5 ms·

hmm a launch rescue plan with no room for error from NSA..speed up even..What we want two disasters with one month? Someone's not dealing with reality wish ful

hmm a launch rescue plan with no room for error from NSA..speed up even..What we want two disasters with one month? Someone's not dealing with reality wish full thinking

PakG1 13y ago
The CAIB asked for options for a hypothetical scenario. They were given options for a hypothetical scenario. It's unknown whether anyone would have had the guts to actually try to do it if the opportunity arose. Furthermore, sacrifice for the sake of rescue is one of the better aspects of humanity that is respected. Otherwise, all risky rescue missions should not happen.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  It's unknown whether anyone would have had the guts to actually try to do it if the opportunity arose. I'll wager that Astronaut crews would have fought each other for the job, same for ground control staff. NASA managers? Obviously not.
- gsnedders 13y ago
  A large part of the CAIB's asking will have been based upon the question of, "could NASA have done more to avoid the fatalities, after the issue had arisen?". If the conclusion of the hypothetical scenario was they could not have launched another craft in time, then it is obvious that, even had NASA known the extent of the damage of Columbia, they would have had no means to bring the crew back safely (though, of course, an Atlantis-based rescue mission wouldn't, per-se, be any safer, because Atlantis could easily fall foul of the same issue Columbia had).
mortov 13y ago
The reality would be that if people knew of the extreme threat to life which existed, they would look to leaders such as the President and NASA to show they valued that life. While in a military command and control situation it 'makes sense' to say these people are already lost, we just abandon them and move on, that would not be acceptable to the general public as that's not how things are perceived. Indeed, it would almost certainly destroy the ability of NASA to continue if they were seen to be so impotent and incapable of doing anything when things go wrong. A dramatic, high risk rescue attempt would possibly be the only option, even if that itself ended in disaster and death of all involved (a real risk according to the theoretical plan). I think the public would have been more at ease knowing that a real rescue attempt was made and that genuine heroes had made the ultimate sacrifice in an attempt to save their colleages. People are all mushy and emotional like that. Would it have made sense in terms of risk assessment, as a direct risk-reward evaluation ? Clearly not. But it's not always about that. Besides, this is an alternative time-line scenario which never was. Those always have the benefit of working just like in feel-good Hollywood movies.
mikeash 13y ago
They didn't even try. If you study the problem and start prepping and when the time comes you decide it's too risky, that's one thing. But to just blow off the idea without even looking into it is not smart.
- DEinspanjer 13y ago
  They surely made a mistake, but I don't believe it is what you are accusing them of here. They had a long history of debris strikes in previous launches. They did not know that there was catastrophic damage to the wing's heat shield. They noticed the strike after the shuttle was in orbit. They elected not to disrupt the schedule of the crew or request additional observation resources (i.e. ground telescopes) to inspect it, and instead, they did some mathematics modeling of the strike which ended up being inconclusive, so they chose not to spend more time and money investigate further. That is not the same as thinking they knew there was a problem and the astronauts were doomed but they decided not to even bother trying to rescue them.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    A lot of the "didn't even try" is buried in your "elected not to" phrasing. Yes, they didn't check out the damage visually, which is another way of saying they didn't even try to assess the damage. At least part of that decision seems to have been driven by the fatalistic idea that a rescue was impossible and so it didn't really matter. Also, I reach the opposite conclusion you do from "a long history of debris strikes". To me, this says that they absolutely knew there was a problem, and had known it for a very long time, but merely got used to it and dismissed it due to the ridiculous idea that it's OK to ignore if it hasn't killed anybody in the past. That history makes them look worse, not better. Same thing happened with Challenger and the O-ring leaks. The leaks were a serious problem and smart people said as much, but the concerns were dismissed on the basis that previous flights hadn't exploded so the leaks must not be serious.
    - dandelany 13y ago
      Agreed. From wikipedia - "Engineers made three separate requests for Department of Defense (DOD) imaging of the shuttle in orbit to more precisely determine damage. While the images were not guaranteed to show the damage, the capability existed for imaging of sufficient resolution to provide meaningful examination. NASA management did not honor the requests and in some cases intervened to stop the DOD from assisting."
krstck 13y ago
The importance of designing the rescue plan was not simply wishful thinking, but to prevent future disasters. After Columbia, a rescue mission was planned alongside each shuttle launch in case this happened again (it didn't).

hmm a launch rescue plan with no room for error from NSA..speed up even..What we want two disasters with one month? Someone's not dealing with reality wish full thinking

PakG1 13y ago

The CAIB asked for options for a hypothetical scenario. They were given options for a hypothetical scenario. It's unknown whether anyone would have had the guts to actually try to do it if the opportunity arose. Furthermore, sacrifice for the sake of rescue is one of the better aspects of humanity that is respected. Otherwise, all risky rescue missions should not happen.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
It's unknown whether anyone would have had the guts to actually try to do it if the opportunity arose. I'll wager that Astronaut crews would have fought each other for the job, same for ground control staff. NASA managers? Obviously not.
gsnedders 13y ago
A large part of the CAIB's asking will have been based upon the question of, "could NASA have done more to avoid the fatalities, after the issue had arisen?". If the conclusion of the hypothetical scenario was they could not have launched another craft in time, then it is obvious that, even had NASA known the extent of the damage of Columbia, they would have had no means to bring the crew back safely (though, of course, an Atlantis-based rescue mission wouldn't, per-se, be any safer, because Atlantis could easily fall foul of the same issue Columbia had).

mortov 13y ago

The reality would be that if people knew of the extreme threat to life which existed, they would look to leaders such as the President and NASA to show they valued that life. While in a military command and control situation it 'makes sense' to say these people are already lost, we just abandon them and move on, that would not be acceptable to the general public as that's not how things are perceived. Indeed, it would almost certainly destroy the ability of NASA to continue if they were seen to be so impotent and incapable of doing anything when things go wrong. A dramatic, high risk rescue attempt would possibly be the only option, even if that itself ended in disaster and death of all involved (a real risk according to the theoretical plan). I think the public would have been more at ease knowing that a real rescue attempt was made and that genuine heroes had made the ultimate sacrifice in an attempt to save their colleages. People are all mushy and emotional like that. Would it have made sense in terms of risk assessment, as a direct risk-reward evaluation ? Clearly not. But it's not always about that. Besides, this is an alternative time-line scenario which never was. Those always have the benefit of working just like in feel-good Hollywood movies.

mikeash 13y ago

They didn't even try. If you study the problem and start prepping and when the time comes you decide it's too risky, that's one thing. But to just blow off the idea without even looking into it is not smart.

DEinspanjer 13y ago
They surely made a mistake, but I don't believe it is what you are accusing them of here. They had a long history of debris strikes in previous launches. They did not know that there was catastrophic damage to the wing's heat shield. They noticed the strike after the shuttle was in orbit. They elected not to disrupt the schedule of the crew or request additional observation resources (i.e. ground telescopes) to inspect it, and instead, they did some mathematics modeling of the strike which ended up being inconclusive, so they chose not to spend more time and money investigate further. That is not the same as thinking they knew there was a problem and the astronauts were doomed but they decided not to even bother trying to rescue them.
- mikeash 13y ago
  A lot of the "didn't even try" is buried in your "elected not to" phrasing. Yes, they didn't check out the damage visually, which is another way of saying they didn't even try to assess the damage. At least part of that decision seems to have been driven by the fatalistic idea that a rescue was impossible and so it didn't really matter. Also, I reach the opposite conclusion you do from "a long history of debris strikes". To me, this says that they absolutely knew there was a problem, and had known it for a very long time, but merely got used to it and dismissed it due to the ridiculous idea that it's OK to ignore if it hasn't killed anybody in the past. That history makes them look worse, not better. Same thing happened with Challenger and the O-ring leaks. The leaks were a serious problem and smart people said as much, but the concerns were dismissed on the basis that previous flights hadn't exploded so the leaks must not be serious.
  - dandelany 13y ago
    Agreed. From wikipedia - "Engineers made three separate requests for Department of Defense (DOD) imaging of the shuttle in orbit to more precisely determine damage. While the images were not guaranteed to show the damage, the capability existed for imaging of sufficient resolution to provide meaningful examination. NASA management did not honor the requests and in some cases intervened to stop the DOD from assisting."

krstck 13y ago

The importance of designing the rescue plan was not simply wishful thinking, but to prevent future disasters. After Columbia, a rescue mission was planned alongside each shuttle launch in case this happened again (it didn't).