[FAQ] Columbia Loss FAQ v1.0
OM
STS-107 "Columbia" Loss FAQ
---------------------------
Compiled by "B0b Mosley" <o...@io.com>
Any and all corrections and/or additions should be posted to either
the usenet newsgroups sci.space.shuttle or sci.space.history, as
well as e-mailed to the compiler listed above. As this FAQ will be
evolving as the situation unfolds, having all the data made public
for discussion will help weed out any inaccuracies that this document
hopes to circumvent.
Contributors:
"Chris Bennetts" <jcm...@yahoo.com.au>
"David Corsi" <dco...@pleaseremove.attbi.com>
"Rick DeNatale" <dena...@ctc.net>
"Ron Jarrell" <jar...@babylon5.cc.vt.edu>
"Derek Lyons" <derek...@yahoo.com>
"Jim Mantle" <jim.m...@rogers.com>
"JF Mezei" <jfmezei...@vl.videotron.ca>
"Mary Shafer" <il...@QNET.COM>
"Diane Wilson" <di...@firelily.com>
======================================================================
* What is the purpose of this FAQ?
======================================================================
This FAQ is designed to hopefully provide a basic information source
for those seeking news on the loss of the Space Shuttle "Columbia" and
its crew on 2/1/03. By providing a basic FAQ addressing what are
expected to be the most common questions asked by persons new to the
sci.space.* heirarchy and/or those regulars who are only now finding
out about the tragedy, it is hoped that the degradation of the groups'
signal-to-noise ratio that usually follows events of this nature will
be curtailed to a tolerable level, as well as hopefully reduce the
level of baseless and unfounded speculation that tragic events such
as the loss of Columbia tend to foster.
======================================================================
* What exactly happened to Columbia?
======================================================================
Based on the official NASA statement on the Declaration of the Space
Shuttle Contingency being placed in effect, the following mishap
occured:
Following a scheduled braking manouver called a "roll reversal"
during reentry after a 16-day scientific mission, loss of
communication
was experienced with the Space Shuttle Columbia at approximately
9:00am
EST on Saturday, February 1st, 2003. Signal loss occurred as Columbia
descended toward a landing at the Kennedy Space Center, FL. With
touchdown scheduled for 9:16am EST.
Communication and tracking of the shuttle was lost at an altitude of
about 203,000 feet in the area above North Central Texas,
approximately
above the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex region of Texas. At the time
communications were lost. The shuttle was traveling approximately
12,500 miles per hour (Mach 18). No communication and tracking
information were received in Mission Control after that time.
A Space Shuttle contingency was declared in Mission Control, Houston,
and search & rescue teams in the Dallas-Fort Worth and in portions of
East Texas were alerted. At the same time, a public safety alert was
also issued regarding how the public should regard Any debris that
is located in the area that may have originated from Columbia. Per
NASA, such debris should be avoided as it may be hazardous as a result
of toxic propellants used aboard the shuttle. The location of any
possible debris should immediately be reported to local authorities.
Flight controllers in Mission Control then secured all information,
notes and data pertinent to today's entry and landing by Columbia and
continued to methodically proceed through contingency plans.
======================================================================
* Is there a timeline of events?
======================================================================
A timeline of events has been released by some of the news services.
Be advised that this is not official from NASA, but is close enough
for the purposes of this FAQ the rough times have been confirmed
by NASA officials during the press briefings:
---------
8:08am ET
---------
Mission Control in Houston gives the OK to come home:
“You are go for burn.”
Commander Rick Husband:
“OK, we copy a go for the burn right now.”
---------
8:15am ET
---------
The crew begins the de-orbit burn.
---------
8:53am ET
---------
The first hint of trouble surfaces, a loss of temperature sensors
on the left wing.
---------
8:59am ET
---------
A message from Mission Control about low tire pressure:
“Columbia, Houston. We see your tire pressure messages and
we did not copy your last.”
Commander Husband:
“Roger, uh ...”
The transmission goes silent for several seconds, followed by
static. This would be the last communication with Columbia or
its crew.
---------
9:00am ET
---------
The shuttle is 39 miles over central Texas at this time.
NASA PAO:
“Columbia out of communications at present with Mission
Control as it continues its course towards Florida.”
Agonizing moments go by while mission controllers frantically
try to restore communication with the shuttle.
---------
9:06am ET
---------
Mission Control:
“Columbia, Houston. Comm check?”
Columbia breaks apart over Dallas, just 16 minutes before
it was supposed to land in Florida. Witnesses in Texas hear
deafening booms and see flaming pieces of metal shooting
through the blue sky:
“I live in a mobile home, and it shook it like boom,
boom… that’s what I thought, something blew up.”
“It just looked like the vapor clouds as the
separate pieces were separating.”
---------
9:16am ET
---------
There is no sign of the shuttle at its Florida landing strip.
NEXRAD base reflectivity radar updates now show debris path
stretching across East Texas
---------
9:29am ET
---------
NASA officials declare an emergency:
“This is Mission Control, Houston. Flight controllers
here continue in a contingency, securing information
and notes. Search-and-rescue teams have been
mobilized to the Dallas-Fort Worth area.”
---------
11:00am ET
---------
The flag is lowered to half-staff at the Kennedy Space Center
in Florida. Subsequent lowerings commence at all other NASA
centers.
======================================================================
* What sort of mission was Columbia on?
======================================================================
STS 107 was the 113th mission in the Shuttle program. It was primarily
a science-dedicated mission, with no docking to the International
Space Station (ISS). STS-107 had two basic major goals:
1) Columbia's first flight after an 18-month overhaul to install over
100 modifications and improvements, including a “glass cockpit” with
nine full-color, flat-panel displays, reduced power needs, old wire
removal, and a user-friendly interface.
2) The first flight of SPACEHAB’s Research Double Module to conduct
over 100 experiments ranging from biomedical research to Earth
observation.
The experiment manifest for the mission included the following:
Commercial Payload:
-------------------
* Advanced Respiratory Monitoring System
* Closed Equilibrated Biological Aquatic System
* U.S. Air Force Technology Demonstration Experiment
* Commercial and Macromolecular Protein Crystal Growth
* Combined Two-Phase-Loop Experiment
* Quick External Science Tray
* Space Technology and Research Students (STARS) Program
* Star Navigation
* Osteoporosis Experiment in Orbit
* European Research In Space and Terrestrial Osteoporosis
Human Life Science Experiments:
-------------------------------
* Physiology and Biochemistry Experiments Team (PhaAB-4)
* Enhanced Orbiter Refrigeration Freezer (EOR/F)
* Thermoelectric Holding Module (TEHM)
* Orbiter Centrifuge
NASA/ESA Barter Payload:
------------------------
* Biopack Experiment
* Facility for Absorption and Surface Tension
* Advanced Protein Crystallization Facility
* Biobox Experiment
NASA ISS RME Payload:
---------------------
* Vapor Compression Distillation Flight Experiment
NASA Code U Payload:
--------------------
* Combustion Module-2
* Space Acceleration Measurement System - Free Flyer
* Mechanics of Granular Materials
* Bioreactor Development System-05
* Ergometer Hardware
Human Life Science Experiments:
-------------------------------
* Microbial Physiology Flight Experiments (MPFE)
* Automated Microbial System (AMS)
* SLEEP-3
* Astroculture (Plant Growth Chamber)
* Astroculture (Glovebox)
* Commercial Protein Crystal Growth-PCF
* Zeolite Crystal Growth-1
* Fundamental Rodent Experiments Supporting Health-Two
* Gravisensing and Response System
* Biological Research in Canisters
* Commercial ITA Biomedical Experiments
Most of the experiments were part of the STARS program, STARS is
an educational initiative that challenges students to assume the
role of a Shuttle Payload Specialist and promotes interest in
engineering, mathematical and scientific careers.
======================================================================
* Who were the crew?
======================================================================
The crew consisted of the following Astronauts:
Commander: Rick Husband
NASA Profile Page: http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/husband.html
Pilot: William McCool
NASA Profile Page: http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/mccool.html
Mission Specialist: Kalpana Chawla
NASA Profile Page: http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/chawla.html
Mission Specialist: David Brown
NASA Profile Page: http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/brown.html
Mission Specialist: Michael Anderson
NASA Profile Page: http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/anderson.html
Mission Specialist: Laurel Clark
NASA Profile Page: http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/clark.html
Payload Specialist: Ilan Ramon
NASA Profile Page: http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/PS/ramon.html
======================================================================
* Where and when did Columbia break up? (Altitude, speed, time, etc.)
======================================================================
As stated above, loss of all voice communications and telemetry
occurred
at approximately 9:00am EST on Saturday, February 1st, 2003, at an
altitude of about 203,000 feet in the area above North Central Texas,
approximately 37 miles above the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex region of
Texas.
======================================================================
* Was Columbia in reentry LOS at the time of breakup?
======================================================================
No. Both voice communication and data telemetry were still being
received right up to the breakup of Columbia. The telemetry indicated
loss of data from various sensors such as tire temperature sensors,
and hydraulic pressure sensors. The last voice communications from
the crew seem to be an acknowledgment of an alarm on the hydraulic
pressure, with the last intelligible verbal response believed to be
"Roger, uh..."
======================================================================
* Was Columbia in reentry LOS at the time of breakup?
======================================================================
Again, based on what's been replayed over the news services since the
loss of Columbia, the last intelligible verbal response believed to be
"Roger, uh..."
======================================================================
* Was it an explosion, or just disintegration due to aerodynamic
stress?
======================================================================
At this early date, this is still undetermined. Be advised, however,
that although the the previous Shuttle loss, Challenger, broke up due
to aerodynamic stresses.16 years later it is still often described as
having exploded. No doubt the press will fail to make the distinction
during their reporting of this tragedy.
Also, be advised that the "explosions" that those witnessing the
breakup have reported were probably in fact sonic booms. Keep in mind
that Columbia was going ~Mach 18 or so, so the debris would still be
supersonic over East Texas and Louisiana. Each piece would have a boom
and, if some pieces were close enough, the boom - coelescing from the
individual booms - that reached the ground could be pretty loud. If
the pieces were somewhat further apart, the ground boom would be
longer and more "rumbley".
======================================================================
* Where did the debris wind up?
======================================================================
As of this version of the FAQ, debris has been reported as being
spread
out over a region spreading from the Dallas-Fort Worth region to as
far east as Fort Polk, LA. However, debris has been confirmed only in
Nacogdoches, TX. Nacogdoches is located in the piney woods region
of East Texas, about 135 miles northeast of Houston. Fragments up to
three feet in diameter have been found, and photos of some of the
debris has already shown up on the major news service websites.
Please keep in mind that *only* the Nacogdoches debris reports have
been confirmed at this time. All other reports are unconfirmed and
should be treated as such until officially verified.
======================================================================
* Have the Astronauts' remains been located?
======================================================================
Not officially as of yet. However, authorities in Hemphill, TX have
been quoted as saying remains had been found in an area between
Hemphill and Jasper, as well as near Chinquipin TX as well. These
remains have reportedly been taken to Hemphill High School, where a
local funeral home was assisting officials from the FBI and Defense
Department in the post-mortem.
Again, as with the debris reports, please keep in mind only the
Nacogdoches debris has been confirmed at this time.
======================================================================
* What if I find debris? What should I do?
======================================================================
Per the NASA PAO, anyone who believes they have found debris related
to Columbia should call the Johnson Space Center Emergency Operations
Center at (281) 483-3388. The public is again to be advised that
hazardous chemicals may be present, and that they should not under any
circumstances disturb or move any debris.
In addition, those who think they've suddenly got a new house coming
following a sale of debris on eBay should be aware of the following:
All debris is United States Government property and is critical to
the investigation of the shuttle accident. Any and all debris from
the accident is to be left alone and reported to government
authorities. Unauthorized persons found in possession of accident
debris will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
As of this writing, outside of a few tasteless lots on Columbia
memorabilia and a few bad joke auctions, nobody's come forth with
Columbia debris for sale.
======================================================================
* What's the best guess as to what caused the breakup?
======================================================================
While it's still too early to tell, NASA officials during the press
conferences have given enough information that the following "best
guess" can be made as to the chain of events leading to the breakup:
1) During ascent, a sizeable fragment of material - either insulation
or condensational ice - broke loose from the Shuttle's external fuel
tank and impacted the underside of the Shuttle. The point of impact
appears to be the left wing, based on ground camera observations
taken during ascent. This impact may have loosened or even knocked
loose one or more of the protective tiles that protect the Shuttle
during reentry.
2) During reentry, reentry heat caused damage to the left wing of
the Shuttle, most likely near the landing gear bay based on the
telemetry received showing failures in sensors and tire pressure
readings located in that area. By this time, temperatures on the
leading edges of the wings were in excess of 3000 F.
3) Excessive heating combined with atmospheric stress then appears
to have caused structural failure to the left wing, which based on
the footage taken by amateur photographers and the news photographers
of ABC affiliate WFAA appears to have then sheared off. Shortly
after, what appears to be RCS thruster firings are visible, followed
almost immediately thereafter by a brief brightening of the main
body of the Shuttle, followed by the apparent breakup of the Shuttle
into multiple fragments.
Once again, this is speculation based on the meager available data
avaiable, and should *NOT * be assumed to be an official scientific
analysis in any way, shape or form.
======================================================================
* Was this due to an act of terrorism?
======================================================================
It's so far been the concensus of the sane participants in the
sci.space.* heirarchy that at the extreme altitude and speed Columbia
achieved during reentry, and with all the various radar tracking
systems in place - including NOAA's NEXRAD as an unexpected source of
tracking data following the breakup - the odds that Columbia and her
crew were destroyed any act of terrorism along the lines of a SAM
attack is almost on the virge of absolute nil.
So far, only two "credible" theories have come forth, both with valid
reasons for being highly unlikely:
1) Air-to-Air or Surface-to-Air missile strike: As Columbia was at
on approach at ~Mach 18 at an altitude of ~200,000 feet, the odds of
a terrorist group such as the Taliban, Al Queda, or even North Korean
or Iraqi agents gaining access to a weapon that could catch up with
Columbia, much less intercept it, are astronomically small. At this
time, not even the US, the Russians, or even the Chinese possess
the capabilities of hitting a reentry vehicle at that speed and
altitiude with any probable degree of success. And yes, we're
talking both conventional and "laser death ray" weapons here. While
the former could be compromised into the hands of an enemy, the
latter would be virtually impossible as such a compromise or
its use would not be easily concealable.
2) Bomb planted on board by a spy: More realistic based on Occam's
Razor. However, pre-launch security, which has always been high, was
even tighter due both in part to post-9/11 restrictions and the
presence on the crew of the first Israeli Astronaut, Ilan Ramon. Odds
are almost as small of this happening as Columbia getting shot down
by some sort of anti-aircraft weapon.
======================================================================
* Why were there no ejection seats on Columbia?
======================================================================
During its test flight phase, Columbia had two ejection seats - one
each for the CDR and PLT. When Columbia became operational and the
crew
expanded to up to a total of seven, the ejection seats and explosive
roof panels were removed and replaced with normal ones for two
reasons:
1) Weight savings, simply put.
2) The concept of not wanting to leave anyone behind in the Shuttle if
a bailout was required. Some of the crew eere seated on Columbia's
lower deck, and ejection seats could not have saved the three crew
there in any circumstance.
At the same time, the ejection seats were more of a concession to the
test pilot mentality. In actuality, they would have been entirely
useless at the altitude and speed that Columbia - or any shuttle, for
that matter - was going when the disaster occurred. They would really
only have been useful if the shuttle was going slowly, at low
altitude,
as in the case of a bad landing approach. The seats were deactivated
after the first four missions, and removed shortly afterwards during
a post-mission refurbishment.
======================================================================
* What's this about ice hitting the tiles underneath Columbia?
======================================================================
Video taken during launch showed insulation and/or ice from the
External tank falling off and impacting the bottom on the left side.
This is not the first time this has happened on a Shuttle flight. A
post-launch analysis determined that this had not caused a thermal
protection problem, but this is of course being revisited in the
accident investigation which will come.
Other damage to the Shuttle has happened in prior launches, such as
the
loss of the drag chute door on one flight. Attempts were made on that
flight to get photographs from the ground using terrestrial
telescopes,
but the results were not acceptable.
======================================================================
* Why didn't they do a spacewalk to inspect the underside?
======================================================================
First off, NASA officials have seen insulation and ice break off and
impact tiles on the underside on previous flights. In fact, one of
the tasks assigned to the STS-107 crew was to take photographs of the
External Tank immediately after tank separation to see just what
broke off, where it broke loose, and how big it really was. Those
photos were taken, but sadly they will probably not be recoverable.
With this in mind, no danger was perceived at the time by either the
crew or NASA, and was explicitly stated as such shortly after Columbia
achieved orbit. Even if there had been some suspicions, there was
simply no way for the crew to perform any sort of check of the
underside of the shuttle. As no spacewalk was planned for this flight,
and with the SPACEHAB mounted in the cargo bay, an EVA was simply not
possible as there was no EVA airlock. Add to this that for these
missions, the CANADARM is usually removed for weight savings as it
won't be used. Regardless, the CANADARM simply cannot be manouvered
so the camera on the grappler end can see the underside. It simply
lacks the joint structure to allow for this.
Even if the CANADARM was available, and the arm could have been
manouvered to show the underside of the Shuttle, and tile damage
had in fact been found, there was little if anything the crew could
have done to rectify the situation. In fact, at the initial press
debriefing, the Shuttle program manager specifically stated that
the crew had no capabilities to to tile repairs. Even if they could
perform an EVA, because there is nothing around that area for the
astronauts to hold onto, they would have had an impossible task of
even getting under the Shuttle to get a good look. And even if they
could have gotten underneath and secured themselves. they did not
have the tools or materials onboard to allow them to perform any
repairs.
======================================================================
* Were there any anomalies in telemetry prior to the breakup?
======================================================================
Actually, yes. Telemetry just before breakup indicated loss of data
about tire pressures and temperatures and then hydraulic pressures
on the left side of the vehicle. Note that loss of a few sensors
is not uncommon, which may explain why it took a while before a trend
was noticed. Officially, at 8:53am EST, four sensors dealing with
temperature and hydraulic pressure all went into what is termed
"offscale low". This failure mode is consistent with the sudden
loss of connectivity with the sensors, as if the wires had either
been cut or very rapidly burned thrrough.
======================================================================
* What about "Black Box" data?
======================================================================
While there is a "Black Box" flight recorder on board the Shuttles,
almost all of the valuable data is downlinked anyway. What little
the Boxes contain that wasn't downlinked may or may not be relevant
to the mishap, and the only way to know for sure is to locate a
surviving unit on the ground.
However, one should probably not hold their breath for one to turn
up. As noted by the shuttle program manager during the first press
conference, there is no *hardened* "Black Box" on board any of the
Shuttles. At the same time, it's also worth noting that since
commercial hardened "Black Boxes" have had difficulty surviving
airplane crashes, surviving re-entry without special protection
is almost an impossibility.
======================================================================
* What was that query about "Tire Pressure" prior to the breakup?
======================================================================
As noted above there were dropouts on tire temperature and pressure,
as well as hydraulic pressure. Some of these were annunciated to the
crew, and the last crew voice communications appear to have been an
acknowledgment of such an alarm.
======================================================================
* Why didn't they just dock with the ISS and do repairs?
======================================================================
Columbia was in an orbit where it doesn't meet up with the ISS. When
you're going at 175000 mph, changing direction requires a LOT of fuel.
Also, in this flight, the shuttle did not have the docking system to
dock to the station. And they still do not have any way to repair
the tiles in space. And remember, neither the crew nor NASA had any
suspicions whatsoever that anything was wrong with Columbia that
would have required any repairs, much less an inspection.
======================================================================
* Why didn't they wait for a rescue shuttle?
======================================================================
Again, neither the crew nor NASA knew there was anything seriously
wrong with Columbia until the breakup occurred. The impact from the
peeloff from the External Tank was judged to have been a non-issue,
and even if you have them ready to launch you don't send up rescue
vehicles unless you really need them.
======================================================================
* Is the current ISS crew stranded now?
======================================================================
No. The ISS always has at least one Russian Soyuz spacecraft docked to
it, for the purpose of evacuating in the event of a major problem with
the station, or in the case of a tragedy like this. The Soyuz is a
capsule-type craft; the section that returns to Earth is bell-shaped,
and can touch down on land or, if neccessary, water. Depending on
how long the Shuttle fleet is grounded, odds are this is how the
current Expedition Three crew will return to Earth, and possibly
how their replacements will arrive.
======================================================================
* Without the shuttle fleet, how will they reboost the space station?
======================================================================
In theory a Russian Progress resupply ship could be used, but at this
time NASA has not announced plans on any reboost contingency plans.
======================================================================
* Can Enterprise be upgraded to replace Columbia?
======================================================================
No. It has been well over a decade since Endeavour was constructed.
The
people who built the space shuttles have moved on long ago, and most
of
them would have forgotten the little skills that they used when
building the shuttles. Many of the specialist tools and jigs that were
used to build the shuttles no longer exist, either.
======================================================================
* Will another replacement orbiter be built, as Endeavor was built to
replace Challenger?
======================================================================
Probably not. In fact, you can probably bet on it never happening. A
space shuttle like those we have now can not be made again for the
same
reasons that Enterprise probably will not be brought into active
service. Not only are the tooling and design manpower simply no longer
in existence, the cost would be nearly the same as starting from
scratch with an all new design for future shuttle type craft. And no,
there are not enough spare parts left over to cobble together a new
shuttle as was Endeavor.
======================================================================
* How should we deal with the trolls who'll be plaguing us over the
next few days/weeks/months over this tragedy?
======================================================================
By not responding to them, by killfilling them, and by dealing gently
with those who would respond to them. Some of those responding may
not be regulars to our groups and may be doing so out of ignorance.
The unmoderated sci.space. * groups have been hit in recent months
by anti-Shuttle crackpots and conspiracy theorists, and the best way
to handle them at this time is to simply killfile them and ignore
what drivel they attempt to foist on the unsuspecting. At the same
time,
politely remind those responding to these insensitive trolls of their
error, and strongly urge they assist the rest of us by participating
in the killfile efforts.
Also, as a side note to the sci.space. * regulars, keep in mind that
many of the questions addressed in this FAQ are going to be posted
again and again by people only just now discovering the newsgroups
under this heirarchy. Grant these "newbies" a little slack and simply
refer them to this document. If they have any other questions, they
can post accordingly.
======================================================================
* Where can I find official information on Columbia and the mishap on
the web?
======================================================================
There are numerous sites on the Shuttle, Columbia, and the Manned
Space Programs. The regulars on the sci.space. * heirarchy tend to
recommend the following sites for additional information:
Encyclopedia Astronomica's Page on Columbia:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/columbia.htm
Jet Propulsion Laboratory:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/
NASA Shuttle:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/
Space.com:
http://www.space.com/
Kennedy Space Center:
http://www.ksc.nasa.gov
Houston Space Center:
http://www.spacecenter.org/
Nacogdoches Daily Sentinel debris coverage:
http://www.dailysentinel.com/
WFAA debris video:
http://www.wfaa.com/watchvideo/index.jsp?SID 3680341
NASA Shuttle Launches:
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/missions.html
Also, NASA has several web access methods for NASA TV, which
will be the best way to keep up with events when the networks
decide to switch programming back to golf, tennis and bowling:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/nasatv/index.html
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/nasatv/LowSpeed.asx
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/nasatv/HighSpeed.asx
http://www.broadcast.com/learning_and_education/science/space/nasa/nasa_television/
http://www.chron.com/content/interactive/space/missions/live/livetv.ram
Be advised: many of the sites listed are getting hammered by thousands
of requests for information by people surfing to those sites. If you
don't get through on the first couple of tries, wait a little bit and
then make another attempt, or wait until the really early morning
hours
when traffic is usually at its lowest.
======================================================================
OM
--
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
Richard Kaszeta
> ======================================================================
> * What sort of mission was Columbia on?
> ======================================================================
>
> STS 107 was the 113th mission in the Shuttle program. It was primarily
> a science-dedicated mission, with no docking to the International
> Space Station (ISS). STS-107 had two basic major goals:
>
> 1) Columbia's first flight after an 18-month overhaul to install over
> 100 modifications and improvements, including a “glass cockpit” with
> nine full-color, flat-panel displays, reduced power needs, old wire
> removal, and a user-friendly interface.
While this was part of the original mission, you should mention that
this *wasn't* Columbia's first post-overhaul flight, since due to the
fuel liner cracks STS-109 (Hubble Service Mission 3B) ended up happening first.
> ======================================================================
> * Was Columbia in reentry LOS at the time of breakup?
> ======================================================================
You repeated this question.
Good job OM.
--
Richard W Kaszeta
ri...@kaszeta.org
http://www.kaszeta.org/rich
Brian Thorn
<om@CT_is_a_troll_AND_a_putz.too> wrote:
>---------------------------
>STS-107 "Columbia" Loss FAQ
>---------------------------
>
>With this in mind, no danger was perceived at the time by either the
>crew or NASA, and was explicitly stated as such shortly after Columbia
>achieved orbit. Even if there had been some suspicions, there was
>simply no way for the crew to perform any sort of check of the
>underside of the shuttle. As no spacewalk was planned for this flight,
>and with the SPACEHAB mounted in the cargo bay, an EVA was simply not
>possible as there was no EVA airlock.
Yes, there is. Columbia's normal internal airlock, and the upward
hatch in the tunnel between the airlock and Spacehab.
Brian
Wayne Farmer
news:f42p3vsduv687an4k...@4ax.com...
> ======================================================================
> * Have the Astronauts' remains been located?
> ======================================================================
>
> Not officially as of yet. However, authorities in Hemphill, TX have
> been quoted as saying remains had been found in an area between
> Hemphill and Jasper, as well as near Chinquipin TX as well. These
Encarta World Atlas gives the proper spelling for that town as
"Chinquapin".
Leonard Robinson
aboard. Contributions by others in the Group to the FAQ are likewise
acknowledged, and appreciated.
At Lodge tonight (DeMoss Lodge #220, Grand Lodge of KY, Free & Accepted
Masons) the Lodge draped its Charter, per the President of the United
States' request, memorializing all aboard Columbia. "All America and all
Israel join in mourning for Columbia," it was announced.
Although the President directed the Flag to be at half staff until February
5, Lodge law has the Charter draped for one lunar month to mourn our loss.
But life goes on. To quote Senator Edward M. Kennedy at the funeral for Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr., "the cause will never die." And to quote Sir Arthur
Charles, Lord Clarke of Serendip, "On strange worlds beneath strange suns,
Time and the Gods (are) preparing for Man the sites of cities yet to be."
At this time of mourning, let us remember what we discuss here in our NG;
"Space -- the final frontier."
--
Leonard C Robinson
"The Historian Remembers, and speculates on what might have been."
David Corsi
> Yes, there is. Columbia's normal internal airlock, and the upward
> hatch in the tunnel between the airlock and Spacehab.
EVA was possible but there is no way for the astronaut to make his/her way
to the side/underbelly of shuttle without special equipment not present
onboard and further no tools exist to make repairs to tiles.
NICE JOB ON THE FAQ!
Neal McBurnett
I would add, based on the press briefing:
Ground controllers lost communications with Columbia at 8:59:22
a.m. EST, at a mission elapsed time of 15 days, 22:20:22. At the
time, the shuttle was at an altitude of 207,000 feet, traveling at
Mach 18.3.
You should refer to the great coverage at:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts107/status.html
and to
Radar images: Short Range Base Reflectivity
http://www.srh.weather.gov/ftproot/columbia/default.html
I think you're a bit too skeptical about recovery of debris, while
being too bold with guesses about the cause.
In sadness,
Neal McBurnett http://bcn.boulder.co.us/~neal/
GPG/PGP signed and/or sealed mail encouraged. Keyid: 2C9EBA60
Ron Jarrell
> ======================================================================
> * Why didn't they just dock with the ISS and do repairs?
> ======================================================================
> Columbia was in an orbit where it doesn't meet up with the ISS. When
> you're going at 175000 mph, changing direction requires a LOT of fuel.
> Also, in this flight, the shuttle did not have the docking system to
> dock to the station. And they still do not have any way to repair
> the tiles in space. And remember, neither the crew nor NASA had any
> suspicions whatsoever that anything was wrong with Columbia that
> would have required any repairs, much less an inspection.
In addition, even if it *had* been possible to reach the space station,
Columbia did not have an Orbiter Docking System, the extra part the other
shuttles have, that allows a shuttle to actually *dock* with the station.
Raoul Ortega
In article <f42p3vsduv687an4k...@4ax.com>, OM
<om@CT_is_a_troll_AND_a_putz.too> wrote:
> ---------------------------
> STS-107 "Columbia" Loss FAQ
> ---------------------------
>
> ======================================================================
> * Was this due to an act of terrorism?
> ======================================================================
>
> It's so far been the concensus of the sane participants in the
> sci.space.* heirarchy that at the extreme altitude and speed Columbia
> achieved during reentry, and with all the various radar tracking
> systems in place - including NOAA's NEXRAD as an unexpected source of
> tracking data following the breakup - the odds that Columbia and her
> crew were destroyed any act of terrorism along the lines of a SAM
> attack is almost on the virge of absolute nil.
>
> So far, only two "credible" theories have come forth, both with valid
> reasons for being highly unlikely:
>
> 1) Air-to-Air or Surface-to-Air missile strike: As Columbia was at
> on approach at ~Mach 18 at an altitude of ~200,000 feet, the odds of
> a terrorist group such as the Taliban, Al Queda, or even North Korean
> or Iraqi agents gaining access to a weapon that could catch up with
> Columbia, much less intercept it, are astronomically small. At this
> time, not even the US, the Russians, or even the Chinese possess
> the capabilities of hitting a reentry vehicle at that speed and
> altitiude with any probable degree of success. And yes, we're
> talking both conventional and "laser death ray" weapons here. While
> the former could be compromised into the hands of an enemy, the
> latter would be virtually impossible as such a compromise or
> its use would not be easily concealable.
>
You might mention that one of the primary purposes of SDI is to hit an
incoming target at such an altitude. Those of us who don't wear aluminum
foil hats know that SDI is a long way from being operational.
> ======================================================================
> * Is the current ISS crew stranded now?
> ======================================================================
>
> No. The ISS always has at least one Russian Soyuz spacecraft docked to
> it, for the purpose of evacuating in the event of a major problem with
> the station, or in the case of a tragedy like this. The Soyuz is a
> capsule-type craft; the section that returns to Earth is bell-shaped,
> and can touch down on land or, if neccessary, water. Depending on
> how long the Shuttle fleet is grounded, odds are this is how the
> current Expedition Three crew will return to Earth, and possibly
> how their replacements will arrive.
>
Isn't it Expedition Six?
Kevin Willoughby
> "Chris Bennetts" <jcm...@yahoo.com.au>
> "David Corsi" <dco...@pleaseremove.attbi.com>
> "Rick DeNatale" <dena...@ctc.net>
> "Ron Jarrell" <jar...@babylon5.cc.vt.edu>
> "Derek Lyons" <derek...@yahoo.com>
> "Jim Mantle" <jim.m...@rogers.com>
> "JF Mezei" <jfmezei...@vl.videotron.ca>
> "Mary Shafer" <il...@QNET.COM>
> "Diane Wilson" <di...@firelily.com>
Wow. Thanks guys. This is better than anything I've seen on the big-
media outlets.
--
Kevin Willoughby kevinwi...@scispace.org.invalid
What gets measured gets done. -- David Patterson
Christopher M. Jones
> You might mention that one of the primary purposes of SDI is to hit an
> incoming target at such an altitude. Those of us who don't wear aluminum
> foil hats know that SDI is a long way from being operational.
We can easily rule out a hit by a missile. First, the
only missiles that could conceivably hit a target at
200,000+ ft alt. and travelling at mach 18 are
experimental prototypes. Second, any such missile would
almost certainly trail a huge exhaust plume and would be
immediately discernable on all the video footage of the
reentry. Third, if the aircraft were hit by anything
as it reentered the debris pattern would have been
very different as it broke up. A missile hit would have
immediately created a shower of debris from both the
missile and from the target which would have "shot out"
(in a similar manner as exploding starburst type
fireworks) away from the area, even more so in the case
of a kinetic "hit to kill" mechanism (as the Ballistic
Missile Defense system uses). Instead the Shuttle and
the debris stayed on the same track for most of the
reentry, even after it had broken up, and at most some
pieces slowly drifted away from the Shuttle's trajectory.
Thus, we can conclude from the evidence that the Shuttle
was almost certainly not hit with a missile.
--
When he shall die,
Take him and cut him out in little stars,
And he will make the face of heaven so fine
That all the world will be in love with night,
And pay no worship to the garish sun.
Mike Speegle
news:f42p3vsduv687an4k...@4ax.com...
> STS-107 "Columbia" Loss FAQ
> ---------------------------
Outstanding work, OM. Well done.
--
Mike
________________________________________________________
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often. Ski hard.
Spend *lots* of money. Then leave as quickly as you can.
Joseph Nebus
Q. What hazardous chemicals are most likely to be around Columbia
debris?
I'm not sure that most likely is the right term, as it seems to
me not likely to find much around any particular piece of debris, but I
can't think of a better phrase for the chemicals that might be expected
if any were found. I'm aware of monomethyl hydrazine and nitrogen
tetroxide being present from the RCS fuels (and a mention of how they're
hazardous wouldn't hurt), but am quite ignorant of other compounds.
A clear statement about radioactive materials would be useful
as well. I don't believe there were any, but couldn't definitively
answer on my own.
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marshall Perrin
> OM said:
> > Compiled by "B0b Mosley" <o...@io.com>
> > Contributors:
> > "Chris Bennetts" <jcm...@yahoo.com.au>
> > "David Corsi" <dco...@pleaseremove.attbi.com>
> > "Rick DeNatale" <dena...@ctc.net>
> > "Ron Jarrell" <jar...@babylon5.cc.vt.edu>
> > "Derek Lyons" <derek...@yahoo.com>
> > "Jim Mantle" <jim.m...@rogers.com>
> > "JF Mezei" <jfmezei...@vl.videotron.ca>
> > "Mary Shafer" <il...@QNET.COM>
> > "Diane Wilson" <di...@firelily.com>
>
> Wow. Thanks guys. This is better than anything I've seen on the big-
> media outlets.
Seconded. Many thanks to all; I've already passed this document along to
others in search of information.
- Marshall
Christopher M. Jones
> A clear statement about radioactive materials would be useful
> as well. I don't believe there were any, but couldn't definitively
> answer on my own.
The Shuttle was not carrying any radioactive
materials. The greatest danger from Shuttle debris
aside from the rocket fuels (mmh and N2O4) is
probably the thermal tiles. These are made from
very fine silicate fibers, inhalation of particles
or dust from damaged tiles could pose a health
hazard in a similar fashion to asbestos particles.
This is a very much lower level threat than the
rocket fuels but it is still a potentially life-
threatening hazard (in the longer term).
Alan Barclay
>STS-107 "Columbia" Loss FAQ
>---------------------------
You should probably expand the acronyms, considering that people who
will be reading it might not be familiar with NASA and the programs.
These are the ones I picked up
PAO - Public Affair Office
LOS - Loss Of Signal
CDR - Commander
PLT - Pilot
EVA - Extra Vehicular Activity
Brian Sandle
> ======================================================================
> * How should we deal with the trolls who'll be plaguing us over the
> next few days/weeks/months over this tragedy?
> ======================================================================
> By not responding to them, by killfilling them, and by dealing gently
> with those who would respond to them.
This is the technique the pro-legalisation activists on
talk.politics.drugs tried to apply to me when I pointed out they did not
understand partial correlation.
Just be careful not to devalue your position.
I would have thought this FAQ would have been an excellent place to answer
the question which Shuttle Program Manager Ron Dittemore had been unable
to remember after a journalist put it: were there any satellite photos of
the shuttle?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Peter Stickney
"Christopher M. Jones" <spic...@dualboot.net> writes:
> "Joseph Nebus" <neb...@rpi.edu> wrote:
>> A clear statement about radioactive materials would be useful
>> as well. I don't believe there were any, but couldn't definitively
>> answer on my own.
>
> The Shuttle was not carrying any radioactive
> materials. The greatest danger from Shuttle debris
> aside from the rocket fuels (mmh and N2O4) is
> probably the thermal tiles. These are made from
> very fine silicate fibers, inhalation of particles
> or dust from damaged tiles could pose a health
> hazard in a similar fashion to asbestos particles.
> This is a very much lower level threat than the
> rocket fuels but it is still a potentially life-
> threatening hazard (in the longer term).
The very fine Carbon fibers from any of the Carbon composite parts
wouldn't be bery good for you, either.
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
Paul F. Dietz
> The Shuttle was not carrying any radioactive
> materials. The greatest danger from Shuttle debris
> aside from the rocket fuels (mmh and N2O4) is
> probably the thermal tiles. These are made from
> very fine silicate fibers, inhalation of particles
> or dust from damaged tiles could pose a health
> hazard in a similar fashion to asbestos particles.
> This is a very much lower level threat than the
> rocket fuels but it is still a potentially life-
> threatening hazard (in the longer term).
I would be more worried about beryllium particles.
I was disgusted when I heard they sent four people who
had touched debris into the hospital for overnight
observation. I suspect NASA is operating off a
canned disaster script that doesn't quite fit this
situation.
Paul
Christopher M. Jones
> I would be more worried about beryllium particles.
>
> I was disgusted when I heard they sent four people who
> had touched debris into the hospital for overnight
> observation. I suspect NASA is operating off a
> canned disaster script that doesn't quite fit this
> situation.
I know the Shuttle's originally had Beryllium
components in their brakes but I thought those
had been replaced on most (all?) the orbiters.
Patrick Di Justo
<om@CT_is_a_troll_AND_a_putz.too> wrote:
>---------------------------
>STS-107 "Columbia" Loss FAQ
>---------------------------
>======================================================================
> * Why didn't they just dock with the ISS and do repairs?
>======================================================================
>
>Columbia was in an orbit where it doesn't meet up with the ISS. When
>you're going at 175000 mph, changing direction requires a LOT of fuel.
>Also, in this flight, the shuttle did not have the docking system to
>dock to the station. And they still do not have any way to repair
>the tiles in space. And remember, neither the crew nor NASA had any
>suspicions whatsoever that anything was wrong with Columbia that
>would have required any repairs, much less an inspection.
Great job on the FAQ! But isn't that 10 times too fast?
Henry Spencer
Christopher M. Jones <spic...@dualboot.net> wrote:
>I know the Shuttle's originally had Beryllium
>components in their brakes but I thought those
>had been replaced on most (all?) the orbiters.
There is still beryllium here and there, e.g. in the inertial-platform
support structure, even though I believe you're correct in that they've
switched completely to carbon brakes.
--
Faster, better, cheaper requires leadership, | Henry Spencer
not just management. | he...@spsystems.net