What if the Columbia Disaster never happened?

[razark]

[quote name='wumpus']I'm pretty sure that the inclination of the last Columbia flight wasn't anywhere near the ISS*.[/QUOTE]
STS-107:
Perigee: 270 km
Apogee: 285 km
Inclination: 39.0 degrees

ISS:
Perigee: 409 km
Apogee: 416 km
Inclination: 51.65 degrees

[Nibb31]

[quote name='adsii1970']As I said, go out with a bang - two shuttles in orbit at once? I would have written a donation check to see it happen... as I am sure others would have. Nope, [I]STS Columbia[/I] was correct. There actually was talk of building a replacement, the [I]STS Kennedy[/I], but it never survived Congress; [I]STS Columbia's[/I] loss was all the proof the critics of NASA needed to defund the STS program and discontinue shuttle usage. In the big scheme of things, NASA's 14 lost astronauts is a small human price to pay, although tragic from the standpoint of the value of life, compared to the number of lives that have been lost in the pursuit of general aviation.
[/quote]

I don't know in what parallel universe you are living, but there never was any question of a replacement Orbiter after Columbia. Columbia was lost 11 years after Endeavour's production lines were shut down. There were no spare parts to build a new Shuttle, most of the tooling and construction facilities were gone, and the program was already scheduled to wind down as soon as the ISS was complete. Even if there was, it couldn't have got to the point where it received an actual name. They were never called "STS whatever" either. They were OV-99 to OV-105 and all named after old exploration ships, so "Kennedy" is highly unlikely. ISTR that the name selection process involved schools, and that part came at a late stage when the OVs were well under construction.

[quote]
Had to log back in to post this - forum logged me out and said I had timed out. :sealed:

Two things here, each of the orbiters had [I]some[/I] issue with the heat resistant tiles. [I]Columbi[/I]a had a problem because of an adhesive substance used on it alone; the remaining shuttle fleet had a different adhesive system. As [I]Columbia's[/I] tiles were replaced, the new system was used on the replacement tiles ONLY.
[/quote]

This is the first time I hear of this issue. Any sources?

[quote]
The other issue of STS 300 - while in theory could be done, was never actually "fueled up" or ready to go within the 3 day window. I read somewhere that NASA/JPL had done a feasibility study and decided that in the event of a catastrophic failure, the goal would be to dock with the ISS, use a Soyuz capsule for extraction of critically injured crew, but jettison the orbiter and allow gravity to run its course. As the manned missions to Mars were on the horizon, the thought was to use the Orion Capsule to retrieve a crew since the new Orion does have the ability to be remotely controlled from Houston... Again, this was nowhere near being ready for testing at the time of [I]Columbia's [/I] failure.[/QUOTE]

You are describing are the STS-300 missions that were devised after Columbia, also called "Launch On Need". Those were the rescue missions for ISS flights. If any damage was detected, the Shuttle would stay at the ISS and the crew would be rescued by an STS-300 mission. In practice, for each flight, the next shuttle on the roster was assigned the STS-300 mission. They were "ready to go" in about a month, which would be enough for the extra crew to stay at the ISS without stretching consumables too much.

The only mission after Columbia that didn't go to the ISS was the STS-125 Hubble servicing flight. This was assigned an STS-400 LON rescue flight, which would have pretty much followed the scenario imagined in the CAIB report. Edited November 24, 2015 by Nibb31

[hugix]

[quote name='Nibb31']

The only mission after Columbia that didn't go to the ISS was the STS-125 Hubble servicing flight. This was assigned an STS-400 LON rescue flight, which would have pretty much followed the scenario imagined in the CAIB report.[/QUOTE]

Here a very cool picture of the STS 400 mission.

[IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Space_shuttles_Atlantis_(STS-125)_and_Endeavour_(STS-400)_on_launch_pads.jpg[/IMG]

In the foreground is Atlantis getting ready for STS 125 (launchpad 39 A) and in the background is Endeavour on standby for STS 400 LON.

This is a very rare occurence of both launch pads with a shuttle.

[fredinno]

[quote name='Nibb31']I don't know in what parallel universe you are living, but there never was any question of a replacement Orbiter after Columbia. Columbia was lost 11 years after Endeavour's production lines were shut down. There were no spare parts to build a new Shuttle, most of the tooling and construction facilities were gone, and the program was already scheduled to wind down as soon as the ISS was complete. Even if there was, it couldn't have got to the point where it received an actual name. They were never called "STS whatever" either. They were OV-99 to OV-105 and all named after old exploration ships, so "Kennedy" is highly unlikely. ISTR that the name selection process involved schools, and that part came at a late stage when the OVs were well under construction.



This is the first time I hear of this issue. Any sources?



You are describing are the STS-300 missions that were devised after Columbia, also called "Launch On Need". Those were the rescue missions for ISS flights. If any damage was detected, the Shuttle would stay at the ISS and the crew would be rescued by an STS-300 mission. In practice, for each flight, the next shuttle on the roster was assigned the STS-300 mission. They were "ready to go" in about a month, which would be enough for the extra crew to stay at the ISS without stretching consumables too much.

The only mission after Columbia that didn't go to the ISS was the STS-125 Hubble servicing flight. This was assigned an STS-400 LON rescue flight, which would have pretty much followed the scenario imagined in the CAIB report.[/QUOTE]
OV-106 and OV-107 were actual things- they were originally proposed post-Challenger to allow for the still hoped-for high launch rate of the Shuttle, with the Shuttle launching pretty much everything. That didn't turn out too well, probably due to the fact it proved unrealistic, and lack of funding, but even then, a few parts for OV-106 were bought, before the contracts were cancelled. In an alternate timeline, this Shuttle probably would replace Columbia, which is put to the sidelines as a backup. These shuttles would fly until the last ISS expedition.

Source: [url]http://www.wired.com/2014/02/fixing-nasa-piloted-program-challenger-view-1989-1993/[/url]

[razark]

[quote name='fredinno']OV-106 and OV-107 were actual things- they were originally proposed post-Challenger...[/QUOTE]
Your link states:
[quote name='Your Link']Rockwell called on NASA to buy an evolved OV-106 that would first fly in 1995 and an OV-107 that would fly in 2000.[/QUOTE]
That's not NASA or any government source saying that. That's the contractor that built orbiters telling NASA they should buy more of what they sell.

The only OV-106 I've ever seen referred to was to designate the replacement for the spare parts used to build OV-105.

[fredinno]

[quote name='razark']Your link states:

That's not NASA or any government source saying that. That's the contractor that built orbiters telling NASA they should buy more of what they sell.

The only OV-106 I've ever seen referred to was to designate the replacement for the spare parts used to build OV-105.[/QUOTE]

I actually got that part from here [url]http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=9425.0[/url] :wink: Sorry, I only cited one source.

[razark]

Yeah, that's pretty much reinforcing the fact that OV-106 was an administrative way to refer to a set of spare parts that were intended to replace those used to build OV-105, but were never actually completed.

[Van Disaster]

[quote name='Kryten']The only way you'd get Saturn-derived vehicles after Shuttle is if one of Marshall's pie-in-the-sky warp propulsion studies stumbled upon a time machine.[/QUOTE]

The point was *what might have been if there wasn't a Shuttle* - not what might have replaced it after it's existence. IE, replace the Shuttle in the historical timeline.

[Nibb31]

[quote name='Van Disaster']The point was *what might have been if there wasn't a Shuttle* - not what might have replaced it after it's existence. IE, replace the Shuttle in the historical timeline.[/QUOTE]

I thought the thread was about *what might have been if there was still a Shuttle*. It's likely that if Columbia hadn't happened, it would still be flying.

[Camacha]

[quote name='Nibb31']it would still be flying.[/QUOTE]

If you could ever call what the Space Shuttle did 'flying', that is :D

[fredinno]

[quote name='Camacha']If you could ever call what the Space Shuttle did 'flying', that is :D[/QUOTE]

Technically launching on a rocket IS flying.

[WestAir]

[quote name='fredinno']Technically launching on a rocket IS flying.[/QUOTE]

I imagine a rocket commercial aimed at glider pilots going something like:

"Lift got you down? Don't despair: Keep flying with [B]unnecessarily overwhelming amounts of thrust![/B] Let your inner Sith Lord out and scream [B][I]UNLIMITED POWAAH![/I][/B] as you take the four forces of flight by the horns! Buy a rocket today!" :D

[PB666]

[quote name='Alias72']No. The entire concept of a plane-style RV was proven uneconomical within the first decade or two of the shuttle. The idea was that shuttle would partially cover its cost by partnering with companies for satellite maintenance and orbit adjustment but the cost was ridiculously prohibitive, no one needed the service, and the soviet union collapsed adding a vast number of cheap launch systems to the market. by 2002 the United States had lost virtually all of the commercial space market to Europe and Russia.

The shuttle was not truly re-usable.
The shuttle was difficult to maintain.
The shuttle was overly complex.
The shuttle was uneconomical.
The shuttle was a failure.

Colombia doesn't change this it merely quickens the death of the shuttle somewhat. Also keep in mind how old the shuttles actually were. When they were created the idea was to learn more about the economic and technical difficulties of space-planes. Lesson learned.[/QUOTE]

The shuttle is the second most successful failure ever, behind the Soyuz which was the most successful failure ever. What an _____. If the shuttle was a failure, everything is a failure, KSP is a failure, the earth is a failure.

[Camacha]

[quote name='fredinno']Technically launching on a rocket IS flying.[/QUOTE]

The definition Google itself spits out shows the need for wings, which eliminates almost all rockets. That is a bit of a semantic discussion though. The Space Shuttle pretty much seems to have had three modes: launch (not flying), orbit (not flying) and falling (not flying) :P The wings were there, but seem to have mostly been for show and self-deception. If you throw a shoe out of a tall building it tends to fly better than the Shuttle.

[SIZE=1]For those that miss it, I am joking a bit.[/SIZE]

[quote]The shuttle is the second most successful failure ever, behind the Soyuz which was the most successful failure ever. What an _____. If the shuttle was a failure, everything is a failure, KSP is a failure, the earth is a failure. [/quote]
Please guys, not this discussion again. It has been done, redone, chewed on, digested, flushed down a large amounts of toilets, used as fertilizer and done again.

[smjjames]

If the Columbia accident didn't happen, then it probably would have happened to another ship. In fact, it wasn't the first one to get hit by debris, there was another one decades earlier, not all that long after the Challenger disaster: [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-27#Tile_damage[/URL]

Though it was the SRB's ablative nosecone covering that was to blame, you'd think it would have been a wakeup call.

Edit: The one right after challenger had an impact as well: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-26#Damage_to_thermal_protection[/url] Edited November 25, 2015 by smjjames

[Van Disaster]

[quote name='Nibb31']I thought the thread was about *what might have been if there was still a Shuttle*. It's likely that if Columbia hadn't happened, it would still be flying.[/QUOte]

Yeah, my original quote was taken out of the context of the post it was in, which was about human spaceflight being inspirational.

However given the ISS is "finished" as such, what would a Shuttle be launching these days? seems a rather expensive way to do crew rotation.

[hugix]

[quote name='Van Disaster']Yeah, my original quote was taken out of the context of the post it was in, which was about human spaceflight being inspirational.

However given the ISS is "finished" as such, what would a Shuttle be launching these days? seems a rather expensive way to do crew rotation.[/QUOTE]

It could carry up MPLM's (Multi Purpose Logistics module). A module that could be carried inside the cargo bay. When the station was docked at the ISS the MPLM would be berthed out of the bay to a docking port. The astronauts could use these MPLM modules to store experiments that needed to get down to Earth again (downmass). Since the end of the Shuttle era, there is way less downmass. Only dragon is capable of carrying experiments back to Earth. (Yes, also Soyuz, but it's very little).

[fredinno]

[quote name='Van Disaster']Yeah, my original quote was taken out of the context of the post it was in, which was about human spaceflight being inspirational.

However given the ISS is "finished" as such, what would a Shuttle be launching these days? seems a rather expensive way to do crew rotation.[/QUOTE]
It would carry most of the ISS' cargo, meaning Commercial cargo, HTV and ATV would not be needed. The original plan was to also carry Crew return vehicles every few years to orbit (which were bascially proto- Dream Chasers). Also, STS-144 was supposed to return Hubble back to Earth.