Author Topic: lost contact with shuttle Columbia... (Read 2703 times)

maxtor · « **Reply #45 on:** February 01, 2003, 11:06:44 AM »

"RCC (Reinforced Carbon-Carbon) or 'carbon-carbon leading edge'

Used as a high-temperature aerodynamic structure, forming the leading edges on the Shuttle's nose and along the wings. These areas are subjected to the highest temperatures and pressures during reentry. Maximum use temperature: 2960°F. The RCC panels are fixed to the Shuttle's structural skeleton by floating joints, which allow for thermal expansion differences between the RCC and the surrounding surface and also serve as a load-dampener. The inside surface of the RCC has a layer of backing insulation, and gap fillers are very important to prevent plasma from getting into the cavities behind the RCC panels and melting key things. RCC doesn't need waterproofing, but replacement of an RCC panel would be a major undertaking similar to replacing a structural member. "

Hate to speculate but If it were this sounds like they wouldn't have been able to fix it anyway.

Challenger was hit before by a small bit of space junk. http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,12543,334588,00.html Somethign similar could have happened while they were in orbit and they never whould have know it.

Viper17 · « **Reply #46 on:** February 01, 2003, 11:10:30 AM »

SHIT NO!:(

UserName · « **Reply #47 on:** February 01, 2003, 11:19:23 AM »

CyranoAH · « **Reply #48 on:** February 01, 2003, 11:22:49 AM »

udet · « **Reply #49 on:** February 01, 2003, 11:27:31 AM »

oh God, this is so sad...
May they all rest in peace...

maxtor · « **Reply #50 on:** February 01, 2003, 11:34:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Animal
They jettison all fuel before re-entry.

http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/projects/space/astronaut/nov02/11-14-02wp.html

"Shuttle fuel is not dumped before reentry."

CyranoAH · « **Reply #51 on:** February 01, 2003, 11:34:44 AM »

I implore you, guys, let's not politicise this. It's sad and terrible just as it is, no need to bring politics into it.

At least in this forum.

Please.

Daniel

udet · « **Reply #52 on:** February 01, 2003, 11:49:37 AM »

this is so bad...first Israeli on board-and lots of debris crashes on Palestine.
NASA had just started thinking about missions to Mars and a more ambitious approach, they had just introduced a new format for their website, plus, it's almost the same date Challenger blew up, the 113th mission....
Almost as if somebody is making fun of our feeble attempts to conquer space.

Dune · « **Reply #53 on:** February 01, 2003, 11:52:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
\

A little side note: Colonel Ramon of the IAF, son of a Holocaust survivor ...

If I heard correctly, he was also a pilot for the Israeli raid that destroyed the Iraqi nuclear plant several years ago.

Sandman · « **Reply #54 on:** February 01, 2003, 12:03:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by udet
this is so bad...first Israeli on board-and lots of debris crashes on Palestine.
NASA had just started thinking about missions to Mars and a more ambitious approach, they had just introduced a new format for their website, plus, it's almost the same date Challenger blew up, the 113th mission....
Almost as if somebody is making fun of our feeble attempts to conquer space.

Hmmm... two catastrophic failures in nearly twenty years. That's all. IMHO, that's an excellent record. Space flight is exceedingly dangerous.

No reason to stop now...

miko2d · « **Reply #55 on:** February 01, 2003, 12:21:15 PM »

Animal: Its diddlying dangerous but WE MUST KEEP DOING IT.
The .gov denied all requests for funding for a better, safer and more advanced shuttle.
We are now paying the price.

Oh, yeah, lets use this tragedy for more socialist "bigger government" propaganda...

miko

crowMAW · « **Reply #56 on:** February 01, 2003, 12:29:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Animal
They jettison all fuel before re-entry.
The shuttle lands unpowered.

I don't believe this is the case. The control rockets are still used for attitude correction during decent prior to the control surfaces becoming usable.

One of the first procedures upon return is for the Orbiter Recovery Convoy to purge the fuels from the engines and lines.

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/stsover-landing.html

However, before the deorbit burn is performed, the orbiter is turned to a tail-first attitude. (That is, the aft end of the orbiter faces the direction of travel.) At a predesignated time, the OMS engines are fired to slow the orbiter down and to permit deorbit. The RCS thrusters are then used to turn the orbiter back into a nose-first attitude. These thrusters are used during much of the reentry pitch, roll and yaw maneuvering until the orbiter's aerodynamic, aircraft-like control surfaces encounter enough atmospheric drag to control the landing. This is called Entry Interface (EI) and usually occurs 30 minutes before touchdown at about 400,000 ft. At this time, a communications blackout occurs as the orbiter is enveloped in a sheath of plasma caused by electromagnetic forces generated from the high heat experienced during entry into the atmosphere.

As the orbiter glides toward a landing, initially at a velocity of 25,000 feet per second at the EI point, its velocity is gradually slowed by a series of banks and roll reversals. As the atmospheric density increases, the forward RCS thrusters are turned off, while the aft RCS jets continue to maneuver the orbiter until a dynamic pressure of 10 lb. per square foot is sensed by instruments on board. At this point, the ailerons on orbiter's delta-shaped wings begin to operate and the aft RCS roll thrusters are stopped.

When the dynamic pressure reaches 20 lb. per square foot, the orbiter's wing elevators become operational and the RCS pitch thrusters are stopped. A speed brake on the vertical tail opens when the orbiter's velocity falls below Mach 10. Then, at Mach 3.5, the rudder is activated and the final RCS burns -- the yaw jets -- are stopped. The orbiter is now at an altitude of 45,000 ft., and is beginning what are called "area energy management maneuvers" which enable it to intercept the landing approach corridor at the desired altitude and velocity.

hawk220 · « **Reply #57 on:** February 01, 2003, 12:30:30 PM »

I'm thankful for the explorers who seek answers, push the limits, and dedicate themselves to others' advancement.

truly a sad day

Reschke · « **Reply #58 on:** February 01, 2003, 12:36:27 PM »

Look at it this way. What company can say they have had only two inflight failures within the last twenty year. As of today NASA is operating on an 18 year average for in inflight accidents. To my knowledge I don't think any other company (well Quantas airlines maybe) can hold the same distinction of such a long running safety record. Even though I am not a gambler I would take the odds of 2 out of 113 as something happening. Something went wrong with the Challenger and something went wrong today. As a result of the Challenger accident they (being NASA) has more stringent protocols for launching of space craft. You can only think that if they can ever possibly recontruct what happened with this one then they will develop even more safeguards.

On one of the News channels this morning they interviewed Buzz Aldrin. He said that not very long ago his company had started preliminary talks with NASA about integrating an escape capsule into the Shuttle 2 designs that are supposedly starting up right now. I don't think that NASA can afford to go through another 2 year (or more) shutdown of all Shuttle launches and survive. But that is a serious drop off the subject at hand. My families prayers and thoughts go out to the family members of all the crew members.

Animal · « **Reply #59 on:** February 01, 2003, 12:40:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d
Animal: Its diddlying dangerous but WE MUST KEEP DOING IT.
The .gov denied all requests for funding for a better, safer and more advanced shuttle.
We are now paying the price.

Oh, yeah, lets use this tragedy for more socialist "bigger government" propaganda...

miko