Posted on 07/03/2006 8:37:16 AM PDT by saganite
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - Inspectors found a 5-inch-long crack in the foam insulation covering the shuttle Discovery's external fuel tank, and NASA managers were deciding Monday whether to call off the scheduled Fourth of July launch.
The crack was spotted during an overnight inspection. NASA had scrubbed launch plans Saturday and Sunday because of poor weather and had removed fuel from the tank.
The inspectors found the crack, which was an eighth of an inch deep, in the foam on a bracket near the top of the external fuel tank.
"We don't know if it's a problem or not," NASA spokesman George Diller said Monday.
Officials were meeting to determine whether it could be fixed for a Tuesday liftoff.
If NASA decides to go ahead with the launch Tuesday, it would be the first manned launch by the United States on the nation's birthday, and only the second liftoff of a space shuttle since the 2003 Columbia disaster.
Concerns about cracks in the fuel tank's foam insulation have dogged the program since Columbia exploded over Texas on Feb. 1, 2003. A chunk of flyaway foam had damaged Columbia's wing during liftoff, allowing superheated gas to penetrate the shuttle when it re-entered the atmosphere.
NASA tried to fix the problem before trying another launch, but more foam broke off Discovery's redesigned tank last July, barely missing the shuttle.
NASA Administrator Michael Griffin decided the shuttle should go into orbit despite the concerns of two top agency managers who wanted additional repairs to the foam insulation.
The mission for Discovery's crew this time is to test shuttle-inspection techniques, deliver supplies to the international space station and drop off German astronaut Thomas Reiter for a six-month stay.
The weather forecast for a Tuesday liftoff was better than it was on Sunday or Monday, with a 40 percent chance that storms at launch time would prevent liftoff, said U.S. Air Force 1st Lt. Kaleb Nordgren, a shuttle weather forecaster. NASA planned to make launch attempts on Tuesday and on Wednesday if necessary.
___
The simple solution is to go back to the old foam.
Stop dicking around with people's lives.
Cause of Two Shuttle Disasters: Enviro Dogma
Hannes Hacker
Friday, July 11, 2003
Editor's note: Also see Clinton Environmental Policy Sabotaged the Shuttle.
Now that a dramatic new test has confirmed that a piece of thermal insulation flaking off of space shuttle Columbia's external tank during launch was the most likely cause of its destruction during re-entry, the typical second-guessing in the press has focused on NASA engineers, asking: "What did Mission Control know, and when did they know it?"
Somehow, NASA engineers should have guessed about the damage done to Columbia's thermal tiles and pulled an Apollo 13-style rabbit out of their hat. The implication is that they should have been omniscient and omnipotent.
Having heroes like NASA's mission controllers around to quietly brave the world's criticism certainly serves to divert attention from those who have done the most to contribute to this disaster, and who regard themselves as omniscient and omnipotent enough to command the entire American economy and the lives of its citizens: the environmentalists.
Why did the shuttle's foam insulation flake off? In response to an edict from the EPA, NASA was required to change the design of the thermal insulating foam on the shuttle's external tank. They stopped using Freon, or CFC-11, to comply with the 1987 Montreal Protocol, an agreement designed to head off doubtful prognostications of an environmental disaster.
But it was the elimination of the old foam that led to a real disaster for the shuttle program.
The maiden flight with the new foam, in 1997, resulted in a 10-fold increase to foam-induced tile damage. The new foam was far more dangerous than the old foam.
But NASA, a government organization afraid of antagonizing powerful political interests, did not reject the EPA's demands and thoroughly reverse the fatal decision. Instead, they sought a compromise by applying for a waiver from the EPA that allowed them to use the old foam on some parts of the external tank.
NASA notes that it is impossible to ascertain with certainty whether it was the old or the new foam that caused the recent disaster, and environmentalists will no doubt say this means that we can't pin the disaster on them. But any unnecessary increase in risk in an enterprise so unforgiving of error, is unacceptable.
P.C. Junk 'Science' Trumps Engineering
The bottom line is that NASA took a much greater risk to comply with EPA demands. Environmentalist junk science trumped sound engineering.
This is not the first time that has happened. The cause of the 1986 Challenger explosion is officially established as hot gases burning through an O-ring joint in one of the solid-rocket boosters. NASA was roundly criticized for its decision to launch in cold weather over the objection of some engineers, but there was a deeper cause that was not as widely reported.
In 1985 NASA had switched to a new putty to seal the O-ring joints. The new putty became brittle at cold temperatures, thus allowing Dr. Richard Feynman to teach NASA a famous lesson. At the congressional hearing investigating the accident, he simply placed some of the O-ring putty in a glass of ice water and crumbled it in his fingers.
NASA had changed the sealant because its original supplier for O-ring putty stopped producing it for fear of anti-asbestos lawsuits.
No Lessons Learned From the Challenger Disaster
Had NASA not run out of the original putty, the Challenger disaster would not have happened. Indeed, when the Air Force ran out of the same putty and replaced it with the same brittle substitute, their Titan 34D heavy-lift boosters suffered two sudden launch failures, after a string of successes that had lasted as long as that of the space shuttle.
These accidents are not primarily the fault of careless engineers, nor are they merely the unintended consequences of bureaucrats blindly following federal rules. They are the result of a philosophy that hold human needs, such as the need for a safe shuttle launch or re-entry, as less important than a concern to preserve the purity of nature from the products of industrial civilization, such as CFCs and asbestos insulation.
Al Gore's Twisted Dream
Had 2000 presidential candidate Al Gore had his way, Columbia's last mission would have carried a spacecraft called Triana into space. Triana was meant to beam continuous images, via the Internet, of a very small Earth as seen from a point between Earth and the sun.
The idea was to convey the message of how small and fragile the Earth is, and consequently how small man is, compared to the vastness of space.
That's the theory: Man is small and should sacrifice for vast nature. The practice? Fourteen dead astronauts.
Analysis by Hannes Hacker, an aerospace engineer and former flight controller at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston. He is a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." Send comments to reaction@aynrand.org
See Post 22. I don't recall exactly where I first read it, but it was likely here on FR.
They used to use tiles for the heat sheild didn't they ? This foam seems to be worse than the old system of tiles.
Until you can establish that it's not a problem... it's a problem.
They still use tiles for the heat shield. They are designed to handle the extremely high temperatures of re-entry. (The last project I worked on at NASA was wind-tunnel testing their ability to withstand the dynamic forces of re-entry.)
The foam provides insulation for the cryogenic (very cold) fuel tank used to get up to orbit.
Two different applications, two different materials.
Cancel the mission. Ship it to the Smithsonian.
The risk is not worth the payoff.
So the foam is part of the original design ? The shuttle has been around for over 30 years, why all the trouble with the foam now ?
It's significant to me that we had a lot of successful shuttle missions up to that point so something went wrong. On the first several shuttle missions, the external tank was painted white (using Sears Weatherbeater exterior latex paint); they eliminated the paint to save weight so the external tanks on subsequent launches have been orange in color which is the color of the foam. I'm not suggesting that they should go back to painting the tanks but merely go back to the process that was being used before these separation problems began.
They changed the foam formulation some years back. Seems the original required some now-banned chemical (CFCs?) in making the foam. The new enviromentally-correct formulation is not as good as the original.
that has been common knowledge....during the Clinton administration
Why am I not surprised ?
As of 1pm EDT, standing by for NASA Mission Managemnet Briefing.
Let's see what they say.
You're correct. I hate to say it, but we really need to move on. The shuttle was a tremendous step forward in space flight and the I think that this type craft is better suited to private commercial apps not exploration.
The liberal Democrat enviro-nazis will gleefully throw away the lives of astronauts by forcing politically correct downgrades to space shuttles, so it's no surprise that they will also gleefully kill thousands of automobile drivers by forcing politically correct changes in auto design, including lighter frames and overall lighter construction to accomodate unrealistic MPG requirements.
Briefing NOW!
News conference on NOW
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.