NASA Space Disasters

ColeTrain

I was reading up on the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster last night.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster

Very sad that all seven on board lost their lives. NASA did not cover themselves in glory however, it seems that they knew that there could have been a problem with re-entry but they just hoped for the best.

There is also some fascinating footage of it on Youtube.

MagicIRL

ColeTrain wrote: »

NASA did not cover themselves in glory however, it seems that they knew that there could have been a problem with re-entry but they just hoped for the best.

They could hardly go up and get them if there was a problem now, to be fair. They just had to re-enter and hope for the best, which unfortunately, went horribly wrong.

ColeTrain

MagicIRL wrote: »

They could hardly go up and get them if there was a problem now, to be fair. They just had to re-enter and hope for the best, which unfortunately, went horribly wrong.

A rescue mission could have been possible.

The CAIB determined that a rescue mission, though risky, might have been possible provided NASA management had taken action soon enough.[54][55] They stated that, had NASA management acted in time, two possible contingency procedures were available: a rescue mission by shuttle Atlantis, and an emergency spacewalk to attempt repairs to the left wing thermal protection.

Although it would have been risky, the fact it wasn't even considered was fairly poor on their part.

darkpagandeath

ColeTrain wrote: »

I was reading up on the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster last night.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster

Very sad that all seven on board lost their lives. NASA did not cover themselves in glory however, it seems that they knew that there could have been a problem with re-entry but they just hoped for the best.

There is also some fascinating footage of it on Youtube.

Yes space travel is extremely safe it's just like jumping into your car and going to the shops.... Not that your strapped to a massive bomb and riding it up into space.

Skylinehead

ColeTrain wrote: »

A rescue mission could have been possible.



Although it would have been risky, the fact it wasn't even considered was fairly poor on their part.

Have a read of this:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/02/the-audacious-rescue-plan-that-might-have-saved-space-shuttle-columbia/

Essentially, they would have had to rush Atlantis to be ready for launch and ignore key safety checks, and crew training would have been very minimal.

ColeTrain

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yes space travel is extremely safe it's just like jumping into your car and going to the shops.... Not that your strapped to a massive bomb and riding it up into space.

I don't think anyone is saying that it's safe.

However, it is very safe on the ground overseeing a mission. If you're heading up in a shuttle, it's reasonable to expect that your team on the ground are 100% looking out for you, i'm not sure that was the case with the Columbia disaster - not just with a rescue mission either.

ColeTrain

Skylinehead wrote: »

Have a read of this:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/02/the-audacious-rescue-plan-that-might-have-saved-space-shuttle-columbia/

Essentially, they would have had to rush Atlantis to be ready for launch and ignore key safety checks, and crew training would have been very minimal.

I'll have a look at that tonight, thanks.

Skylinehead

ColeTrain wrote: »

I'll have a look at that tonight, thanks.

It's a superb read, really gives insight into the whole disaster/rescue plan.

Capt'n Midnight

ColeTrain wrote: »

A rescue mission could have been possible.
..
Although it would have been risky, the fact it wasn't even considered was fairly poor on their part.

Not a chance.

Too many things would have to go right and it would have been a race of time where any shortcuts would have major safety implications.

Mercury 7, Apollo 1 , Apollo 13 and Challenger show that trouble can hit real fast. The later three were all totally preventable , in fact they were inexcusable. Using pure oxygen at 1/3rd atmospheric pressure is one thing, using pure oxygen above normal atmospheric pressure with electricals and flammables was asking for trouble. Using a dodgy heater when you have records to say it was suspect ? and in an oxygen tank ?? The O-rings were a design compromise to allow segments to be reused the factory to be located in the mid west for re-election purposes. (some segments were reused up to 7 times not the whole boosters mid you , just some of the segments - it would have been far cheaper and safer to use disposable one-piece boosters, hopefully they won't repeat that mistake with the next generation )

It's really sad that both shuttle disasters were down to the same fault, normalising exceptions, a management process of saying "we've been lucky so far, so we will always be lucky"

kneemos

The whole Shuttle project is a complete white elephant from what I gather
The Soviet forty year old technology is far cheaper and we've not heard of anybody dying.From the little I know about it.

Duggy747

kneemos wrote: »

The whole Shuttle project is a complete white elephant from what I gather
The Soviet forty year old technology is far cheaper and we've not heard of anybody dying.From the little I know about it.

Vladimir Komarov died on reentry in a shoddy spacecraft that was rife with problems.

danniemcq

"On January 16th, we saw our loved ones launch into a brilliant, cloud-free sky. Their hearts were full of enthusiasm, pride in country, faith in their God and a willingness to accept risk in the pursuit of knowledge - knowledge that they might improve the quality of life for all mankind... Although we grieve deeply, as do the families of Apollo 1 and Challenger before us, the bold exploration of space must go on. Once the root cause of this tragedy is found and corrected, the legacy of Columbia must carry on for the benefit of our children and yours."

That’s from the family of the crew of Columbia.

I think this sums up perfectly what it is and what it means to travel to space. As Kennedy said "We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade... not because they are easy but because they are hard" (never mind the whole cold war race to space). We know our future is in the stars, at some stage we will have to travel to survive.

These people who make our future possible through tremendous sacrifices are this generations explorers who travelled to the new world, who scaled the highest peaks and who explored the unknown. There was many deaths and tragedy’s along the way, but their sacrifices lead to advancements and knowledge we would be lost without.

They might seem tiny improvements at the time or even looking back at it from our point of view but all those advancements have led us to where we are today.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2003/feb/06/spaceexploration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies

danniemcq

kneemos wrote: »

The whole Shuttle project is a complete white elephant from what I gather
The Soviet forty year old technology is far cheaper and we've not heard of anybody dying.From the little I know about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents

There has been accidents and deaths on both sides, while there has been fewer deaths on Soyuz and they haven't happened since 71 I think you have to remember that the 2 big NASA failures were all in all quite minor. Challanger was due to an O ring failure and Columbia was a bit of insulation that fell off at launch.

Add that to the fact that the soyuz can only carry 3 crew and the payload ability is meh. Compare this with the Space Shuttle which can carry 8 and has a payload ability of 24,400 kg to Low Earth Orbit and 3810kg to Geostationary Transfer Orbit the benefits far outweigh the risks.

Both crafts have had well over 100 launches and neither are perfect, while the shuttle may have hit the headlines more recently both have had a large number of near misses too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents#Non-fatal_incidents_during_spaceflight

Just remember if you ever get a chance to go to space you have a 5% chance of not making it back

Capt'n Midnight

danniemcq wrote: »

Add that to the fact that the soyuz can only carry 3 crew and the payload ability is meh. Compare this with the Space Shuttle which can carry 8 and has a payload ability of 24,400 kg to Low Earth Orbit and 3810kg to Geostationary Transfer Orbit the benefits far outweigh the risks.

LOL

Soyuz launches cost a lot less than a tenth what a shuttle cost.
And Soyuz is what the US uses to send people into space.

The booster for the Russian Shuttle got 80,000Kg to LEO

Yellowblackbird

It's not rocket science.

hmmm

Considering the complexity of something like the Shuttle, it's amazing they managed to avoid multiple other disasters. Instead of focusing on the times they failed, we should give them some credit for the amazing work they do.

Capt'n Midnight

hmmm wrote: »

Considering the complexity of something like the Shuttle, it's amazing they managed to avoid multiple other disasters. Instead of focusing on the times they failed, we should give them some credit for the amazing work they do.

There is a whole load of "not invented here" and "if it works it's obsolete" at work.

Lots of US research in to new rockets for the future all of which will have to be debugged, the Russians are still using a modified 1957 ICBM with a 1960's capsule because it works.

Trying to shave off weight or being smarter doesn't always work in rocketry. Big dumb over-engineered boosters probably give you more leeway. using more rocket fuel is a lot cheaper than designing and testing a new device.

seamus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Trying to shave off weight or being smarter doesn't always work in rocketry. Big dumb over-engineered boosters probably give you more leeway. using more rocket fuel is a lot cheaper than designing and testing a new device.

I guess there's a balance to be struck though. Are you trying to do the same thing over and over as well as you've done it before, or are you trying to improve all the time - do things better than you've done them before and do things you've never done before?

The latter is really the spirit of exploration and while reusing 1960s technology and just making it bigger will work up to a point, it works for what it's been designed to do, it doesn't help us push past the boundaries. You won't get a man to Mars in a Soyuz.

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, we've taken exploration somewhat for granted. The limits of the earth became within reach for even a normal person, in a relatively safe way. And since the advent of commercial aircraft, we take it practically for granted that we can get from London to LA and back again safely.
150 years ago these were trips that were taken with an inherent amount of risk of death. 300 years ago, these were basically one-way trips, known to be fraught with danger and death.

Travelling to the moon, still even now, is the space age equivalent of the Celts crossing the Irish Sea in a curragh. Massively dangerous, thousands of variables, and of minimal use to the majority of the population except to capture the imagination.
People travelling to Mars is like the Vikings loading up a ship and making a one-way trip across the Atlantic. Consider the enormity of that task.

We need to expect that people will die, but they do so knowing that in even in death they have made a lasting contribution to the progress of humanity, just like those Celts who saw a massive body of water, and pushed themselves out into it, in their tiny boat.
We have the benefit of a lot of technology, but all that can do is let us run some sophisticated tests. The live environment often throws things at you that you can't anticipate.

For the rest of our lives, and probably our childrens' lives, space travel will remain highly dangerous and mostly inaccessible except to a few. Death and danger should not deter us from it, but instead should spur us on to conquer it.

Capt'n Midnight

seamus wrote: »

I guess there's a balance to be struck though. Are you trying to do the same thing over and over as well as you've done it before, or are you trying to improve all the time - do things better than you've done them before and do things you've never done before?

The latter is really the spirit of exploration and while reusing 1960s technology and just making it bigger will work up to a point, it works for what it's been designed to do, it doesn't help us push past the boundaries. You won't get a man to Mars in a Soyuz.

Rockets are a mature product.
They are based on chemical energy. And that really hasn't changed since 1903 when Tsiolkovsky proposed using liquid hydrogen and oxygen as fuel.

You can make engines more efficient but last major trick was to reuse the turbopump exhaust. You can make the rocket lighter but that makes it so much more expensive and then there's no margin for error if you've paired off all the excess material.

There isn't much more development to do on chemical rockets. Yes you can get more energy from a tri-propellant but there's too many horrible ways to die from that stuff,


Look at the problems with the Boeing dreamliner batteries. But those planes will be burning half their weight of fuel every day for 30 years. Investing billions to increase the payload fraction by a few % on a single space flight just won't have anything like the same return on investment or risk.


Once you get to LEO you can start stuff like Hall effect drives
perhaps a ball mill to reduce the the tanks to dust for reaction mass. But getting to LEO with chemical rockets is more about new materials and stuff like finite element analysis to shave weight off a structure without loosing too much strength.

For the rest of our lives, and probably our childrens' lives, space travel will remain highly dangerous and mostly inaccessible except to a few. Death and danger should not deter us from it, but instead should spur us on to conquer it.

Of course. But new doesn't mean better.