Posted on 07/27/2005 6:09:10 PM PDT by anymouse
The shuttle Discovery, like Columbia, shed a large chunk of foam debris during liftoff that could have threatened the return of the seven astronauts, NASA said Wednesday.
While there are no signs the piece of insulation damaged the spacecraft, NASA is grounding future shuttle flights until the hazard can be fixed.
"Call it luck or whatever, it didn't harm the orbiter," said shuttle program manager Bill Parsons. If the foam had broken away earlier in flight, when the atmosphere is thicker increasing the likelihood of impact, it could have caused catastrophic damage to Discovery.
"We think that would have been really bad, so it's not acceptable," said Parsons' deputy, Wayne Hale. But he said early signs are Discovery is safe for its return home.
A large chunk of foam flew off Discovery's redesigned external fuel tank just two minutes after what initially looked like a picture-perfect liftoff Tuesday morning. But in less than an hour NASA had spotted images of a mysterious object whirling away from the tank.
Mission managers did not realize what the object was — or how much havoc it would cause to the shuttle program — until Wednesday after reviewing video and images taken by just a few of the 100-plus cameras in place to watch for such dangers.
Officials do not believe the foam hit the shuttle, posing a threat to the seven astronauts when they return to Earth on Aug. 7. But they plan a closer inspection of the spacecraft in the next few days to be sure.
"You have to admit when you're wrong. We were wrong," Parsons said. "We need to do some work here, and so we're telling you right now that the ... foam should not have come off. It came off. We've got to go do something about that."
The loss of a chunk of debris, a vexing problem NASA thought had been fixed, represents a tremendous setback to a space program that has spent 2 1/2 years and over $1 billion trying to make the 20-year-old shuttles safe to fly.
"We won't be able to fly again," until the hazard is removed, Parsons told reporters in a briefing Wednesday evening.
Engineers believe the foam was 24 to 33 inches long, 10 to 14 inches wide, and anywhere between 2 and 8 inches thick, only somewhat smaller than the chunk that smashed into Columbia's left wing during liftoff in 2003. Its weight was not immediately known.
It broke away from a different part of the tank than the piece that mortally wounded Columbia. After the accident, the tank was redesigned to reduce the risk of foam insulation falling off.
Discovery's astronauts were told of the foam loss before going to sleep Wednesday.
Parsons stressed that Discovery's 12-day mission was a test flight designed to check the safety of future shuttle missions. He refused to give up on the spacecraft that was designed in the 1970s.
"We think we can make this vehicle safe for the next flight," he said, declining to judge the long-term impact on the manned space program. "We will determine if it's safe to fly."
Atlantis was supposed to lift off in September, but that mission is now on indefinite hold. Parsons refused to speculate when a shuttle might fly again, but did not rule out the possibility that Discovery's current mission may be the only one for 2005.
He said it was unlikely that Atlantis would be needed for a rescue mission, in the event Discovery could not return safely to Earth and its astronauts had to move into the international space station. Discovery, fortunately, appears to be in good shape for re-entry, he said.
In addition to the big chunk of foam, several smaller pieces broke off, including at least one from an area of the fuel tank that had been modified in the wake of the Columbia disaster.
Thermal tile was also damaged on Discovery's belly; one tile lost a 1 1/2-inch piece right next to the set of doors for the nose landing gear, a particularly vulnerable area.
Hale said none of the tile damage looked particularly serious, and likely would not require repairs in orbit.
Imagery experts and engineers expect to know by Thursday afternoon whether the gouge left by the missing piece of tile needs a second look. The astronauts have a 100-foot, laser-tipped crane on board that could determine precisely how deep the gouge is.
The tile fragment broke off less than two minutes after liftoff Tuesday and was spotted by a camera mounted on the external fuel tank.
If NASA decides to use its new inspection tool to get a 3-D view of the tile damage, the astronauts will examine the spot on Friday, a day after docking with the international space station.
On Wednesday, Discovery's astronauts spent nearly six hours using the boom to inspect Discovery's wings and nose cap for launch damage. The wings and nose are protected by reinforced carbon panels capable of taking the brunt of the searing re-entry heat.
Hale said the laser inspection turned up nothing alarming, but the analysis is ongoing.
Are you NASA guys LISTENING!
I say use some Duct Tape on the insulation.
I can imagine it's real easy for Congress to throw good money after bad when it seems there's an endless supply of other people's money.
It's anyone's guess how many "conservative" armchair Captain Kirks' votes they'd lose if they eliminated the manned space program altogether. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want to find out.
Apparently, this one is. We even appear to be having a conversation about it. ;)
Now they are blaming environmentalists on the foam problem. It's amazing how many things those evo's cause.
There's a direct time correlation to when the new foam was placed into service, and when the shedding increased to confetti-like levels. It's a true enough statement, but still hard to stomach that we didn't go back to the good foam.
Perhaps we'll take this as a good sign that we have a chance to fix this problem without more loss of life.
I'm counting the last 15 years since people say it is still in the "testing phase".
I would expect that the military over the past 25 years has blown through a great deal more money on their failed systems than NASA has, but the public doesn't see most of it.
Probably, but that doesn't make it right. It's more of an argument for reviewing military procurement than justifying the shuttle boondoggle.
In Ben Rich's book, Skunk Works, Ben's boss, Kelly Johnson warned him about allowing the Pentagon to interfere with the day-to-day operations. He knew that the stealth fighter project would take ten times as long, cost ten times as much money and probably not work right if the pentagon brass were allowed to interfere. (What would have happened if the EPA found out they were using asbestos on the wings?)
Fortunately Johnson was ballsy enough to keep the bureaucrats out.
We should drop out of the treaty. Both Challenger and Columbia were lost due to "environmental" substitutions of materials that were not as good as what they replaced and failed with catastophic results. Junk science and environmentalism have killed 14 astronauts, and may have killed the manned space program.
"I'm counting the last 15 years since people say it is still in the "testing phase".
I said "not operational" not "testing phase". The STS is a test bed system in certification for flight, but it performs its set of tasks without operational certification. The last TWENTY-FIVE years have seen a lot of work performed from Shuttle in addition to ongoing upgrades and flight testing.
"Probably, but that doesn't make it right."
And neither does it make it WRONG.
"It's more of an argument for reviewing military procurement than justifying the shuttle boondoggle."
Non-operational systems are highly monitored because they are unpredictable, military and civilian alike. Boondoggle is a sloppy term for both circumstances. The military's penchant for tech exploration and often stillborn concepts has resulted in some VERY good weapons rising to the top of the stack. They have oversight, to be sure, but if we strangled the military like some want to strangle NASA, we might as well start learning Russian and Chinese phrases.
"...Kelly Johnson warned him about allowing the Pentagon to interfere with the day-to-day operations. He knew that the stealth fighter project would take ten times as long, cost ten times as much money and probably not work right if the pentagon brass were allowed to interfere. (What would have happened if the EPA found out they were using asbestos on the wings?)
Fortunately Johnson was ballsy enough to keep the bureaucrats out."
That's a VERY true statement. If you examine the leadership of the Executive Branch and of NASA of the time, you would see that only balls and not brains were in evidence. Bill Clinton and Dan Goldin screwed NASA like a $10 whore. And the Russians were let into the peep show on the cheap.
There is incredible institutional damage to fix.
Me too. :-)
""The private market has never invested in raw research, or in massive new projects."
First off, the Wrights and Goddard's research was not based on any military contract or public spending. Their work was on their own dime or private funding. The U.S. military contracts and public bucks came AFTER their inventions were developed. I would love to see support for the assertion that their work was developed entirely with the funding of the public, since as you say, the private market has never invested in raw research.
Second off, either Da Vinci was employed by his prince or not, but that certainly doesn't make the Mona Lisa a public works project. His scientific work was akin to any other free agent's, i.e., his own, and his erstwhile employment was certainly not as a scientist but as a tutor and artist. There is to my knowledge no such thing as a "public tutor" or "public artist" for rich kids and wealthy men even now, and then it was even less likely, especially when there was no such thing as a public school or even doing things for "the public welfare" at the time. He was a private person, working for a private person, and you're really stretching to make his employer 'government,' especially when you talk of Renaissance Italy. I would love to see support for the assertion that his inventions were developed entirely with the funding of the public, since as you say, the private market has never invested in raw research.
Edison I'm sure we're going to argue about, but while you may be dismissive of Edison's genius, he was certainly smart enough to put 'existing science' to practical use where none had before. And movies, the light bulb, and record players are credited to him regardless of your denigration of his ability as less than invention. You may deny his work was invention, but it was certainly privately funded. I would love to see support for the assertion that his work was developed entirely with the funding of the public, since as you say, the private market has never invested in raw research.
And let's see you dismiss the private research of Nikolai Tesla as publicly funded or somehow 'applied science.' I would love to see support for the assertion that Nikolai Tesla's work was developed entirely with the funding of the public, since as you say, the private market has never invested in raw research.
Who will enforce those laws after private industry gets there? Will the U.N. shoot them down? Ditto the seabed and LOST. And Antarctica. When the point is reached that it makes sense to exploit those places, or there is commercial opportunity in doing so, private industry will do it. Until then, public research funding is simply someone's pork. NASA is just an extreme example of how we in America took the Soviets' purely military aerospace effort, and turned our response into a pork-laden 'research' effort, one that cannot be killed now since so many Senators and Representatives get a chomp on the bacon.
Supported by the majority of American citizens and voted on by their representives bi-partisanly.
So its not my Dream. Its the American majoritys dream and we are committed. You are along for the ride unwillingly.
Since you're so cocksure of the support of the majority, why don't you and your cohorts stop pointing guns at people & confiscating their money by force to pay for your space dream. Instead, setup a fund to which those majority citizens, that freely choose to do so, may voluntarily send their money to pay for your collective space dream.
Space exploration is not a legitimate function of government any more than gold ore motherlode exploration, or deep sea biotic exploration would be.
You're a thief until you setup the fund and receive voluntarily given funds to pay for your space dream instead of using force against me.
Stop Thief! Stop!
How should it go in outer space? At best it will go as the movement West in America. At worst it will go as the rape of the New World by Spain.
You must immediately see to the removal of America from the onerous 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty and the creation of a Land Office for registering entries and claims on celestial land. Until then, reflect on Daniel Boone, who at least obtained title to Kentucky by negotiation with the Indians. Leatherstocking is a myth.
"How should it go in outer space? At best it will go as the movement West in America. At worst it will go as the rape of the New World by Spain."
I disagree on your best/worst scenarios, since I think the law and government will not apply at all to extraplanetary travel in the long haul, and I think maybe I should have been clearer on that.
There is as yet no cheap way to get off planet and for the foreseeable future, it'll be more expensive to go up than down. As a result, since it makes more sense to convert resources here to a new use instead of prospecting for them elsewhere as long as that expense must be factored in, ain't no reason to go anywhere.
So until that changes, seems to me the payoff isn't enough to be worth the gamble to most people. And things will have to have really have gotten bad to get folks into privately exploring and settling off-planet space. Foolish governments and people will try to incentivize it and subsidize it, and maybe they will succeed wildly in the gamble. But I doubt it, if only because the environment of space is far harsher than that of the terran New World, and there is far less payoff from that sort of gamble given the investment. Extraplanetary terraforming will be more expensive than starting on the ground and improving what you have for a very long time.
So I think by the time private industry and persons decide in large numbers to hop out of this gravity well, hell will have broken loose down here, and that will be their last hope of escaping hamhanded government. I think the Earth must become an Asimovian high-Empire Trantor before it becomes a planet of spacefarers. But we shall see, I suppose.
Yes, however some development of space resources can be profitable if done well. The 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty and the concomitant lack of private property rights is all that stands in the way of that development.
The same is true of Antarctica. But I think we'll see, maybe in our lifetimes, that population boom is going to drive people to challenge those international 'laws' that say nobody can exploit resources there, and what those laws are worth. It'd be like you and me announcing that we're not going to allow strip mining on Pluto. Won't happen, but that's just because we're not in a situation where anyone wants to yet, and while we can proudly say we've stopped strip mining on Pluto for all eternity, that only works until someone tests it and finds out we can't do crap to stop it. When someone does want to exploit space or Antarctica, when the money is right, they're not gonna let the UN or laws get in the way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.