the shuttle and the space station were in completely different orbits--the shuttle didn't have enough propellant left on board to change orbit and get to the space station.

also--space walks are pretty much limited to the payload area of the shuttle. the wing areas offer no place to anchor for a space walk, and we aren't technologically able to do in-space tile repair anyway. in this specific case, their goose may have been pretty much cooked from the start.

also--there was speculation that the mission could've been aborted when the debris impact was first observed, but the manuever required to do this was supposedly more dangerous than risking reentry with the potential tile damage.

unfortunately, i think events like this are how we figure out a better plan to avoid a "next time".

[ February 05, 2003, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: Waylon Harpy ]

I understand what your saying Zoomie, but I dont believe that. I know that the suttle was in a different orbit than the spacestation. If they went there straight away after the launch, they would have had plenty of fuel to get there. Even if they couldnt have reentered due to the damage, they could have left it up there until another could be launched, in a little less than a week.

Space walks are done all the time outta the cargo bay, They space walked to the Hubble space telescope and stayed out there for something like 6 hours while they inserted new cameras. They space walk everytime they install a new section onto the space station. They could have easily inspected it. Even if they couldnt they could have imaged the shuttle from a spy satelite, like they have done in the past. They just didnt try.

cat

PS NASA brought back 3 astronaughts (Apollo13) from the moon with no life support. They could have atleast triied to save 7.

PPS I personnally believe that they didnt do any of the above because they had something special to put into orbit for the military. That Israeli Astronaught didnt go up there to do any experiments, he was up there to verify something for Israel. He had to see it with his own eyes and then report back.

My guess is, it was a modified version of the airborne laser, used to shoot down missiles that leave the atmosphere, like a scud for instance.

GWB already told the soviets and the chinese that he was going to break the treaty against satelite based missile defense aka Star Wars missile shield.

[ February 05, 2003, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: CatDaddyChris ]

That may have been were it crashed but the accident occured over california, thats why they found debis there too. Im sure thats just a coinencidence.

cat

[ February 05, 2003, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: CatDaddyChris ]

the cargo bay, space station, Hubble telescope, etc. have places they can anchor onto. the expansive wing area is totally smooth (it has to be, i'm sure you know...).

i wouldn't doubt the Israeli "project" connection though.

i'm pretty sure the Palestine (pronounced pal-uh-steen), TX connection is purely an ironic coincidence...

[ February 06, 2003, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Waylon Harpy ]

I dont understand what you mean about the surface being smooth. They have little suits that they "fly" and sometimes they are tethered. I think even the big robotic arm has a camera on it. Im not sure if they could see under the wing with it though, but i am sure that they could have spacewalked and checked it out.

cat

I don't think they took the arm with them on this flight.

they have to be tethered. i'm pretty sure they can't just jet about without being attached to something (can you hear me, Major Tom...?). and they can't do any kind of work without being able to anchor onto something cuz they'd just float away. the wing doesn't offer anyplace to anchor--gotta be smooth for reentering the atmosphere. there would have to be a really big arm thingie to allow them to get all around and under the entire shuttle. and if they brought that everytime, they wouldn't be able to carry other payloads.

plus, to my understanding, the actual tile repair isn't possible in space.

this being said, i have no misconceptions about that fact that this could very well be just what NASA is saying but not necessarily the entire truth. i do believe something like this always encourages them to find ways to avoid future f-ups.