About the resupply missions in "The Martian".

[Nibb31]

That is not correct. There were at least 4 launches to orbit during the proposed 30 day timeframe before Columbia would have run out of air scrubbers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_in_spaceflight

The Pegasus listed there is especially relevant since being airlaunched and using all solid stages should have shorter prep time. In fact the Pegasus could be launched within 7 days of notice, assuming the payload was available. The Minotaur 1 also has this capability:

Note that I wrote "spacecraft", not "rocket". A launcher is nice, but you still need a vehicle to put on top of it, and a 500kg vahicle capable or rendez-vous and resupplying the Shuttle simply didn't exist? And what sort of supplies could you have put into a 500Kg spacecraft, if such a thing existed, anyway?

"Launch on need" is a requirement for small disposable DoD military satellites, not for resupply spacecraft.

[YNM]

We don't just talk of satellites. We need proper spacecraft, that can refuel the shuttle for the sake of it's fuell cell as well (unless you like US astronauts being asphyxiated in it's last days). Maybe my idea with jury-rig panels could work, but safe to say, the Shuttle is really large (and I suppose power-hungry). (half O/T) You can fit four Soyuz into it's cargo bay (very crampedly) judging from images, and Mir with Shuttle looks more like a station docking to another station. It's a spaceborne 737 !

[sgt_flyer]

Does someone have some infos on how the h2/o2 tanks for the shuttle's fuel cells were filled prior to launch ?

Notably did the fuel cell tanks were filled from within the pressurised crew cabin or from somewhere else on the shuttle (which would require an EVA... And in this case, i hope the access procedure don't require more dexterity than what's possible with the EVA suit (if they have to remove access panels etc))

With microgravity, you'd have a hard time refilling liquid tanks (unless you bring a helium pressurised tank to help with it.

(Plus, they would have needed to create this kind of procedure + ressuply tanks within the 30 days time frame)

[YNM]

Looking down the list given by Exoscientist, there's a Delta II launch on flight day 13... USAF launch though, guess nobody wants to edit mess around with that !

Edited November 3, 2015 by YNM
sorry ! was looking for the correct term. bad mind..

[Exoscientist]

Note that I wrote "spacecraft", not "rocket". A launcher is nice, but you still need a vehicle to put on top of it, and a 500kg vahicle capable or rendez-vous and resupplying the Shuttle simply didn't exist? And what sort of supplies could you have put into a 500Kg spacecraft, if such a thing existed, anyway?

"Launch on need" is a requirement for small disposable DoD military satellites, not for resupply spacecraft.

According to the Arstechnica article linked earlier in the thread, the most critical need was for the air scrubbers to remove the CO2. That's what put the survival limit at 30 days. As you remember from the scene in "Apollo 13" where CO2 scrubbers for the command module had to be jury-rigged from those on the lunar module, the air scubbers actually only weigh a few kilos. The food and water could have extended much longer assuming they knew right away that had to conserve consumables.

BTW, since this is in regards to "The Martian", for you chemistry heads out there, are there some foods, liquids, or common materials that might be on the shuttles that could have filtered out the CO2 in air other than the lithium canisters? For instance perhaps the solubility of CO2 in water is different than in O2 and there could have been a way to separate out the CO2 from the air that way.

Bob Clark

- - - Updated - - -

Looking down the list given by Exoscientist, there's a Delta II launch on flight day 13... USAF launch though, guess nobody wants to edit that !

Why edit? Was that not that an actual launch?

Bob Clark

[Nibb31]

According to the Arstechnica article linked earlier in the thread, the most critical need was for the air scrubbers to remove the CO2. That's what put the survival limit at 30 days. As you remember from the scene in "Apollo 13" where CO2 scrubbers for the command module had to be jury-rigged from those on the lunar module, the air scubbers actually only weigh a few kilos. The food and water could have extended much longer assuming they knew right away that had to conserve consumables.

And how would you have got CO2 cartridges from the Pegasus upper stage rocket to the Shuttle? There was no spacecraft that could rendez-vous or transfer anything to the Shuttle, certainly not one that could fit on a Pegasus or or Minotaur rocket, and even less one that could be designed, built, and integrated in a couple of days. It simply wasn't possible.

And the CO2 cartridges were only one of the limitations. The second one was the fuel cells, which used hydrogen and oxygen from dedicated tanks that were not replenishable. The report says that they could have waited 30 days if they had powered down pretty much everything on board, but even with CO2 cartridges, the shuttle would be dead after that.

Why edit? Was that not that an actual launch?

Bob Clark

[YNM]

Meant to say mess around ! But I had a brain fart while thinking what should I write there earlier.

I'm with nibb over the fuel cells, but were there really no way to refuel Shuttle, even for those with APAS fitted ? Maybe some utility panels... ?

[WestAir]

If differential airflow between the wings was the major factor contributing to the loss of Columbia and not the destructive heating of the interior wing components, as several commentators have suggested, then would intentionally damaging the other airfoil so that symmetry exists highten the chance of successfully controlling the aircraft in atmosphere?

Personally, I'm about 99% sure the answer is no, but I've been surprised at the answerto stupid questions before.

[Nibb31]

Meant to say mess around ! But I had a brain fart while thinking what should I write there earlier.

I'm with nibb over the fuel cells, but were there really no way to refuel Shuttle, even for those with APAS fitted ? Maybe some utility panels... ?

Sorry, but nope. The fuel cell tanks were cryogenic and located under liner panels below the payload bay. They weren't accessible anyway since Columbia was carrying Spacehab. The tanks were filled with ground service equipment on the pad through an umbilical panel located below the aft OMS pods. This happened just before launch and the umbilicals were retracted on SRB ignition.

That's an area that wouldn't have been accessible during an EVA because the orbiter didn't have an arm, and of course, it wasn't designed so that you could simply plug in a hose during an in-flight EVA. And it would have been challenging to fit the cryogenic fueling ground equipment (which wasn't designed to work in microgravity) into a spacecraft that could resupply the shuttle.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Nibb31

[Exoscientist]

Looking down the list given by Exoscientist, there's a Delta II launch on flight day 13... USAF launch though, guess nobody wants to edit mess around with that !

Actually saving the astronauts would be higher priority.

Bob Clark

- - - Updated - - -

And how would you have got CO2 cartridges from the Pegasus upper stage rocket to the Shuttle? There was no spacecraft that could rendez-vous or transfer anything to the Shuttle, certainly not one that could fit on a Pegasus or or Minotaur rocket, and even less one that could be designed, built, and integrated in a couple of days. It simply wasn't possible.

And the CO2 cartridges were only one of the limitations. The second one was the fuel cells, which used hydrogen and oxygen from dedicated tanks that were not replenishable. The report says that they could have waited 30 days if they had powered down pretty much everything on board, but even with CO2 cartridges, the shuttle would be dead after that.

The Arstechnica article only gives the time constraint for the CO2 cartridges. It doesn't say how long the O2 or food or water would last. It rather implies though by conserving those they could be made to last until the Atlantis launch.

Catching the supply canister from the unmanned cargo ship would be an issue. Having the robot arm would have definitely made that easier. But you don't need much to do the launch of the cargo canister. It could just be a pressurized canister. The shuttle would use its reaction jets to maneuver to it. As I said it could be just a few kilos. A tethered astronaut would have to reach it, and catch it. Not a pleasant task, but not impossible.

Bob Clark

[fredinno]

We don't just talk of satellites. We need proper spacecraft, that can refuel the shuttle for the sake of it's fuell cell as well (unless you like US astronauts being asphyxiated in it's last days). Maybe my idea with jury-rig panels could work, but safe to say, the Shuttle is really large (and I suppose power-hungry). (half O/T) You can fit four Soyuz into it's cargo bay (very crampedly) judging from images, and Mir with Shuttle looks more like a station docking to another station. It's a spaceborne 737 !

This was the basis for the space station "Columbia" proposal- making a shuttle (possibly from Enterprise or Columbia) incapable of landing and reentry, but with its cargo bay and crew section modified to become a space station core. Then add a node or two, solar panels, and smaller space station segments in regular shuttle missions, allowing the proposed space station "Freedom" to be made with the same volume more cheaply.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually saving the astronauts would be higher priority.

Bob Clark

- - - Updated - - -

The Arstechnica article only gives the time constraint for the CO2 cartridges. It doesn't say how long the O2 or food or water would last. It rather implies though by conserving those they could be made to last until the Atlantis launch.

Catching the supply canister from the unmanned cargo ship would be an issue. Having the robot arm would have definitely made that easier. But you don't need much to do the launch of the cargo canister. It could just be a pressurized canister. The shuttle would use its reaction jets to maneuver to it. As I said it could be just a few kilos. A tethered astronaut would have to reach it, and catch it. Not a pleasant task, but not impossible.

Bob Clark

The problem is building and designing such a canister for launch in 30 days.

One thing I think might be cool if there was a movie on the Columbia rescue mission proposal, Apollo 13 style. Or a dramaticised Salyut 7 revival mission (this might not work as well).

[Whirligig Girl]

No ATV ? What would they send the food with ?

Get a Progress spacecraft up on an Ariane V to the right inclined LEO. Adapting the Soyuz/Progress craft to go inside an Ariane V might be difficult. Sending a ready-to-launch Soyuz/Progress to the Korou launch site would be a great idea if the R7 could launch from their launchpad (it can't). As for docking the Progress to the shuttle, the answer is to just not do that. Have Columbia grab the Progress in the cargo bay (probably jettisoning the lab that was already in the cargo bay) and conduct an emergency EVA to retrieve the supplies from the Progress in a very manual and informal manner, just grabbing boxes and bringing them through the void of space back to the shuttle. It would take some time, but it could be done.

I think the solution to the problem involves the Progress, as there is no other cargo vessel in operation. Getting the Progress up there would have been the hardest part of the operation, I think.

If an emergency EVA is not possible, then I would imagine they would have to dock the Progress to the shuttle using the Apollo/Soyuz Test Project approach: A big cylinder with two docking ports on it that can be traveled through to retrieve the supplies.

This would be a very difficult, if even possible mission. But I think it would have been attempted if they imaged the shuttle and found it was not fit for re-entry.

[Nibb31]

Get a Progress spacecraft up on an Ariane V to the right inclined LEO. Adapting the Soyuz/Progress craft to go inside an Ariane V might be difficult. Sending a ready-to-launch Soyuz/Progress to the Korou launch site would be a great idea if the R7 could launch from their launchpad (it can't). As for docking the Progress to the shuttle, the answer is to just not do that.

Actually, Soyuz does launch from Kourou. But it didn't back in 2003. It also takes way over 30 days to ship a Soyuz rocket from Samara, Russia to Kourou, French Guiana.

Have Columbia grab the Progress in the cargo bay

Which part of "Columbia didn't have an RMS" didn't you understand. There was no way Columbia could have "grabbed" anything.

(probably jettisoning the lab that was already in the cargo bay)

Couldn't be done in flight.

I think the solution to the problem involves the Progress, as there is no other cargo vessel in operation. Getting the Progress up there would have been the hardest part of the operation, I think.

Not hard. Impossible.

If an emergency EVA is not possible, then I would imagine they would have to dock the Progress to the shuttle using the Apollo/Soyuz Test Project approach: A big cylinder with two docking ports on it that can be traveled through to retrieve the supplies.

And what would you have docked to on the Shuttle side?

Edited November 5, 2015 by Nibb31

[andrewas]

In short, we need a Progress, but we can't get a progress. If we could get a Progress to Columbia, something may have been done. Without it, the only thing that can be done is rush Atlantis as quickly as possible, and as a backup plan, we lighten Columbia as much as possible, patch the hole as best we can, and fly a modified re-entry profile to minimize the heating of the damaged area. Which is still almost certain to fail.

Its still better than what was actually done - decide that nothing could be done if there was a problem and therefore refuse to determine if there's a problem or not.

[codepoet]

One thing I think might be cool if there was a movie on the Columbia rescue mission proposal, Apollo 13 style.

Given that in reality they all died, I am not sure that such a film would be seen as being in the best of taste.

[fredinno]

Get a Progress spacecraft up on an Ariane V to the right inclined LEO. Adapting the Soyuz/Progress craft to go inside an Ariane V might be difficult. Sending a ready-to-launch Soyuz/Progress to the Korou launch site would be a great idea if the R7 could launch from their launchpad (it can't). As for docking the Progress to the shuttle, the answer is to just not do that. Have Columbia grab the Progress in the cargo bay (probably jettisoning the lab that was already in the cargo bay) and conduct an emergency EVA to retrieve the supplies from the Progress in a very manual and informal manner, just grabbing boxes and bringing them through the void of space back to the shuttle. It would take some time, but it could be done.

I think the solution to the problem involves the Progress, as there is no other cargo vessel in operation. Getting the Progress up there would have been the hardest part of the operation, I think.

If an emergency EVA is not possible, then I would imagine they would have to dock the Progress to the shuttle using the Apollo/Soyuz Test Project approach: A big cylinder with two docking ports on it that can be traveled through to retrieve the supplies.

This would be a very difficult, if even possible mission. But I think it would have been attempted if they imaged the shuttle and found it was not fit for re-entry.

This was already discussed earlier in this forum- something like that would have been impossible.

- - - Updated - - -

Given that in reality they all died, I am not sure that such a film would be seen as being in the best of taste.

So it's too recent of an event to do so?

[codepoet]

So it's too recent of an event to do so?

It is not the amount of time from the event - the problem is presenting an alternative outcome. It would be hard on the bereaved to have an alternative reality where their loved ones were saved playing out on cinemas.

This however is all way off topic.

[Exoscientist]

Which part of "Columbia didn't have an RMS" didn't you understand. There was no way Columbia could have "grabbed" anything.

There were at least two instances where the shuttle maneuvered over to a satellite in space and spacesuited astronauts manually gabbed the satellite and pulled it into the payload bay:

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-14/news/mn-3026_1_cargo-bay

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/25/us/astronauts-make-a-good-grab-and-bring-satellite-back-in.html

Bob Clark

[sgt_flyer]

Both 'manual' captures you listed still had help from the RMS which was installed in those shuttles.

in those cases, the evaing astronauts were attached to the RMS - it's invaluable for the astronauts to be kept in a stable position during such an operation and stop any unwanted relative motion of the satellite before it can damage the orbiter.

A 'tether' leap of faith grab + pull would result in uncontrolled motions of the target spacecraft. And you wouldn't want to risk to have further damage to the orbiter by having a collision between the two.

[Nibb31]

Both 'manual' captures you listed still had help from the RMS which was installed in those shuttles.

in those cases, the evaing astronauts were attached to the RMS - it's invaluable for the astronauts to be kept in a stable position during such an operation and stop any unwanted relative motion of the satellite before it can damage the orbiter.

Exactly.

The scene where the crewmember manually catches and berths the Chinese cargo vehicle was one of the most unrealistic parts of the movie and nearly ruined it for me.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Nibb31

[Exoscientist]

Exactly.

The scene where the crewmember manually catches and berths the Chinese cargo vehicle was one of the most unrealistic parts of the movie and nearly ruined it for me.

I don't agree. In at least one of the shuttle manual captures, it had to be done by hand specifically because the robot arm could not capture the satellite, due to its large rotation. The manual capture was able to handle a larger rotation than the robot arm.

Doing the manual capture though without a robot arm would require the shuttle to maneuver closer to the satellite than by using the robot arm. The astronauts might be able to put together a rod to reach out and snag a satellite that had hooks placed around it to make capture easier and at a longer distance for safety.

BTW, this Columbia mission carried Spacehab. It had close to the pressurized volume as the shuttle, at about 62 cubic meters. I wonder if the CAIB considered the extra air that was contained in Spacehab.

Bob Clark

[Nibb31]

BTW, this Columbia mission carried Spacehab. It had close to the pressurized volume as the shuttle, at about 62 cubic meters. I wonder if the CAIB considered the extra air that was contained in Spacehab.

Of course they did.

[Exoscientist]

Of course they did.

You would think they would. But nowhere have I seen this mentioned in regards to a possible rescue of Columbia.

Bob Clark

[Nibb31]

Because it wouldn't have changed anything.