The underside of the shuttle is black: a carbon coating over the white tiles. Any really major tile damage would be plainly visible, white scars on black. All it would take is a glance out a port of the ISS. So, was the damage far too small to be obvious as the shuttle approached or left the space station? Let’s see some mission photos.
Um, the shuttle never went to the ISS.
DOH!
Perfect answer!
That’s just what you’re SUPPOSED to think…
As for a photo from earth, wasn’t the Shuttle always “belly up” - with the black bottom pointing away from the planet? Wouldn’t that make photos impossible (or at least useless?)
They have in the past used spy satellites to take pictures of the Shuttle, but the results were no good.
Do you have a cite for this information?
I heard something to that effect from the shuttle program director in reference to ground-based telescopes, but have heard nothing regarding spy satellites (or other space-based assets, such as the ISS).
Supposidly, during STS-1 (the first mission, Columbia 1981) a Keyhole satellite imaged Columbia, and the results weren’t that great.
I am unaware of any other reported attempts other than that one, although maybe when that drogue-chute door came off during Glenn’s launch.
I think it’s the other way around- the tiles are more or less facing Earth, because the highest levels of pressure and heat are going to assault the incoming face harder than any other part of the ship.
I’d imagine, especially at the speed and altitude of the Columbia, that any photography attempts from Earth would be futile.
Most of the time they travel “upside down”, or belly-up, right up until re-entry, but it wouldn’t be any trouble at all to flip it back upright to pose for a picture or two.
It would take fuel, and it might interfere with the experiments on-board. Plus, as has been discussed in other threads, the photos they’ve taken wouldn’t show the level of detail needed to ascertain the amount of damage.
That information is in pretty much every major newspaper spread about the incident. The NASA press conferences in recent days have explained that pictures from satellites have been of little use in the past.
It may be a focusing issue. Spy satellites, even if in the vicinity of the shuttle, are probably set to focus at much farther distances on much smaller objects, so they’d just end up with a fuzzball trying to focus on the shuttle.
Granted, the question in the article does say “high-powered telescopes or spy satellites”:
However, I heard the actual question posed to Ron Dittemore the day of the accident, and his answer was only in reference to ground-based telescopes.
The question may have been asked of him again since then, however, with the addition of spy satellites. I haven’t been totally keeping up with the press conferences since the weekend. (Got to work during the week, you know. :))
I believe if NASA should start an R2D2 program. In the Star Wars movies R2 would be on the outside and check stuff out, fix stuff, and make cute “bleepo” sounds.
Why doesn’t NASA have this? Would it really be that heard to make a little robot that can scurry around on the surface of the shuttle and check stuff out?
If this doesn’t work, how about Magneto-shoes!
ohlssonvox