|
|
От
|
Pout
|
|
|
К
|
Алекс
|
|
|
Дата
|
02.02.2003 09:58:29
|
|
|
Рубрики
|
Прочее; Россия-СССР;
|
|
Неслучайная катастрофа. Еще после"Челленжера" специалисты предупреждали
Алекс сообщил в новостях следующее:85567@kmf...
>
Я в 1986-88 читал отчеты НАСА по катастрофе"Челленджера". В дспшном
бюллетене"Ракетно-космическая техника" их практически целиком печатали.
Там были и отчеты с выкладками,по котоорым выходило, что вероятность
катастрофы с гибелью "Шаттла" порядка один случай на 50-100 полетов.
И вполне серьезно шел разговор, что " нас заставляют ориенитироваться на
полеты на летающих гробах" и т.п.
Сколько с тех пор прошло полетов -менее сотни. И рвануло, как и
говорили.Прогноз тогдашних пессимистов по крупному похоже оправдался, и
опять , насколько пока видно, причина - прогар теплозащиты. В этот раз
видимо керамических плиток на корпусе корабля. В тот раз - копеечного
кольца уплотнителя ТТУ(твердо-топливного ускорителя -там такие
уплотнители как резинки под крышками консервной банки, в каждом из 6
стыков секций ускорителя). В этот еще до конца неясно, но тоже - "не
было гвоздя лошадь пропала".
Поискать бы тогдашние алармистские отчеты, чтобы напомнить те прогнозы.
Статья в "Тайм" и обсуждение на ВИФе
====
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,418462,00.html
Saturday, Feb. 01, 2003
Seven astronauts, including the first Israeli in space, were lost
Saturday when the space shuttle Columbia broke apart in the skies of
Texas. The incident occurred at an altitude of some 200,000 feet,
shortly after reentry and 15 minutes before Columbia had been scheduled
to land at Cape Canaveral. TIME science correspondent Jeffrey Kluger
explains some of the possible causes and consequences of the accident:
TIME.com: What are the possible scenarios that could have caused this
disastrous accident on the shuttle's reentry into the Earth's
atmosphere?
Jeffrey Kluger: There are three possible scenarios that explain this
event. The first, which I believe is the likeliest explanation, would be
an aerodynamic structural breakup of the shuttle caused by it rolling at
the wrong angle. Remember, after reentry, the shuttle is descending
without power, which means astronauts at the controls can't compensate
for a loss of attitude by using the engines, they can only do so using
the flaps. And that's extremely hard. Astronauts describe piloting the
shuttle on reentry as like trying to fly a brick with wings. It's very
difficult to operate, and even more so to correct any problems.
A second explanation might be a loss of tiles leading to a burn-through.
(The shuttle is covered with heat-resistant tiles to protect the craft
and those inside it from burning up in the scorching temperatures caused
by the friction of reentry.) But I think that explanation is unlikely,
because the tile-loss would have had to have been quite substantial for
that to become possible. You'll hear a lot in the next few days about
things falling off the shuttle during liftoff. But it often happens that
they lose a few tiles, and I'd be surprised if it happened on a scale
that could make an accident of this type possible.
The last option is some kind of engine failure leading to fuel ignition.
Although the main tanks are mostly empty, there should still be fuel
left in the maneuvering tanks. But probably not enough for an explosion
that could have caused this breakup.
And just in case anybody was wondering, you can almost certainly rule
out terrorism as a cause. This incident occurred well above the range of
shoulder-fired missiles. And it would probably be easier to sneak a bomb
onto Air Force One than to get one onto the shuttle.
TIME.com: So is reentry the Achilles heel of the shuttle program?
JK: No, the Achilles heel has always been liftoff, and the dangers posed
by massive fuel load involved. Reentry has, of course, always been a
difficult part of the space program. But this is, in fact, our first
fatal accident on reentry. Apollo 13 is remembered as our most difficult
ever reentry, but the ship and crew survived. The Soviets lost a crew on
reentry in 1970 after an oxygen leak that caused the cosmonauts to
suffocate on the way down. Reentry is a very difficult process, but the
Russians mastered it in 1961 and we did the same a few years later.
TIME.com: Are shuttle crews trained to respond to the scenarios you've
described?
JK: Yes, they're trained to deal with loss of attitude on reentry, and a
range of other emergencies. But astronauts are not trained to deal with
situations that result in certain death, because that would be a bit
like training for what you might do if your car went over a cliff - in
some situations there simply isn't anything you can do. One irony,
though, is that NASA hadn't trained astronauts to deal with the sort of
quadruple failure that occurred in Apollo 13, because they assumed that
such a scenario would result in certain death. But the astronauts
survived.
TIME.com: What are the immediate implications for the space program of
Saturday's disaster?
JK: Following the precedent of the Challenger disaster in 1986, it's
unlikely that NASA will undertake any further shuttle missions or any
other manned space flights for the next two years. One immediate
problem, though, is the International Space Station, which currently has
a crew of three on board. They might consider one further flight to
bring that crew home - the other option would be for them to return
aboard a Russian Soyuz craft, which isn't the most comfortable or the
safest ride. Beyond that, however, the space station is likely to be
left unoccupied for a long time. NASA won't want to use the shuttle
again until it can establish the cause of today's accident, and fix it.
Now that we've lost two shuttles out of a fleet of five, it's even
conceivable that the shuttle won't fly again. The shuttle was built as a
space truck, and then the International Space Station was built to give
it something to do. Both programs are likely to suffer as a result of
this disaster.
BACK TO TOP
========
>Коротко:
>причины катастрофы могут быт в плане уменьшения вероятности:
>разрушение несусчих елементов конструкции в рез-те входа в атмосферу
под неправильным углом.
>прогар термозасчитного покрытия
>взрыв в двигателе
>Версия терроризма нереальна.
>С уважением, Денис.
======
Обсуждение на ВИФ
https://vif2ne.org/nvk/forum/0/co/470181.htm
еще
https://vif2ne.org/nvk/forum/0/co/470203.htm
========