Author Topic: Challenger/Columbia question  (Read 6848 times)

Offline PMN1

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Challenger/Columbia question
« on: 05/17/2007 05:16 pm »
If the Challenger accident had been the same as the Columbia accident, damage during launch causing a break up on return, would that have seen an orbiter replacement looked at sooner?


Were there any other potential bidders for the SRB contract for STS?


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
RE: Challenger/Columbia question
« Reply #1 on: 05/17/2007 05:33 pm »
Quote
PMN1 - 17/5/2007  1:16 PM


Were there any other potential bidders for the SRB contract for STS?

Areojet and CSD

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
RE: Challenger/Columbia question
« Reply #2 on: 05/17/2007 05:35 pm »
Quote
PMN1 - 17/5/2007  1:16 PM

If the Challenger accident had been the same as the Columbia accident, damage during launch causing a break up on return, would that have seen an orbiter replacement looked at sooner?


It wasn't the type of accident that is 'causing" orbiter retirement.  It is the timing (they are old)

Offline NotGncDude

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
  • V
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Challenger/Columbia question
« Reply #3 on: 05/17/2007 06:04 pm »
Timing yes, but just because they're old, or is it that Columbia was the 2nd accident?

Offline Gary

Re: Challenger/Columbia question
« Reply #4 on: 05/17/2007 06:32 pm »
Quote
GncDude - 17/5/2007  7:04 PM

Timing yes, but just because they're old, or is it that Columbia was the 2nd accident?

They are old, need a lot of work and I'm guessing that parts are getting harder to come by. A second accident has nothing to do with the decision. Also now that NASA has the VSE the shuttle is not suitable so out they go.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Challenger/Columbia question
« Reply #5 on: 05/17/2007 06:34 pm »
The accident accelerated it

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Challenger/Columbia question
« Reply #6 on: 05/17/2007 06:56 pm »
It's a combination of things.  Just because you have an accident once does not mean you necessarily scrap everything and start from scratch.  Should Challenger have happened?  No, it was a managerial failure just as much as it was a hardware failure.  The Space Shuttle is a hugely complicated machine and asked to perform a number of requirements, which drives a large part of the complexity.  When it comes to programs like this, their are politics, national priorities, employees effect on various local economies and lots of money on hardware involved that ultimately drive the decision.  Lets go back to 1986 and you have 3 orbiters left, one of which is essentially brand new at the time.  The decision made then was the design, while dangerous, still is relatively sound and that changes can be made on the managerial process.  You have structural spare parts that can be used to assemble a replacement orbiter.  What do you think would be done?  Exactly what happened.  Redesign as necessary to make the SRB joint changes, change the managerial process/structure and use your spare parts to build what would become Endeavour.  

Now, it's 2003 and we loose Columbia.  You still have the same issue as far as politics, economics, etc that I mentioned before.  However what is different this time is a potential to change national priorities.  Before we lost Columbia the plan was to fly until 2020 or so.  The ISS was going to be completed long before then so the orbiters were going to be nothing more than taxis and logistics transports.  There was no focus in what we would do other than that during flights but we knew we needed to figure out how we could make it happen.  The vehicles were aging and as technology evolved it was harder and harder to get replacements, make upgrades where today's equipment could talk to yesterday's equipment, etc.  This was the perfect time to introduce the VSE, which many of these elements also being found in the CAIB report.  Let the Space Shuttle finish the job it was always intended to do, station construction.  This was also a political compromise in order to deliver on our international obligations but it will allow the shuttle to go out on a high note.  

I submit that the loss of Columbia and her crew allowed for the nessecary political forces to make the radical changes that are now happening between Space Shuttle and Constellation transition.  If we did not loose Columbia then I highly doubt we would be talking about going beyond LEO right now.  It's up to all of us to make sure this is indeed a worthy legacy.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Challenger/Columbia question
« Reply #7 on: 05/17/2007 07:38 pm »
Quote
OV-106 - 17/5/2007  7:56 PM

It's a combination of things.  Just because you have an accident once does not mean you necessarily scrap everything and start from scratch.  Should Challenger have happened?  No, it was a managerial failure just as much as it was a hardware failure.  The Space Shuttle is a hugely complicated machine and asked to perform a number of requirements, which drives a large part of the complexity.  When it comes to programs like this, their are politics, national priorities, employees effect on various local economies and lots of money on hardware involved that ultimately drive the decision.  Lets go back to 1986 and you have 3 orbiters left, one of which is essentially brand new at the time.  The decision made then was the design, while dangerous, still is relatively sound and that changes can be made on the managerial process.  You have structural spare parts that can be used to assemble a replacement orbiter.  What do you think would be done?  Exactly what happened.  Redesign as necessary to make the SRB joint changes, change the managerial process/structure and use your spare parts to build what would become Endeavour.  

Now, it's 2003 and we loose Columbia.  You still have the same issue as far as politics, economics, etc that I mentioned before.  However what is different this time is a potential to change national priorities.  Before we lost Columbia the plan was to fly until 2020 or so.  The ISS was going to be completed long before then so the orbiters were going to be nothing more than taxis and logistics transports.  There was no focus in what we would do other than that during flights but we knew we needed to figure out how we could make it happen.  The vehicles were aging and as technology evolved it was harder and harder to get replacements, make upgrades where today's equipment could talk to yesterday's equipment, etc.  This was the perfect time to introduce the VSE, which many of these elements also being found in the CAIB report.  Let the Space Shuttle finish the job it was always intended to do, station construction.  This was also a political compromise in order to deliver on our international obligations but it will allow the shuttle to go out on a high note.  

I submit that the loss of Columbia and her crew allowed for the nessecary political forces to make the radical changes that are now happening between Space Shuttle and Constellation transition.  If we did not loose Columbia then I highly doubt we would be talking about going beyond LEO right now.  It's up to all of us to make sure this is indeed a worthy legacy.

That is a brilliant post.

For those of us on the outside, trying to learn about shuttle - their background and place in space flight history - burn that one into memory.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: Challenger/Columbia question
« Reply #8 on: 05/17/2007 09:16 pm »
Quote
Jim - 17/5/2007  12:35 PM
It wasn't the type of accident that is 'causing" orbiter retirement.  It is the timing (they are old)

This is not true.  As late as January 31, 2003 NASA had plans to keep operating the shuttle until 2020.  In fact, I have a CD-ROM around here somewhere called "Shuttle 2020" produced by a contractor.  NASA and the contractors believed that with regular servicing and a low flight rate, they could have operated the shuttles until at least that date, possibly longer.  They were not nuts in thinking this, considering that most of the B-52s flying today were built in the early 1960s and are planned to serve until around 2020 or so.

However, as the CAIB report indicated (I cannot remember how much of this detail remained in the report), NASA has at times had various different dates for retiring the shuttle.  The retirement dates were always primarily policy-driven, based upon the assumption of when NASA would have a replacement vehicle available.  The dates were notably not driven by an assessment of when the shuttle would "wear out."  When NASA ran out of money to replace the shuttle, they then extended the shuttle's retirement date.

That said, it's an aging vehicle and as the USAF knows, aging vehicles develop issues that have to be closely monitored (although most of those issues are associated with how often the vehicle flies and not with its actual age--a new airplane that is flown a lot will wear out faster than an old one that is rarely flown at all).  

What the CAIB said was that _if_ NASA wanted to continue operating the shuttle into the future, at some point it should essentially "re-certify" the vehicle, just as the US Air Force does.  CAIB said that NASA should do this by 2010, which was then projected to be the date by which ISS construction would be complete.

Now just exactly what "re-certify" means nobody knows--and that was both NASA's problem as well as CAIB's intention.  What CAIB knew was that "re-certification" would be difficult and expensive.  In other words, this was the way that the investigation board told NASA that they should seriously evaluate whether they should continue the shuttle or replace it.

When the Vision was announced in January 2004, it took that 2010 date and said that this is when NASA would retire the shuttle.  Left unstated was the fact that CAIB had called for "re-certification" at that point and NASA would either have to spend a lot of money or ignore the CAIB recommendation.

I do not know for certain, but suspect that the CAIB picked this date and this action in order to force NASA to retire the shuttle and develop a system that was inherently safer (i.e. putting the crew capsule on top and equipping it with an escape system).  But although I worked as an investigator for CAIB, I do not know why all of the recommendations were included in the report.

Offline PMN1

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Challenger/Columbia question
« Reply #9 on: 05/17/2007 09:17 pm »
Quote
Jim - 17/5/2007  12:35 PM

Quote
PMN1 - 17/5/2007  1:16 PM

If the Challenger accident had been the same as the Columbia accident, damage during launch causing a break up on return, would that have seen an orbiter replacement looked at sooner?


It wasn't the type of accident that is 'causing" orbiter retirement.  It is the timing (they are old)

But is 1986 too soon for anyone to be openly suggesting replacing the orbiter with a capsule?

Offline PMN1

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Challenger/Columbia question
« Reply #10 on: 05/17/2007 09:22 pm »
Quote
Blackstar - 17/5/2007  4:16 PM

Quote
Jim - 17/5/2007  12:35 PM
IThey were not nuts in thinking this, considering that most of the B-52s flying today were built in the early 1960s and are planned to serve until around 2020 or so.


Only because there is nothing to replace them and like the STS, keeping those few B52 that are still flying going is taking a lot of money not to mention having a few hundred (or bits of a few hundred) stored at the Desert Boneyard over the years - admittedly not all the parts from the various versions are interchangable but enough have been to date.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: Challenger/Columbia question
« Reply #11 on: 05/17/2007 09:44 pm »
Quote
PMN1 - 17/5/2007  4:22 PM
Only because there is nothing to replace them and like the STS, keeping those few B52 that are still flying going is taking a lot of money not to mention having a few hundred (or bits of a few hundred) stored at the Desert Boneyard over the years - admittedly not all the parts from the various versions are interchangable but enough have been to date.



You're missing the point.

NASA was not projecting an _increased_ cost for operating the orbiter due to age.  CAIB, however, gave a recommendation that _would_ increase the cost starting in 2010.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
RE: Challenger/Columbia question
« Reply #12 on: 05/17/2007 09:53 pm »
Quote
PMN1 - 17/5/2007  4:17 PM

Quote
Jim - 17/5/2007  12:35 PM

Quote
PMN1 - 17/5/2007  1:16 PM

If the Challenger accident had been the same as the Columbia accident, damage during launch causing a break up on return, would that have seen an orbiter replacement looked at sooner?


It wasn't the type of accident that is 'causing" orbiter retirement.  It is the timing (they are old)

But is 1986 too soon for anyone to be openly suggesting replacing the orbiter with a capsule?

It was too soon to be taken seriously suggesting replacing shuttle with anything.   The shuttle system was still "new".  NASA had only just started flying Atlantis, for example, and had just used Pad 39B for the first time, etc.  Capsules would not have been considered back then, because reusability was still in vogue.  

This is not to say that there weren't voices calling for the end of the space shuttle program.  There was an interesting article in Time or Newsweek or some popular science magazine with that thesis as early as 1985, for example.  But calling it quits after so many billions just invested wasn't going to happen in 1986.  

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: Challenger/Columbia question
« Reply #13 on: 05/18/2007 01:48 am »
Quote
Chris Bergin - 17/5/2007  3:38 PM

Quote
OV-106 - 17/5/2007  7:56 PM

It's a combination of things.  Just because you have an accident once does not mean you necessarily scrap everything and start from scratch.  Should Challenger have happened?  No, it was a managerial failure just as much as it was a hardware failure.  The Space Shuttle is a hugely complicated machine and asked to perform a number of requirements, which drives a large part of the complexity.  When it comes to programs like this, their are politics, national priorities, employees effect on various local economies and lots of money on hardware involved that ultimately drive the decision.  Lets go back to 1986 and you have 3 orbiters left, one of which is essentially brand new at the time.  The decision made then was the design, while dangerous, still is relatively sound and that changes can be made on the managerial process.  You have structural spare parts that can be used to assemble a replacement orbiter.  What do you think would be done?  Exactly what happened.  Redesign as necessary to make the SRB joint changes, change the managerial process/structure and use your spare parts to build what would become Endeavour.  

Now, it's 2003 and we loose Columbia.  You still have the same issue as far as politics, economics, etc that I mentioned before.  However what is different this time is a potential to change national priorities.  Before we lost Columbia the plan was to fly until 2020 or so.  The ISS was going to be completed long before then so the orbiters were going to be nothing more than taxis and logistics transports.  There was no focus in what we would do other than that during flights but we knew we needed to figure out how we could make it happen.  The vehicles were aging and as technology evolved it was harder and harder to get replacements, make upgrades where today's equipment could talk to yesterday's equipment, etc.  This was the perfect time to introduce the VSE, which many of these elements also being found in the CAIB report.  Let the Space Shuttle finish the job it was always intended to do, station construction.  This was also a political compromise in order to deliver on our international obligations but it will allow the shuttle to go out on a high note.  

I submit that the loss of Columbia and her crew allowed for the nessecary political forces to make the radical changes that are now happening between Space Shuttle and Constellation transition.  If we did not loose Columbia then I highly doubt we would be talking about going beyond LEO right now.  It's up to all of us to make sure this is indeed a worthy legacy.

That is a brilliant post.

For those of us on the outside, trying to learn about shuttle - their background and place in space flight history - burn that one into memory.

Couldn't agree more, Chris...well done, OV106!!!!
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline Orbiter Obvious

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Challenger/Columbia question
« Reply #14 on: 05/18/2007 03:33 am »
Quote
51D Mascot - 17/5/2007  8:48 PM

Quote
Chris Bergin - 17/5/2007  3:38 PM

Quote
OV-106 - 17/5/2007  7:56 PM

It's a combination of things.  Just because you have an accident once does not mean you necessarily scrap everything and start from scratch.  Should Challenger have happened?  No, it was a managerial failure just as much as it was a hardware failure.  The Space Shuttle is a hugely complicated machine and asked to perform a number of requirements, which drives a large part of the complexity.  When it comes to programs like this, their are politics, national priorities, employees effect on various local economies and lots of money on hardware involved that ultimately drive the decision.  Lets go back to 1986 and you have 3 orbiters left, one of which is essentially brand new at the time.  The decision made then was the design, while dangerous, still is relatively sound and that changes can be made on the managerial process.  You have structural spare parts that can be used to assemble a replacement orbiter.  What do you think would be done?  Exactly what happened.  Redesign as necessary to make the SRB joint changes, change the managerial process/structure and use your spare parts to build what would become Endeavour.  

Now, it's 2003 and we loose Columbia.  You still have the same issue as far as politics, economics, etc that I mentioned before.  However what is different this time is a potential to change national priorities.  Before we lost Columbia the plan was to fly until 2020 or so.  The ISS was going to be completed long before then so the orbiters were going to be nothing more than taxis and logistics transports.  There was no focus in what we would do other than that during flights but we knew we needed to figure out how we could make it happen.  The vehicles were aging and as technology evolved it was harder and harder to get replacements, make upgrades where today's equipment could talk to yesterday's equipment, etc.  This was the perfect time to introduce the VSE, which many of these elements also being found in the CAIB report.  Let the Space Shuttle finish the job it was always intended to do, station construction.  This was also a political compromise in order to deliver on our international obligations but it will allow the shuttle to go out on a high note.  

I submit that the loss of Columbia and her crew allowed for the nessecary political forces to make the radical changes that are now happening between Space Shuttle and Constellation transition.  If we did not loose Columbia then I highly doubt we would be talking about going beyond LEO right now.  It's up to all of us to make sure this is indeed a worthy legacy.

That is a brilliant post.

For those of us on the outside, trying to learn about shuttle - their background and place in space flight history - burn that one into memory.

Couldn't agree more, Chris...well done, OV106!!!!

That's why I like it around here. I'm still at school so only know a few bits before Columbia's loss. When I tell friends about my interest in Shuttles, they think they are cool, but think what they are used for now is a bit pointless and NASA should have stopped after Columbia.

I'm so linking that post and mailing them cause that said everything a million times better than I ever could.

We should have a nomination thing where uber awesome posts like that are quoted into a special thread.

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Challenger/Columbia question
« Reply #15 on: 05/18/2007 08:38 am »
Good idea, I'll have a think about how we could do this. Anyway, back on to the thread's subject...
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline rfoshaug

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Challenger/Columbia question
« Reply #16 on: 05/18/2007 09:38 am »
Quote
OV-106 - 17/5/2007  8:56 PM

I submit that the loss of Columbia and her crew allowed for the nessecary political forces to make the radical changes that are now happening between Space Shuttle and Constellation transition.  If we did not loose Columbia then I highly doubt we would be talking about going beyond LEO right now.  It's up to all of us to make sure this is indeed a worthy legacy.


Very well said, OV-106! Columbia was a tragic accident, but at least some good things came out of it as well.

Offline PMN1

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Challenger/Columbia question
« Reply #17 on: 05/18/2007 01:59 pm »
Agreed, great post by OV-106.

By the time of Challenger, the STS had been abandoned by the USAF who were responsible in part for they way it ended up and it must have been apparent how much time was taken up checking out an orbitter after every mission.

I would be a bit surprised if the possibility of the 'something else' wasn't being talked about in private.

Offline PMN1

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Challenger/Columbia question
« Reply #18 on: 05/18/2007 02:00 pm »
Quote
Jim - 17/5/2007  12:33 PM

Quote
PMN1 - 17/5/2007  1:16 PM


Were there any other potential bidders for the SRB contract for STS?

Areojet and CSD

Were they segmented as well or single units?


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Challenger/Columbia question
« Reply #19 on: 05/18/2007 02:18 pm »
CSD was segmented

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
RE: Challenger/Columbia question
« Reply #20 on: 05/18/2007 02:20 pm »
Quote
PMN1 - 18/5/2007  9:59 AM

Agreed, great post by OV-106.

By the time of Challenger, the STS had been abandoned by the USAF who were responsible in part for they way it ended up and it must have been apparent how much time was taken up checking out an orbitter after every mission.

I would be a bit surprised if the possibility of the 'something else' wasn't being talked about in private.

It wasn't until after Challenger, not before

Offline Gary

Re: Challenger/Columbia question
« Reply #21 on: 05/18/2007 04:48 pm »
Didn't DOD still have a few satellites that had to be launched on the shuttle after Challenger simply because it would have been to hard to convert to them to be flown on EELV's?

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
RE: Challenger/Columbia question
« Reply #22 on: 05/18/2007 05:07 pm »
Quote
Jim - 18/5/2007  10:20 AM

Quote
PMN1 - 18/5/2007  9:59 AM

Agreed, great post by OV-106.

By the time of Challenger, the STS had been abandoned by the USAF who were responsible in part for they way it ended up and it must have been apparent how much time was taken up checking out an orbitter after every mission.

I would be a bit surprised if the possibility of the 'something else' wasn't being talked about in private.

It wasn't until after Challenger, not before

Right, in fact, as I recall, Bob Crippin was in training with a crew for the first flight out of SLCC-6 out at Vandenberg; and I also think that then Deputy or Under Secretary of the Air Force Pete Aldridge was a part of that DoD crew.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
RE: Challenger/Columbia question
« Reply #23 on: 05/18/2007 07:18 pm »
Quote
51D Mascot - 18/5/2007  1:07 PM

Quote
Jim - 18/5/2007  10:20 AM

Quote
PMN1 - 18/5/2007  9:59 AM

Agreed, great post by OV-106.

By the time of Challenger, the STS had been abandoned by the USAF who were responsible in part for they way it ended up and it must have been apparent how much time was taken up checking out an orbitter after every mission.

I would be a bit surprised if the possibility of the 'something else' wasn't being talked about in private.

It wasn't until after Challenger, not before

Right, in fact, as I recall, Bob Crippin was in training with a crew for the first flight out of SLCC-6 out at Vandenberg; and I also think that then Deputy or Under Secretary of the Air Force Pete Aldridge was a part of that DoD crew.

He was and as Under Secretary, which was also DNRO

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Challenger/Columbia question
« Reply #24 on: 05/18/2007 07:22 pm »
Quote
Gary - 18/5/2007  12:48 PM

Didn't DOD still have a few satellites that had to be launched on the shuttle after Challenger simply because it would have been to hard to convert to them to be flown on EELV's?

ELV's?  EELV's only applies to two certain ELV's

But to answer your question, maybe or maybe not.   Or it would have taken longer to get  a ride on T-IV (1st launch june 1989) with a conversion,  or the T-IV que was too full or......

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0