Can't say I'm *that* surprised...

[jay]

(deep breath)
Looking at the camera footage, there's a disturbance, separation of a large chunk, followed by turbulence and then everything coming apart. The breakup appears to follow a loss of flight controls, presumably due to the initial event. Lots of possibilities for that event. My leading guesses are the failure of a wing or vertical stabilizer due to fatigue (it is 20+ years old, after all... few cycles, but high-stress ones) or overheating (burn-through of the thermal protection tiles or blankets). Another guess would be that residuals in the one of the maneuvering fuel tanks went off and took out part of the skin and the hydraulics. Or, since this was Columbia's second flight since a major overhaul (I saw its 1st flight afterwards, last March) there could have been something unexpected that was related to the upgrades. Probably not software, this time.

I'd shaken hands once with McCool (recalled in part because I thought of "Peanuts" after I saw his name plate), and remember seeing the Indian lady in the halls of Bldg. 4S. Despite the Israeli presence, I *really* doubt terrorism... there were special security and screening measures for this flight, because of that. Timing devices would have been hard to pinpoint, and pressure-triggered devices wouldn't work reliably, either.

It's a terrible tragedy... as wcg said in a comment, a bad day for the good guys. But I would go in a heartbeat, nonetheless, and will resubmit my application at the next call.

My advice to stressed-out folks... turn off the TV. Keep things in perspective... they were volunteers and loved what they were doing. It was a known set of risks. And, as bad at it is... seven lives, compared to hundreds in a commercial airline crash -- which is worse? Really? Shuttles are expensive at $2B/copy, but roughly the same as a B-2 bomber. If a military flight had gone down with its crew, it would be just as tragic for them and their families.

Internal to NASA, there has been a debate over the past several years over the operational lifespan of the current shuttle. They were built in the late 1970s, except for Endeavor. Airliners of the same vintage are being retired now. Over the past two years, I've seen plans calling for shuttle replacement as early as 2007 and as long as 2025. And for the past two or three years, there's been a sense that the law of averages was overdue... over drinks after hours, we'd wonder how much longer we'd go without another major accident. Unofficially, of course... public estimates are of an accident every 80 flights or so. Some argue 1 in 50. In either case, we were over 100 missions with one accident, coming into this one. And operations budgets have been squeezed...

Personally, I've been in favor of proceeding with a next-generation shuttle replacement... but it costs $10B to design a new airliner, double that for a launch vehicle. Space has not been a budget priority, and what there is has gone towards finishing the station. Hence the talk of trying to fly elderly shuttles until 2020. But I think this disaster may force some degree of realism on the folks in DC... the next few months should tell. Sigh.

Comments

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

Your input on this is enormously helpful to me. I needed to hear what I already knew: "Keep things in perspective... they were volunteers and loved what they were doing. It was a known set of risks. . . . If a military flight had gone down with its crew, it would be just as tragic for them and their families."

One of my earlier thoughts, when thinking of the families, was that every time there's an accident when someone's on their way back to a loved one -- the train in Sydney, the shuttle today, any of the crashes on 9/11 -- people are in grief, and those can't be qualified or quantified in relation to one another. If deyo were to be killed in a car accident on his way home from a weekend away, my grief would be right up there with the others.

Mind if I link your post?

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Sure, if you like.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

I think that death and grief are equivalent, person-by-person and family-by-family... just the publicity and media scrutiny varies. As you say elsewhere, it's *and*, not *or*....

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

I feel the same way Mary does. And thank you for saying it.

-J

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

< hugs >. It's really a sad day. We're all in mourning over here.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Appreciated. Things will change...

[anisoptera.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the background information.

[zebraartist.livejournal.com]

thank you for the perspective....sigh.............*firm embrace*

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

You're welcome, and thanks, and I wish that perspective was moot...

[quasigeostrophy.livejournal.com]

Thank you for a more educated confirming of a lot of what I had been thinking, in the perspective and attitude toward this, the possible causes, and the potential NASA fallout. "Law of averages" was very much on my mind when I first saw what had happened. Yes, it was/is a horrible thing for those crewmembers, families, and colleagues - I won't diminish that, but you said things very well.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Since my post, we now have more information (the thermal sensors going, followed by the main gear tire pressure and signs of structural heating) which seems to point towards the thermal protection failure scenario... burn-through followed by structural overheating (tire melted...) followed by structural failure, loss of control and atmospheric break-up.

Re:

[quasigeostrophy.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the update.

[hopeforyou.livejournal.com]

Over the past two years, I've seen plans calling for shuttle replacement as early as 2007 and as long as 2025. And for the past two or three years, there's been a sense that the law of averages was overdue... over drinks after hours, we'd wonder how much longer we'd go without another major accident. Unofficially, of course... public estimates are of an accident every 80 flights or so. Some argue 1 in 50. In either case, we were over 100 missions with one accident, coming into this one. And operations budgets have been squeezed...

Personally, I've been in favor of proceeding with a next-generation shuttle replacement... but it costs $10B to design a new airliner, double that for a launch vehicle. Space has not been a budget priority, and what there is has gone towards finishing the station. Hence the talk of trying to fly elderly shuttles until 2020. But I think this disaster may force some degree of realism on the folks in DC... the next few months should tell. Sigh.

And this is *exactly* what is PISSING ME OFF right now. I accept the rest of it; I know space flight is high risk and dangerous. It's that people knew things were going to be a problem, more money was needed, and nothing was done. Or not nothing -- just not enough.

My emotions are on an uneven keel between sadness and anger. The hope I cling to is the unfortunate thought that our case may be made to have more support for the future.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

The US political system has a lot of trouble mobilizing resources to address threats or problems that are more than 1-2 election cycles distant. Saying that we'd probably lose one every ten years or so was not enough to motivate Congress or the White House. Other than to warn NASA that we'd better be careful with safety (while cutting budgets, in real dollars).

[inquisitor.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the informative viewpoint!

I want to ask a few stupid questions...

I watched the NASA briefing on the accident and the strangest point made was that there is no way to assess damage to the bottom of the shuttle post-launch. What is up with that? I literally have an image of the Vancomme lady in my head going la-la-la-la-la when asked such a question.

Don't we have a $100 Billion International Motel 6 flying up there somewhere? Couldn't the shuttle be evacuated to said rest stop in the event it would likely not survive re-entry?

Beyond that, yeah, they knew the risks, and if anything, I think this points out the need to replace the shuttle as soon as possible.

Thanks again!

[dafydd.livejournal.com]

I was going make a similar comment. Apparently, launch video shows something coming off the left wing during launch. I've heard speculation that it could have been ice or tiles. I thought I heard someone say it was the size of a door. (Yes, I realize this is rampant speculation.) If such video exists, I haven't seen it on any of the major networks.

As far as being able to take pictures, it certainly could have been done. The USAF has aircraft mounted telescopes used for examining satellites. One could have been used to examine the shuttle if such an examination was needed.

(Incidentally, I just heard that Col. Ramon participated in Israel's bombing of the Iraqi reactor in 1980. (81?))

[boubabe.livejournal.com]

BBC News is showing the footage from take-off and pointing out where "something" comes off the left wing. Watch their news coverage if you have the opportunity.

As per NASA press conference on NPR earlier today

[brooksmoses]

What the video shows is a large chunk of foam coming off the external fuel tank and bouncing off the wing of the orbiter. At the time, they did a fairly thorough study of the video and what a piece of foam of that sort would do to the wing, and concluded that it did not pose a significant danger, although of course that conclusion will be revisited.

The launch tapes certainly do not show any obvious damage to the orbiter itself, much less any parts of it physically coming off.

- Brooks

Re: As per NASA press conference on NPR earlier today

[boubabe.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the clarification.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Yes, there are ways to get imaging of the shuttle... my impression is that Mission Operations didn't think damage was sufficiently likely to merit calling the Air Force. If so, I'm sure they regret not doing so...

Although I'm not convinced that the insulation impact caused the apparent TPS problem... at launch, it isn't moving very quickly... imagine being hit with something equivalent to ice-crusted styrofoam at a relative speed of say, 30mph. There might have been a latent TPS issue even without the launch impact. We'll have to wait for the investigation...

[ag-unicorn.livejournal.com]

Thanks, brian1789, for an intelligent and rational view of what has happened from someone that certainly has a lot more knowledge than I do.

And, like you, I'm hoping that this forces a bit more realism on the folks in D.C. to really look at the Shuttle program and cut loose a good deal more money towards research, development and building of the next-gen Shuttle orbiters.

And I devoutly hope that this doesn't cause our Elected Officials to tuck tails between legs and stop space exploration entirely.

A sad day, indeed.

Requiescat im pace, STS-107 crew...and congratulations on a job well-done.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

True, mission completed... except for bringing Columbia home.

And some Congressthings are already saying that NASA shouldn't expect to see significant budget changes, not enough to replace the shuttles. Maybe not even enough to replace Columbia.

[elynne.livejournal.com]

And some Congressthings are already saying that NASA shouldn't expect to see significant budget changes, not enough to replace the shuttles. Maybe not even enough to replace Columbia.

Goddamnit. :(

[ag-unicorn.livejournal.com]

Goddamnit. :(

Seconded, in spades.

Perhaps they think if there was a working space program that they weren't slashing the legs out from under, there might be enough popular support to warrant sending the entire Congress up into space and introducing them to EVA...minus suits.

*shakes head frustratedly*

"Meanwhile, on Earth, another million people were born today..."

One wonders how much longer the Lady's gonna hold up to this sort of stress.

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

My understanding is that the resources - by way of hardware - aren't available for a replacement to be constructed. Endeavour was largely made from existing spares. Those spares have been used up, so a lot of retooling would be needed to build a new shuttle, and that would be very expensive, and you'd still be left with a vehicle that is essentially 70s technology.

A simple replacement is not the best thing to do.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Right... replacing one shuttle from scratch would cost something like $6-8B, while a new launch system is likely to cost $20B.

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

Its probably even worse than that. It could be suggested that the whole X33 debacle was a result of NASA upper management and Lockheed conspiring to keep Lockheed's lucrative expendable launch vehicle business going when a properly developed SSTO system would make the bottom fall out of that market. The Lockheed X33 model, with several highly risky technologies (aerospike engine, multilobed lightweight LOX tank, VTHL configuration, flying wing shape etc.) was selected over much more conservative designs, one of which (McDonnel-Douglas' proposal) already had significant flight experience through DC-X. I wasn't at all surprised when this programme failed. If the DC-X derivative had been selected, 6 years on it might have been flying cargo and maybe people into space.

The sad thing is that that programme probably cannot be resurrected now, because the engineering team has been dispersed to the four winds.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Well... that team was relatively young, and I've met several of them on various other projects. The real problem is that Boeing bought McDD, and Boeing is committed to two-stage-to-orbit.

[sisterfish125.livejournal.com]

Brian: Thanks for the info. I've been thinking about you all day, wondering how you were doing.

How many shuttles are currently in our fleet? I know they were mentioning 4 on the ticker at one point today, but one of the listed ones was Challenger, and I wouldn't think that a newer shuttle would be named that.

[brooksmoses]

There have been, depending on how one counts, five or six shuttles; the Enterprise was a prototype that only made atmospheric flights. Original plans had been to convert it into a flying orbiter, but the Challenger (originally also built as a test version) was converted instead.

OV-101 Enterprise (1975-1979)
OV-99 Challenger (1978/1981-1986)
OV-102 Columbia (1979-2003)
OV-103 Discovery (1983-present)
OV-104 Atlantis (1984-present)
OV-105 Endeavour (1990-present)

Dates are from completion of construction. All info from NASA's orbiter page.

- Brooks

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

You're welcome... and you're used to dealing with grim realities at work, yourself.