Headlines

If the space shuttle is doomed, do you tell the crew?

“You know there is nothing we can do about damage to the (thermal protection system),” Hale quotes Harpold a decade later. “If it has been damaged, it’s probably better not to know. I think the crew would rather not know. Don’t you think it would be better for them to have a happy successful flight and die unexpectedly during entry than to stay on orbit, knowing that there was nothing to be done until the air ran out.”…

And had NASA realized the severity of the problem, the space agency would not have just let the astronauts die without a fight or a word, despite Harpold’s hypothetical question, Hale said.

“We would have pulled out all the stops. There would have been no stone left unturned. We would have had the entire nation working on it,” Hale said. Ultimately, Hale said he thinks whatever NASA would have tried in 2003 with limited time and knowledge probably would have failed.

Read the Article

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: « Previous 1 2

I know, which is why I already said that the Progress and Soyuz missions would launch to the shuttle, and NOT to the ISS. If the shuttle was at the ISS it wouldn’t need rescuing.

sharrukin on February 2, 2013 at 8:13 AM

It could be made available given time along with the Soyuz capsule already at the ISS which would give the effort two Soyuz capsules. The Progress resupply mission would give them that time.

sharrukin on February 2, 2013 at 7:54 AM

cozmo on February 2, 2013 at 8:19 AM

Oh, and its Soyuz space craft. The capsule is the center section of the spacecraft that returns to Earth.

cozmo on February 2, 2013 at 8:24 AM

If the shuttle was at the ISS it wouldn’t need rescuing.

sharrukin on February 2, 2013 at 8:13 AM

Then why did you link to a plan the presupposes the Shuttle is at ISS?

Here are just some of the problems with a Soyuz rescue not at ISS:

1. You’d need 4 Soyuz in order to return the crew of 7 (2 open seats per).

2. You’d have to transfer the crew from the Shuttle to the Soyuz without docking.

3. You’d need to have some number of Progress vehicles to keep the Shuttle supplied during the operation.

4. You’d have to be able to move these supplies from Progress to Shuttle, again without docking.

DarkCurrent on February 2, 2013 at 8:25 AM

cozmo on February 2, 2013 at 8:19 AM

The one Soyuz is already at the ISS. Why the hell would it have to launch to the ISS if it was already there?

sharrukin on February 2, 2013 at 8:28 AM

sharrukin on February 2, 2013 at 8:28 AM

You are the one who brought it up.

Is the Soyuz at the ISS going to visit the local gas station to refuel and pick up a booster stage to change its orbit to rendezvous with the shuttle. You keep going back to the beginning in hopes your argument will get better. Physics is against you.

cozmo on February 2, 2013 at 8:31 AM

Then why did you link to a plan the presupposes the Shuttle is at ISS?

Because dimwit thought the Soyuz couldn’t be used as a rescue vehicle despite the fact that it already is used as one.

Here are just some of the problems with a Soyuz rescue not at ISS:

1. You’d need 4 Soyuz in order to return the crew of 7 (2 open seats per).

2. You’d have to transfer the crew from the Shuttle to the Soyuz without docking.

3. You’d need to have some number of Progress vehicles to keep the Shuttle supplied during the operation.

4. You’d have to be able to move these supplies from Progress to Shuttle, again without docking.

DarkCurrent on February 2, 2013 at 8:25 AM

Correct. I suppose it might be possible to use the Soyuz as an orbital ferry moving the crew from the shuttle to the ISS, or alternately using only the Progress vehicles to refuel the shuttle and move it to a higher orbit matching the ISS. The problem would be the fuel transfer which would have to be rapidly brainstormed.

sharrukin on February 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM

sharrukin on February 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM

I think you are the dimwit here. Who claimed the Soyuz couldn’t be used as a rescue vehicle?

cozmo on February 2, 2013 at 8:43 AM

Correct. I suppose it might be possible to use the Soyuz as an orbital ferry moving the crew from the shuttle to the ISS, or alternately using only the Progress vehicles to refuel the shuttle and move it to a higher orbit matching the ISS. The problem would be the fuel transfer which would have to be rapidly brainstormed.

sharrukin on February 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM

If you already had members of the Shuttle crew safely aboard a Soyuz why would you bother to ferry them to ISS (assuming you could even get a Soyuz from a rendezvous at STS-107′s orbit, which I doubt)?

It also seems highly improbable that in the time available you could adapt Progress to refuel the Shuttle (probably multiple times) so that it could fly itself to ISS.

DarkCurrent on February 2, 2013 at 9:10 AM

Sorry, for clarity:

assuming you could even get a Soyuz to ISS from a rendezvous at STS-107′s orbit

DarkCurrent on February 2, 2013 at 9:13 AM

If you already had members of the Shuttle crew safely aboard a Soyuz why would you bother to ferry them to ISS (assuming you could even get a Soyuz from a rendezvous at STS-107′s orbit, which I doubt)?

It would reduce the number of Soyuz needed in orbit assuming that a Progress vehicle was also available with fuel for the transfer missions.

It also seems highly improbable that in the time available you could adapt Progress to refuel the Shuttle (probably multiple times) so that it could fly itself to ISS.

DarkCurrent on February 2, 2013 at 9:10 AM

Orbital fuel transfer was demonstrated in 1984 with STS-41-G and the Russians were considering it with TKS in the late 1960s/early 1970s. It would have taken some effort but it wasn’t unheard of. The time available could be extended with Progress resupply missions.

sharrukin on February 2, 2013 at 9:17 AM

Sorry, for clarity:

assuming you could even get a Soyuz to ISS from a rendezvous at STS-107′s orbit

DarkCurrent on February 2, 2013 at 9:13 AM

No problem. I assumed that was your meaning.

sharrukin on February 2, 2013 at 9:19 AM

Orbital fuel transfer was demonstrated in 1984 with STS-41-G and the Russians were considering it with TKS in the late 1960s/early 1970s. It would have taken some effort but it wasn’t unheard of. The time available could be extended with Progress resupply missions.

sharrukin on February 2, 2013 at 9:17 AM

It’s one thing for a single country to fly a demo mission after years of preparation. It’s a completely different thing to adapt a spacecraft from one country to refuel one from another in a matter of days or weeks at most.

As for time available being extended, you have to figure out how to get supplies from Progress to Shuttle, and then loaded into the Shuttle systems. On STS-107 there was a Spacehab module installed in the cargo bay, so the usual location for a docking port adapter was unavailable. That means supplies would somehow have to be brought over from Progress to Shuttle through the side hatch without docking, depressurizing the cabin in the process. Then once you get the supplies onboard, how do you get them into the systems? I don’t suppose there’s any easy way to refuel the RCS from within the crew cabin, for example.

DarkCurrent on February 2, 2013 at 9:31 AM

All in all a rescue attempt by another Shuttle would seem to be much more plausible, and even that was pretty much dismissed as likely to have been successful in reviews after the accident.

DarkCurrent on February 2, 2013 at 9:39 AM

DarkCurrent on February 2, 2013 at 9:31 AM

All the problems of Apollo/Soyuz, the never performed Skylab reboost atop a time critical emergency situation involving different orbits coordinated between countries.

Some people cannot grasp the difficulties of working in space.

cozmo on February 2, 2013 at 9:41 AM

It’s one thing for a single country to fly a demo mission after years of preparation. It’s a completely different thing to adapt a spacecraft from one country to refuel one from another in a matter of days or weeks at most.

The Soyuz and Progress vehicles were already capable of utilizing the fuel system from the ISS which the shuttle also uses. They are the primary resupply for the ISS. They are already compatible.

As for time available being extended, you have to figure out how to get supplies from Progress to Shuttle, and then loaded into the Shuttle systems. On STS-107 there was a Spacehab module installed in the cargo bay, so the usual location for a docking port adapter was unavailable. That means supplies would somehow have to be brought over from Progress to Shuttle through the side hatch without docking, depressurizing the cabin in the process. Then once you get the supplies onboard, how do you get them into the systems? I don’t suppose there’s any easy way to refuel the RCS from within the crew cabin, for example.

DarkCurrent on February 2, 2013 at 9:31 AM

STS-79 and STS-84 transferred cargo to the Russian Mir station, and as I indicated the Soyuz and Progress-M vehicles are compatible with the ISS system. I would think that the shuttle could dock with a Soyuz or Progress-M with some modification. For example Soyuz TM-16 docked with the shuttle using the APAS-89/95 system. You might be able to transfer cargo without depressurizing.

The fuel would I assume need to be transferred externally but there may be an internal transfer system. The Progress-M transfers fuel to the ISS through the docking ring, and extending that to the shuttle should be possible. That was done with a satellite in STS-41-G.

sharrukin on February 2, 2013 at 10:10 AM

The Soyuz and Progress vehicles were already capable of utilizing the fuel system from the ISS which the shuttle also uses. They are the primary resupply for the ISS. They are already compatible.

Where does it plug in?

STS-79 and STS-84 transferred cargo to the Russian Mir station, and as I indicated the Soyuz and Progress-M vehicles are compatible with the ISS system. I would think that the shuttle could dock with a Soyuz or Progress-M with some modification. For example Soyuz TM-16 docked with the shuttle using the APAS-89/95 system. You might be able to transfer cargo without depressurizing.

The fuel would I assume need to be transferred externally but there may be an internal transfer system. The Progress-M transfers fuel to the ISS through the docking ring, and extending that to the shuttle should be possible. That was done with a satellite in STS-41-G.

Again, where to connect it in the case of STS-107? As above, there was a Spacehab module installed in the cargo bay, making the docking port unavailable.

DarkCurrent on February 2, 2013 at 10:18 AM

In any case a rescue by a second Shuttle would be much less complicated, and even that has been deemed unlikely to have been successful.

DarkCurrent on February 2, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Again, where to connect it in the case of STS-107? As above, there was a Spacehab module installed in the cargo bay, making the docking port unavailable.

DarkCurrent on February 2, 2013 at 10:18 AM

I believe there was an airlock on top of the Spacehab Transfer Tunnel wasn’t there?

In any case a rescue by a second Shuttle would be much less complicated, and even that has been deemed unlikely to have been successful.

DarkCurrent on February 2, 2013 at 10:20 AM

With NASA in charge I am certain nothing would work because that’s how they roll. The great ‘can’t do modern American attitude’.

sharrukin on February 2, 2013 at 10:35 AM

I believe there was an airlock on top of the Spacehab Transfer Tunnel wasn’t there?

sharrukin on February 2, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Yes, a simple airlock, not a docking adapter.

DarkCurrent on February 2, 2013 at 10:40 AM

Yes, a simple airlock, not a docking adapter.

DarkCurrent on February 2, 2013 at 10:40 AM

I guess that would have required a tethered EVA cargo transfer and the external transfer of fuel from a Progress-M. I understand that the crew only had two EVA suits, so they would have needed assistance from the Russians, or more suits.

sharrukin on February 2, 2013 at 11:07 AM

I guess that would have required a tethered EVA cargo transfer and the external transfer of fuel from a Progress-M. I understand that the crew only had two EVA suits, so they would have needed assistance from the Russians, or more suits.

sharrukin on February 2, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Do you mean RCS fuels or cryogenic main engine fuel and oxidizer?

In either case, how do you then get it loaded into the RCS or main engine tanks?

I don’t think this Soyuz-Progress rescue scenario is plausible.

DarkCurrent on February 2, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Do you mean RCS fuels or cryogenic main engine fuel and oxidizer?

Well Hydrazine is what they transferred on STS-41G so that would probably be the easiest given the already existing know-how.

In either case, how do you then get it loaded into the RCS or main engine tanks?

DarkCurrent on February 2, 2013 at 11:14 AM

They (forward/aft RCS) have low-gravity fueling ability. You would need fuel lines running from the Progress-M to the shuttle obviously. Progress-M already has connections in the docking ring.

sharrukin on February 2, 2013 at 11:51 AM

They (forward/aft RCS) have low-gravity fueling ability. You would need fuel lines running from the Progress-M to the shuttle obviously. Progress-M already has connections in the docking ring.

sharrukin on February 2, 2013 at 11:51 AM

But Columbia didn’t as configured. You see the problem?

You might be able to come up with a Hollywood scenario, but this was a real-life case.

DarkCurrent on February 2, 2013 at 12:11 PM

There are at least 4 different manned spacecraft under development in the US today (SpaceX Dragon, Boeing CST-100, Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser, and NASA Orion), so it’s still an interesting question.

DarkCurrent on February 2, 2013 at 8:13 AM

Then, it will probably be a contractual question between the private companies and their employers. My guess in that case is that all parties will want full disclosure.

I have doubts that Orion will ever fly. Private enterprise will own the universe.

trigon on February 2, 2013 at 2:13 PM