Shuttle Launch on Despite Damaged Foam

Breitbart.com ^ | 7/3/06 | MIKE SCHNEIDER/AP

[wagglebee]

NASA gave the green light Monday night for a Fourth of July shuttle liftoff despite worries about a piece of foam that popped off Discovery's external fuel tank while the spacecraft sat on the launch pad.

The decision was sure to stir more debate about whether the space agency was putting its flight schedule ahead of safety.

The 3-inch triangular piece of foam that appeared to come from a 5- inch-long crack late Sunday or early Monday is far smaller than the foam chunk that brought down Columbia, killing seven astronauts in But NASA managers spent most of Monday pondering whether to go ahead with the launch.

Some outside experts said they were uncomfortable with going ahead, although they didn't have all the information.

Paul Fischbeck, a Carnegie Mellon University risk and engineering professor who has consulted with NASA on the shuttle's delicate heat protection system noted that NASA said they had never seen foam fall off on the launch pad before.

"The question is why did it happen this time and never before? If it's something you've never seen before, that makes it much more curious. "It's something you might want to understand before you launch."

The patch of foam fell off an area that covers an expandable bracket holding a liquid oxygen fuel line against the huge external tank. NASA engineers believe ice built up in that area from condensation caused by rain Sunday.

The tank expanded when the super-cold fuel was drained after Sunday's launch was canceled because of the weather. The ice that formed "pinched" some of that foam, causing the quarter-inch-wide crack and the piece of foam to drop off, officials said.

The size of the fallen foam was less than half the size of one that could cause damage, NASA officials said.

Inspectors spotted the crack in the foam insulation during an overnight check of the shuttle. NASA had scrubbed launch plans Saturday and Sunday because of weather problems.

The forecast for a Tuesday liftoff was better than previous days, with just a 40 percent chance that storm clouds would prevent liftoff.

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin decided last week that the shuttle should go into orbit as planned, despite the concerns of two top agency managers _ including the top safety officer _ 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 European Space Agency astronaut Thomas Reiter for a six-month stay.

[wagglebee]

Shuttle Ping.

[Terpfen]

I still can't believe we both use the shuttles, and that they are this delicate.

Get the private sector on this. I want comic book-level space travel technology in 10 years.

[Diogenesis]

"The size of the fallen foam was less than half the size of one that could cause damage, NASA officials said."

Sounds like a gamble to do this on July 4th.

[wagglebee]

I've been thinking for years that the private sector could do it better and cheaper.

[wagglebee]

And their track record with "gambles" isn't that great.

[Fitzcarraldo]

The decision was based on the fact that it won't fall off and damage any tiles during launch because it's already fallen off.

[tet68]

They put a borescope on a long piece of plastic tube and
viewed the area closely, the decision is go for launch.

God Speed.

[Bernard]

I grew up reading Asimov, Heinlein, etc. and all these years later I can't believe that this country's space program consists of trying to get a '78 Cutlass to start and keep running.

[spanalot]

This PUR foam is elastic and despite the low temp, this is an aberration that should not be tolerated.

[RadioAstronomer]

I hear ya!

[Professional Engineer]

I grew up reading Asimov, Heinlein, etc. and all these years later I can't believe that this country's space program consists of trying to get a '78 Cutlass to start and keep running.

LOL it's a shame isn't it.

[diverteach]

I couldn't imagine how the astronauts feel about this. Not only to get totally pschyed up about the launch only to be let down, not once but twice, and now the higher powers that be say a 5" crack in the foam is okay and no big deal with only ONE successful launch under thier belts since Columbia went down in flames do to the foam.

And they say air traffic controllers have the MOST stressful job. I'll bet those astronauts would argue that fact.

[lexington minuteman 1775]

Good thing they did not put a boroscope up to some libeals they would have seen some really scary stuff!

[Phsstpok]

The 3-inch triangular piece of foam that appeared to come from a 5- inch-long crack late Sunday or early Monday is far smaller than the foam chunk that brought down Columbia, killing seven astronauts in But NASA managers spent most of Monday pondering whether to go ahead with the launch.

OK, here's the problem with the no-nothing press and luddite hoard.

The "foam chunk that brought down Columbia" didn't bring down Columbia.  It was the multi thousand degree temperatures of reentry that doomed Columbia.  The foam chunk broke a piece of the fragile insulation on launch.  Yet Columbia flew safely for a week after that.  What killed the crew was three things:

1. they didn't know that the insulation on the leading edge of the orbiter had been damaged (apparently in a gross and rather obvious way, if they'd had the ability to see it)
2. even if they had known of the damage they had no way to fix it
3. they had no plan to do anything in the event the orbiter was damaged

All of those circumstances have been dealt with in planning since the Columbia went down.  They have the ability to do detailed inspections of all of the critical thermal insulation.  From the material I've seen it is better than a visual inspection while on the launch pad.  That's pretty impressive.  They also have built at least some (so far untested) ability to repair (minor) damage to the thermal insulation.  And finally they have plans for using the ISS as a "life boat" for the crew in case they can't repair any hypothetical damage.

No one, I repeat, no one, is suggesting any risk to the crew on launch, such as what happened to the Challenger crew.  That would be a totally different argument.  This decision is based on having what is unarguably a reasonable set of alternatives in case there is any damage of the type that happened to Columbia.

This isn't gardening.  Launching people on top of tons of high explosives at speeds faster than any other humans have ever traveled isn't "safe."  They have identified the likely risks and have reasonable answers for any of those recognized risks.

The problem here, for me, is that the press, and too many of the "smart people" are spending their energy on second guessing the responses to those identified risks.  Instead we should be pushing those minds to contemplate the risks that no one has thought of so that they can be identified and assessed.

When the Apollo 1 fire happened way back in the 60s the conclusion, offered by Frank Borman in Congressional testimony, was that the problem was a "failure of imagination."  Everyone is obsessing about the response to what we have already thought of.  That's foolish.  Yes, it can still go wrong, but reasonable steps have been taken.  What's needed is to think the "unthinkable" and try to find ways to mitigate (notice, not eliminate) those risks.

I'm going to say many, many prayers.  I'm going to have my heart in my throat the entire time that they're up there, particularly during the ascent.  I can still give you nearly all of the check list items from t-2 minutes through the final orbital insertion OMS burns and I'll chew my fingernails at every critical check point.  But I agree with the "GO" decision.

This isn't "GO" fever.  Nor is this gardening.

[HighWheeler]

"And their track record with "gambles" isn't that great."


-- --


Before the PC abominations in technolgy in the '90s and '00s (ie during the '60's), there were PLENTY of gambles taken. Mercury 3 was fired after two big failures of the Mercury, with probably the second best astronaut of all time aboard, Alan Shepard.

Neil Armstrong was almost killed twice, once on Gemini 8 with David Scott in 1966 during the first-ever docking maneuver when a control thruster stuck open and sent them in a high speed spin, and a year before the Apollo 11 launch when he was training in an LLTV that failed and he ejected only 400 miliseconds before he would have been killed.

It is the bravery of these guys and other explorers that carves the way for the rest of us.

If this were the '60's, they would have told Al Gore to stuff his PC up his 4$$, and put the foam on correctly, and if it still peeled off, they would fix it and launch again on schedule.

[billbears]

this country's space program consists of trying to get a '78 Cutlass to start and keep running.

LOL!!! I've always thought of it as an outdated space bus but '78 Cutlass is about right.

[longshadow]

"Let us make recommendations to ensure that NASA officials deal in a world of reality in understanding technological weaknesses and imperfections well enough to be actively trying to eliminate them. They must live in reality in comparing the costs and utility of the Shuttle to other methods of entering space. And they must be realistic in making contracts, in estimating costs, and the difficulty of the projects. Only realistic flight schedules should be proposed, schedules that have a reasonable chance of being met. If in this way the government would not support them, then so be it. NASA owes it to the citizens from whom it asks support to be frank, honest, and informative, so that these citizens can make the wisest decisions for the use of their limited resources."

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."

from:

Personal observations on the reliability of the Shuttle, by R.P. Feynman

Still being ignored, 20 years later.....

[El Gran Salseron]

The astronauts had input in the decision. If any or all of them were against the launch they could pull out. They haven't done so.

[isthisnickcool]

I couldn't imagine how the astronauts feel about this. Not only to get totally pschyed up about the launch only to be let down, not once but twice, and now the higher powers that be say a 5" crack in the foam is okay and no big deal with only ONE successful launch under thier belts since Columbia went down in flames do to the foam.

I wonder how it feels to train for years then get bumped by an old fart US Senator. I was in one of the buildings at JSC when Glenn was there training. The people I was there with asked me if I wanted to meet him. I said "yes, I want to ask him how it feels to bump someone who has been training for years so he can stroke his own overblown ego". The guys I was visiting with were old school JSC and one said "go ahead" but someone else stopped me before I got across the building to get to Glenn. In Glenn's defense several of the "old hands" liked him.

Over the past couple of years several of my buddies have left JSC. Every one of them told me that the shuttle should never ever fly again.