Posted on 07/04/2006 1:53:42 PM PDT by HAL9000
Up to five pieces of debris that could be foam insulation fell off the space shuttle Discovery's troublesome external fuel tank shortly after lift-off, according to NASA. The shuttle blasted off from the Kennedy Space Centre in Florida at 19.38 BST. About three minutes later, three or four pieces of debris were seen flying off the fuel tank, and another popping off a bit later, said shuttle programme manager Wayne Hale.Discovery was so high by then that there wasn't enough air to accelerate the pieces into the shuttle and cause damage, he said.
"That is the very raw, preliminary data," he said. "It will be a while before we get a complete picture of what happened during the ascent. But we're looking for these small events that were going on."
The mission is only the second since the destruction of the shuttle Columbia and the deaths of its crew in February, 2003.
NASA's top administrators decided to launch Discovery despite the objections of some key safety and engineering officials who said the shuttle's troubled fuel tank, which triggered the Columbia disaster, needed additional repairs.
There was fresh doubt about the mission on Monday when a crack was found in the tank's foam insulation.
Any serious problems with the 13-day mission is likely to bring a premature end to the US shuttle programme and leave the International Space Station unfinished.
Discovery's key goals are to test the fuel tank, carry much-needed equipment and supplies to the space station and make repairs to the orbiting outpost.
Only 5, not bad..
Public Transportation.
$500 fine for littering in Florida.
It could all be fixed if the friggin NASA people would go against the Greenies and go BACK to manufacturing the foam the old way.
HArrumph.
At one point they were actually bragging about it.....guess those days are over.
Before anybody reminds you that there are no carbon units with an oxygen/hydrogen reaction, IIRC they use kerosene to light the thing off.
What are the solid boosters using for fuel?
(And is it true that the only reason the solid boosters were used is that they're made in Walter Mondale's district?)
Blasted liberal environmentals.
That's what caused the problems on the last one, but like good "earth citizens", we're still using it.
Isn't the Shuttle an H2+O2 rocket? So everything the greenies would have done to their calculators after turning them on would have been wrong. Sure, their was lots of harder to compute carbon burned prior to launch to make it possible, but as for the launch itself the calculator had it right when it was first turned on.
The solid boosters uses a mixture of liquid polysulfide rubber, Ammonium Perchlorate, and a little powdered Aluminum. A curing agent is added to the mix before pouring and it cures to the consistency of a pencil eraser.
Not true. Snopes really should have an article on this by now. The foam that destroyed the Columbia was BX-250, a freon based foam. Additionally, foam fell off of 80% of flights that were observed (low resolution videos) by the CAIB. Foam fell off of the orbiter before most parts of the external fuel tank had their foam changed to non-freon based foam.
I would say that the shuttle probably sheds less foam that it ever has, before and after the EPA regulation change.
I'm smart for a dog, because I'm someone's dog. Labs Rule!
What a waste of taxpayer dollars....the shuttle program and the UN in NY should both be done away with.
Main engines can't be pure H2 + O2 - you can see the fire.
No, the Shuttle wouldn't be able to achieve orbit without them.
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.