One of the reasons that NASA is willing to launch the Shuttle, even though they can't fully resolve the foam issues, is that they're not concerned about losing a crew from it, as they did with Columbia, because they're going to ISS, and can remain on orbit if necessary, at least for a while. I should note that I may have been the first to publicly discuss this option, less than a week after Columbia was lost, in which I advocated that we tame the wilderness into which we had sent the crew of that ill-fated ship:

I've written before about the fragility and brittleness of our space transportation infrastructure. I was referring to the systems that get us into space, and the ground systems that support them.

But we have an even bigger problem, that was highlighted by the loss of the Columbia on Saturday. Our orbital infrastructure isn't just fragile--it's essentially nonexistent, with the exception of a single space station at a high inclination, which was utterly unreachable by the Columbia on that mission.

Imagine the options that Mission Control and the crew would have had if they'd known they had a problem, and there was an emergency rescue hut (or even a Motel 6 for space tourists) in their orbit, with supplies to buy time until a rescue mission could be deployed. Or if we had a responsive launch system that could have gotten cargo up to them quickly.

As it was, even if they'd known that the ship couldn't safely enter, there was nothing they could do. And in fact, the knowledge that there were no solutions may have subtly influenced their assessment that there wasn't a problem.

The lesson we must take from the most recent shuttle disaster is that we can no longer rely on a single vehicle for our access to the new frontier, and that we must start to build the needed orbital infrastructure in low earth orbit, and farther out, to the moon, so that, in the words of the late Congressman George Brown, "greater metropolitan earth" is no longer a wilderness in which a technical failure means death or destruction.

NASA's problem hasn't been too much vision, even for near-earth activities, but much too little. But it's a job not just for NASA--to create that infrastructure, we will have to set new policies in place that harness private enterprise, just as we did with the railroads in the 19th Century. That is the policy challenge that will come out of the latest setback--to begin to tame the harsh wilderness only two hundred miles above our heads.

Note that in its proposed ESAS architecture, NASA has not learned those lessons, though COTS may be a baby step in that direction, if it survives.

In any event, I wonder if they've really thought the scenario through?

OK, they launch, and the cameras reveal that they've taken some foam hits on the way up. They get to ISS, and do an inspection. There are three possibilities:

1. The damage is obvious, and will obviously be fatal if a return attempt is made
   
2. The damage is minimal, and it's obvious that a return is safe, or
   
3. The damage is obvious, but less obvious is how dangerous a return attempt would be.

Scenario 2 is easy--just come home.

Scenarios 1 and 3 are more problematic. Scenario 1 is actually two potentials--one in which there is no hope of repair, and the other in which a repair attempt can be made, which converts it to scenario 3, since the degree of confidence in an in-space repair will be unknown, given our lack of real-life experience with it.

But for Scenario 1 in which no repair seems possible, the orbiter is now the largest piece of space junk ever launched. What do we do with it?

Well, if we had ever installed the servos necessary to drop the gear and control the nose wheel and brakes, we could send it down sans crew with fingers crossed, and hope that we could recover it regardless of the damage. There would, after all, be nothing to lose. Presumably this would be an Edwards landing, so the breakup, if/when it occurred, would happen safely over the Pacific (no need for recovery of the pieces, since there will be no doubt of what caused the vehicle to break up).

But wishes aren't horses, and the vehicle is in fact not capable of landing without someone in the cockpit (a state in which it has remained for years as a result of pressure from the astronaut office, or so rumor has it, out of a fear of redundancy). So any return of the crippled orbiter has to be a planned crash landing, should it beat the odds and survive the entry.

So, do we just drop it in the ocean, or do we attempt to belly it in (again, at Edwards). The former is the safest option from the standpoint of third-party hazard, but if we could get it down in (sort of) one piece, then we might learn more about how the damage to the tile seen on orbit correlated to damage that occurred during entry, which would be useful for future TPS design work. We would also have a source for cannibalization of parts should Mike Griffin change his mind and decide to finish out ISS with only two vehicles remaining.

So, those are the options where we are reasonably sure that we have a doomed vehicle. Not easy decisions, but neither are they ones that will keep a NASA administrator up at night.

The really ugly choices come in with the scenario in which the prospects for a safe entry are uncertain.

We still have a three orbiter fleet. It would be highly desirable to keep it at that level. Depending on the perceived level of damage, do we get a volunteer to attempt to bring home a very valuable national asset (one is enough, I believe)? There's a limited pool, of course--it has to be one of the crew at the station, and only a small subset of that crew is qualified for the job. If someone does volunteer, does the agency accept it? It would be irrational to throw away a third of the fleet, and a multibillion dollar asset to avoid risking the life of a willing volunteer whose job it is to take such risks, but I can imagine the agency doing exactly that (with no doubt a lot of kibitzing from the peanut gallery on the Hill).

That's the kind of decision that causes sleepless nights for flight directors and agency heads.

Note that in none of this discussion have I yet addressed how to ultimately get the crew down, and to support them at a crowded ISS until such a time as we can do that. Options for crew return are multiple Soyuz flights, or simply chance another Shuttle flight, with the risk of stranding yet another crew, but only a two-person crew this time. The chances of two incidents in a row (and three out of four in a row, counting Columbia--though that makes it a conditional probability) seem pretty slim to me, but of course the probability of heads on a coin toss is always fifty fifty, regardless of the history. If this option is chosen, likely this will be the last Shuttle mission ever flown, regardless of its success. Unless we become more rational about such things, in which case we may do one more to repair Hubble.

In any event, the administrator may have set himself up for some very interesting decisions in the near future with his decision to launch.

[Update late afternoon Pacific]

I see over at The Flame Trench that NASA plans an August 21st rescue mission with Atlantis (a week earlier than its planned August 28th mission) should it be necessary. That means a seven-week stay at ISS.

I get the impression that Griffin wants to abandon the shuttle, but can't because of various externally imposed constraints. If this is correct, I can't see him passing up a golden opportunity to kill the program.

Yes, there's little doubt, actually, that that's the case. And he almost said as much at his press conference.

I've been told (and I haven't been able to confirm this yet) that there's a "special box" that will be flown on this flight, and stowed away on ISS in case it is needed in the future.

It is a simple controller box (and associated wiring) which can be patched into a shuttle's controls on orbit, allowing it to be landed under remote controlled.

I'd love to get this confirmed, but I haven't seen any public comments from Houston or KSC on this. It may just be a (NASA internal) urban myth. Given its "last resort" nature, though, I could understand not wanting to publicize the existence of something like this,

Well analyzed.

I doubt that. There is no need for a "controller box." What's needed are actual servos to mechanically control the pedals and handle for the gear. As far as I know, the avionics has been able to support this function for many years. If they're really concerned about this eventuality, they'd install it on the ground before the flight.

Suppose you were launching an on-orbit refueling station, or Bigalow inflatable manned station. Among other things, your resources include one (1) in-orbit Shuttle with tile damage.

What could you cannibalize for your station, assuming no major advances in spacewalking? The OMS pods? The arm? The docking adapter? The payload bay radiator panels? Could you detach and use the payload bay doors as a sun shield for your fuel tank?

Suppose you were launching an on-orbit refueling station, or Bigalow inflatable manned station. Among other things, your resources include one (1) in-orbit Shuttle with tile damage.

Only if you're foolish enough to launch it into a 51.6 degree orbit.

That Canadian arm would seem salvage worthy.

Hmmm . . .

I wonder if a highly modified Soyuz could extract it and then attach a booster to accomplish a plane change. Or just dock at ISS and chop the thing up.

Mordid thoughts, no?

The Shuttle has had a software program that can be uploaded to the onboard computers called the "deadman return" that has been available since STS-1. I met one of the programmers for it over 20 years ago.

Dennis

As even an unrecoverable orbiter is still US government property, a private outfit would do well to ask permission before attempting any salvage. Just being (presumably) abandoned, isn't enough. Witness Liberty Bell 7...

Come on Rand, the Shuttle is great! We should keep the system around for another 25 years. Just check out the awesome specs on this system. For a mere 4? 5? billion dollars we get to fly, maybe, up to 3 Shuttles in a year. Except for in the years where they're still tinkering with the system (it's only a 30+ year old design, you can't expect it to be tested and debugged by now!), in which case it still costs the same amount of money, except you don't fly. But ignore that for a second. Just think of all the things you can do with the Shuttle. You can fly to low Earth orbit. Or, you can fly to, um, low Earth orbit. And back again! (maybe) Uh, you can also fly sub-orbitally. Uhhh. And there's that arm thingy, and stuff.

At the very least you have to admit that we wouldn't have the manned spaceflight program we have today without the Shuttle!

Another option for scenario 1 and 3 is to just leave the shuttle up there and sell it to some entrepenuer who can turn it into the first space hotel thus beating out Bigelow!

Team up with the Russians who could easily ferry guest and supplies to and from it.

There are reports on NASASpaceflight.com and its forums of the box to allow unmanned return of Discovery.

> Dennis
> The Shuttle has had a software program that can be uploaded to the
> onboard computers called the "deadman return" that has been available
> since STS-1. I met one of the programmers for it over 20 years ago.

I worked in the shuttle flight planing department '81-'87, and I was told that unlike Apollo, Shuttle CAN'T be flown by remote. Further in the early shuttles the avionic software load for deorbit burn, adn reentry/landing was different, and the computers needed to be manually whiped and reloaded with the different software post deorbit burn.

One thing I don't hear mentioned. How can the 7 shuttle crew folk survive with the 2-3 ISS crew, on the ISS whose life support is mearly capable of supporting the 3-4 person crew ISS was designed for - after shuttle runs out of fuel and power after a week or two?

It's worth more in orbit.

1) Don't have to pay for analyzing the crash debris
2) Don't have to pay for a refit if it miraculously survives
3) Can reuse all the stuff to build cool artwork in space
4) As long as the air seals hold, we could use it as a new space hotel to comfortably house 7 (for may only $300 million in supplies and crew transfer costs per stay)
5) Don't have to pay to move it in front of a NASA center

Kelly,

There are sufficient stockpiles on ISS for the sheltering crew to last a pretty signficant time. (I don't remember what the rough duration was, but I remember thinking that it was a reasonable amount of time.)

Sam,

There's no way NASA would leave a derelict shuttle on orbit for a significant amount of time, unless they had specific tests they wanted to conduct on it. They would deorbit it quickly to prevent it from contributing to the orbital debris problem.

One thing I don't hear mentioned. How can the 7 shuttle crew folk survive with the 2-3 ISS crew, on the ISS whose life support is mearly capable of supporting the 3-4 person crew ISS was designed for - after shuttle runs out of fuel and power after a week or two?

President Bush goes to Moscow and begs. Large amounts of US dollars are transferred for a rescue package, several billion.

Three come down immediately in the capsule currently docked, before the Shuttle runs out of power. That leaves six onboard, extra rations from the shuttle, and a week of shuttle life support. Low activity exercise regimes and rationing are enforced to keep chlorate candles (as that darn elektron is broken again) and food supply use to a minimum.

Russia now fast tracks as many Progress flights filled with as many chlorate candles, water, and dry rations possible. M-57 just arrived, pull everything off with the extra manpower and dump trash. We have a few supplies for a while. Working round the clock ground crews try to get M-58 ready by september, and M-59 by november.

Next planned Soyuz, TMA-9 is in September. This may be able to be pushed forward to August. Fill it to the brim with dry rations and chlorate candles plus parts for that damn elektron which has broken again, unload it as fast as you can, then undock. Four are now onboard ISS without a lifeboat.

TMA-10 is planned for March, and will likely not be able to be pushed forward to before January since half of the craft isnt built yet. Hopefully nothing else by now has broken on ISS by launch. With some luck, january launch and two remain. Again, Elektron breaks soon after repair.

TMA-11 is fast tracked, assuming work round the clock it may be ready by april for launch. Station is now abandoned till TMA-12.

>Kelly,
>
>There are sufficient stockpiles on ISS for the sheltering crew to last
>a pretty signficant time. (I don't remember what the rough duration was,
> but I remember thinking that it was a reasonable amount of time.)

They stockpile air, and have enough extra CO2 scrubbers? Enough for months? I mean the Soyoz can only take down 2 at a time - and they can't boost them up once a week or whatever. I can't see us risking launching another shuttle, to rescue the first group if they find Shuttle still trash their TPS.

Thanks for the detailed responce Chris. Not sure I would bet money on it being doable - but were already cutting safty corners to launch anyway, why quibble.

They stockpile air, and have enough extra CO2 scrubbers? Enough for months?

Yes.

Kelly

I did not say anything about flying the Shuttle remotely. The Shuttle today is flown automatically by the onboard software until about 10-30,000 feet above the runway and that is mostly as a sop to the "pilots" onboard.

Dennis

They stockpile air, and have enough extra CO2 scrubbers? Enough for months? I mean the Soyoz can only take down 2 at a time - and they can't boost them up once a week or whatever.

It's an insane gamble to leave six up there without a lifeboat, but what else can you do? It's better than leaving nine. A Soyuz takes 18 months to prepare for launch, and in a pinch you can only push that forward by a few months at most. Three are currently in the pipeline.

Ideally, the next shuttle will be sent up with not more than three crew. That'll make evacuation within three months fairly easy should the 'inconcievable' happen.

Ideally, the next shuttle will be sent up with not more than three crew. That'll make evacuation within three months fairly easy should the 'inconcievable' happen.

If its that bad, then why bother?

It's not that bad. There's a 98% chance that the launch will go without a hitch. If I were running NASA, that'd be something I could live with.