• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Better to die unexpectedly than know in advance?

Whitewing

Well-known member
Ten years ago today the Shuttle Columbia broke apart over east Texas and western Louisiana. All 7 astronauts on board died in the accident.

I suspect most folks recall where they were when that news broke. I sure do. I was in Louisiana.

I always wondered if there weren't rescue opportunites available....using the space laboratory, or perhaps another shuttle craft. Today I saw the article linked below and was somewhat surprised to learn that the crew were not made aware of the extent of the damages that NASA believed at the time had occurred during liftoff, or that there was a significant chance they would not survive re-entry.

Here's the article sub-headline and link:

'I think they would rather not know. Wouldn't it be better to have a happy successful flight and die unexpectedly during entry than know there was nothing to be done, until the air ran out?' How Columbia crew died in ignorance

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2271525/It-better-die-unexpectedly-Columbia-Shuttle-Crew-Not-Told-Possible-Problem-With-Reentry.html#ixzz2JesRBVcn

After reading that article, I read the wiki story on the disaster and was very surprised to read this:

The CAIB determined that a rescue mission, though risky, might have been possible provided NASA management had taken action soon enough.[48][49] They stated that had NASA management acted in time, two possible contingency procedures were available: a rescue mission by shuttle Atlantis, and an emergency spacewalk to attempt repairs to the left wing thermal protection.

Normally a rescue mission is not possible, due to the time required to prepare a shuttle for launch, and the limited consumables (power, water, air) of an orbiting shuttle. However, Atlantis was well along in processing for a March 1 launch on STS-114, and Columbia carried an unusually large quantity of consumables due to an Extended Duration Orbiter package. The CAIB determined that this would have allowed Columbia to stay in orbit until flight day 30 (February 15). NASA investigators determined that Atlantis processing could have been expedited with no skipped safety checks for a February 10 launch. Hence if nothing went wrong there was a five-day overlap for a possible rescue. As mission control could deorbit a shuttle but could not control the orbiter's reentry and landing, it would likely have sent Columbia into the Pacific Ocean;[48] NASA later developed the Remote Control Orbiter system to permit mission control to land a shuttle. Docking at the International Space Station for use as a safe haven while awaiting rescue (or to use the Soyuz to systematically ferry the crew to safety) would have been impossible due to the different orbital inclination of both vehicles.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster

Now, I realize how dangerous space travel is and certainly all astronauts are mentally prepared for whatever comes their way.

But, IMHO, it sure seems that NASA managers dropped the ball on this one.
 

Steve

Well-known member
It is hard to judge what could have happened..

but in my view everything should have at least been tried.. including sending up a second shuttle.

even giving the crew an attempt to repair the damage and make peace would have been a better option..

this crew was trained for the worse.. not to just die instead of trying..
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Steve said:
It is hard to judge what could have happened..

but in my view everything should have at least been tried.. including sending up a second shuttle.

even giving the crew an attempt to repair the damage and make peace would have been a better option..

this crew was trained for the worse.. not to just die instead of trying..

My thoughts exactly Steve. I'm really amazed that NASA managers didn't come under much more criticism for the way that disaster was handled.

Think back to Apollo 13 and how they managed to save that crew with a strong ground effort and baling wire and bubble gum on the ship.
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
Steve said:
It is hard to judge what could have happened..

but in my view everything should have at least been tried.. including sending up a second shuttle.

even giving the crew an attempt to repair the damage and make peace would have been a better option..

this crew was trained for the worse.. not to just die instead of trying..

My thoughts exactly Steve. I'm really amazed that NASA managers didn't come under much more criticism for the way that disaster was handled.

Think back to Apollo 13 and how they managed to save that crew with a strong ground effort and baling wire and bubble gum on the ship.

Well, Apollo 13 took a lot of man hours and wasted a lot of equipment. Think of what type or good could have came from the wasted time and money.

You guys are outdated with your thinking. It is all utilitarianism and ball bearings these days. :roll:
 
Top