I'm currently working my way through _From Runway to Orbit: Reflections of a
NASA Engineer_, and am a bit over 1/2 of the way through it. It's doing well
as I'm putting lots of dog ears in it and lots of good sections to discuss.
Now, I remember STS-1 and some issues with tiles, as I'm sure many of us do.
Here's a section from Ken I.'s point of view, from the inside, which I found
interesting both from the point of view of reflecting on my memories and the
events of last year. This is from pages 202-203 (I have the hardcopy edition,
don't know if there is any other). Note that issue of slideslip is addressed
further on page 215.
{Iliff+}
The next exciting thing that happened on the flight was the opening of the
payload bay doors. If they didn't open right away, the astronauts were coming
back to Edwards at the next opportunity. I don't think the doors opened as
smoothly as I thought they would. There was probably uninformed concern at
Dryden about all of the activities, because although we knew roughly what
should happen, none of it had anything to do with our specialty. Once the
payload bay doors were open, they had video coverage of the Shuttle. They
could see damaged tiles on the orbital maneuvering system (OMS) pods, as well
as what looked like dings on various parts of the vehicle.
The astronauts on STS-l were launched wearing space suits so they were
prepared to use their SR-71 ejection seats if something happened at Mach 3 or
below. I think Mach 3 on the Shuttle occurs around 90,000 to 100,000 feet, so
that probably would have been okay for using the SR-71 ejection seats.
However, I remember some talk at the time that there might be some way, once
in orbit, that the crew could go outside and take a look to see if anything
was damaged on the bottom of the Shuttle, where the greatest heating and
aerodynamic forces were going to be if any tiles there had been damaged.
Otherwise, things seemed to be going fairly well, despite little gripes about
things that would be fixed before the next flight. I remember being very
concerned about whether the Shuttle had significant tile damage on the bottom.
Depending on what the damage was, the vehicle could reenter with a significant
sideslip. If there were very much more than one degree of sideslip, the
thermal protection nosecap would not be the highest heating point, so we would
get a burn-through on the vehicle. There were also concerns that if a large
enough group of tiles was missing, the heating would get into the wing's
aluminum structure and damage it to the point where the vehicle could no
longer fly.
I don't know how Young and Crippen felt about it, but to me it did seem risky.
There was talk of using our classified military cameras to take pictures and
see if there was significant damage to the tiles. Information about our
capability for taking pictures of things in orbit was classified. At any rate,
I remember hearing less talk as we approached the time for the Shuttle to do
its deorbit burn. I assume that they got enough verification with those
classified cameras that there wasn't a significant bunch of tiles missing,
although I never heard directly that they were no longer concerned.
{Iliff-}

Signature
rk, Just an OldEngineer
"Engineers abhor extrapolation"
-- Ken Iliff, from _Runway to Orbit_, 2004
GCGassaway - 25 Aug 2004 11:17 GMT
Quote from "_From Runway to Orbit: Reflections of a
NASA Engineer_"
The astronauts on STS-l were launched wearing space suits so they were
prepared to use their SR-71 ejection seats if something happened at Mach 3 or
below.
<<<<<<
They were not wearing space suits. IIRC, what they were wearing for launch (and
entry) were pretty much the same sort of pressure suits that SR-71 pilots wore.
Once the shuttle went operational and the ejection seats were deactivated, then
those suits were changed to unpressurized suits (at least until after the
Challenger accident).
They did of course have space suits on board for possible use in orbit, such as
for manually locking any balky bay door latches.
- George Gassaway
Brian Gaff - 25 Aug 2004 13:06 GMT
I remember this as well, as i had significant sight in those days. I also
recall John Young joking about having to wear glasses during the flight.
They did accept there was a risk, they seemed pretty up front about it on
the bits of video I saw, after all, they were test pilots and it was a first
flight etc, you don't make omelettes and all that.
One thing I did note on lift off though, was the apparent drift of the stack
toward the tower , with, if the video was to believed, the stabiliser almost
colliding with it.
Most of the tile damage was, according to the reports I saw, toward the rear
of the vehicle, and was put down to pressure waves from the launch, ie audio
or sound that was literally shaking things apart.
Brian

Signature
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
____________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________
Ted Molczan - 25 Aug 2004 23:53 GMT
> I don't know how Young and Crippen felt about it, but to me it did seem risky.
> There was talk of using our classified military cameras to take pictures and
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> classified cameras that there wasn't a significant bunch of tiles missing,
> although I never heard directly that they were no longer concerned.
The facts remain classified, but there were several close conjunctions
between STS-1 and a KH-11, which probably would have supported
high-resolution imaging:
http://www.satobs.org/columbia/KeyHolesattosat.html#STS1
I believe there were also ground-based cameras that may have been helpful.
Ted Molczan