Why Shuttle rescues are impossible...

Factual Questions
1

The biggest problem with thinking up any rescue senario is this: Contrary to what NASA would have you believe the Shuttle isn’t really a utilitarian ‘space truck’ at all. You can’t say things like:[ul][li]JUST have the shuttle go to the ISS[/li][li]JUST send up another shuttle to rescue them[/li][li]JUST modify its re-entry to favor the other wing[/li][li]JUST have the crew do an EVA to check/fix the tiles[/ul][/li]The Shuttle is still very much like all the other NASA programs (Gemini, Apollo etc.) in that everything it does has to be specifically planned for, prepared for, and built into the hardware ahead of time. There is very little, almost none in fact, in the way of improvising that can be done on a mission.

The Shuttle has enough and only enough fuel to do exactly what its original mission calls for. That is, it can’t radically change its orbital altitude or path.

Spacewalks are all intensely rehearsed. There is no ‘rack’ of EVA suits for all the astronauts on every mission. Only a few specific astronauts have ever trained for EVAs at all and even then its for specific, rehearsed ‘down to the second’ missions.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO contingency plan for checking critical tiles in orbit because there is ABSOLUTELY NO way to repair them!

The Shuttles DO have enough consumables (food, water, O[sub]2[/sub] etc.) for a few extra days, a week maybe. But this is primarily in case of ground problems (i.e. bad weather at the landing site).

IOW, you shouldn’t think of the Shuttle as a practical, re-useable, versatile space plane. Its still akin to a one-off, rigidly designed, mission-specific capsule. Its just got stubby little wings instead of a parachute.

Everything that the Shuttle will ever need it has to take with it on liftoff. Its is a totally self-contained system. NASA knows that all ‘contingency’ plans have to rely on the Orbiter itself. Once its been comprimised, the astronauts are dead and there’s basically nothing NASA can do about it. In fact, NASA is overwhelmingly aware of this.

Don’t mean to sound so harse and pessimistic, but I guarantee you this is how it is.

Questions, comments?

2

I would disagree that once it is determined that a system is compromised, theres nothing that NASA can do about it. There are always ways to get people down or at the very least keep them safe until something is thought up. It is not as pessimistic as all of that because if it were, why bother checking at all? NASA doesnt cross their fingers when they lift-off and keep them crossed until they land. Some way could have been found to keep them alive with what they had. NASA did it with Apollo 13, they couldve done it on Columbia had they known.

3

This is off memory so file it under FWIW:
National Geographic did a large spread on the shuttle a while back (early 80’s) that showed a picture of space suited astronauts simulating a tile repair. They were using a glorified caulking gun to fill the gap left by a missing tile. The caption mentioned that the surface of the stuff would heat up and flake off during reentry protecting any critical items underneath.

Did this idea get scrapped?
Didn’t work?
All a figment of Threadkiller’s feeble brain?

4

Again, I don’t want to make light of the situation, but this is absolutely, positively exactly what NASA does. I have heard almost those exact words spoken by many NASA engineers, controllers, brass etc. in many interviews.

Apollo 13 is a good example. The ship was not totally comprimised and again, they used only the things they had with them. But all along they just worked on keeping them alive (i.e. oxygen, water, power etc.) not doing anything to ‘fix’ the spacecraft or attempt any kind of a rescue. The ship’s critical systems (heat shield, parachute pyros etc.) had to all work or they would die. And NASA couldn’t do anything about it. Nor could they check them even if they wanted to.

I too remember seeing that NG drawing of the astronaut fixing the tiles. It was just an artist’s interpretation, it was never implemented. I don’t think it ever got beyond the conception stage before being deemed impractical/impossible.

5

Right; it was only ever a conception. It soon became apparent that such a plan would be implausable, impractical, and extremely dangerous, and the whole idea was more or less scrapped.

6

O.K. thanks for the info, but it wasn’t a “drawing” it was a photograph.

7

Yes, it was a photograph. I’m looking at it right now. It’s in the March 1981 issue, volume 159, page 326. The caption reads

8

Man, if you remembered this from 1981 you have an incredible memory. This is well paraphrased for someone who saw the article a week ago!

9

Again, I find that too pessimistic. I never mentioned anything about repairing the orbiter. I said they would use what they have to keep the people safe or get them down. I’ sure that if they thought that dumping a 2.1 billion dollar orbiter with its multi-million dollar payload was the only way to save the 7 crew members, they say its a no brainer and just do it. NASA people are problem solvers. They deal with the situation not leave it up to chance.

10

I’m not saying that NASA is incompetent or pessimistic. What I’m saying is that they’re realistic.

That, because they have to, they appear a lot more confident about and in control of certain things than they really are. Namely lift-off & re-entry (not coincidentally the two phases where shuttles were lost).

Everyone involved knows that the ship is under such incredible, crushing, and totally unforgiving forces during these two stages that if the slightest thing goes wrong the shuttle & crew will not survive. So even those who designed, built and/or worked on the thing still pray and cross their fingers until after MECO (main engine cut-off) and touchdown.

11

I’ve seen it mentioned a few times on the news shows of the past days. It was a real plan, but was scrapped as impractical in the mid-80’s. There are many references out there to such plans, but they all have dates from the early 80’s

12

Another issue - they don’t bring EVA suits up unless part of the mission is going to require them. This, IIRC, is primarily because of weight and money: EVA suits are more or less tailored (I think) to the particular astronaut, and HEAVY (several hundred pounds, at least). While the weight doesn’t much matter in microgravity, it would mean subsituting valuable research for suits which may or may not be used.

Furthermore, some missions (such as Columbia’s last flight) have a module docked in the payload bay, which I believe would mean that they couldn’t get outside the shuttle anyway, at least not without cutting the research module loose. This would mean the loss of millions of dollars and countless hours of research, in addition to releasing a very LARGE chunk of debris into their orbit, which is (for obvious reasons) a situation best avoided.

13

That’s not true. They ALWAYS carry at least one suit onboard for certain contingencies (having to close the payload bay doors manually, for instance, is a well-rehearsed procedure).

You’re right about the second part though. A special adapter is necessary to dock with the ISS, and with Spacehab in place, there’s nowhere for this adapter to go. Furthermore, Columbia is (was) the only shuttle incapable of EVER docking with the ISS, just because of its age and design.

14

I agree with hobbes.

Let’s make the following (wild) assumptions:
1: NASA knows that the orbiter cannot land safely
2: They can keep the crew alive and in orbit for oh, let’s say 3 weeks
3: They can get another orbiter ready, checked out and fueled in that time
4: They can calculate an intercept orbit for the second shuttle, with a favorable launch window
5: Weather and other delays do not prevent them from making that window.
6: The orbital approach would not be a difficulty
7: The damaged shuttle finds a safe place to jetison the science module while waiting

Even given all that, how are the two shuttles supposed to dock? Docking on the shuttle is through the cargo bay, how would they fit together? These aren’t Tinkertoys, and unless docking is in the mission plan, the equipment isn’t there. Take a look at the Mir/Shuttle combo (bottom of the page), or the docking port on Alpha. They just don’t fit cargo bay to cargo bay. Remember also that the shuttle approaches “top side” first, it doesn’t just kind of slide in like you are parking at the curb.

If they had proper lead times and had planned a mission for shuttle-to-shuttle docking would it work? Sure. But spur of the moment? I really doubt it.

15

There doesn’t seem to be a GQ here, so maybe this belongs in GD. I’m also not sure whether “impossible” means as they are flown, or even with modified planning.

To me, these just bring up the question, what would it take by way of planning to be able to do either of them for any given mission? How much extra fuel would need to be brought along as a contingency to allow them to reach the ISS, assuming a shuttle unable to survive reentry, but otherwise maneuverable? The ISS could have equipment available to make it possible to brind them over from the shuttle, even if a proper docking wasn’t possible.

For the “just send up another shuttle” scenario, how much extra weight is needed to have enough air and water for the astronauts to last until another shuttle could be safely sent, with equipment to get the stranded astronauts over?

Another question: in the second scenario, if the shuttle is abandoned because of a low proabability of surviving reentry, could it still be attempted using autopilot (or remote piloting) all the way to the ground at Edwards?

16

Can someone scan this? I’d like to see it…

17

If NASA was absolutely convinced the shuttle could not re-enter, I would think it’s theoretically possible to find some way for a second shuttle to get there and effect some sort of rescue. It would have to be a second shuttle, though - which would allow for transporting the things needed to save them. The stranded shuttle would be able to keep the astronauts in air and water for a little while.

However, I would think the rescue mission would have to be launched in a matter of a few weeks, tops, and I’m not sure if that’s possible. All in all it would be extraordinarily difficult, and the odds would be long. You’d have to be SURE the shuttle was incapable of re-entry before it would be worth the risks.

18

Any thoughts on this? This is a great question.

19

Apollo 13 versus Shuttle Columbia:

What did Nasa do? Well, I don’t think X~Slayer is bringing anything to the arguement. X~Slayer is crossing his fingers, closing his eyes and having faith in NASA based on Apollo 13.

Well, to compare both, you would have to create similar situations in both to compare. Apollo 13 almost had a very simialr situation. Apollo 13 could very easily have had a damaged heat shield. Actually, they could not observe it, but had to cross their fingers and hope it was not damaged/missing. Got that? They PRAYED - LITERALLY - that the shield was not damaged, yet the were afraid it was.

And if it was? They were screwed. Getting everything else done was secondary, so that they could get on with the finger crossing and praying that the shield was not damaged. In other words, get them around the moon, and lined up because we can control that, but cross your finger and pray because that was the limit of what they could do.

Now, in Apollo 13, they probably had MORE of an inclination to believe the shield was damaged from the explosion, but could do diddly about it.

NASA then verus NASA now: No difference. Apollo 13 just PRESENTED options based on the type of mission and the type of equipment (all which were moot if the shield was damaged)…Whereas Shuttle flights present FEWER options, based on the equipment and mission’s nature.

20

Not quite. True, they did pray that the heat shield was OK. But the situations were quite different in that:

  1. Apollo 13 first and foremost suffered a life support failure. Columbia suffered a reentry failure. Apollo 13’s consumables would have been shortly exhausted whether they tried to splash down or stay in orbit. Columbia, from the time of the takeoff damage (presuming that the falling foam did cause damage that led to the breakup) had 16 days of mission flight ahead of it, at least 18 days of normal life support, and who knows how many days if air/power rationing had been employed.

  2. Apollo 14 didn’t launch for another 9 months. Atlantis was scheduled to launch some 6 weeks after Columbia’s takeoff. It’s quite conceivable that Atlantis could have been launched and rendezvoused with Columbia before Columbia’s consumables were exhausted. There is probably no way that Apollo 14 could have been launched in time to save Apollo 13 (I don’t even know that it was completely built yet!), even if they had maintained their full mission supply of consumables. The turnaround time for the two flight systems were quite different.

Of course, it’s all moot since there is likely no way that NASA could have determined that Columbia’s damage was severe enough to warrant such measures.
I also invite everyone to check out Chronos’s response to the whole rescue issue in this thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=160501