11 ms·

Soyuz is mentioned in the CAIB report. +++++++++++ 5.2 Other Vehicles (Soyuz, Ariane 4) There has been some discussion regarding the possibility of sending su

Soyuz is mentioned in the CAIB report. +++++++++++ 5.2 Other Vehicles (Soyuz, Ariane 4) There has been some discussion regarding the possibility of sending supplies to Columbia using an expendable launch vehicle – to lengthen the amount of time available to execute a rescue mission. Because of Columbia's 39-degree orbital inclination, an expendable launch from a launch site with a latitude greater than 39 degrees would not be able to reach Columbia. This rules out a Soyuz/Progress launch. There was an Ariane 4 in French Guiana that successfully launched an Intelsat satellite on February 15. The challenge with developing a supply kit, building an appropriate housing and separation system, and reprogramming the Ariane seems very difficult in three weeks, although this option is still in work. —Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report, Appendix D.13 ++++++++++ (Yanked from the Ars comment section)

grecy 12y ago
Thanks. That makes me wonder why Columbia was at 39-degree orbital inclination - making it unable to get to the ISS, and unable to be rescued by a Soyuz. Reading the purpose of the mission [1], I don't see any reason it needed to be were it was. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-107 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-107
- VLM 12y ago
  Crew and ground comfort (combined with the specific altitude) and it was yet another microgravity mission. I can only get hand wavy about the field is not uniform mass concentration blah blah. Presumably deep in the decimal points, a 40 degree orbit or a 38 degree orbit has higher (although still very small) gravitational anomalies. It was a fairly common "track" for shuttle missions. Perhaps 5 or 6 missions were in the same orbit. (edited to point out this was not cut and paste from the 107 marketing materials, its from an older launch, although the orbit is identical for identical reasons. Basically they reflew a 90s era mission, STS sixty-something) "Columbia will climb to a 173-statute-mile (278-kilometer)-high orbit with a 39-degree inclination to the Earth's equator to allow the seven-member flight crew to maintain the same sleep/wake rhythms they are accustomed to on Earth and to reduce vibrational and directional forces that could affect on-board microgravity experiments."
- brudgers 12y ago
  The assumption is that if something fundamental goes wrong during a space flight, the crew dies. The people involved all know and accept the risk. Yes, NASA prepared a report looking at what could have been done in theory, but the conclusion of the main report was that the damage doomed the spacecraft.
ChuckMcM 12y ago
Thanks. I've passed it along as well.

grecy 12y ago

Thanks. That makes me wonder why Columbia was at 39-degree orbital inclination - making it unable to get to the ISS, and unable to be rescued by a Soyuz. Reading the purpose of the mission [1], I don't see any reason it needed to be were it was. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-107 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-107

VLM 12y ago
Crew and ground comfort (combined with the specific altitude) and it was yet another microgravity mission. I can only get hand wavy about the field is not uniform mass concentration blah blah. Presumably deep in the decimal points, a 40 degree orbit or a 38 degree orbit has higher (although still very small) gravitational anomalies. It was a fairly common "track" for shuttle missions. Perhaps 5 or 6 missions were in the same orbit. (edited to point out this was not cut and paste from the 107 marketing materials, its from an older launch, although the orbit is identical for identical reasons. Basically they reflew a 90s era mission, STS sixty-something) "Columbia will climb to a 173-statute-mile (278-kilometer)-high orbit with a 39-degree inclination to the Earth's equator to allow the seven-member flight crew to maintain the same sleep/wake rhythms they are accustomed to on Earth and to reduce vibrational and directional forces that could affect on-board microgravity experiments."
brudgers 12y ago
The assumption is that if something fundamental goes wrong during a space flight, the crew dies. The people involved all know and accept the risk. Yes, NASA prepared a report looking at what could have been done in theory, but the conclusion of the main report was that the damage doomed the spacecraft.

ChuckMcM 12y ago

Thanks. I've passed it along as well.