Doing a check before re-entry?

[netdragon]

Why can't astronauts do a check of all the tiles on the shuttle before re-entry, or why can't NASA put some kind of sensors on the under-side of the tiles to detect if the shuttle is missing a tile?

 

[drwayne]

The plan is to inspect the shuttle before re-entry.<br /><br />Note that Columbia was *not* brought down by a tile failure.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>Why can't astronauts do a check of all the tiles on the shuttle before re-entry..</i><p>I have to assume that you haven't been keeping track of the return to flight plans: the Space Station astronauts are going to take pictures of the entire underside of the Shuttle before it docks and will be able to see if there are any tiles missing or damaged.</p>

 

[vogon13]

IIRC there are 30000 tiles. A 99% reliablity rate on the sensors would never let you land. 100% reliable sensor pretty unlikely. You don't make a vehicle more reliable by increasing the parts count and the associated failure rate. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[elguapoguano]

<font color="yellow">In addition there is a 40 foot long boom that is being carried to inspect the RCC and tiles. The standard RMS attaches it self to the boom for these inspections.</font><br /><br />SG, trying to picture how this is going to work. The boom is stowed in the shuttle bay, the RMS grabs the boom and is able to articulate it around the body of the orbiter? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Think there might be some unpleasant failure modes with the boom. Gouging TPS with it, failure to retract, failure to jettison upon 'sticking'. I'm sure an astronaut would not maliciously damage the vehicle with it, but an accident with it would be ungood. What if thing activates before payload doors open? What if it mechanically fractures from g load during launch? Never say never when working through the fault tree. Lots of gotchas on this vehicle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

I've been thinking about this check that is now required on the orbiter and how this might impact on the CEV design. <br /><br />If the TPS needs to be able to be inspected and fixed on the orbiter why not on the CEV as well?<br /><br />Given the time that the CEV might need to be stored on orbit with the TPS exposed to space (700 days according to astronautix) I think there is some merit to this idea.<br /><br />While avoiding the problem in the first place is a good start i.e. mounting the CEV on top of the stack and/or keeping the TPS hidden until it is needed as in the Soyuz design. I would have thought being able to fix any problems would also be beneficial.<br /><br />What do people think?<br />

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

What do you guys reckon? I just had a thought, would it be a good idea to leave this boom stationed at the ISS?<br />I was thinking that doing so would allow more cargo to be carried up. Possible problems in doing so, that I can think of are...<br />1) Its not easy to "stow" it around the ISS,<br />2) It being at the ISS wouldn't be helpfull if the orbiter had to do a *black project* opps, I mean a special scientific trip.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

I imagine the main reason against would be time. If they have critical damage, they would want to know ASAP. Also, you have the additional slim possibility that the Orbiter might not be able to get to the ISS to begin with. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

If they can't get to the ISS, their options are few, anyway. They'd have to re-enter, one way or another, unless they could be resupplied until rescue. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[redgryphon]

There are plans to leave the OBSS at the station in the future. In fact some ISS assembly missions may not be possible with the OBSS onboard, (Node 2, Columbus, Kibo), probably because of launch mass issues.

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<font color="yellow">If they can't get to the ISS, their options are few, anyway. They'd have to re-enter, one way or another, unless they could be resupplied until rescue.</font><br /><br /><br />True, but if they identified damage with the boom they would still have upwards of 10-14 days to try and effect a repair before re-entry.<br /><br />Actually, now that I consider that scenario some more, they would really be under the pump in such a situation. I imagine it would be very tricky to get under the Orbiter without the benefit of the ISS arm to give you a better 'angle' at it.<br /><br /><i>Edited to say</i><br /><br />Ooops, yeah, what SG said! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">They still have hope for certifying a tile and RCC repair. They need the boom to find the damage and get to it to attempt a repair. There is not plan to be able to re-supply the Orbiter if it can not dock with the iSS. </font><br /><br />Sure, that makes sense for the repairs. <br /><br />How much time does it take STS-300 to launch once the decision has been made that the crew of STS-114 needs rescue? If I remember correctly, it was more than a week, which is still fast considering the complexity of the Shuttle. I'm still under the impression that having a mobile, automated resupply vehicle on a 24-48 hour alert is a good stop-gap measure and relieves some of the super time pressure that the STS-300 team would face.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>Then you have the issue of bringing a damaged and un manned Orbiter in over populated areas to get to any available runway.</i><p>How populated are the approaches to Ben Guerir, Moron and Diego Garcia?</p>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

4 weeks! They better get to the ISS then, because I don't think they have 4 weeks worth of consumables, do they? I've said it before, I'll say it again, a Taurus rocket(or something like it) with 2 weeks of consumables on a 48 hour alert, standing by for a C-5 to take it to a place for an easy rendezvous, and automated docking, seems like a smart tool to have in our inventory. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>No, the Orbiter alone can not last 4 weeks.</i><p>I thought I remember hearing that if they had detected the damage to <i>Columbia</i> early enough, and had started emergency conservation measures, they could have stretched the stay on orbit up to a month? Oh, wait, never mind - EDO pallet.</p>

 

[tap_sa]

This EDO pallet could not have sustained the astronauts for a month <i>if all activity was reduced to absolute minimum</i>? Which consumable would have run out first, oxygen?

 

[tap_sa]

Thanks, I forgot the word 'even' from my first question. The second was in case the answer to the first would have been no. Just curious to know if the rescue mission would have had any chances or not. All articles I've read have downplayed it next to impossible.

 

[najab]

If I'm remembering correctly, the limiting consumable would have been lithium hydroxide for the CO₂ scrubbers.

 

[tap_sa]

Was there any EMUs onboard? Those things have regenerable CO2 Metox canisters, though not sure if that would have helped, depends whether the regenerator dump CO2 into internal air circulation or out of the airlock.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

I remember seeing artist drawings of Kevlar balls that could be used to haul people from one Orbiter to another, this was back in the late 70's/early 80's, back when we planned on a 2 week turn around in between launches. Inside the cutaway drawing was an Astronaut in shirtsleeves in the fetal position inside the "Kevlar Beachball with a handle" being carried by an Astronaut in an MMU with two Orbiters in the background. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">They were never developed or used in flight. </font><br /><br />Sadly we never devolped the Shuttle/Space program that far, where we'd have 2 or 3 Orbiters up at any one time. 25 years ago, we thought we would/could. Those same artist drawings had huge greenhouses, hundreds of feet across, feeding the hundreds of people working up there, doing reserch and building the ships that were going to take us to other planets. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> <br /><br />*EDIT*<br />The reason we don't have that in 2005 isn't because the Shuttle program failed America, it's because America failed the Shuttle program. We wussed out, and I fear that may indicate the begining of a new dark age. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bushuser]

Ok. 2 questions:<br /><br />In the mission timeline, will they use this new TV boom before or after docking with ISS?<br /><br />Is there something of concern which cannot be seen by inspection of the shuttle from ISS, but IS visible by using the new arm?<br /><br />On the surface, 2 inspections of the same TPS seems redundant, and that new boom seems like a heavy, costly item.<br /><br />UNLESS you are skipping ISS and heading to the Hubble

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<font color="yellow">In the mission timeline, will they use this new TV boom before or after docking with ISS?</font><br /><br />Correction to say Flight Day 2 principally. However, the crew interviews indicated (to me at least) some contingency/flexability around this if they want to follow some findings up.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Is there something of concern which cannot be seen by inspection of the shuttle from ISS, but IS visible by using the new arm?</font><br /><br />Probably. The boom houses a sophisticated suite of sensors which will be much more capable of identifying a problem, than a cursory examination at ISS using equipment available to them there.<br /><br />More importantly than this though, and as SG has already mentioned, there is simply not time to conduct a full examination of the Orbiter once you get to ISS. There are too many other activities that need to be completed within a very tight work schedule and with stretched manpower resources.<br /><br />A good outline of the activities can be found here ...<br />http://www1.nasa.gov/pdf/112310main_sts-114_miss_overview.pdf<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>