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.
You guys better call up the FR launch crew for this report.
Guess I should have read to the end of the thread. Everything was already answered. Sorry folks!
"Discovery was so high by then that there wasn't enough air to accelerate the pieces into the shuttle and cause damage, he said."
But apparently strong enough to rip them off the tank. I would sure like to know if the solid rockets had been jettisoned by this time in the flight.
NASA hadn't certified the replacement (BX-265 of 258 I believe) until about 2003. Other fuel tanks were actually outfitted with the new foam in places where BX-250 was used at the time of Columbia's launch.
The EPA really made NASA jump through some hoops, perhaps diverting their attention from the danger of foam shedding. In any case, the EPA situation is only a minor footnote of the much larger problems that doomed Columbia. The Space Shuttle is much safer today, not because of the type of foam it uses, but because of the improved QA and operational process.
I just got hit on the head with a piece of foam, call my lawyer!
I'm sorry - that "larger problem" it was recycled foam.
Columbia could have survived if foam hit a different part of it. But the point remains - and you omitted it from your posts - EPA regulations killed both Columbia and Challenger.
And, in a pinch on launch day...
Honeywell has had a non cfc or hcfc blowing agent for polyurethane foams for about 5 years now. Fa245. Foams using their blowing agent have worked well in the old R11 and hcfc systems with minor changes to the formulations. The idea that the blowing agent is a problem is not true. (I have been working in polyurethanes for 25 years).
If this is correct, then the entire shuttle program is inexcusably flawed with a catastrophic design error.
Is GM making Shuttles now?
This is just a guess but the liquid rocket engine nozzles are coated with an ablative material, some of which burns off during flight. It's possible that the residue from this is visible.
Well then, that is not pure, is it? ;)
You missed my point, which was easy to do since I really didn't explain it very well. My point is that perfectly fine non-recycled BX-250 foam fell off of the bipod strut of 10% of flights that were observed by the CAIB. 80% of flights had other foam fall off (much of that was BX-250).
The EPA didn't kill those astronauts any more than the Russians killed the astronauts of Apollo 1. NASA's failure to determine the danger of the foam (recycled, freon, on non-freon) is what killed the astronauts. If recycled BX-250 was too dangerous, NASA always could have canceled the launch. They didn't. There are many agencies and regulations that sometimes conflict with what NASA wants to do. It is the job of NASA to communicate with them and work around the problems, and if necessary alter their programs in a safe manner. If I had to assign blame for the loss of Columbia, I would put 0.01% (at most) at the hands of the EPA and 99.99% at the hands of NASA.
More like Sen. Jake Garn from Utah, a Republican who strong armed NASA into putting him on a shuttle flight, thereby causing a real, trained astronaut to sit on the ground, and any actual work that astronaut could have done going to waste.
Same goes for Florida Senator Bill Nelson and John Glenn.
In fact, in Mike Mullane's book, a very prominent senator tried like hell to get put on a flight, but was rebuffed after NASA finished their stupid stunts with non trained personnel.
NASA should sell advertising space on all the falling pieces of foam.
Absolutely. I don't think it is realistic to fly the shuttle without losing foam. Here are some of the findings from the CAIB report (none of these used high resolution cameras, or extra cameras like we have today as far as I know):
F3.2−5
The Board found instances of left bipod ramp shedding on launch that NASA was not aware of, bringing the total known left bipod ramp shedding events to 7 out of 72 missions for which imagery of the launch or External Tank separation is available.
F3.2−7
Foam loss occurred on more than 80 percent of the 79 missions for which imagery was available to confirm or rule out foam loss.
"I would put 0.01% (at most) at the hands of the EPA and 99.99% at the hands of NASA"
That's why no sane person wants to go to work for NASA anymore: you'll get forced by the ideological kooks into risky deals and that risk will all be yours.
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.