Author Topic: Nasa knew shuttle wing might burn off (Read 491 times)

davidpt40 · « **on:** February 26, 2003, 09:17:38 PM »

http://msnbc.com/news/867336.asp

Hindsight is 20/20, but burning to death is still an unpleasant ordeal.

Tarmac · « **Reply #1 on:** February 26, 2003, 09:36:01 PM »

Never knew there was a (risky) bailout plan for astronauts though. Didn't know they carried chutes.

Hangtime · « **Reply #2 on:** February 26, 2003, 09:49:34 PM »

Quote

Never knew there was a (risky) bailout plan for astronauts though. Didn't know they carried chutes.

duh. doode.. didn't u c space cowboys?

Staga · « **Reply #3 on:** February 26, 2003, 10:19:46 PM »

AFAIK there really weren't any options: No fuel to fly to the ISS and not enough oxygen to wait "up there".

All they could do is try their luck and this time they did lose.

Tarmac · « **Reply #4 on:** February 26, 2003, 10:26:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
duh. doode.. didn't u c space cowboys?

I'll go out and add that classic to my DVD collection immediately.

john9001 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 26, 2003, 10:28:33 PM »

my thinking was NASA could have launched resupply capsules to keep their ship supplied with food & fuel until a rescue shuttle could be readied and sent up to bring them back.

but then , i'm no rocket scientist.

crowMAW · « **Reply #6 on:** February 26, 2003, 11:50:18 PM »

Here is a link to some of the emails published by NASA. There is one in this group that is not in the ones on MSNBC.

http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/COL_debris_email.pdf

There were several interesting points:

1) It is likely that it was a combination of insulation and ice that broke off of the external tank (ET) and struck the underside of the left wing. As NASA said before, the density of the foam alone is not sufficient to cause much damage to the tiles.

2) Ice striking the left wing has been a common occurrence because of the design of the ET. One of the engineers said in one of the emails, "On the first flights there were thousands of dings/gouges in the tiles...traced to ice impingement from launch vibrations dislodgment of the ice which builds up on the ET dump line - WHICH IS LOCATED IN PROXIMITY TO THE LEFT WING ON THE STACK...why this dump line was not repositioned to the other side of the tank away from the orbiter I do not understand...several times this [ice] damage was quite severe."

3) The shuttle's aerodynamic design is one which is meant to minimize turbulent flow. It was discovered that if air flow is turbulent ahead of the wheel well doors during peak heating the heat shield protecting the wheel well doors could/would burn through.

4) Severely damaged tiles can significantly increase the risk of laminar transition to turbulent flow.

5) If the wheel well heat shield failed and allowed burn through the resulting heat could:
a) cause the tires to explode which would yield nearly a quarter million lbs of pressure on the gear doors, blowing them off.
b) possibly ignite the explosive bungies used in emergencies to force open the gear doors and deploy the gear should they jam for some reason.

(Recall the amateur vid taken in California of the shuttle streaking along and then the sudden puff like explosion?)

6) If the gear doors opened during hypersonic flight the results would be "catastrophic". One engineer stated, "even if you could survive the heating, would the gear now deploy? And/or also, could you even reach the runway with this kind of drag?"

CyranoAH · « **Reply #7 on:** February 27, 2003, 04:09:16 AM »

I believe the chutes for liftoff/reentry were incorporated after the Challenger disaster. Also, they didn't have pressurized suits on for liftoff before Challenger.

Daniel

davidpt40 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 27, 2003, 05:17:40 AM »

The shuttles had ejection seats installed after the Challenger incident, but they were removed after 14 flights. The only thing that would have saved the shuttle crew would have been a capsule similar to that on the F111.

FYI, a man has broken the speed of sound in a skydive from over 100,000 feet before.

FYI, a test pilot ejected at Mach 1.1 while wearing only a BUSINESS SUIT and survived. Only 2 or 3 panels were missing from his chute also.

StSanta · « **Reply #9 on:** February 27, 2003, 07:06:04 AM »

They couldn't have repaired it anyhow. Stuff had fallen off before but they'd still made it, so I guess they crossed their fingers and hoped for the best - it worked before...

Cannot say I haven't made such decisions myself. OTOH, risking the lives of others based on that 'hunch' is not acceptable, IMHO.

Am still much impressed with the integrity and technical skills of the engineers. The US has the best and brightest in that department when considering the numbers.

There is always the risk of crying wolf and I bet this was an issue. Further flights and budgets might be affected if the missions are perceived as dangerous - at a time when a billion dollar project for a replacement had been cancelled due to non solvable engineering issues (with the budget they had).

An ejection at that altitude at that speed would have been fatal. Only thing that could be done would be to have a compartment totally and utterly heat shielded all the way around, as there are no guarantees the pod would be in a stable flight after ejection. That'd add lots of engineering problems.

Nope, they had to wait til the speed went down - it is doable to eject from very high altitudes if you wear a pressurised suit - but you need to have a relatively low speed and a specially designed chute system.

AWMac · « **Reply #10 on:** February 27, 2003, 12:34:47 PM »

Quote

FYI, a test pilot ejected at Mach 1.1 while wearing only a BUSINESS SUIT and survived.

LOL

A test pilot at Mach 1.1 in a Business Suit? What is wrong with this picture?

Quote

Only 2 or 3 panels were missing from his chute also.

ROTF

Obviously he opened his chute at Mach 1.1

Which would
have jerked his watermelon loose... On second thought they should have made the jet out of the same stuff as the chute ...

Lies, Lies, all Lies!!!!

Sixpence · « **Reply #11 on:** February 27, 2003, 01:02:33 PM »

"FYI, a man has broken the speed of sound in a skydive from over 100,000 feet before. "

Is that meant to be sarcastic?

AWMac · « **Reply #12 on:** February 27, 2003, 01:15:24 PM »

"FYI, a man has broken the speed of sound in a skydive from over 100,000 feet before. "

NASA Spokesman Ben Dover has been quoted as saying: "We are still recovering his remains in CA, AZ, NM, TX....."

Doberman · « **Reply #13 on:** February 27, 2003, 02:07:35 PM »

Report of a high altitude parachuter.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/JianHuang.shtml

The facts are that he did NOT exceed the speed of sound. Contemporary reports CLAIMED that he did, but read this entire report.

The two skydivers mentioned who are planning to jump from a higher altitude and might possibly excees the local speed of sound have still not attempted their dives yet.