An interesting article on Shuttle Safety deficiencies from the UK Observer newspaper.

http://www.observer.co.uk/internatio...887236,00.html

nasaboy, I entirely agree with your statement and might I suggest a re-read of my post will dispell your assertion

My initial thought is that thrust would be used, but in thinking about it, control surfaces may be used at those heights because of the speed and some atmosphere. Certainly, the roll-trim was being added by the on-board computer to react to the drag of the left wing, so one would assume control surfaces were sufficient to attain and execute the roll routines to lose speed (which occur at 56 degrees nose up.

(edited for spelling)

atacaks:

The re-entry profile is already the least stressful. This question was asked during last night's press conference and answered by Mr Dittemore

ISS or NOT
 

Just wondering: would anyone more skilled than myself do the actual calculation and come up with the ammount of fuel necessary for an ISS rendevous vs. the on board ammount (including the desorbintg reserve) ?
Thanks - I missed that one.

Would anyone care to expand on that one ? What would be the problems of doing a less agressive entry ?

Just totally off-topic............does anyone else find it slightly peculiar that Challenger, Endeavour and Discovery were all named after British ships?

Atlantis, Challenger and Columbia were named after American ships. The Endeavour and Discovery were named after Captain Cook's ships. And the Enterprise was named after a certain starship........
Shuttle names

A link to a very good close up video showing the "foam" debris hiting the orbiter at launch.

http://www.floridatoday.com/columbia/debrisvideo.htm

There is no possible "less aggressive entry." Nasa already determined the entry profile that would cause the least stress on the shuttle and that's the one they're using. Any other profile would result in more stress on the shuttle, not less. If there was a less risky, lower stress profile, they'd already be using it.

Ok, for once I'm on par with the rest of you on an aeronautical subject: I also know sod all about it.

For years now I've been tracking the Shuttle and ISS on the web. It has long seemed to me that the Space Shuttle as a concept has been oversold to the American public, probably in order to secure NASA the immense budgets needed to develop it, and then to keep it running.

i. It is not reusable. (Recycleable, more like, or, perhaps, semi-expendable).

ii. It is not routine.

iii. It is not safe. (i.e. Even the post-Challenger target of 1:1,000 failure ratio is not 'safe').

iv. It is not casual. (i.e. ad-hoc EVAs).

v. Once in orbit, it is not really a 'space ship', in the popular sense. (More like a sophisticated projectile, with the ability to perform minor adjustments to its orientation and orbit).


Even a brand new Shuttle system is not going to meet all of the above criteria, and unlikely to meet even two of them.

The reality is that technology has yet to catch up to the space travel expectations of the public imagination. The Shuttle was, and is, a magnificent demonstration of American technology. But even that's not enough, yet.

TW

So which is right?

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/...hallenger.html

Atakacs, you say "(and this was the heaviest landing in the Shuttle history)"

This interests me. Do we know what the Main Mission was on this particular launch.

I assume from your point, that some kind of recovery operation must have been at least, part of the Mission.

The weight was due to the science modules in the cargo bay, no recovery operation was carried out.

On another note in 1979 NASA said it intended 560 shuttle flights in the first 12 years. Peaking at 65 flights in 1988. the anticipated turn around times were 2 weeks for routine ops and "a matter of hours for rescue missions" Designs were started in the early 80's for 74 seat pax modules (to ferry crews to orbiting production facilities) and liquid fuel boosters to replace the srb's allowing 50,000kg payload. Its a pity those dreams have not been recognised.

The cost for development in 1980 dollars was $3bn over 10 years.

I reiterate, does anyone know what the Main Mission was on this particular launch.

BahrainLad,

The British one, someone at NASA playing a blinder...
I thought it might have been possible they acquired later, but not so.

"On 21 December 1872 the 2306 ton steam assisted corvette HMS Challenger sailed from Portsmouth on a 3-year voyage of marine exploration which laid the foundations of almost every branch of oceanography as we know it today."

"After her three years of glory, her fate was even more ignominious. Commissioned as a Coast Guard and Drill ship of Naval Reserves at Harwich in July 1876, she was finally paid off at Chatham in 1878. She remained in reserve until 1883, when she was converted into a receiving hulk in the River Medway, where she stayed until she was finally broken up for her copper bottom in 1921."

El Grifo, research. See the Mission Preview.

El Grifo, the "Main Mission" was a host of scientific experiments - a Space Laboratory, if you like. A wealth of info is avaiable on the STS-107 site at NASA. This is on the Missions site which has details of previous & future flights. Further exploration of the NASA site will answer most of the other foregoing questions (or FAQs!) on the subject.

Due to the fact that there has suddenly been an uncharacteristic surge in space-interest from the press and public, no doubt some sites are a bit slow right now.

There is also an excelent and very up-to-date site at Space.com, and many others. Hope this helps.

From the Jerusalem Post: According to news reports, a team of NASA engineers sent a report two days before Columbia's break-up on reentry stating that the damage caused to the shuttle's left wing during takeoff was greater than originally thought and could seriously affect its reentry and landing.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1044246922125

Flash presentation: http://lb.wnd.com/columbia.html

What happenbed?
 

I entered a post on the other shuttle thread indicating that the Reliability of the shuttle degrades with every launch. NASA may make welding repairs to engine plumbing but they do nothing to determine if there is structural degradation. The Columbia accident investigation is more open and transparent than the Challenger accident and if it is proven that the thermal tiles were damaged during transition to orbit then NASA will have to accept full responsibility which they did not on Challenger.

I personally believe that NASA was not completely forthcoming relative to the cause for the Challenger accident. If anyone wishes to question me regarding this statement I will gladly post my reasoning. It can be done on this thread or on a new thread.

:suspect:

There is much talk about "foam" hitting the left wing on launch. Could one of you better informed technical types elaborate on what this "foam" is. Was it ice? (Heard something like that on the news). For the layman foam is what you find in your couch/mattress, so all this makes no sense to me, really.

Thank you.

And ORAC,
as you are no doubt aware, another of Cook's ships was the Resolution, which heroically sailed Antarctic waters, among others.

Let the next Shuttle constructed, or derivative spacecraft evolved, be so named.