About the resupply missions in "The Martian".

[Exoscientist]

Two instances were discussed in the film where unmanned cargo ships were mentioned to send up supplies to extend the time Whatney or the crew of the Hermes could survive.

This brought back painful memories. It's such an obvious answer. In the space shuttle Columbia disaster NASA rejected a possible rescue because Atlantis could not be readied in time within the 16 days the Columbia's supplies would run out.

So since "nothing could be done anyway" there was no need to do accurate imaging to even find out if the wing damage was survivable.

Note in the movie they had to use China to do the resupply mission to the Hermes. If NASA had ordered the Columbia imaging, finding the damage unsurvivable, all the space-faring nations in the world, which are at least five, would have been working hard to send up a cargo mission to meet up with Columbia within the 16 day time frame.

But they never were even given a chance to try.

Bob Clark

[YNM]

Counting it's rather low inclination (31 deg), date (2003 ! China and India was nothing), and the possibility of out-of-sync nodes, that means even ESA or RKA couldn't help much. Korou didn't exist, and 31 deg in LEO is a really low thing for Baikonur.

EDIT : Whoops, I'm wrong ! Ariane 5 launches from Korou since 1996, and Ariane 4 since longer before. But back then... No ATV ? What would they send the food with ?

Edited October 25, 2015 by YNM

[RainDreamer]

And it wasn't a choice of 1 astronaut vs 5 either.

Though rushing things to send a rocket in just 16 days is a very risky and dangerous mission too, with countless ways things could go wrong, potentially causing even more harm and distress to all the astronaut on board. If they tried to launch something up and it failed, the astronauts will know, and they will know what is going to happen to them, and they will spend the rest of their time in despair.

Eitherway, we can choose to look at the past and lament, or choose to move on and honour the memories of those who has gone by make sure nothing like that is going to happen again.

[Nibb31]

Two instances were discussed in the film where unmanned cargo ships were mentioned to send up supplies to extend the time Whatney or the crew of the Hermes could survive.

This brought back painful memories. It's such an obvious answer. In the space shuttle Columbia disaster NASA rejected a possible rescue because Atlantis could not be readied in time within the 16 days the Columbia's supplies would run out.

So since "nothing could be done anyway" there was no need to do accurate imaging to even find out if the wing damage was survivable.

Note in the movie they had to use China to do the resupply mission to the Hermes. If NASA had ordered the Columbia imaging, finding the damage unsurvivable, all the space-faring nations in the world, which are at least five, would have been working hard to send up a cargo mission to meet up with Columbia within the 16 day time frame.

But they never were even given a chance to try.

And what could they have launched ? The only vehicles that could carry cargo in 2003, other than the STS, were Progress, Soyuz or Shenzhou, and they couldn't dock with the Shuttle without extensive modifications. There was no way a Soyuz could have reached Columbia's inclination anyway, and China was no where ready to launch a Shenzhou for such a mission.

And even if you could bring up supplies, Columbia's fuel cells would be dead by then anyway, because there was no way to refuel a Shuttle in flight.

Counting it's rather low inclination (31 deg), date (2003 ! China and India was nothing), and the possibility of out-of-sync nodes, that means even ESA or RKA couldn't help much. Korou didn't exist, and 31 deg in LEO is a really low thing for Baikonur.

Kourou has existed since 1964. In 2003, Ariane 5 was flying regular launches.

[YNM]

Kourou has existed since 1964. In 2003, Ariane 5 was flying regular launches.

I have corrected my post ! But what container would we send the food in ?

[SargeRho]

To a space shuttle? Food is the lesser problem, I think. The bigger problem is that, as Nibb said, you can't refuel the STS in space. And it doesn't use solar power, it uses hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells.

[Stargate525]

Why bring the shuttle down? Instead of taking supplies UP, why didn't they bring SEATS up? Leave Columbia up there for a dedicated repair mission, and just grab the crew?

[Tex_NL]

One question is still on my mind. Was it even possible to refuel, resupply or evacuate Colombia? I mean, was it even possible to dock with the ship? As far as I know flight STS-107 did not go to the ISS. If it didn't go to the ISS is safe to assume it didn't carry any docking facilities. After all you don't want to carry unnecessary weight. And evacuating through the vacuum of space requires suits for the entire crew. How many suits did they carry?

[Nibb31]

Part of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board report focused on what could have been done to save the astronauts. They came up with a rescue mission profile that might have worked. In reality, it would have added the risk of losing even more crewmembers and a second shuttle.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/02/the-audacious-rescue-plan-that-might-have-saved-space-shuttle-columbia/

[_Augustus_]

And what could they have launched ? The only vehicles that could carry cargo in 2003, other than the STS, were Progress, Soyuz or Shenzhou, and they couldn't dock with the Shuttle without extensive modifications. There was no way a Soyuz could have reached Columbia's inclination anyway, and China was no where ready to launch a Shenzhou for such a mission.

And even if you could bring up supplies, Columbia's fuel cells would be dead by then anyway, because there was no way to refuel a Shuttle in flight.

Kourou has existed since 1964. In 2003, Ariane 5 was flying regular launches.

Don't forget that it's illegal for China to work with NASA, unfortunately.

This may change though, a Chinese experiment is gonna be sent up on CRS-8 and there are talks of attaching Tiangong-2 to Node 2.

[YNM]

Why bring the shuttle down? Instead of taking supplies UP, why didn't they bring SEATS up? Leave Columbia up there for a dedicated repair mission, and just grab the crew?

Name one spaceship in 2003 that can reach 31 deg inclination, have up to 7 seats, and can be launched fast except the shuttle itself.

One question is still on my mind. Was it even possible to refuel, resupply or evacuate Colombia? I mean, was it even possible to dock with the ship? As far as I know flight STS-107 did not go to the ISS. If it didn't go to the ISS is safe to assume it didn't carry any docking facilities. After all you don't want to carry unnecessary weight. And evacuating through the vacuum of space requires suits for the entire crew. How many suits did they carry?

Hmm... I don't know, though I think astronauts are good at jury-rigging ? Maybe sending some passive solar panels would help ? Also they need not to dock, they can berth with SSRMS.

[Nibb31]

Hmm... I don't know, though I think astronauts are good at jury-rigging ? Maybe sending some passive solar panels would help ? Also they need not to dock, they can berth with SSRMS.

Did you even read the Ars Technica article that I linked to?

You can't berth without a CBM, and Columbia didn't have a docking system. Other Shuttles had the Russian APAS that was inherited from the Shuttle-Mir program, but even then, they couldn't dock with each other because the docking ports were recessed in the payload bay. The solution that the CAIB came up with was to grapple the shuttle with the SSRMS, to set up a lanyard between the two vehicles, and to EVA each crewmember from one Shuttle to the other.

After Columbia, the Shuttle was reduced to ISS missions only, so that an STS-300 mission could rescue the crew at the ISS.

The only exception was the STS-125 Hubble servicing mission, for which NASA devised the STS-400 rescue mission profile. This had Endeavor on stand-by to Launch On Need in case Atlantis got stranded and would have used the same "grapple and EVA" technique as described in the CAIB report.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Nibb31

[YNM]

Well, maybe something really small with APAS on it ? But that's pretty much unlikely - space vessel can't be made in 16 days, even the smallest one...

Maybe they can grapple their makeshift resupply vessel. Can food survive in hard vacuum anyway ? Would be kind of grocery store outside the shuttle, but there's the problem of oxygen depletion (airlock needs to be repressurized every EVA) soo... Yeah, maybe they're doomed from the strike on.

[Mazon Del]

I probably wouldn't be the worst thing if we tried to set up a treaty between various manned spaceflight capable nations for this sort of thing. Set up a common fund and have there be at least 1 (probably at least 2, to give wider inclination coverage) launch vehicles ready for a quick up and launch (call it 5-ish days?) rigged with a universal docking rig. The hard part I suppose is asking which you'd prefer to spend the money on, resupply or return?

[Nibb31]

I probably wouldn't be the worst thing if we tried to set up a treaty between various manned spaceflight capable nations for this sort of thing. Set up a common fund and have there be at least 1 (probably at least 2, to give wider inclination coverage) launch vehicles ready for a quick up and launch (call it 5-ish days?) rigged with a universal docking rig. The hard part I suppose is asking which you'd prefer to spend the money on, resupply or return?

Having a rescue mission ready for each manned mission isn't reasonable. Most manned missions are going to dock with a station or hab that can act as a safe haven in case of a problem. Also, most spacecraft aren't vulnerable to the sort of problem that the Shuttle had, because their heat shield is typically well-protected.

Standardized docking was the whole idea of the IDS standard. Unfortunately, Russia and China seem to be sticking with APAS for their future vehicles, which rules out easy interoperability on that level.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe they can grapple their makeshift resupply vessel. Can food survive in hard vacuum anyway ? Would be kind of grocery store outside the shuttle, but there's the problem of oxygen depletion (airlock needs to be repressurized every EVA) soo... Yeah, maybe they're doomed from the strike on.

No, food can't survive vacuum, but food would have been the least of their worries. The limitation was the CO2 scrubbers and the fuel cells. The article that I linked too says that the first EVA would have transferred new lithium canisters to Columbia, because the CO2 level would have been the biggest threat.

Unfortunately, pretty much everyone agrees that a rescue mission wasn't possible and they were doomed from the strike on.

[Bill Phil]

Yes it's sad. But people die on Earth just the same. I'm fact, Space Travel is one of the safest.

[Ralathon]

I'm fact, Space Travel is one of the safest.

Per distance unit traveled maybe. But 17 deaths out of 536 people is a deathrate per flight of about 3%. If I had a 3% chance of dieing every time I used my car, I would probably stop driving my car.

[Kryten]

Per distance unit traveled maybe. But 17 deaths out of 536 people is a deathrate per flight of about 3%. If I had a 3% chance of dieing every time I used my car, I would probably stop driving my car.

Also injuries requiring hospitalisation were suffered on Soyuz's 5, 18A, TMA-1 and TMA-11 (3 on 18A, others one each), as well as Apollo 18/ASTP (all three crew), bringing it to a nearly 5% casualty rate.

[Stargate525]

Per distance unit traveled maybe. But 17 deaths out of 536 people is a deathrate per flight of about 3%. If I had a 3% chance of dieing every time I used my car, I would probably stop driving my car.

You can't go just by 'number of astonauts,' when some of these people have spent solid months in space. If you go by man-hours, 1 death per 40k man hours is actually pretty decent.

Name one spaceship in 2003 that can reach 31 deg inclination, have up to 7 seats, and can be launched fast except the shuttle itself.

Not a clue. And no reason to do it in one go. Could have done a pair of Soyuz launches. But I'm not NASA, so my opinion's not the best.

[Kryten]

You can't go just by 'number of astonauts,' when some of these people have spent solid months in space. If you go by man-hours, 1 death per 40k man hours is actually pretty decent.

It's not being in space that's the issue, it's the travel there and back. If you did it by man-hour of launch/EDL operations, it'd be insanely bad.

[Nibb31]

Could have done a pair of Soyuz launches. But I'm not NASA, so my opinion's not the best.

No they couldn't.

[fredinno]

Did you even read the Ars Technica article that I linked to?

You can't berth without a CBM, and shuttles had APAS, but even then, they couldn't dock with each other because the docking ports were recessed in the payload bay. The solution that the CAIB came up with was to grapple the shuttle with the SSRMS, to set up a lanyard between the two vehicles, and to EVA each crewmember from one Shuttle to the other.

After Columbia, the Shuttle was reduced to ISS missions only, so that an STS-300 mission could rescue the crew at the ISS.

The only exception was the STS-125 Hubble servicing mission, for which NASA devised the STS-400 rescue mission profile. This had Endeavor on stand-by to Launch On Need in case Atlantis got stranded and would have used the same "grapple and EVA" technique as described in the CAIB report.

So? Who says they need to dock? Just rendezvous, and EVA the crew from Shuttle A to B.

- - - Updated - - -

Having a rescue mission ready for each manned mission isn't reasonable. Most manned missions are going to dock with a station or hab that can act as a safe haven in case of a problem. Also, most spacecraft aren't vulnerable to the sort of problem that the Shuttle had, because their heat shield is typically well-protected.

Standardized docking was the whole idea of the IDS standard. Unfortunately, Russia and China seem to be sticking with APAS for their future vehicles, which rules out easy interoperability on that level.

- - - Updated - - -

No, food can't survive vacuum, but food would have been the least of their worries. The limitation was the CO2 scrubbers and the fuel cells. The article that I linked too says that the first EVA would have transferred new lithium canisters to Columbia, because the CO2 level would have been the biggest threat.

Unfortunately, pretty much everyone agrees that a rescue mission wasn't possible and they were doomed from the strike on.

The CO2 scrubbers were regenerative- you put them in a vacuum to suck the CO2 out. The problem is power. How much extra H2 O2 was there at Columbia EOM?

- - - Updated - - -

No they couldn't.

Would it have been possible to shove an unmanned Soyuz onto a Ariane 4 AR 44L, or Ariane 5 G (both which have enough payload to launch it), then launch 3 of those in quick succession to save Columbia's crew?

Crew-rating of Ariane would not be needed, as the crew is only in the Soyuz for orbit and reeentry.

[KerikBalm]

Unfortunately, pretty much everyone agrees that a rescue mission wasn't possible and they were doomed from the strike on.

Rescue... no... Jury rigged fix?

Maybe... the shuttles often lost tiles, and even in this case they survived past the point of maximum heating.

A jury rigged fix may have got them home if they had only attempted one

[Kryten]

It's all pointless anyway. Even if you do jury-rig some miraculous rescue plan, they simply did not know that there was damage sufficient to destroy the shuttle at the time. It's like wondering if the allies could have put together a plan to kill hitler in the 20s, preventing WW2; it's nonsense without assuming time travel.

[YNM]

Rescue... no... Jury rigged fix?

Maybe... the shuttles often lost tiles, and even in this case they survived past the point of maximum heating.

A jury rigged fix may have got them home if they had only attempted one

Columbia didn't disintegrated due to lost ceramic heat shield tiles - what broke off was the RCC panels. And any RCC panel is larger than the ceramic tile.

Well... They tested it on ground with actual RCC panel and actual foam block about the same size and mass, approximately correct speed and angle, and one RCC panel just short of fully ripped of. And you do know that the inside of wings is hollow, so...

A wing jury-rig might've make it either worser, or really weird. Imagine seeing a single-winged shuttle that needs to land if it turns out the on-orbit fix fails not-so-shortly before end of ionization phase.