STS 107 Re entry Senarios

[ascan1984]

I know that this post has already been covered beforethe space.com crash but I think I would like to begin it again here. What are the possibilites for reentry of Columbia if they had known about the Reinforced Carbon Carbon panels penetration.

 

[SpaceKiwi]

You're right, this issue was extensively canvassed before the SDC crash. I think I can sum it up by saying that there were/are no re-entry scenarios which would have resulted in Columbia landing safely. The crew had no safe haven possibility at ISS, nor could a rescue Shuttle be launched before consumables would have run out on Columbia.<br /><br />A Shuttle's re-entry flight profile is already optimal for the bleeding off of speed and for heating the TPS as little as possible. It would not have been possible to fly another profile which 'protected' the damaged wing from as much heating as that which occurred. Even if it had been possible to fly Columbia with the right side of the vehicle pointed more into the direction of flight, the heating of the left wing leading edge still would have been sufficient to burn though into the interior structure and destroy the wing from the inside out.<br /><br />As tragic and saddening as this event was, it was probably for the best that the crew was not fully aware of the danger awaiting them. There was nothing that could realistically have been done to save the Columbia crew, even with a full appreciation of the damage the RCC had sustained. <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>

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">" nor could a rescue Shuttle be launched before consumables would have run out on Columbia"</font><br /><br />Columbia rescue mission feasible, but unlikely<br /><br /><i>Columbia had enough food, water and power to remain in orbit more than a month. The limiting consumable was lithium hydroxide, a chemical used to scrub carbon dioxide form the shuttle's air supply. Normally, NASA does not allow the partial pressure of CO2 to rise above 2 percent. But by relaxing those restrictions and accepting levels of up to 3.5 percent or so, the shuttle's air supply would have supported the crew for 30 days, until the evening of Feb. 15.</i><br /><br />I wonder if the 30 days figure involves normal crew activity level, or most of them asleep, doing yoga or whatever to minimize metabolism. Also wondering could regenerable EMU Metox canisters have been used to help the situation à la Apollo 13.

 

[najab]

As Kiwi said, the reentry profile the Shuttle flies is already almost as benign as is possible. However, reentry heating is made more severe when the Shuttle has to make up a lot of cross-range distance. I'm not sure how much cross-range was required by the entry they flew - if it wasn't zero, then they could have reduced the heating a <i>little</i> bit if they had chosen a reentry path that passed directly over KSC.<p>Also, if they had made the determination that the vehicle was a write-off, they could have modified the 'bank-and-roll' program to increase the thermal stress on the right wing and reduce it on the left, and then had the crew bail out as soon as they could. Again, this would probably not have made that much difference.<p>Another option I heard was to have cold-soaked the left wing for an orbit or two before the reentry. By orienting the Shuttle so that the left wing was in shadow, it would have been pre-cooled to -150C or so. However, it's doubtful that it would have made any difference - even if they tried the wild idea of 'stuffing' the leading edge with water bags - when you consider that the plasma streaming over the leading edge is about 2000C.</p></p>

 

[drwayne]

I wonder how much some of those personal re-entry systems that one reads about being designed in the 1960's would weigh?<br /><br />I know this is not along the general topic, as it was not available to this flight...just thinking out loud....sorry, fell free to ignore.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"how much some of those personal re-entry systems that one reads about being designed in the 1960's would weigh?"</font><br /><br />One example, General Electric's MOOSE<br /><br />215kg including the astronaut, not bad.<br /><br />

 

[drwayne]

MOOSE was exactly what I was thinking about!<br /><br />Thanks!<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

I've often thought that we should have a "Rescue Tent" on a 48 hour alert set up for a Taurus rocket. You can fly the Taurus almost anywhere on the planet in a C-5 Galaxy, and be ready for launch in a few hours. The cool thing about the Taurus is that even though it's not very powerful, it's extremely mobile, which means that it doesn't need a lot of fuel for monkeying around to intercept.<br /><br />The tent would have O2, CO2 scrubbers, food, water, and little else to keep the crew alive until another rescue mission could be launched. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

That's a good idea, the only problem is that the Taurus upper stage is a solid, which means you need to add a rendezvous module - cutting into the upmass available for payload.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

I'm assuming that the rendezvous module would be part of the "Rescue Tent", that thing would have to do all of the fancy flying to dock with what I assumed to be a broken Orbiter with little or no power. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ascan1984]

I found this on a google search. A photograph of the launch of STS 107 taken by someone.

 

[ascan1984]

Another small image

 

[ascan1984]

On a slightly different topic i need your help. You know the movie challenger about the disaster. Well I made a post about it saying how i dont like the movie but i really am having trouble explaining why. Help!!!!!!!<br />http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099237/board/thread/17279265<br /><br /><br />

 

[CalliArcale]

Wish I could help, but I haven't seen it. And after your review, I probably won't! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[najab]

Hey Ascan, sorry I didn't reply sooner. I can't really help you out there, since I haven't seen that movie. If it's like most of its ilk though, it probably focuses almost exclusively on Christa, and gets 95% of the techincal stuff wrong.<br /><br />For me, the make-or-break moment on a movie about or featuring the Shuttle boils down to four words: "Go at throttle-up." About 60% of movies have it as an enthusiastic call <b>down</b> from the Shuttle: "We are *GO* at throttle up!!" About 35% of them have it as a imperative from the ground: "You have a go for throttle-up." The 5% who seem to get it right - an informational call up - get a second look.<br /><br />Other frequently abused calls: "APU pre-start", "Roll program" and "auto-sequence start".

 

[steve82]

We discussed that movie in these threads a couple years ago. I had about the same feelings about it. It went over real bad in here Houston, especially because of the soap opera portrayal of some of the crewmembers.

 

[SpaceKiwi]

I'm dreading the movies that will inevitably come about Columbia. I'm somewhat surprised there haven't been any offerings yet. I wonder if the fact that there are a couple of weeks between cause and effect has discouraged the Hollywood types as it doesn't make for a 'good story'. <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]

Ron Howard did a good job with Apollo 13, but he did add a little bit of drama for the sake of Hollywood, there was no fighting between Haise and Swaggart. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[drwayne]

I have read that Swigert was actually quite diligent and good...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

Well, given Hanks is as much a space nut as the rest of us, you would expect his involvement signalled that the movie would be as free from hyperbole as possible. <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]

I have a lot of respect for Tom Hanks, he's done some great films, both in front of the camera, and directing. Is this really the same guy who played Kip in Bossom Buddies? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

Plus a solid isn't too easily targeted to specific locations. A Chemical rocket can make multiple orbital changes. Solids are good for the first stage, but beyond that it would depend on the payload.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[haywood]

I agree NAJAB.<br />Have you seen that Pontiac G6 commercial wherein this woman is getting to leave for work in the morning?<br />It tries to simulate a launch.<br />Have to laugh when "launch control" says "Roll Program Confirmed" even before the launch!<br />Only us geeks would pick that up.<br />

 

[najab]

Actually, there's at least on other one. It's called "Flight into Eternity" or something like that.