At 20:38 01/02/2003, you wrote:
>Somewhat speculative info:
>
>I heard on ABC news this afternoon that there had been
>some external fuel tank insulation knocked off during
>launch of the Columbia, and it had impacted the wing
>surface or some such on I think the left side. Then
>there's a report of a temperature variation in the
>same wing during the early reentry period.
Although that sounds somewhat implausible (how would ABC know, when no-one
else does?), I wouldn't be entirely surprised if it was the case.
Incidentally, does anyone know if Columbia had been updated to the latest
flight s/w & h/w? I know there was work on-going to do this, but I've no
knowledge of what stage they'd got to.
>The news report said that since the mission didn't
>have the mech arm they couldn't inspect the wing
>during the mission, but used instead video footage of
>the launch to determine that there wasn't any damage.
>
>Perhaps, unfortunately, it was worse after the
>vibrations of launch?
It seems to me that maybe a little complacency might have set in. Maybe
they've landed slightly damaged orbiters before, with no ill effects.
Certainly the post-Challenger analysis was that safety procedures were less
rigorous than they ought to have been. There've been nearly a hundred
flights since then (or is it slightly more, I forget), maybe - just maybe -
someone made a wrong call based on the fact "it's always worked before".
The trouble is, even if they'd aborted the landing (before the Shuttle left
ISS presumably), what then?
I do feel for the astronaut's families, and in almost equal measure for the
future of humanity in space. We have *got* to find a better way of getting
in and out of the gravity well.
--
Cheers, Ade.
Be where it's at, B-Racing!
http://b-racing.com
Received on Sat Feb 01 2003 - 16:37:00 GMT