Thanks to Irishman for actually attempting to answer that OP.
I just want to focus solely on the possibility and logistics of a shuttle rescue–not what SHOULD have been done; not whether or not NASA was negligent for not looking telescopically for damage from the foam; not about the risks of spaceflight that can never be eliminated. If you want to discuss that, go to one of the dozen other Columbia threads.
Here’s the scenario (slightly different from what really happened):
Jan. 16: STS-107 takes off. During ascent, a piece of insulation flies off the main tank and hits the orbiter.
First day in orbit, the crew looks out through portholes/external cameras and sees VISIBLE DAMAGE to the wing–let’s say that the entire tip of the left wing is missing.
The orbiter, compromised aerodynamically and thermally, is clearly incapable of safe reentry (give the odds at only 5% chance of surviving reentry)
Now, the crew and mission control know this, and so do the rest of the world. The mission was planned to last until Feb. 1. Another shuttle was due to be launched Mar. 1.
Is there any way that the crew of Columbia could be rescued? How could it be done? Or would we all be resigned to watching them suffocate in space as their consumables run out or burning up on reentry as they attempt a hopeless landing?
I’m quite sure I don’t understand the question. There’s always a Soyuz module docked at the ISS, and others come up all the time. Besides which, as you yourself said, another shuttle was due March 1st.
There’s no reason why Columbia’s crew had to return to Earth in a ship that was known to be damaged.
Well, then I would WAG they’d still try re-entry anyway, piloting in a way that favored the damaged wing (just like an aircraft pilot with a damaged wing might), and try to get low/slow enough to bail out.
And they’d plan the re-entry so that the vehicle crashed in an ocean, rather than over a populated area.
I’m sure they’d at least try. A 5% or even a 1% chance of survival is still better than the 0% of simply staying on-orbit.
a) The colobia is not equipted to dock to anything. Not the space station nor any other shuttle.
b) The colombia was 50 miles lower than the space station orbit IIRC. I dont think the had enuf resources to clime that high.
c) The experts down on the ground pre-determined that there was no significant risk to the colombia (but your scenario overides this with visible damage)
d) Any tile missing would have to be replaced by the exact same tile because each tile is shaped differently. It takes an experienced worker a couple of hours to do that on the ground. replacing a whole section would be unfeasible in space. They dont carry spares.
e) The damage caused by the foam (if in fact it was the cause) would not be visible to the crew from any window. the arm is not long enuf to extend below the shuttle and they didnt bring a long enuf tether or the jet pack.
If they had determined that the damage was too significat to risk re-entry, they would have set the Colombia to the safest orbit they could manage and try to maintain it until help arrives. They would have to ration resources including oxygen to strecth out the stay. I am pretty sure they could get the other orbiters ready in a couple of weeks
If they could get there in time, they would use the EVA jetpacks to ferry over spare oxygen and and get a tether from one orbiter to the other to help each of the starnded crew get to the rescue orbiter. A new crew may remain to help maintain Colomubias orbit. I dont know if its feasible to re-fuel an orbiter in space but they will have to find a way to keep Colombia in orbit to fix it.
If they can keep the colombia in space this way, some form of repair may be tried. If not, they will let a few billion dollars drop somewhere safe. One option is to make a make-shift docking ring and with more fuel they can try to get to the ISS and fix it there.
Contrary to what others have posted in other threads, I seem to recall during an interview years ago, a NASA official said Shuttle turn-around time could be rushed into a 2 week timeframe. That is from landing to re-launch. Please, don’t ask for a cite I saw it on TV. It was a fairly high-up dude though.
So, assuming that is true, other orbiters should be well underway of getting preped.
Lauch a shuttle stripped down to a crew of 2, some EVA packs and spacesuits. Get to orbit, rendezvous (not they don’t have to dock, nor do I think they could) and ferry the crew over and salvage what they could from the stricken bird.
Do you know this to be the case? I’m not trying to jump on you here…I am genuinely curious if Colombia could have reached the ISS if they felt they really needed to. If they could then rescue seems possible.
If Columbia could not have made the ISS I’m pretty sure they could have remained in orbit for at least another week if they had to. The real question is if another orbiter could have been readied and launched in that time interval. I have no knowledge of this myself but I suspect they could not. It takes a great deal of time and effort to get the orbiters ready for launch. I think it is a good deal more trouble than just wheeling one out, gassing it up and sending it on its way.
Wouldn’t have mattered in any case: because the Columbia was carrying spacehab in the cargo bay, it had no room for the docking equipment needed to hook up with the ISS.
Seems like a good policy would be to launch all future shuttles with enough fuel to reach ISS, even if their missions don’t take them there. Since we have it now, there’s no point in not including it in emergency scenarios.
Once an orbiter is in space, its main fuel is spent. All they rely on from then is maneuvering thrusters. To reach another 50 mile height would require main engine use, which hasnt been tried to that great a height before. It wouldnt have matterd if Columbia did reach the ISS anyway because it doesnt have the docking apparatus and without that, Columbia would just be orbiting in the same altitude as the ISS which may pose a risk to the ISS.
Well, as I said, the shuttle needs a special docking module to be carried in the cargo bay in order to mate up with the ISS. Carrying this module, plus the required extra fuel, would seriously curtail the amount of scientific equipment that could be carried. Spacehab for example, occupied the entire cargo bay.
(As an aside, Columbia weighed 5000 lbs more than the newer shuttles and likely had even tighter cargo/fuel restrictions)
Further the shuttle landings are highly choreographed affairs with exacting standards. I can’t imagine that a couple of hundred extra pounds of unburned fuel would be desirable during the descent and landing phase.
To carry extra fuel for emergency cases would endanger re-entry. You would have extra tonnage of flammable sloshing material in extreme temperatures while re-entering the atmosphere.
It would be better to have the ISS as the lifeguard. It should have a small emergency craft that can service any stranded orbiter below the ISS and in cases of extreme emergency act as emergency re-entry module for a crew of 7. It should be abole to dock with any orbiter, carry 10 people, spare EVA spacesuits will be at the ISS and brought down as needed. It doesnt have to be re-usable but it should have maneuvering capability to attach itself to the orbiter. Orbiters should have re-fueling capability in space.
Is this really as big an issue as several keep making it out to be?
The astronauts have space suits don’t they? All of them? Why couldn’t they get the shuttle close to ISS (assuming for the moment that they had enough fuel) and float the intervening few dozen feet to the ISS and go in through an airlock (surely the ISS must have an airlock).
I realize that they didn’t have proper tethers or maneuvering units aboard. I also realize that no one there was trained for a spacewalk and that a spacewalk is a lot more difficult to do than most might suspect. Nevertheless if you are facing certain death aboard the shuttle and assuming you could reach the ISS then why not go for it? Don’t the astronauts aboard the ISS (some of them at least) have space walk training? Perhaps one of them could go out and bring a tether to the shuttle so the crew could move to the spacestation.
Hard or not surely it is at least thinkable if the circumstances are extreme enough (i.e. certain death if you don’t).
First of all, if NAS determined that re-entry was death, they would keep the orbiter in orbit. That is WAY safer than trying to jump a few dozen feet to the ISS (which the orbiter coud get to anyway) Think of it, you are asking 7 people to jump, lets say, 50 feet towards an airlock 6 feet in diameter, which may or may not have any handrails on the outside to hang on to, based only on your ability to push off with your feet which have to be simultaneous (both feet) or you’ll miss the airlock completely, and you can only have one chance at this. I’d stay in the orbiter until they could figure something else out.
Another question-Assuming that Atlantis could have been rushed up there (Or not. You decide.) within a couple of weeks, would Columbia have had enough supplies to wait? Air and water (not to mention electricity) would be the primary concerns, I imagine. In a worst case scenario, you coud always have the crew go hungry for a few days. Of course, there’s probably emergency rations in any onboard survival kits…not to mention the experimental lab rats they had onboard. :eek:
Hmm, but I think you still have a problem there. As X~Slayer(ALE) mentioned, you would be left with the shuttle orbiting uncomfortably close to the ISS… unless the pilot stayed behind to maneuver the shuttle away into a safe trajectory for a crash landing. As far as I know, none of the shuttles are capable of being operated remotely from the ground.
Let’s stay off this whole line of reasoning, please. It’s being discussed enough elsewhere.
I guess the main points of such a rescue:
How fast REALLY could the next shuttle be ready to launch?
How long could Columbia stay up there? How much oxygen do they carry? How much Hydrogen for the fuel cells? How long could they stretch it? Is 2 weeks past mission deadline even reasonable? A month past?
I think those are the sticking points. I think, as long as Shuttle #2 could get up there in time, the actual transfer of the stranded astronauts from Columbia to the new vehicle WOULD be sorted out–whether the second shuttle had to bring extra spacesuits, use a robot arm, use the EVA packs, use tethers, etc. Has anyone seen hard figures on these two points?
I’ve heard that regardless of supplies, the orbit of the shuttle would have only been good for another month or so, after which (the fuel having been exhausted) the orbit would deteriorate and the orbiter would re-enter the atmosphere