Columbia

Benji · Post by **Benji** » Fri Jun 13, 2003 1:55 pm

It goes something like this: You have to fire in the opposite direction of where you want to go to get into a lower/higher orbit to speed up/slow down. Then, you catch up to the target and get yourself into the same orbit to dock.

It is confusing. I'm not even sure I got it right.

spacecampaddict28 · Post by **spacecampaddict28** » Fri Jun 13, 2003 2:26 pm

I think there are more steps than that. I don't know. We had to draw it and it was incredibly hard. We kept firing the OMS engines and then getting confused again and firing some RCS thrusters. One kid said that they should fire all 44 RCS thrusters and the OMS engines at the same time. He was our pilot, too.

stargazer0105 · Post by **stargazer0105** » Fri Jun 13, 2003 2:41 pm

that's kinda scary.

Benji · Post by **Benji** » Fri Jun 13, 2003 3:11 pm

Somebody isn't getting control of the shuttle...

spacecampaddict28 · Post by **spacecampaddict28** » Fri Jun 13, 2003 3:53 pm

Yeah you know it is sad, when I can fly the orbiter better than the pilots. I mean really really sad. Even I knew not to fire every single engine on board the orbiter at the same time. The thought of that happening is pretty scary.

Boomerang · Post by **Boomerang** » Fri Jun 13, 2003 5:40 pm

Well in reality as a pilot most of the actual control work for the shuttle is done by the computers we just tell it what to do by going through the checklist. We actually used a computer program that explained it when i was at ASA but i didnt understand exactly how it was done then and i still dont now. Thats what the computers are there for you inpout the propper sequences they do the rest.

spacecampaddict28 · Post by **spacecampaddict28** » Fri Jun 13, 2003 8:46 pm

I don't think missions would go very smoothly if the computers didn't do certain things for you. I mean, those checklists are time consuming as it is, I don't think having to do it all for the computers would be a very good use of time.

stargazer0105 · Post by **stargazer0105** » Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:58 pm

Nope, not to mention there would be too much room for human error.

Boomerang · Post by **Boomerang** » Fri Jun 13, 2003 11:34 pm

True you need the human crew to imput the data but the computers can do the work so much more eficiently and safely in most cases. It helps to cut down on human error which also cuts down on accidents.

spacecampaddict28 · Post by **spacecampaddict28** » Sat Jun 14, 2003 7:29 pm

Well Space Shuttle "accidents" can be worse than car "accidents". Human error can be a dangerous thing. I mean we are ONLY human.

Boomerang · Post by **Boomerang** » Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:11 pm

Well unfortunately we can never eliminate human error completely. Even with an unmanned space craft their is still a chance for error in construction or programming or other things.

stargazer0105 · Post by **stargazer0105** » Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:53 pm

Very true. Apollo 13 was a result of an error on the ground.

Boomerang · Post by **Boomerang** » Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:55 pm

Well when you think about it every accident thats happend in the american space program has benn caused by something on the ground whether it was faulty construction or bad decision making or ussualy a combination of both.

spacecampaddict28 · Post by **spacecampaddict28** » Sun Jun 15, 2003 2:17 am

Well NASA is sometimes really lacking in the good decision making department. They have engineers that are brilliant and do great things, but unfortunatly no one is perfect. But when it comes to making some sort of decision, NASA has really messed up before. I don't think I need to elaborate, but Challenger for example. Yes, it was also a problem with construction, but the people at Thiokol had a meeting with NASA before the launch and said look these SRBs aren't going to work under those conditions, but no NASA had to be all stubborn about it. Stupid politics and other such stuff lead to the loss of those lives. Whew, okay I feel better now. I mean, it wasn't like they weren't warned of the potential threat to the astronauts. I won't even get into the ice that was on the escape path. I don't think you really want to be slipping and falling when you are trying to get away from a Shuttle that is sitting on all that LOX and Liquid Hydrogen, not to mention those lovely SRBs that went so wrong....

Boomerang · Post by **Boomerang** » Sun Jun 15, 2003 7:09 pm

Well actually the ice inspection team would have cleared the ice from the pad as much as possible especialy around trhe access level before the crew ingress.

spacecampaddict28 · Post by **spacecampaddict28** » Sun Jun 15, 2003 7:17 pm

Yeah okay but still look at NASAs decision making skills. Not too good then. There were two conferences about the SRBs and they still launched.

Benji · Post by **Benji** » Sun Jun 15, 2003 7:19 pm

North American Aviation told NASA not to do the AS-204 tests with pure O2 and under pressure, but they didn't listen and now we have to remember Gus, Ed, and Roger when we think of Apollo 1.

Boomerang · Post by **Boomerang** » Sun Jun 15, 2003 7:28 pm

Both points are true and unfortunatelty both decision were based on alot of pressure. Apollo 1 it was pressure to meet the moon deadlinbe set by Kennedy and with Challeger it was alot of pressure. Their was the pressure to get a flight that was supose to fly 6 months earlier off the ground, their was pressure because of the teacher onboard, their was pressure because of the delay in the program that canceled several flights of 1985 completely, and one of the biggest pressures was the extremely ambitious schedule of launches for 1986 12 planned in all.

Benji · Post by **Benji** » Fri Jun 20, 2003 1:13 pm

Ilan Ramon would have turned 49 today.

Boomerang · Post by **Boomerang** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 11:04 am

Just some FYI Kaplana Chawla would have been 42 today.