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.
Not true. Appendix F.5 of the CAIB describes the sizes of foam breakoffs by mission. Pages 39 and 41 (47 and 49 of the PDF) give a few good diagrams. A little further in the Appendix shows that major losses occured on STS-7, STS-32, STS-42, STS-47, STS-50, STS-52, STS-56, STS-58, STS-62, STS-87 and STS-112 (the only recent loss other than obviously STS-107).
Diverting responsibility to others is really a fruitless exercise. What I was trying to describe is that no matter how people spin the situation, NASA was always responsible for the lives of the astronauts, no matter what the EPA did. You can never hand off the responsibility to someone else.
Admiral Hyman G. Rickover once said:
Responsibility is a unique concept: it can only reside and inhere in a single individual. You may share it with others, but your portion is not diminished. You may delegate it, but it is still with you. You may disclaim it, but you cannot divest yourself of it. Even if you do not recognize it or admit its presence, you cannot escape it. If responsibility is rightfully yours, no evasion, or ignorance, or passing the blame can shift the burden to someone else. Unless you can point your finger at the person who is responsible when something goes wrong, then you have never had anyone really responsible.
Both excellent posts regarding politics! Thanks.
Was Admiral Rickover ever married?
Three minutes after launch, they weren't in Florida anymore.
I know they're necessary. But didn't NASA originally want a liquid booster?
The propellant mixture in each SRB motor consists of an ammonium perchlorate (oxidizer, 69.6 % by weight), aluminum (fuel, 16 %), iron oxide (a catalyst, 0.4 %), a polymer (such as PBAN or HTPB - a binder that holds the mixture together, 12.04 %), and an epoxy curing agent (1.96 %). This mixture develops a specific impulse of 242 seconds at sea level / 268 seconds vacuum.
wikipedia
Haha! Yes.
Yes, the last part of the tagline!
Just ran that photo thru my image program sharpen filter, maybe six times. That's like an edge enhancing filter -- a differential filter. There's a very slight image anomaly on the leading edge of the right wing almost directly above the apex of the "A" in "USA" in a line running parallel to the main body.
This was discussed here after Columbia disintegrated. I'm pretty sure that NASA (and its contractors, insofar as space flight related activities go) are *exempt* from the boneheaded environmental laws. IIRC, NASA chose to reformulate the insulation anyway, and seems to have stuck by that decision rather than going back to the less troublesome recipe. This is a self-inflicted wound that NASA keeps picking at, rather than treating it and getting it to heal.
Both Apollo and the Shuttle were victims of lack of Presidential (R) and Congressional(D) support. Apollo was terminated early, to save the (relatively small compared to development) cost of the later missions.
The Shuttle was starved for funds during the most critical time, development. As originally conceived, there would have been a fly back booster. Thus eliminating both the solids and the external tank. There might have been some problems with the tanks on the fly back booster, but it's hard to envision that they would have been anything like the "simple" external tank's. Both the Booster and the shuttle would have been almost completely reusable. Operating costs would have been much lower, but... development would have taken longer and cost more. Nixon never supported the space program, it was Kennedy and Johnson's creation, or so it seemed in his estimation.
The shuttle was to have much more of a military mission, as it did in the early days, and that both drove requirements, and earned the hostility of the crowd that "loathed the military".
The result was the half assed design and all the troubles we have today.
This is only because I've come to believe this so strongly that I simply cannot give it up and will believe it no matter how much "proof" you throw at me till my dying day! I despise GANG-GREEN and it's penetration of our GovernMental bureaucrazy!!!
And besides, they're supposed to be in favor of Public Transit!!!
"Diverting responsibility to others is really a fruitless exercise."
... though very successful for enviros.
I had no idea you could see a launch from that far away.
What`s that, 200 miles away?
They`re showing video`s on NASA tv of the launch now,pretty friggin awesome on our new plasma tv.
Prayers for a safe and trouble free mission.
EPA regulations also contributed to the collapse of the World Trade Center.
You're not hearing about it for the same reasons - Gang Green kills people, and the TRUTH.
About 90 miles.
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.