Author Topic: Latest Shuttle Failure Evidence (Read 1236 times)

maxtor · « **on:** February 07, 2003, 02:08:39 PM »

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/shuttle2_news.xml

ra · « **Reply #1 on:** February 07, 2003, 02:15:12 PM »

Gotta wonder why NASA was so quick to reject the idea that the foam debris may have damaged the wing.

ra

LePaul · « **Reply #2 on:** February 07, 2003, 02:15:15 PM »

Yea just finished reading that a while ago...leading edge problems...I'd love to see the pics that telescope took.

davidpt40 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 07, 2003, 02:36:15 PM »

The foam insulation is the consistency of styrofoam. Thats why. Only way it could have damaged the shuttle is if it was covered and encased in ice.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #4 on:** February 07, 2003, 02:36:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ra
Gotta wonder why NASA was so quick to reject the idea that the foam debris may have damaged the wing.

ra

Doesn't sound like they've discounted that quite yet:

Quote

Columbia reentry accident investigators are also trying to determine if, as in the case of Challenger's accident 17 years ago, an undesirable materials characteristic noted on previous flights--in this case the STS-112 separation of external tank insulation foam debris--was misjudged by engineers as to its potential for harm, possibly by using analytical tools and information inadequate to truly identify and quantify the threat to the shuttle. As of late last week, NASA strongly asserted this was not the case, but intense analysis on that possibility continues.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #5 on:** February 07, 2003, 02:38:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by davidpt40
The foam insulation is the consistency of styrofoam. Thats why. Only way it could have damaged the shuttle is if it was covered and encased in ice.

Piece of styrofoam can kill you in a hurricane strength wind...the shuttle was 79 seconds into flight when the foam came off, far greater wind speed than a hurricane.

Dowding · « **Reply #6 on:** February 07, 2003, 02:52:17 PM »

Even in hurrican strength winds, I doubt styroforam has the momentum or kinetic energy to do much damage at all.

A brick sized piece of styrofoam weighing 2.5g compared to a brick sized...errr... brick weighing 2000g would have to be doing 800 times the speed of a brick to have the same momentum at any particular speed. Also, the foam deforms much more readily and as such can dissipate the energy of a collision.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #7 on:** February 07, 2003, 02:53:56 PM »

Dowding, you want me to post the picture of a piece of straw embedded in a Palm tree from a hurricane?

Puke · « **Reply #8 on:** February 07, 2003, 03:04:57 PM »

If that straw hit that tree sideways nothing would have happened. I thought the styrofoam hit right after launch and the first few seconds the rocket isn't really going all that fast. So where did the foam come from? Is it part of the engine? Maybe I ought to read that link when I get the time.

ra · « **Reply #9 on:** February 07, 2003, 03:20:30 PM »

<>>

From 2 days ago:

<<
"It does not make sense that a piece of (foam) debris caused the loss of Columbia and its crew," Dittemore added. He reiterated Columbia tried to compensate for increased drag on its left wing in the seconds prior to its breakup, firing steering jets to right itself. But Dittemore said of Columbia, "It was doing well, but it was losing the battle." >>>

Ripsnort · « **Reply #10 on:** February 07, 2003, 03:25:07 PM »

A good link about the "Politically correct" foam they used:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77832,00.html

Dowding · « **Reply #11 on:** February 07, 2003, 03:45:14 PM »

I believe that could happen. The end of a piece of straw has absolutely tiny surface area. The pressure it would exert at extremely high velocities would break the surface of anything that had even a little give in it.

I doubt pieces of foam would have such a small surface area. I also believe hardened ceramic tiles are not very like palm trees at all.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #12 on:** February 07, 2003, 03:48:18 PM »

ra, the news is pretty much putting the spin on the foam not being looked at.

In an investigation, such as this, you work from the point of failure backwards to determine the probable cause and until that investigation is complete, everything is speculation.
NASA would be irresponsible to claim the foam block caused the failure until they have the data to prove it.

While the foam block appears to be responsible for the damage. What kind of damage did it do? How did it do the damage? Were there other factors that the foam impact exacerbated?

Solving this problem requires answering far more questions, if it is to serve to protect other astronauts from future problems.

Bodhi · « **Reply #13 on:** February 07, 2003, 03:49:07 PM »

I disagree that it was foam insulation fromn the tank, but more likely a massive hunk of ice that fell from the bipod supporting the orbiters nose on the external tank. And those of us that live where it gets cold, know that ice is as hard as a rock.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #14 on:** February 07, 2003, 03:51:40 PM »

Yes, but Dowding, the leading edge of the shuttles wings are not ceramic. They are a carbon material with insulation behind them mounted in a manner that allows them to float a bit.

If the foam impact caused some level of structural failure of the seals between the carbon coverings, then wing failure could occur as heated plasma would quickly erode through the actual wing surface.
Would not take much of a leak for that to happen either.