Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

What should have saved the space shuttle Columbia was establishing protocols to deal with foam debris.

It was known well in advance of the Columbia disaster that the foam pieces dislodged during launch. It was known that they caused damage to the heat shield ceramic tiles. It was known that displacement of even a few tiles could lead to catastrophic failure on reentry.

There were no steps taken to minimize or eliminate foam impacts. There was no protocol or infrastructure in place for in orbit imaging of the heat shield to check for structural damage, hence the decision not to perform visual inspection. There was no rescue plan.

These factors combined to create an impossible scenario.

Do you rush through a refurbishment of a second vehicle of the same design for rescue? That's an extremely risky call that could cost the lives of more astronauts.

The point I am making is that in all complex systems, failure should be an expected result, and mitigation strategies should already be in place.

The best time to rescue Columbia was before it ever launched.




If you assume say a 10% mission failure rate, which is high for shuttle missions, its a good bet to use a shuttle missions to rescue a shuttle mission that has already failed but not killed everyone yet.


There are too many unknown unknowns when refurbishing the craft that quickly. The failure rate could be 50%. Who knows?




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: