You are not logged in.
On Atlantis's last mission this fall, a camera was mounted on the top of the shuttle's ET. As far as I know, this camera was not installed on the subsequent flights of Endeavour or Columbia.
My line of thinking is that the suspected tile damage on Columbia would have been immediately detected if such a camera had been installed. NASA could then have decided on whether to abort the mission. If NASA had known about the tile damage during launch, however, they may still have decided to continue the mission and attempt re-entry instead of what would have been a dangerous launch abort. Nevertheless, I would feel better if this modification were made to all subsequent missions so this optionn is available.
Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin? Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.
Offline
Like button can go here
In retrospect, it seems incomprehensible that the orbit chosen for Columbia made it impossible to rendezvous with ISS, even without cameras aboard. The crew of the ISS could have confirmed any suspected damage. Consequently, the present generation of orbiters remaining, should be equipped with an emergency-in-orbit airlock (like Soyuz) to permit transfer from a doomed orbiter.
Offline
Like button can go here
The orbit chosen for STS-107 was optimized for its science payloads, particulary the Israeli-Palestinian dust experiment. Ironically, NASA had wanted to fly many of the experiments on ISS, but Congress wanted a dedicated Shuttle science mission to compensate for the under-utilization of ISS. On a similar note, STS-107 was to strengthen ties with Israel through launching its first astronaut.
I think that Shuttle Cam should be an essential safety feature when the orbiters return to flight. Other possible modifications could include changing the composition of the insulation, removing insulation from areas that are prone to shed it, and giving a reduced, four-person crew a set of encapsulated ejection seats (in case the crew had to reenter at a shallower angle that would not permit a safe landing.)
Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin? Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.
Offline
Like button can go here
The choice of orbit was politically influenced, thereby putting Columbia's crew in the position of having no way out. I seem to remember that Enterprise was launched in lower-temperature conditions than previously experienced for the purposes of political scheduling.
With the ISS up there and crewed, every orbit should be chosen with the option of rendezvous, and orbiter-to-ISS pressure suit transfer made possible. I know...my airlock-mod suggestion was unrealistic--for the remaining orbiters--but it might have been a part of the original design spec as the emergency alternate means of in-orbit egress, if more than time-between-election foresight had been the rule, right?
Offline
Like button can go here
the other problem to remember is that the columbia was the heaviest of the orbiters and if it had flown to the station, it would not have had the cargo capacity to carry all the experiments. the shuttle was put into a lower-altitude lower inclination orbit to maximize cargo capacity.
--robs [whose computer cannot make capital letters today]
Offline
Like button can go here
Rob: Still (in retrospect, admittedly) they put the crew in a no-way-out situation and, given past records coming to light regarding "fuel tank shedding insulation" and the flood of e-mail doubts by NASA engineering staff--post launch...the choice of that inaccessible orbit was even more inexcusable. How very sad.
Offline
Like button can go here
I really cannot blame NASA's engineers, and I probably would have made the same decision they did if I were in their position. All of the previous data from shuttle missions suggested that the tiles were strong and even the loss of a few would not have doomed the mission. If the extent of the damage were known, my preferred plan of of action would have been a shallower re-entry that would allow the crew to escape before loss of vehicle occurred.
The solution, expensive as it may be, is to put a space station in the 28.5 degree orbit instead of launching every shuttle to the current space station in 51.6 degree orbit. We have to remember that, right now, we're simply dipping our toes in the water in the grand scheme, the conquest of space. More space stations would represent getting our feet wet and making it impossible to retreat to the timidness of staying on earth.
Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin? Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.
Offline
Like button can go here
My understanding is that the present orbital plane was adopted to permit the Russian Soyuz access to the ISS. Good choice. I insist, no future shuttle mission's orbit should prevent access to the ISS by the orbiter crew. As to getting "our" feet wet, the question is: whose feet? Engineers, from my own experience, are "a dime a dozen," and so are space tourists. Test pilots, astronauts, cosmonauts and mission specialists most definitely, are not. They must be given every chance, but this time they weren't....
Offline
Like button can go here
By "our feet," I was referring to global society. I believe that the society sponsoring the space program must be unconditionally commited to any space effort. The goal here is to totally transform society into a space-faring civilization. Flying a few priveleged members of society a dozen times a year is hardly a space-faring society.
Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin? Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.
Offline
Like button can go here
As to getting "our" feet wet, the question is: whose feet? Engineers, from my own experience, are "a dime a dozen," and so are space tourists. Test pilots, astronauts, cosmonauts and mission specialists most definitely, are not. They must be given every chance, but this time they weren't
From everything I read, NASA is suffering something of a brain drain as many of its senior science and engineering personnel retire. Students nowadays would rather work in other areas than spaceflight and it's showing. So I'm not sure I buy the "dime a dozen" analogy. And to be quite honest, I think it should be our goal to make space a "dime a dozen" place and not some exclusive playground for elitist astronauts. Ad Astra was right, we should be working to make space open to the masses, otherwise I see little point in continuing manned space missions. I'm more excited over the possibilities of space tourism than I am about that over-priced and under utilized lemon called the ISS.
To achieve the impossible you must attempt the absurd
Offline
Like button can go here
Since the ISS is operational and "out there" already, let's use it, however we have to reach it, service it and return. Living and surviving, weightless and/or centrifuged, propelled away from Earth by tether, lightsail, plasma sail, solar thermal jets...whatever...can only be developed in LEO. And while cooperating with the Russians et al. doing that, dream up the best conceivable new launching scheme, finance it internationally (why not?) and make it work reliably--starting now!
Offline
Like button can go here
In a few years, the Russians will be launching from Kourou instead of Baikonur, so there will be no need for a high inclination orbit. Maybe at that point it might make sense to push ISS--gradually over several years--into a lower inclination orbit. If an ion engine were available, it could be done gradually with relatively little fuel (say, twenty tonnes or so). That would increase the cargo that existing rockets could deliver to it and make it more accessible for shuttle or OSP flights.
-- RobS
Offline
Like button can go here
Good thinking...use whatever "we" have to work with in LEO. Don't let the ploliticos "blow it," again!
Offline
Like button can go here
Relocating the ISS into a lower inclination orbit would be a perfect test for a VASIMR thruster. The engine that gets us to Mars must be put through the wringer in a less demanding and closer-to-home way before it's ready to propel humans.
If ISS is moved, should it be moved to 28.5 degrees (allowing a shuttle, in its normal orbit, to dock at will,) or should it be put in equatorial orbit to synch up with RSA / ESA spacecraft?
Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin? Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.
Offline
Like button can go here
Or the OSP should be designed to reach geosynch orbit? I heard that it's going to be designed with increased manuverability. This orbit seems to be the best.
Offline
Like button can go here
GEO requires too much delta-V for a manned spacecraft--almost as much as a trip to the moon.
Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin? Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.
Offline
Like button can go here
Commercial Soyuz rockets wil be launching from Korou in the near future; it's not unreasonable to think that manned launches will be far behind.
Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin? Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.
Offline
Like button can go here
Kourou is the ESA spaceport in French Guiana. It's practically on the equator, so it's probably the most ideal place to launch a rocket into orbit, from a delta-V standpoint.
Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin? Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.
Offline
Like button can go here