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.
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: 1 2 Next »
Why this old news? Other than this is the anniversary week of all US space disasters.
It was discussed at length after Columbia broke up.
cozmo on February 1, 2013 at 9:44 PM
Tell them. Don’t portend to play god by withholding that kind of info. The cynical view would be that nasa wanted to complete the mission “undistracted “
AH_C on February 1, 2013 at 9:47 PM
Yes…
Gohawgs on February 1, 2013 at 9:47 PM
Yes… Those exceptional types will handle it with honor and dignity.
Kaptain Amerika on February 1, 2013 at 9:48 PM
No. You tell people the truth and stop acting like you are God, determining knowing what is best for them, including their very lives. A parent can sometimes make that decision for a child, but these aren’t children.
sharrukin on February 1, 2013 at 9:48 PM
AND if NASA Mgmt thinks that the shuttle had been damaged in any way, employ what ever resource — ground based cameras, satellite based cameras, space walks — to check…
Gohawgs on February 1, 2013 at 9:52 PM
Hard to believe that was from someone working at NASA
HotAirian on February 1, 2013 at 10:02 PM
After Columbia, all, but one, shuttle missions went to ISS for that very reason. The flight to repair and update Hubble was determined worth the risk.
This wasn’t just non-flying managers agreeing, the astronauts did too. They, more than anyone understand the risks involved.
cozmo on February 1, 2013 at 10:02 PM
If NASA cannot design a system to repair its craft in space, then they need to find new engineers and fire everyone who says its impossible.
nobar on February 1, 2013 at 10:06 PM
The Russians could get them down in a Soyuz capsule if nothing else.
sharrukin on February 1, 2013 at 10:13 PM
Stupid question.
It’s like asking if it would be better to not tell the passengers of the Costa Concordia the ship was sinking.
It’s not like you can conceal it very long.
NeoKong on February 1, 2013 at 10:17 PM
Really? How?
cozmo on February 1, 2013 at 10:21 PM
They send one out, the shuttle crew (two per capsule assuming one Russian Cosmonaut), EVAs to the Soyuz capsule (hopefully tethered), and they return to earth. I suposse they could overload the capsule in an emergency.
sharrukin on February 1, 2013 at 10:26 PM
It’s my understanding that: 1) the Columbia crew did not know about the possible damage to the left wing until they were told in an email update — and that was in case they were asked by reporters after they returned. 2) Mgmt had been told by engineers and others that there might be damage. 3) That mgmt refused requests to ask DOD, NSA, etc. to use their camera resources to check the wing. 4) That mgmt refused to order a space walk to check for damage…
And yes, AFTER Columbia blew up due to malfeasance future shuttle missions were checked by “other” camera resources and by a camera mounted on the robotic arm…Too late for Columbia. Just as it was too late for Challenger…
Gohawgs on February 1, 2013 at 10:27 PM
Ground control to Major Tom.
davidk on February 1, 2013 at 10:30 PM
That’s funny. You write bad sci-fi often?
Mmmm, hmmm…Y’all act like going into space is such an easy thing.
Lovell, Swiggert and Haise are the luckiest space travelers ever. Followed not too closely by two Gemini astronauts whose names I forget.
Its risky pushing the bounds of human endeavor. If all the proposed problems were prepared for before launch, a current spacecraft would never leave the pad.
cozmo on February 1, 2013 at 10:37 PM
lol, Especially once Capt. Unassio got into a lifeboat and went to direct ops from five miles away.
arnold ziffel on February 1, 2013 at 10:39 PM
Duct tape.
Geeze…
ProfShadow on February 1, 2013 at 10:44 PM
Soyuz capsules would rescue Atlantis crew in dire scenario
You seem to be as ignorant about space flight as you are about guns.
sharrukin on February 1, 2013 at 10:46 PM
Nice try. NASA owes it to those that take on the risk of space travel to do what they can to safely return them back to earth. In both the Challenger — ignoring the o ring warnings — and in the Columbia — igoring the possible damage done to the wing — incidents safety protocols were not followed by mgmt. And people died…
Gohawgs on February 1, 2013 at 10:48 PM
The Columbia was in an orbit that would have precluded your kind of Soyuz rescue. There was no Soyuz ready. If you had read your own link, you would have noticed that some of the equipment needed for such a rescue would have had to be pre-loaded into the shuttle. And your rescue scenario was for a crew half the size of the one on Columbia.
Try again sweetie.
Or would you prefer to try calibers? Though I doubt you would be able to do any better.
cozmo on February 1, 2013 at 10:56 PM
NASA, or should I say manager Linda Ham, suspected they were doomed, which is why she turned downed repeated offers to look at the wing from other agencies, as well as other departments within NASA. Every offer she turned down. Had it been confirmed, she would have been obliged to tell them. This way, she could say nobody knew.
..there’s nothing we can do about it anyway.”
- Linda Ham, NASA manager
after looking at the launch video
Read the book Comm Check. Needlesstosay, she was quietly removed.
keep the change on February 1, 2013 at 10:58 PM
Why is that?
They can be ready in days. They have launched over 1,500 of them over the years so its not a new or difficult job.
They can do without the custom seats and use what the Russians send up if their lives are on the line.
sharrukin on February 1, 2013 at 11:11 PM
And you call me ignorant…check up on orbital mechanics…maximum loading…personnel transfer in a vacuum…
cozmo on February 1, 2013 at 11:15 PM
Of course you tell the crew. Those skilled enough to make it into space obviously have a strong tendency toward intelligence and ingenuity. Perhaps even if they appear doomed, they’ll find a way to fix the situation. Maybe it’s a slim chance, but nobody on the ground has the right to deny them that chance nor the right to make peace with their God if there is indeed no way.
I suppose this is the upside to the fact that the shuttles are dead. If there’s one President in history gutless enough to answer this question the wrong way, it’s the creep in the White House now. He’d probably directly intervene to keep NASA from notifying our men, just as help was denied to those at Benghazi. After all, you never know what big shocking news story will provide the excuse to ram through the next piece of worthless socialist legislation.
Gingotts on February 1, 2013 at 11:31 PM
In other words you don’t know, but don’t want to admit your ignorance.
The Soyuz can easily get to the ISS and one of them is maintained at the Space Station for guess what? An emergency escape craft. Shuttle mission STS-107 was at a 190 mile orbit which is lower than than the ISS. A Soyuz capsule could easily reach such an orbit.
sharrukin on February 1, 2013 at 11:37 PM
I will try one more time…No shinola a Soyuz is kept docked at ISS to evacuate the crew. So what? On Columbia’s final mission, she was in a different orbit than the ISS. A Soyuz does not have the fuel to change orbital inclination, or speed, to make a second rendezvous (the first being with the ISS).
That is why there was so much arguing before the final mission to Hubble was given the go ahead.
I gave you several chances, you just kept digging.
cozmo on February 1, 2013 at 11:48 PM
The first rendezvous would be with the shuttle idiot.
sharrukin on February 1, 2013 at 11:50 PM
Oh sweetie, you think they have an assembly line of ready launchers at Baikonur?
cozmo on February 1, 2013 at 11:54 PM
This would be a more interesting question…
If we still had shuttles.
trigon on February 2, 2013 at 12:15 AM
Yeah, they do.
Progress M-47 launched the day after Columbia STS-107 burned up.
Soyuz TMA-2 which launched in April of that year would have been available as well.
Progress M1-10 launched in June
Progress M-48 launched in August
sharrukin on February 2, 2013 at 12:31 AM
You certainly tell the commander and any others on board whom are test pilots.
Test pilots by their nature expect to deal with and solve the unplanned, the unexpected and the haywire. Knowing what the problem is makes compensating for the limitations (where possible) more doable.
Apollo 13 met with a wide variety of potentially lethal problems: low O2, high CO2, low fuel to return to Earth etc.
Many know about how the CO2 problem was solved by filtration, and how the lunar module provided spare O2 but many don’t know about how the lunar orbit trajectory was modified by CAPCOM and the pilot working together to slingshot the spacecraft back towards Earth. Openly discussing the problems made recovery from those successful.
viking01 on February 2, 2013 at 12:41 AM
It depends…NASA will have to determine if it will make Muslims feel good or not.
James on February 2, 2013 at 12:53 AM
A couple of the local talk radio guys in Tyler were speculating this morning about how much of the Columbia is probably still at the bottom of Lake Palestine.
I have to admit that I’ve wondered whether I might find a piece of it when I’m out doing work in the yard.
trigon on February 2, 2013 at 1:01 AM
Vladimir Komarov: They knew the Soyuz 1 mission could be a one way trip before he left. And once in orbit they did not have to say anything to know it was a doomed trip.
tjexcite on February 2, 2013 at 1:24 AM
If they’re doomed (and they were), NO.
Ugly on February 2, 2013 at 1:24 AM
I’ve never told this to much of anybody, really, but I saw the Columbia re-entering that morning. I was living on the central California coast, so we never saw the shuttles coming into Edwards. They were 300 miles to the south. Columbia was different since they were going to be landing it in Florida. Plus, it was coming in in the dark, early in the morning. And, the weather was supposed to be clear. No fog like we so often got on the coast.
Anyway, I set my alarm clock and threw on some sweats when it went off. Went outside with my binoculars and started looking about where I figured it should be coming in. Then, I saw it. I got the binoculars up and on it. It was moving really fast, so I could only make it out for a few seconds.
What kind of haunts me about it was that I didn’t think it looked right. But, I’d never seen a shuttle re-entering before, so I just wasn’t sure. I swear it looked to me like it was kind of slewed sideways a bit. I thought maybe it was just the angle I was viewing it from. You could see some sparks coming off of it. But, I knew it got pretty hot during re-entry.
It was gone in a few more seconds. I was kind of pleased with myself that I’d gotten to see the shuttle, finally. I went back inside and climbed back into bed for a little more sleep. It wasn’t until I’d gotten back up and turned on the news that I heard what had happened.
I still wonder what it was, exactly, that I saw that morning through my binoculars.
trigon on February 2, 2013 at 1:29 AM
Nah.
You tell them that they’re doing okay in Math,
relative to the Arabs.
RedCrow on February 2, 2013 at 2:09 AM
Glad we no longer have to grapple with this dilemma. “The party of science” has decided that sacrificing SUV’s up to Gaia and 99 weeks of unemployment bennies supercedes the necessity of expanding the space frontier.
crrr6 on February 2, 2013 at 2:44 AM
This plan assumes the Space Shuttle is at ISS. That wasn’t the case with STS-107.
DarkCurrent on February 2, 2013 at 6:58 AM
I suppose you’re thinking of Armstrong and Scott on Gemini 8.
DarkCurrent on February 2, 2013 at 6:59 AM
No it doesn’t, and there is always a Soyuz at the ISS in any case.
sharrukin on February 2, 2013 at 7:06 AM
Progress is an unmanned ferry not man rated and incapable of returning a crew.
The April launch could have been ready in January…yeah, right.
Already tried to explain that. Some people think changing orbits and rendezvous is like taking the car to the corner store.
Yep, thanks for the refresher.
cozmo on February 2, 2013 at 7:43 AM
It is capable of delivering food, fuel, oxygen, and spares which is what the shuttle crew would need to survive.
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
Let me get this straight…The progress could keep the Columbia resupplied and the Soyuz at the ISS would go on over to rescue the crew along with another Soyuz launched two months early.
Remember the earlier dustup about Soyuz not having the fuel to leave the ISS and changing orbit and velocity? What is that you call folks who don’t buy into your fantasy?
cozmo on February 2, 2013 at 8:02 AM
Read the plan you linked. It was designed to be used in the event that heat shield damage was found on a Shuttle mission to ISS, using Soyuz to ferry people down from ISS. It wasn’t a plan for Soyuz to rendezvous directly with a Shuttle.
STS-107 was not a mission to ISS and had a very different orbital inclination and attitude.
DarkCurrent on February 2, 2013 at 8:06 AM
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/11/three-crewmembers-is-pre-dawn-return-earth/
Three crewmembers of the International Space Station (ISS) Expedition 33 crew – comprising American astronaut Suni Williams, Japanese astronaut Aki Hoshide, and Russian cosmonaut Yuri Malenchenko – undocked from the ISS on time at 10:26 PM GMT in their Soyuz TMA-05M spacecraft, also known by its US designation of 31S. They landed on the steppe of Kazakhstan at 1:56 AM GMT Monday morning, albeit slightly off target.
That would be news to the astronauts using Soyuz.
sharrukin on February 2, 2013 at 8:12 AM
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
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
They landed, they didn’t change orbit, velocity or rendezvous a second time Speilberg jr.
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .“~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./…..\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>–
Your ignorance is facepalm worthy.
cozmo on February 2, 2013 at 8:15 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »