Space Shuttle Rescue Missions

[HighOnHendrix]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30815815/

I'm reading this article today and came across this quote:

The telescope’s unusually high orbit had placed the shuttle and its crew at increased risk and, because of the lack of a refuge, prompted NASA to keep a rescue ship on standby until the end of the 11-day flight.

So my question is this - why have they not always done this? The crew of the Columbia perished because NASA did not have the foresight to plan ahead for a mishap. I can't be the only person who has this opinion. I've felt this way about the shuttle program since I was a kid.

[Reic]

They didn't know there was a risk of Columbia exploding into a fireball upon re-entering the atmosphere.

[PeterMP]

I'm sure somebody thought about it. Cost was probably a deciding factor.

[PeterMP]

They didn't know there was a risk of Columbia exploding into a fireball upon re-entering the atmosphere.

Well, some strongly suspected something might go wrong. If it wasn't "known" for sure, it is only because the higher ups didn't want it to be known:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_S...umbia_disaster

"While Columbia was still in orbit, some engineers suspected damage, but NASA managers limited the investigation, on the grounds that little could be done even if problems were found"

[HighOnHendrix]

They didn't know there was a risk of Columbia exploding into a fireball upon re-entering the atmosphere.

Yeah, they totally did. There was a fairly large section of insulating tiles missing on the wing. NASA knew, I knew, it was known. Those tiles are the only thing that keeps it from "exploding into a fireball upon re-entering". Since they had no backup plan their solution was, "Well come on down and we'll see how it goes."

[HighOnHendrix]

"While Columbia was still in orbit, some engineers suspected damage, but NASA managers limited the investigation, on the grounds that little could be done even if problems were found"

That's the thing, to me what they did is like driving recklessly with an unrestrained infant in your car.

[clietas]

The real question is why is NASA still using the shuttle? It's a POS. Should have replaced it with a more efficient vehicle years ago.

[Reic]

Yeah, they totally did. There was a fairly large section of insulating tiles missing on the wing. NASA knew, I knew, it was known. Those tiles are the only thing that keeps it from "exploding into a fireball upon re-entering". Since they had no backup plan their solution was, "Well come on down and we'll see how it goes."

The tiles missing from the wing were not even how it was destroyed.

If they had known what was going to happen, they wouldn't have let it happen, they only lost what, a few billion dollars?

[HighOnHendrix]

The real question is why is NASA still using the shuttle? It's a POS. Should have replaced it with a more efficient vehicle years ago.

That's money. Justifiably so. In hindsight, they should have stuck with capsules instead of developing the shuttle; but it seemed like a good idea thirty years ago.

[HighOnHendrix]

The tiles missing from the wing were not even how it was destroyed.

If they had known what was going to happen, they wouldn't have let it happen, they only lost what, a few billion dollars?

Where are you getting this from? The tiles were missing, excessive heat entered the inner structure, melted it, and structural integrity was lost resulting in BOOM! See wikipedia link above. I think they thought they would get lucky like they had many times in the past. They did the same thing back when Challenger went BOOM! When you consider the dangers involved in space flight, it's shocking that we only lost three guys during Apollo and even more so that they were not in-flight casualties.

[Reic]

Where are you getting this from? The tiles were missing, excessive heat entered the inner structure, melted it, and structural integrity was lost resulting in BOOM! See wikipedia link above. I think they thought they would get lucky like they had many times in the past. When you consider the dangers involved in space flight, it's shocking that we only lost three guys during Apollo and even more so that they were not in-flight casualties.

The hole in the wing from the tiles falling off were how it happened, which is what you mentioned above, I just wasn't sure if you were one of the folks that thought it was just because the tiles were missing.

I am willing to say that if that hole had not been created, it would have been fine.

You have to have balls for space flight, you are right about that.

[clietas]

That's money. Justifiably so. In hindsight, they should have stuck with capsules instead of developing the shuttle; but it seemed like a good idea thirty years ago.

No way it's money. The Shuttle is a bottomless money pit. It's inefficient compared to the old rockets. No other country uses a stupid design like the shuttle. I think NASA has always loved the look of the shuttle. I mean it does look like a sci-fi space ship. And their just hesitant to try another design. It would be more cost effective to use Rockets launched close to the Equator. But NASA will never go back to that. They'll just come up with another insanely expensive idea.

[Larry]

That's the thing, to me what they did is like driving recklessly with an unrestrained infant in your car.

How do you get from "we can't fix it if it's broke" to "let's intentionally do something which is both intentionally risky and easily curable"?

[Larry]

No way it's money. The Shuttle is a bottomless money pit. It's inefficient compared to the old rockets. No other country uses a stupid design like the shuttle. I think NASA has always loved the look of the shuttle. I mean it does look like a sci-fi space ship. And their just hesitant to try another design. It would be more cost effective to use Rockets launched close to the Equator. But NASA will never go back to that. They'll just come up with another insanely expensive idea.

I've highlighted what I think is the only true statement in your rant.

Yep. Launching from the equator is more efficient. Guess we should go send the Marines to re-conquer Panama, huh?

Or maybe we could launch from as close to the equator as we can get, and still be within the US.

[PeterMP]

How do you get from "we can't fix it if it's broke" to "let's intentionally do something which is both intentionally risky and easily curable"?

I think the point is, if their had been time (which another shuttle and crew on stand by would have allowed), then the could have gone up and investigated more fully and if needed left the suttle there and brought both crews home on one shuttle.