Data Recovered from Shuttle Columbia Hard Drive

[Rob Williams]

From our front-page news:

I have no doubts that every single person reading this has at some point lost data that should have been kept. Curses the Recycle Bin for making it so easy, I say. Happily though, the data is often recoverable with relatively inexpensive programs (such as R-Studio which I've found to be fantastic in the past), but that's only possible if it's a software issue. Once it's a hardware issue, it's much, much more difficult to recover.

We've all heard impressive stories about recovery, but nothing can match this. When the disastrous Columbia shuttle exploded close to landing in 2003, debris scattered all over. By some estimates, debris pieces could have totaled 20,000, and most appeared in more than one US state. So what's the chance of a hard drive dropping 60KM from the sky after such an ordeal and still survive?

Well in some sort of miracle, such a drive did manage to survive, and 99% of the data was recovered by Ontrack. This is made even more impressive because some parts of the drive were dented, but all of the data was recorded in the good areas. Even more impressive is the fact that the drive ran DOS, but that's the reason so much data was recoverable. Unlike NTFS, which scatters data all over the place, FAT stores it sequentially, which is the prime reason for the 99% figure.

<table align="center"><tbody><tr><td>

</td></tr></tbody></table>
Edwards had reason for pessimism. Not only were the drive's metal and plastic elements scorched, but the seal on the side that keeps out dirt and dust also had melted. That made the drive vulnerable to particles that can scratch the tiny materials embedded inside, destroying their ability to retain data in endless 0s or 1s, depending on their magnetic charge.

Source: Yahoo! News
​

 

[Kougar]

On one side of it, glad they got the rest of the data back from it.

On the other side... for every pound of weight, it takes 10 pounds of fuel to get it into space. I think a thumb drive could have easily replaced a 384mb hard drive for whatever DOS program they were using, let alone all the other dozen drives. I'd always heard that the shuttles still used even tape recorders and other old tech... anything they build to replace the shuttle would have to be loads more efficient, let alone safer with today's technology.

 

[Rob Williams]

On one side of it, glad they got the rest of the data back from it.

On the other side... for every pound of weight, it takes 10 pounds of fuel to get it into space. I think a thumb drive could have easily replaced a 384mb hard drive for whatever DOS program they were using, let alone all the other dozen drives. I'd always heard that the shuttles still used even tape recorders and other old tech... anything they build to replace the shuttle would have to be loads more efficient, let alone safer with today's technology.

I couldn't agree more, and you are right, it IS a little odd. I know that the Columbia Shuttle did have a tape recorder, as it was one of the few pieces of debris that was actually found in fantastic shape.

It's so odd to see something so robust with technology use such outdated hardware. A thumb drive would be far less weight, hold much more data and be more durable, more than likely. It's so light, it would almost float to the ground, rather than the hard drive which would drop like a lead... hard drive.

 

[Kougar]

Heh, try this one on for size. Friend point me at it... http://www.geek.com/nasa-needs-8086-chips/

 

[b1lk1]

Guys, the Shuttles were created before Windows. Plus, if it works why try to break it? Just because most of us enthusiasts are foolish enough to upgrade to PC's far more powerful than our needs doesn't mean they should try to tear the shuttle apart to modify something.

 

[Merlin]

Actuall the 286 chip ( 8086 ) is an amazing chip with 134,00 transitors.
It broke a lot of ground in it's day in time.
It's built like a tank so it takes the thunder from a lift off.
And now we have chips that has millions of transitors, for what it's worth, the old 286 is very reliable. It was tested by many labs and met the qualifications of the governmant.
Besides, it is actually over qualified for it's mission onboard.
It's also used in a few guided missles....... I didnt say that, I was never here.
This post will self destruct in 5 minutes.

:techgage::techgage: Merlin :techgage::techgage:
( ex gov contractor )

 

[Kougar]

I'm all fine and dandy for not upgrading when the extra capacity isn't needed, but there are innumerable other reasons they should've upgraded some of that junk that have nothing to do with simply "getting better performance".

I wasn't making up that 1 pound weight = 10 pounds of fuel ratio. The weight they could save, the space they could save... not to mention the durability aspects. A basic small circuit board could probably replace gads of electronics, require much less power to operate, and may very well be more durable than whatever it replaces.

They could even make use of the extra power saved and performance gained to increase the redundancy of some systems, considering the status quo is now launching despite various nonessential systems failing or not working properly before each new launch of the shuttle. Some of what IS in there now longer even actually works.

And then there is the cost aspect. The cost of actual 8086 chips is not cheap, I'm not sure how much those run now since collectors have many of those that are left. The next chip, the 80286 offered better than 200% the performance of an 8086... they obviously don't need the latest greatest technology, but even a computer circa 2002 would be two decades worth of upgrades, with cheaper and easier to source parts.

Today we have single microchips that shrank what they required entire circuit boards and motherboards full of chips to do "before Windows", which is what we have on the shuttle. They could fit three of those 384mb and smaller hard drives on a 1gb flash drive, and heck those are almost given away now. That'd be some big weight savings.

Yeah, it's a little late now to bother or consider retrofitting the shuttles again, but still much more than basic avionic control interfaces and the glass cockpit retrofitting could've been done.

As you said if it's not broken don't fix it... well, if NASA has resorted to buying electronic parts off ebay (and they have), and they routinely launch despite some systems and some of the redundant backups not passing preflight, it sounds broken to me.

 

[Kougar]

Merlin, actually the article was talking about 8086 chips.

The 8086 predates the 286, which I called the "80286" in my post. And you are right, it offered better than 200% the performance clock for clock over the 8086.

 

[Merlin]

Merlin, actually the article was talking about 8086 chips.

The 8086 predates the 286, which I called the "80286" in my post. And you are right, it offered better than 200% the performance clock for clock over the 8086.

OOOOPs
Too many Amber Bocks will do it every time

 

[b1lk1]

You just cannot swap out stuff in such a complicated system that is a dated as it is. The logistics of such a change would be mind boggling. It makes no sense what-so-ever to start pulling systems of the shuttle apart to change things when it would cost millions of dollars for so little gain.

This is not the same as changing the radio in your car. This is a vehicle that goes into outer space. You are thinking on the wrong level completely. I am sure the next version of the shuttle will get all the new tech, then it too will fly for 20+ years with the same exact tech until it is replaced.

 

[Kougar]

Yes, it would require a rather major overhaul, to put it mildy. I can certainly understand that.

I believe it would have been feasible though, the US Navy operated multiple aircraft carriers launched between 1943-46 well into the 70's before they were removed from the service list. They had to completely redesign the ships to even land/launch jet aircraft on the deck three or four times throughout their operational history (At some huge costs), and that was only the tip of the iceberg of problems they had with retrofitting WWII designed carriers that were never designed for jets to begin with.

They retrofitted the shuttle cockpits and flight controls to resemble those on a jet, but all I am saying is they should've done more. Each shuttle was designed for a lifespan of 100 launches or 10 years of operational life. We are well past 100 launches on each of the remaining shuttles. The Discovery has 121 launches and made her maiden flight over 27 years ago!

I certainly hope future spacecraft won't be used 3x longer than they were ever designed to, or for a fourth again the launches.

To think NASA was toying with the idea of using the shuttles until 2020, right up until the Columbia disaster without such a complete overhaul is just absurd to me. I guess that's why I'm so passionate about this, the absurdity of using shuttles 4x longer and for 2x the flights they were ever remotely designed for, without any sort of substantial overhaul is... well, it speaks wonders about our government and bureaucracy in general.

 

[Rob Williams]

I'm of a similar mindset as Kougar. Throwing in new parts would be difficult and time consuming, but you'd imagine the benefits would outweigh the downsides.

Technology is constantly getting better, and the shuttle is in no way "perfect", so it seems to make sense that newer technology would be implemented. Isn't the shuttle grounded for months at a time? I don't see how it couldn't be upgraded within that timeframe.

Again, I realize that's a naive statement, but it seems odd that something like a SPACE SHUTTLE doesn't require more computing power than what an 8086 requires. Higher efficiency, lower weight, more durable equipment... it seems to make sense that an upgrade would be in order.

But regardless, I'm sure the next space shuttle won't be so out of date. It is humorous to picture that something so advanced is running on such old hardware though.

 

[Merlin]

I'm of a similar mindset as Kougar. Throwing in new parts would be difficult and time consuming, but you'd imagine the benefits would outweigh the downsides.

Technology is constantly getting better, and the shuttle is in no way "perfect", so it seems to make sense that newer technology would be implemented. Isn't the shuttle grounded for months at a time? I don't see how it couldn't be upgraded within that timeframe.

Again, I realize that's a naive statement, but it seems odd that something like a SPACE SHUTTLE doesn't require more computing power than what an 8086 requires. Higher efficiency, lower weight, more durable equipment... it seems to make sense that an upgrade would be in order.

But regardless, I'm sure the next space shuttle won't be so out of date. It is humorous to picture that something so advanced is running on such old hardware though.

From what I searched, it was just the boosters that use the chip
Not the shuttle its self

:techgage::techgage: Merlin :techgage::techgage:

 

[b1lk1]

You guys have to remember this. When you change something, there are now new variables. Under most circumstances, a system failure, even in a 747, still allows some form or return to the ground. These things are in outer space. I personally would rather stick to what works for a particular platform instead of potentially killing 7+ astronauts because you wanted to replace something that was already tried, true and tested working 100%. If anything, I am more inclined to say that they all be replaced, but retrofitting them is just not a good idea.

 

[Rob Williams]

You guys have to remember this. When you change something, there are now new variables. Under most circumstances, a system failure, even in a 747, still allows some form or return to the ground. These things are in outer space. I personally would rather stick to what works for a particular platform instead of potentially killing 7+ astronauts because you wanted to replace something that was already tried, true and tested working 100%. If anything, I am more inclined to say that they all be replaced, but retrofitting them is just not a good idea.

Here's another. If I ignore your posts, I have less of a headache!

Variables are fun

(I am kidding, by the way)

 

[Kougar]

B1lk1, that is my same opinion, although for the opposite reason. I think some of these upgrades and reterofits could or would have prevented future issues.

We built 5 shuttles plus Enterprise that is a prototype and not able to fly in space, and was partly stripped down for parts long ago after they conducted landing tests with it. So we are actually down to 3. There've been so many ongoing issues that are rarely talked about and always ignored by the media, it's always some issue or system component failure. I simply don't want to needlessly loose a 3rd one plus its crew when it could of easily been prevented. That's at least something we can at least agree on, the crew's lives are really all that matters more than the shuttle itself.