FWD (SK) Re: A Damaged Shuttle, Once in Orbit, Has Nowhere to Turn

From: Terry W. Colvin (fortean1@mindspring.com)
Date: Mon Feb 03 2003 - 21:57:45 MST

  • Next message: Damien Broderick: "RE: Columbia disaster`a punishment from Allah'"

    >In the aftermath of the Columbia disaster, a question lingering amid the
    >sorrowful assessments of loss is whether anything could have been done to
    >rescue the seven astronauts had NASA determined that the orbiter was too
    >damaged for a safe reentry.
    >
    >The short answer: No.

    On this particular mission, that *may* be correct (it all depends on
    whether they could have made it to the ISS by jettisoning the spacelab).

    But a very reasonable emergency system COULD be put in place without losing
    too much cargo capacity. It is very nearly criminal that NASA is keeping
    the ISS up there, and yet has no contingency plans whatsoever to use it in
    a Shuttle rescue. Here's how you do that:

    First...and I'm amazed this has to be said...take the frigging docking
    adapter OFF the freaking Shuttle and put it ON the goddam station. It is
    stupid and wasteful to pay money to launch the thing into orbit EVERY TIME
    you want to dock with the station. Redesign the Shuttle's side hatch so the
    adapter attaches there.

    Next, make it possible to resupply the Shuttle in orbit. This is already
    done with the ISS, usually with Progress rockets. This would not only help
    with emergencies, it would also make possible much longer Shuttle missions.
    Of course, you put all the attachment machinery in the rocket so the
    Shuttle doesn't have to schlep it each time (external fuel fittings already
    exist on the Shuttle to attach to the external tank). Whenever you launch a
    Shuttle mission, you make sure there's a Progress ready to launch within a
    day or so.

    You always carry an emergency EVA suit onboard. This doesn't necessarily
    have to be as good a suit as the usual EVA suit, you'd just want it good
    enough for a short emergency EVA.

    You put sensors behind the critical heat tile areas, so you know if you
    have a problem.

    You develop heat tile "goo" which can be spackled into the hole of a
    missing critical tile. If you wanna get fancy (and a lot more expensive),
    run goo pipes under the critical areas so you could fix the spot from
    inside the Shuttle.

    At one time, NASA was experimenting with emergency re-entry bags,
    collapsible fabric spheres that a couple of astronauts could fit into,
    which could survive re-entry to Earth. Dunno whatever became of those, but
    I'd bet modern materials make them a lot more feasible. If nothing else,
    build emergency transfer bags that could be used to ferry people between
    the ISS and Shuttle if spacesuits are not practical for some reason. Store
    several of these on the ISS, and modify the Soyuz escape capsule so it
    could be sent down to a stranded Shuttle. For that matter, give the ISS a
    useful lifeboat that could be ferried up and down between Shuttle and ISS
    many times.

    It is an absolute criminal waste that every Shuttle external tank is dumped
    back into the ocean and lost. By spending just a bit more fuel, those could
    be parked in orbit and used as storage facilities for emergency supplies. I
    believe one NASA engineer even has detailed plans for making them
    functional parts of the ISS.

    Yeah, all of this would cost money. A lot of chair-bound officials are
    weeping their crocodile tears and saying "space travel is inherently
    dangerous," but with just a tad more cash, it could be made a LOT safer.

    And I've got a really good idea where we could get that cash. There's
    another article in the Times today that describes the Pentagon's fast track
    program (at a cost of some $1.25 BILLION) to make nuclear bombs more
    usable...yes, I said MORE USABLE. There has already been talk about using
    nukes when...um, ha ha, I mean IF we invade Iraq. They think "nucyaler
    devices" would make dandy bunker busters. They're talking SERIOUSLY about
    using first-strike nukes.

    OK, so let's follow this track of logic. Weapons of mass destruction are
    bad. Really bad. They're evil. That's why Saddam has to go, because he has
    WMD. Wellllll..the US has WMD too, what's the deal here, are WE evil? Why
    of course not. OUR WMD exist only as deterrents. Nobody would dare nuke us,
    because we would then nuke them. So we would NNNEEEVVVEERRRR use ours
    first, you see...

    Dave Palmer

    -- 
    Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@mindspring.com >
         Alternate: < fortean1@msn.com >
    Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
    Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
          U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
    ------------
    Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
       TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Vietnam veterans,
    Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 03 2003 - 22:00:57 MST