RE: shuttle breaks up on re-entry

From: Bret Kulakovich (bret@bonfireproductions.com)
Date: Mon Feb 03 2003 - 14:48:13 MST

  • Next message: Kai Becker: "Re: Time.com asks most dangerous country"

    This is very interesting and pretty good.

    Add the following, which don't kill the idea, but augment it, and
    assume the orbiter's OMS capable of kicking it up to the station:
    Let's say they figured out on the 17th that something "had to be
    done."

    1) Indeed, Columbia did not have a robot arm
    2) Columbia was carrying two EVA suits. (I'll double check, but I
    think that's accurate)
    3) The Spacehab RDM module is in Columbia's payload bay, and I am
    guessing that it could not be jettisoned - The port entrypoint on
    Columbia does not double as an airlock.

    The good part is that this plan does *not* involve parking Columbia
    on the ISS - no one should want to attach 232,700 pounds of
    deadweight to the station. Even if she could make it up the well that
    far, she'd bring the station down in a month without fuel to boost.

    Additionally, 3 people could have been back already, on the
    previously jettisoned Soyuez lifeboat in January, and up to three on
    the next one. Typically a shuttle can take three additional
    passengers on the second floor deck somehow (never saw the schematic)
    Bringing the total to 10.

    Bret Kulakovich

    >There are 2 airlocks on ISS -- one US and one Russian. The pumpkin
    >suits are smaller than either the US IMU suit or the Russian Orlan suit
    >and the airlocks are each designed to accommodate 2 astronauts suited
    >for EVA and a good deal of equipment. In the emergency situation we're
    >talking about, the pumpkin suits would be good enough to hold pressure
    >for the transfer out the starboard side door of the shuttle. Here's the
    >mission profile:
    >
    >-- Columbia comes alongside and is grappled by the station's arm (I
    >don't know, but assume Columbia didn't have its arm fitted for this
    >SpaceLab mission).
    >
    >-- Columbia's crew begins shuttle power-down for on-orbit mothballing of
    >indefinite duration.
    >
    >-- Columbia's crew suits up in the pumpkin suits and goes on Columbia's
    >suit-supply air.
    >
    >-- ISS arm maneuvers Columbia as close to the Quest airlock on ISS as
    >possible, with the starboard main shuttle door facing Quest.
    >
    >-- 2 from ISS exit the Quest airlock and rig as many lines as possible
    >around the passage between the two vehicles.
    >
    >-- Columbia depressurizes and the two from ISS cycle three Columbia crew
    >into Quest at a time (I'm sure it would hold three in pumpkin suits at a
    >tight fit). Columbia crew stay on air supplied from Columbia until it's
    >their turn. They're on suit air for max 20-30 minutes -- more like
    >10-20.
    >
    >-- After the third cycle, the 2 from ISS do a minimal close-down of
    >Columbia's hatch, photo the damage on the left wing if there's time on
    >the EVA, disconnect safety lines and ingress Quest.
    >
    >Total EVA time < 4 hours.
    >
    >All assumes:
    >
    >1. Sufficiently high-resolution pics of Columbia's left wing could have
    >been taken to diagnose the problem to make this kind of wild decision
    >possible.
    >
    >2. Columbia has enough delta-v to rendezvous with ISS. (Note ISS has
    >some minimal on-board delta-v, and could have contributed slightly to a
    >plane-matching manouver).
    >
    >Thereafter, Columbia's crew could be cycled down in Soyuzes over time,
    >with resupply of ISS stepped up for the duration with Progress flights.
    >
    >If Columbia couldn't be salvaged, then the SpaceLab module could have
    >been disconnected over time and incorporated into ISS, Columbia stripped
    >and "scuttled".
    >
    >(An old salvage lawyer's mind at work, I guess ...)
    >
    >Greg Burch
    >Vice-President, Extropy Institute
    >http://www.gregburch.net



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 03 2003 - 14:47:13 MST