As discussed in this thread: After the Challenger tragedy but before Columbia’s breakup, NASA had estimated the probability of a catastrophic failure in a space shuttle flight at about 1 in 145.
Going with that figure:
Probability of less than two crashes in 113 missions: 81.6%
Probability of exactly two crashes in 113 missions: 14.0%
Probability of more than two crashes in 113 missions: 4.4%
Of course, recent experience will probably mean that the previous 1 in 145 estimate will need to be revised downward, but even at that previous, accepted level, travel in a space shuttle was a very risky proposition.
No, SLH, not “a space station.” Please avoid misquoting me. I said “a space station view port.” Care to wager a tidy sum that the space station has only one single view port? Inspecting the shuttle through a space station view port would have instantly revealed such obvious damage. It now looks as if binoculars would not have been necessary.
I recall that there were noises made about pointing the space telescope or one of our KH-11s at the shuttle. With a resolution of three centimeters, they too could have easily spotted such extensive damage. Everyone who shirked their duty in this has blood on their hands. Whether telescopic, extra vehicular or orbiting platform inspection would have been successful is not even a valid topic of argument. An attempt should have been made. The lives of those who routinely risked them in service to our country were most certainly worth the meager expense.
I saw the Primetime show last night, too. There was an interesting section where they had a panel of former astronauts and asked them what the prospects would have been for inspecting or repairing the shuttle from on board. One of them said it would have been a fairly simple spacewalk to put someone within arms reach of the damaged leading edge panel. Just as I was thinking it, one of the others pointed out that it’s much more difficult to see a damaged panel if you don’t know where it is or even if it exists.
He also said that the reinforced-carbon-carbon panels weren’t even considered as a damage risk, and he would have concentrated his efforts on looking for damaged tiles. In the first days of this investigation, everybody was talking about the underside of the wing. If they had made the effort to inspect or photograph the orbiter, they may still have missed the damage just from looking in the wrong place.
Zenser, I think what Santos was trying to say was that the International Space Station, which is the only space station up there (that we know of…), was nowhere near the shuttle when the shuttle needed to be looked at.
Wrong, there were TWO possible rescue craft. An unmanned Russian supply ship was launched about a week after the breakup, and presumably could have been refitted. And the shuttle commission has already concluded that NASA “probably” could have launched a high-risk rescue mission before the Columbia’s life support ran out, by speeding up the next mission launch. Perhaps “concluded” is too strong a word since their report is not complete yet, but there were a whole flurry of news stories quoting anonymous sources around the commission. I will go look for some cites for these items.
Forgive me for mis-understanding your post, Zenster. I took it to mean the port of one of several space stations when you meant one of several ports on the single space station.
In any case no matter how many viewports the ISS has, none of them were anywhere near enough to see the Shuttle itself, let alone see a small damaged spot on the shuttle…
The problem with the unmanned Progress supply vehicles is they don’t have any life support systems and aren’t designed to return to earth. They burn up in the atmosphere when they undock from the station.
That’s true, but it could have delivered supplies, suits, etc. The commission says that NASA could have launched a rescue mission even without Russian help, but if they could stretch out the prep time available, presumably they would increase their chance of success on the rescue.
Ah, yes. That could do
I expect, similar to what Zenster said above, that the accident was the result of a string of bad conditions, including bad decisions.
This stuff happens all the time in aviation, too. But airplanes aren’t as dangerous, and we’ve already crashed them just about every way they can be crashed, so we know a lot about them, and have a pretty good system for promoting safety and promulgating information to that end. The dangers of space travel are still fairly new. And the excercise is much more complicated. It’s sad- heartbreaking even, when we see first hand what our inexperience, and indeed, perhaps complacency, can allow. We’re not experts at going into space yet. And we won’t be until we do it some more.
Could a rescue have been staged? Did they consider it? Did they use all their resources? Did they ignore important data? I hate to think that bureaucracy, procedure, or complacency was what brought this end on the mission.
I’ll be very interested to find out… and very sad, I think.
[sub]I’ll still go up, though. Just give me the chance…[/sub]
This post is going to go slightly off topic, but not far.
I’ve talked about this a couple of times since the Columbia loss. I’m getting to the point where more and more I think it’s time we stand down and quit flying manned spacecraft at all for a while.
OK, OK, wait - I hear you. A few years ago, I wouldn’t have said that either. I’ve been an enthusiastic supporter of NASA and the whole program since I was a little kid. Wanna see my 20th anniversary moon landing poster with Buzz Aldrin’s autograph? How about my collection of mission patches going from today back all the way to Alan Shepard and Freedom 7?
The problem however, in my mind, is that in recent years, with all the budget cuts and the need to slim down operations, the shuttle program is simply taking up to large a portion of the available resources. How the heck are we supposed to develop the next generation of manned spacecraft when a huge percentage of the NASA budget is tied up flying and maintaining shuttles, building station, etc.? Not to mention the kind of decision-making that creeps into the system that results in a Columbia or Challenger type catastrophe.
Would it KILL us to stand down and simply mothball the shuttles and shift those resources to the development of the next generation of craft? I mean it’s not like we’re in a race with the Soviets or anything. I too was simply shocked to see the kind of damage that was done to that RCC in the most recent test. Reinforced Carbon Carbon??? Good grief, I’d hate to have seen what UN-reinforced Carbon Carbon would have looked like!
In all the time I’ve been following this program, I never, ever thought I’d take a position such as I am now. If NASA is starting to lose a strong supporter like me, don’t we need a change?
