NASA will undertake any further shuttle missions or any other manned space flights for the next two years. One immediate problem, though, is the International Space Station, which currently has a crew of three on board. They might consider one further flight to bring that crew home — the other option would be for them to return aboard a Russian Soyuz craft, which isn't the most comfortable or the safest ride. Beyond that, however, the space station is likely to be left unoccupied for a long time. NASA won't want to use the shuttle again until it can establish the cause of today's accident, and fix it. Now that we've lost two shuttles out of a fleet of five, it's even conceivable that the shuttle won't fly again. The shuttle was built as a space truck, and then the International Space Station was built to give it something to do. Both programs are likely to suffer as a result of this disaster.
What a sad day. My condolences to the crew and their families.
Seven astronauts, including the first Israeli in space, were lost Saturday when the space shuttle Columbia broke apart in the skies of Texas. The incident occurred at an altitude of some 200,000 feet, shortly after reentry and 15 minutes before Columbia had been scheduled to land at Cape Canaveral. TIME science correspondent Jeffrey Kluger explains some of the possible causes and consequences of the accident:
TIME.com: What are the possible scenarios that could have caused this disastrous accident on the shuttle's reentry into the Earth's atmosphere?
Jeffrey Kluger: There are three possible scenarios that explain this event. The first, which I believe is the likeliest explanation, would be an aerodynamic structural breakup of the shuttle caused by it rolling at the wrong angle. Remember, after reentry, the shuttle is descending without power, which means astronauts at the controls can't compensate for a loss of attitude by using the engines, they can only do so using the flaps. And that's extremely hard. Astronauts describe piloting the shuttle on reentry as like trying to fly a brick with wings. It's very difficult to operate, and even more so to correct any problems.
A second explanation might be a loss of tiles leading to a burn-through. (The shuttle is covered with heat-resistant tiles to protect the craft and those inside it from burning up in the scorching temperatures caused by the friction of reentry.) But I think that explanation is unlikely, because the tile-loss would have had to have been quite substantial for that to become possible. You'll hear a lot in the next few days about things falling off the shuttle during liftoff. But it often happens that they lose a few tiles, and I'd be surprised if it happened on a scale that could make an accident of this type possible.
The last option is some kind of engine failure leading to fuel ignition. Although the main tanks are mostly empty, there should still be fuel left in the maneuvering tanks. But probably not enough for an explosion that could have caused this breakup.
And just in case anybody was wondering, you can almost certainly rule out terrorism as a cause. This incident occurred well above the range of shoulder-fired missiles. And it would probably be easier to sneak a bomb onto Air Force One than to get one onto the shuttle.
TIME.com: So is reentry the Achilles heel of the shuttle program?
JK: No, the Achilles heel has always been liftoff, and the dangers posed by massive fuel load involved. Reentry has, of course, always been a difficult part of the space program. But this is, in fact, our first fatal accident on reentry. Apollo 13 is remembered as our most difficult ever reentry, but the ship and crew survived. The Soviets lost a crew on reentry in 1970 after an oxygen leak that caused the cosmonauts to suffocate on the way down. Reentry is a very difficult process, but the Russians mastered it in 1961 and we did the same a few years later.
TIME.com: Are shuttle crews trained to respond to the scenarios you've described?
JK: Yes, they're trained to deal with loss of attitude on reentry, and a range of other emergencies. But astronauts are not trained to deal with situations that result in certain death, because that would be a bit like training for what you might do if your car went over a cliff — in some situations there simply isn't anything you can do. One irony, though, is that NASA hadn't trained astronauts to deal with the sort of quadruple failure that occurred in Apollo 13, because they assumed that such a scenario would result in certain death. But the astronauts survived.
TIME.com: What are the immediate implications for the space program of Saturday's disaster?
JK: Following the precedent of the Challenger disaster in 1986, it's unlikely that NASA will undertake any further shuttle missions or any other manned space flights for the next two years. One immediate problem, though, is the International Space Station, which currently has a crew of three on board. They might consider one further flight to bring that crew home — the other option would be for them to return aboard a Russian Soyuz craft, which isn't the most comfortable or the safest ride. Beyond that, however, the space station is likely to be left unoccupied for a long time. NASA won't want to use the shuttle again until it can establish the cause of today's accident, and fix it. Now that we've lost two shuttles out of a fleet of five, it's even conceivable that the shuttle won't fly again. The shuttle was built as a space truck, and then the International Space Station was built to give it something to do. Both programs are likely to suffer as a result of this disaster.
What a sad day. My condolences to the crew and their families.
NASA Press Conference Details
As heard live and subject to correction:
7:53am CST Left Wing Hydraulic InBoard OutBoard Temperature sensors loss of readings
56 Tire press loss Left Main Gear temp increase?
58 3 Bondline/structure temp sensors on Left Wing loss of readings
59 Left inboard/outboard tire pressure low readings -- on display and acknowledged by crew.
The word used in the press conference was "off-scale" and explained as loss of reading from sensor.
7:53am CST Left Wing Hydraulic InBoard OutBoard Temperature sensors loss of readings
56 Tire press loss Left Main Gear temp increase?
58 3 Bondline/structure temp sensors on Left Wing loss of readings
59 Left inboard/outboard tire pressure low readings -- on display and acknowledged by crew.
The word used in the press conference was "off-scale" and explained as loss of reading from sensor.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Somewhere between here and there....
Posts: 1,232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SHUTTLE DISASTER
Nasa says it has no indication that the space shuttle disaster "was caused by anything on the ground".
Columbia broke up on re-entering the Earth's atmosphere, killing all seven crew.
There have been thousands of reports of debris hitting the ground - a lot of it centred on the east Texas town of Nacadoches.
Nasa said it "would find the cause, fix it, and move on".
The agency lost contact with the shuttle about 40 miles above Texas. The spacecraft was due for a scheduled landing at 14:16 GMT at the Kennedy Space Centre, Florida.
Multiple vapour trails were seen coming from the craft as it broke up. A Nasa spokesman said: "It appears there has been a catastrophic technical failure.
Debris fell over Texas
"
It was the 113th shuttle mission and Columbia's 28th.
Debris fell in Texas and Oklahoma with one report saying a large piece hit a Texan bank.
On re-entry, the shuttle would have been travelling at 12,500mph.
Aboard the spacecraft was the first Israeli in space - Ilan Ramon, 48.
Early suggestions that terrorism might have played a part in the disaster have been dismissed.
There were two female and five male astronauts on board. The Columbia was the oldest of the shuttle fleet, built in 1979.
This is the most serious incident involving a shuttle since the 1986 crash of the space shuttle Challenger, which carried seven astronauts.
RIP amongst the stars...........
Nasa says it has no indication that the space shuttle disaster "was caused by anything on the ground".
Columbia broke up on re-entering the Earth's atmosphere, killing all seven crew.
There have been thousands of reports of debris hitting the ground - a lot of it centred on the east Texas town of Nacadoches.
Nasa said it "would find the cause, fix it, and move on".
The agency lost contact with the shuttle about 40 miles above Texas. The spacecraft was due for a scheduled landing at 14:16 GMT at the Kennedy Space Centre, Florida.
Multiple vapour trails were seen coming from the craft as it broke up. A Nasa spokesman said: "It appears there has been a catastrophic technical failure.
Debris fell over Texas
"
It was the 113th shuttle mission and Columbia's 28th.
Debris fell in Texas and Oklahoma with one report saying a large piece hit a Texan bank.
On re-entry, the shuttle would have been travelling at 12,500mph.
Aboard the spacecraft was the first Israeli in space - Ilan Ramon, 48.
Early suggestions that terrorism might have played a part in the disaster have been dismissed.
There were two female and five male astronauts on board. The Columbia was the oldest of the shuttle fleet, built in 1979.
This is the most serious incident involving a shuttle since the 1986 crash of the space shuttle Challenger, which carried seven astronauts.
RIP amongst the stars...........
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ratherbeflying,
Very interesting your comments on left wing hydraulics, sensors, tires, etc. The footage I have seen at lift-off of Foam insulation coming away from center tank and striking the Orbiter on the left wing could be very pivitol in the weeks and months to come.
Ron Dittemore of Nasa stated in a briefing at 1600hrs. EST, relating to the liftoff, that It was investigated and looked at by engineers across the country and they all judged it to have no impact "based on their observations and reasearch" with Orbiter safety.
Having said that, He also went on to say that the incident at liftoff does in no way mean it is the smoking gun relating to todays disaster.
Lot's of talk about temp sensors on the wing's. Lot's more information to sift through.
Sad day for NASA.
An addition to the above post,
According to Ron Dittemore" Engineers did not know what impact the foam striking the orbiter would have on flight operations."
Very interesting your comments on left wing hydraulics, sensors, tires, etc. The footage I have seen at lift-off of Foam insulation coming away from center tank and striking the Orbiter on the left wing could be very pivitol in the weeks and months to come.
Ron Dittemore of Nasa stated in a briefing at 1600hrs. EST, relating to the liftoff, that It was investigated and looked at by engineers across the country and they all judged it to have no impact "based on their observations and reasearch" with Orbiter safety.
Having said that, He also went on to say that the incident at liftoff does in no way mean it is the smoking gun relating to todays disaster.
Lot's of talk about temp sensors on the wing's. Lot's more information to sift through.
Sad day for NASA.
An addition to the above post,
According to Ron Dittemore" Engineers did not know what impact the foam striking the orbiter would have on flight operations."
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Croydon (but really from Barnsley)
Age: 64
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a sad, sad day.
It's a tragedy for the crew's family, friends and colleagues of course, and it's also a tragedy for the future of manned spaceflight.
Let's hope their deaths were not in vain, and that mankind will continue to explore space.
RIP.
It's a tragedy for the crew's family, friends and colleagues of course, and it's also a tragedy for the future of manned spaceflight.
Let's hope their deaths were not in vain, and that mankind will continue to explore space.
RIP.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Loss of signal from a single sensor is a non event.
However, progressive loss of signal from several sensors would suggest progessive damage to at least one area of the wiring looms.
CPB
However, progressive loss of signal from several sensors would suggest progessive damage to at least one area of the wiring looms.
CPB