Space Shuttle Columbia Lost During Reentry

[sechs]

I'm already tired of the media converage of this. It's not as if the United States wasn't about to go to war in Iraq, the president had submited his budget, and South Korea is preparing to make an atomic bomb, or anything. This is tragic, yes. I'm interested in it, yes.

I don't need to see video of any more things with people in them blowing up. Especially over and over and over and over again.

 

[Buck]

Not to minimize the tragic deaths, but I am very interested in the technical aspects of this event - the why, how, and what stuff that went wrong. Although I understand that this will be slow in coming.

One moment . . . I need to flip my record.

Some of the information presented by NASA up to this point has been quite intriguing - the sequence in which the signals for the 12 sensors went low, the temperature increase in the wheel-well, etc.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

When accidents happen, new technologies in the field thrive!
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,57536,00.html

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Scumbags.....

http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.d...erid=shorebird11&sort=3&rows=25&since=-1&rd=1

 

[Mercutio]

The people who are bidding are worse than the seller. They're the asstards who are encouraging him!

 

[Groltz]

CNN comes through with an accurate assessment of the shuttle's velocity.

 

[Buck]

Nice information Groltz. It would be nice if we could even travel at .95C.

 

[The Giver]

How would you like to be the three astronauts in the space station? They have food and supplies for a few more months and can be re-supplied without the shuttle but I don't think they can get back to earth without it. NASA is going to have to work overtime to find the cause and make adjustments or those guys could be up there a long, long time.

 

[SteveC]

There is a Soyuz capsule attacted to the station already for emergency exits, so that won't be a problem. Crew replacements and supplies can also be brought up by other Soyuz capsules, if need be. The shuttle would be needed to raise the orbit of the station, but that shouldn't be needed for at least the rest of the year.

 

[The Giver]

That's good Steve. I believe I'd take the Soyuz back if I had to choose.

 

[mubs]

For now, Russian craft are the only way to help the space station crew, and it is being done.

A Russian craft carrying supplies and fuel successfully docked with the space station earlier today.

 

[time]

It's worth noting that the Russian supply craft is a robot. Obviously their software's pretty good. And I agree with The Giver about preferring a Soyuz capsule as a ride home - particularly as I suspect this disaster was due to a tile bonding failure that could afflict all the Space Shuttles.

 

[Tea]

Thankyou, I'd wait for the shuttle. (Well, I'd wait for the shuttle just so long as there was no chance of running out of bananas, I mean.) I don't think the Russians have too great a record so far as space safety goes themselves. Not that I'm criticising - hey - if it was easy, you'd buy spaceships at your Ford dealer.

 

[jtr1962]

Due to the nature of the defunct Soviet Union's government, it is difficult getting an exact accounting of deaths connected with their space program, but suffice it to say the number is an order of magnitude above America's losses(17 in all). I think something like 4 cosmonauts were lost on missions, but there have been several spectacular rocket explosions on the ground killing many dozens of people. There was one that killed 92, I believe, and it wasn't made public until years later.

 

[time]

Order of magnitude? Give me a break!

I'd certainly heard of the incident where about 100 people were killed. Perhaps you should read what happened:

On October 24, 1960 the Soviet Premier, Nikita S. Khrushchev was boiling mad. Two launches to Mars on the 13th and 15th of October had failed while he was preparing to make a big propaganda speech at the United Nations bragging once again about the superiority of the Communist system. His appointed lackey, Field Marshal Nedelin, was told to launch a vehicle to Mars, or else. When the countdown reached zero, the huge SS-6 rocket did not ignite. Feeling the pressure from Khrushchev, Nedelin disobeyed all safety regulations concerning rocket misfires and sent the technicians out to work on the rocket. Korolev was extremely safety conscious and he argued with Nedelin about sending the engineers out to accomplish maintenance on the unstable space vehicle. In an action of bravado, Nedelin took his entire staff and some chairs to sit by the rocket as it was being inspected by the technicians. Korolev and a deputy Yangel went into a blast shelter to have a cigarette when the rocket exploded. Instantly, Nedelin, his staff, their chairs, and over 100 technicians on the rocket were incinerated in the worst accident in the history of the Soviet space program. Rather than admitting that such an event occurred, the Soviet Press claimed that Nedelin was killed in an aircraft accident. About once every month after the accident, three or four space technicians would have their obituaries in the press; it took thirty months for all the Nedelin disaster technicians to be officially recognized as dead. Such was the secrecy of the Soviet space program in the early years. At the Tyuratam Rocket Launch Facility there is now an obelisk with the names of the scientists and technicians who perished in "The Nedelin Disaster".

(from The Russian Space Programs)

America's losses are really 20 because of the destruction of a capsule containing three astronauts in a 'dry run'.

The Russians haven't lost anyone in a manned launch since 1971 (Soyuz 11). As The Giver implied, this unfortunately compares quite well with the Shuttle record - no disrespect to Nasa intended, the Shuttle is a more complex craft - it's just that as a lifeboat, the Soyuz looks more inviting.

 

[jtr1962]

Order of magnitude? Give me a break!

I'd certainly heard of the incident where about 100 people were killed. Perhaps you should read what happened:

Here's a link to deadly space accidents:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20030201-0930-space-accidents-chronology.html

Combined you have at least 145 deaths(that they'll admit to) versus 17 for the US(3 in the Apollo fire, 7 on Challenger, 7 on Columbia). Yes, almost an order of magnitude, although the US has had more deaths in space by far.

It seems the Russians got their act together regarding safety by the late 1970s, although prior to that their record was abysmal, especially with regards to the safety of their ground personnel.

 

[time]

Whoops! I can't count - it is 17. Although you haven't included US ground personnel killed (admittedly few). I found a further nine Soviet deaths in a subsequent accident at Plesetsk due to the same flawed valve design - but then surely that's not the point?

This started because The Giver said he'd prefer to take the current Soyuz home. Given the comparitive statistics of 0 fatal accidents vs 2 for the Shuttle, isn't that obvious?

 

[The Giver]

The only thing is I didn't factor the number of missions for the Shuttle vs. Soyuz into the equation. I don't know how many each has flown but depending on what the actual odds are I might change my mind. As if anyone would invite me along to go up there in the first place.

 

[Pradeep]

For now, Russian craft are the only way to help the space station crew, and it is being done.

A Russian craft carrying supplies and fuel successfully docked with the space station earlier today.

That mission was scheduled to go ahead before the Challenger disaster.

It does dock on autopilot, I believe a few years back the docking screwed up and the capsule damaged the station? Or maybe that was Mir or some movie I saw.

 

[Mercutio]

The shuttles are the only reusable spacecraft on the planet. Soyuz is a one shot deal. I think it would be hard to do an apples-to-apple comparison between the two. The Challenger and the Columbia, though, were both part of the original batch of, um, ships. A second batch (Atlantis and IIRC Endevour) also flies, and has had a better service record to date.
Anyway, a device that only has to go up one time, and doesn't even particularly have to come down (except for the capsule), must be vastly easier to build than one that has to make dozens of trips back and forth in at least much larger pieces (lest someone think I'm making a sick joke, I'm thinking of the boosters, here).

 

[sechs]

The Soyuz is very reliable for what it does -- allow people to ride missiles into space and then fall back to Earth, into the steppes of central Asia.

The space shuttle, on the other hand, allows more than twice as many people and a large payload to ride two large fire-crackers into space, do stuff when they get there, and then glide back to Earth, into the California desert or the swamps of Florida.

 

[jtr1962]

Whoops! I can't count - it is 17. Although you haven't included US ground personnel killed (admittedly few). I found a further nine Soviet deaths in a subsequent accident at Plesetsk due to the same flawed valve design - but then surely that's not the point?

This started because The Giver said he'd prefer to take the current Soyuz home. Given the comparitive statistics of 0 fatal accidents vs 2 for the Shuttle, isn't that obvious?

Honestly, it's a tough call to make. On the one hand, a reusable vehicle is subject to repeated stresses that a one-use vehicle isn't. On the other, a reusable vehicle must be built more robustly to repeatedly survive the stresses of launch and reentry. I wouldn't base my decision on the relative safety records, either. NASA could have been particularly unlucky with the shuttle and the Russians lucky with the Soyuz. In the final analysis, I would feel comfortable on either but well aware of the inherent risk of space travel despite our best engineering efforts at ensuring safety. Both countries have very competent people in their space programs.

Now NASA is looking at ice-laden insulation as a possible cause of the disaster. In the end, they'll only be able to take a fairly good educated guess at what really caused this. It wasn't like Challenger where the cause was staring them in the face right in the video. This time around it is entirely possible the shuttle was fine when it reached orbit, but was struck by a micrometeroid that damaged tiles in a critical area. Actually, micrometeoroid damage has always been a risk of space flight, but we've been lucky so far. Perhaps the statistics finally caught up with us.

 

[time]

The ice-laden isulation has already been ruled out. I'm still betting on a breakdown in tile bonding - possibly precipitated by the insulation striking the wing - and predicted for some time now. The fact that the shuttle skin is corroding under the tiles is not comforting ...

 

[Explorer]

...I believe a few years back the docking screwed up and the capsule damaged the station? Or maybe that was Mir or some movie I saw.

Around 1997 or '98, the Mir crew was *practicing* docking a Progess cargo drone to the Mir, when they briefly lost contact with it (i.e. -- lost all control) just long enough for it to ram into the side of one of Mir's modules.

There was a significant atmospheric leak in the wall from the collision and they had to seal that part of the Mir space station up for several months until it was finally repaired by a future crew.

 

[Explorer]

...Although you haven't included US ground personnel killed (admittedly few)...

Zero, actually.

One thing about Russian launch pad practises, they don't seem to mind having people outside (usually military) when they tilt up a Proton, fuel it up with poisonous hydrazine, then launch it -- sometimes exploding on the launch pad or just after launch. BOOM! Huge shock wave. Get the picture? Fortunately, things are changing, but not completely.

 

[James]

The shuttles are the only reusable spacecraft on the planet. Soyuz is a one shot deal. I think it would be hard to do an apples-to-apple comparison between the two. The Challenger and the Columbia, though, were both part of the original batch of, um, ships. A second batch (Atlantis and IIRC Endevour) also flies, and has had a better service record to date.

Actually I went to Cape Kennedy early last year and learned a number of things I did not previously know, apart from also seeing some pretty neat stuff.

The interesting thing is that the batch of shuttles that exist now are not the same as the ones they started off with, they refresh them every 10 years or so. The current ones are quite a lot bigger than the original ones, to carry larger payloads, and have updated electronics and such.

If you do go to Cape Kennedy you can walk around and look in an old shuttle - so we can be sure the originals aren't flying.

 

[time]

Zero, actually.

September 7, 1990 - Part of a U.S. Titan rocket falls from a crane and explodes at Edwards Air Force Base, sending flames 150 feet (45 metres) into the air and killing at least one person.

 

[time]

If you do go to Cape Kennedy you can walk around and look in an old shuttle - so we can be sure the originals aren't flying.

That would be Enterprise. It was used as a proof of concept test vehicle and was never equipped for spaceflight.

Columbia was one of the original shuttles, making its first flight in 1981.

 

[SteveC]

The shuttles are the only reusable spacecraft on the planet. Soyuz is a one shot deal. I think it would be hard to do an apples-to-apple comparison between the two. The Challenger and the Columbia, though, were both part of the original batch of, um, ships. A second batch (Atlantis and IIRC Endevour) also flies, and has had a better service record to date.

Actually I went to Cape Kennedy early last year and learned a number of things I did not previously know, apart from also seeing some pretty neat stuff.

The interesting thing is that the batch of shuttles that exist now are not the same as the ones they started off with, they refresh them every 10 years or so. The current ones are quite a lot bigger than the original ones, to carry larger payloads, and have updated electronics and such.

If you do go to Cape Kennedy you can walk around and look in an old shuttle - so we can be sure the originals aren't flying.

The shuttles are all the originals, although they have had major upgrades done to them. They take one shuttle out of service, current the Discovery, for about a year to do the modifications and upgrades. There were the original five (from oldest to newest): Enterprise (a test vehicle, and never meant to be flown in space), Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, and Atlantis. Endeavour was built as a replacement for the Challenger, and is the only "new" one. All the others were contracted to be built in the '70s.

 

[sechs]

If you do go to Cape Kennedy you can walk around and look in an old shuttle - so we can be sure the originals aren't flying.

That would be Enterprise. It was used as a proof of concept test vehicle and was never equipped for spaceflight.

Columbia was one of the original shuttles, making its first flight in 1981.

No, no. Enterprise was the original space shuttle. They used it for suborbital test flights. However, they made so many design changes, it was impossible to economically retrofit Enterprise to be able to fly in space. This is why Columbia was designated OV-102.

 

[Explorer]

Zero, actually.

September 7, 1990 - Part of a U.S. Titan rocket falls from a crane and explodes at Edwards Air Force Base, sending flames 150 feet (45 metres) into the air and killing at least one person.

I guess one could dig up another incident such as something falling off of a rocket during assembly or the like.

What I was talking about was space launches -- military or civilian (NASA is a civilian agency). They don't do Titan launches or any other major missile launches at Edwards Air Force Base. As far as rockets go, the usual activity that is done at Edwards AFB is what's commonly called "static engine testing," or simply putting a rocket stage or engine on one hell of a strong stand and firing the up engine, running it at 100% or more thrust output (the liquid-fueled rockets); looking at the flame pattern, monitoring the fuel flow, vibrations, doing a post-firing examination of parts and systems, etc. The US Air Force does major rocket launches somewhat near by at Vandenberg Air Force Base on the coast of California -- polar orbital launches, only.

 

[time]

Huh? The Enterprise can be called a Shuttle if you leave out the word "Space". It was a prototype that only ever launched on the back of a 747.

The original operational shuttles were Columbia and Challenger. As James said, subsequent craft have more payload capacity (I believe they are lighter).

The Enterprise was built as a test vehicle and is not equipped for space flight.

Following the Enterprise, the orbiter Columbia was created and it became the first Space Shuttle to fly into Earth orbit in 1981. Four sister ships joined the fleet over the next 10 years: Challenger, arriving in 1982 but destroyed four years later; Discovery, 1983; Atlantis, 1985; and Endeavour, built as a replacement for Challenger, 1991.

 

[time]

What I was talking about was space launches

In that case, I guess we can exclude the Nedelin disaster because it was an ICBM test.

Yes, I know I need to get a life ...

 

[sechs]

Huh? The Enterprise can be called a Shuttle if you leave out the word "Space". It was a prototype that only ever launched on the back of a 747.

The original operational shuttles were Columbia and Challenger. As James said, subsequent craft have more payload capacity (I believe they are lighter).

It was meant to go into space, but never did. Even if you feel the need to prefix it with "prototype," Enterprise is a space shuttle.

 

[SteveC]

An Air Force tracking camera videotaped the shuttle over New Mexico and showed heavy wing damage.

The aviation magazine, quoting sources close to the investigation, reported late Thursday that the images showed “a jagged edge on the left inboard wing structure near where the wing ... intersect(s) the fuselage.”
The photos also show the orbiter’s right aft yaw thrusters firing, trying to correct the vehicle’s attitude to compensate for the added drag created by the damage to the left wing,” the magazine said.
The evidence appears to bolster the theory that a piece of insulating foam that fell from an external fuel tank shortly after liftoff caused more damage to the wing than NASA engineers suspected. It also is consistent with amateur video and photographs shot in Western states showing a piece or pieces of the shuttle breaking off as it began its descent into the Earth’s atmosphere.
Aviation Week & Space Technology also noted that the “jagged edge” raises the possibility that reinforced carbon-carbon structures bolted on the leading edge of the wing to protect the shuttle against temperatures in excess of 2,300 degrees encountered during re-entry had failed.

 

[SteveC]

Here is a more detailed article on the subject.

 

[time]

It was meant to go into space, but never did.

No, that is a myth, probably stemming from a NASA response to the inevitable question, "Why aren't you using this one?"

Enterprise had fake heat shields, its engines were dummies, and the shuttle had no power of its own. Refurbishment would have amounted to rebuilding!

Enterprise was stuck in a rig for stress tests - it would be rather startling to see someone do that to an aircraft intended for operational service, let alone a spacecraft!

 

[Buck]

There is some nice information here about the Space Shuttle Enterprise. It seems to have lived a long life of ferries and finally was set to rest on display at the Smithsonian.

 

[sechs]

It was meant to go into space, but never did.

No, that is a myth, probably stemming from a NASA response to the inevitable question, "Why aren't you using this one?"

Enterprise had fake heat shields, its engines were dummies, and the shuttle had no power of its own. Refurbishment would have amounted to rebuilding!

Enterprise was stuck in a rig for stress tests - it would be rather startling to see someone do that to an aircraft intended for operational service, let alone a spacecraft!

That's because they intended to to put the real, expensive equipment inside, but made such changes to design that, yes, it was not cost effective to make it space-worthy.

 

[GIANT]

...its engines were dummies, and the shuttle had no power of its own...

Time, you are correct. I once saw the Enterprise being pedalled down a sidewalk by what appeared to be a 4-year-old child sitting in the cargo bay!