Author Topic: Latest Shuttle Failure Evidence (Read 1276 times)

Dowding · « **Reply #15 on:** February 07, 2003, 03:51:50 PM »

Didn't know that. Is the foam a new addition to the shuttle set-up? Either way, I'm sure the guys at NASA would have looked into the potential damage caused by insulation and ice hitting part of the shuttle.

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #16 on:** February 07, 2003, 03:53:30 PM »

Well, whatever it is- it didn't necessarily have to damage any of the tiles to cause catastrophic wing failure on re-entry.

It just needed to make a lil gap between the tiles to do the whole thing in, cuz you basically got yourself a welding torch coming in a small gap that will melt the wing from the inside out.
-SW

Skuzzy · « **Reply #17 on:** February 07, 2003, 03:55:12 PM »

The foam was changed to another compound to meet environmentalists concerns.

Foam breaks loose in every launch and has hit the shuttle before. The shuttle also loses tiles and has managed to always land safely. However, those tiles are always above the black bottom tiles.
I do not know of a shuttle that has lost a black botton tile.

I think something caused a disruption/distortion of the leading edge of the left wing, which is not ceramic and that distortion lead to the eventual failure. Whether the foam caused it or not is yet to be proven.

Eagler · « **Reply #18 on:** February 07, 2003, 03:56:25 PM »

all it (something shattered against bottom of left wing at takeoff) had to do is knock it (tile) alittle loose or crack it or that particular tile be installed incorrectly....

doubt the exact cause will ever be determined

nothing is perfect in an imperfect world

Dowding · « **Reply #19 on:** February 07, 2003, 03:56:51 PM »

True. But it's hard to believe the shuttle is that fragile. It has to do a good impression of a controlled meteorite - that's a tough act. The technology has been tested to near destruction (and unfortunately, past it) over the years.

davidpt40 · « **Reply #20 on:** February 07, 2003, 03:57:28 PM »

Quote

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.

Give'm hell dowding!

Skuzzy · « **Reply #21 on:** February 07, 2003, 03:59:05 PM »

It's actually pretty fragile if you take it out of its operating envelope. Most flying craft are.

The shuttle was not designed for direct impact of any type. The air frame is tough enough to stand the repeated G-forces of launch and re-entry, but the covering is pretty flimsy.

Dowding · « **Reply #22 on:** February 07, 2003, 03:59:47 PM »

Yeah, that was quite an obvious statement. But it was meant to be.

john9001 · « **Reply #23 on:** February 07, 2003, 04:04:12 PM »

""I also believe hardened ceramic tiles are not very like palm trees at all.""

the tiles on the shuttle are not "hardened" like floor tiles , they are a ceramic "foam" and not very strong, the tiles are not structural , they are to insulate the ship from the high temps on re-entery.

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #24 on:** February 07, 2003, 04:06:28 PM »

I get the impression people think the foam on the space shuttle has the same weight/density as packing foam...

There's insulation foam out there hard as a rock, and if you peg someone with it, there's a good chance you'll knock them out.
-SW

davidpt40 · « **Reply #25 on:** February 07, 2003, 04:17:05 PM »

SeaWulfe, the source I read said that the insulation that hit the shuttle had the same density as styrofoam.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #26 on:** February 07, 2003, 04:18:13 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.
____________________

saw an interview a couple days ago where they where holding a peice of the 'foam'. it looked alot more like a piece of cynder-block than styrofoam. they had a couple peices in their hand and tapped them together. made a clanking sound that was a lot more like 2 bricks hitting each other than a mushy sound of styrofoam

Preon1 · « **Reply #27 on:** February 07, 2003, 04:27:48 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

There are a number of reasons why NASA wants to reject the idea of wing damage from foam. One reason is that there have been many similar incidents of foam damage prior to last weekend and none have resulted in structural breakdown. Also there are a number of new theories that NASA is investigating that aren't "media friendly" (not easy to explain in lay terms).

I work with the re-entry simulations team at the Air Force Research Labs at Hanscom AFB. Up until yesterday we were modeling enemy missile signatures. Yesterday we got word to drop everything and help support the investigation. The theory that we're looking into is that there was a piece of space debris lodged into the body of the shuttle (normally harmless). There is also data suggesting that there was a local ionospheric sprite that occurred shortly before the shuttle broke up (also, normally harmless). However, there is radar data suggesting that this sprite may have traveled up the plasma trail left by the debris and struck the shuttle.

Our job is to simulate the plasma sheath around the shuttle to determine if it would have been conductive enough to carry the sprite. We're also going to try to model a perfect wake radar cross section to compare it with last weekend and previous flights.

It may yield results... it may be a dead end.

Believe me; NASA is pulling out all the stops on this one. Don't believe everything that the science correspondent of your local news station says. There are a lot of really good people working this and the problem will be solved.

Puke · « **Reply #28 on:** February 07, 2003, 05:12:22 PM »

But the shuttles lose tiles all the time.

I'm not going to pass judgement and say anyone is right or wrong, but I will let th experts work this one out.

ra · « **Reply #29 on:** February 07, 2003, 05:39:37 PM »

Quote

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

The quote I pasted was from one of their spokesmen. He was stearing reporters away from the idea that the foam could be the cause. It would have been more clear if he had just said 'we aren't ruling anything out'.

ra