Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NASA Defends Shuttle's Thermal Tiles / STS-107
Yahoo! News ^ | 2/5/03 | Paul Recer - AP

Posted on 02/05/2003 12:13:36 PM PST by NormsRevenge

NASA Defends Shuttle's Thermal Tiles
1 hour, 30 minutes ago
Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!

By PAUL RECER, AP Science Writer

SPACE CENTER, Houston - NASA (news - web sites) on Wednesday defended the thermal tile system that has come under suspicion in the space shuttle Columbia disaster, saying it has worked well for many flights.

Photo
AP Photo


Slideshow


(Reuters Video)


(AP Video)


Space Shuttle Columbia
Special Coverage


The space agency was warned in a technical report at least nine years ago that the heat-protection tiles on the undersides of the shuttle's wings were susceptible to damage that could destroy the spacecraft.

"We've had a lot of experience with that thermal protection system," said Mike Kostelnik, a top spaceflight official. "We've had good success with the tile system."

He acknowledged, however, that there are key sites on the underside of the wing, such as the covers of the landing gear compartment, that make the craft vulnerable during re-entry into Earth's atmosphere.

"They would be source of problems if they are not properly sealed," Kostelnik said.

A technical report published in 1994 warned the space shuttle could be destroyed if tiles protecting critical wing parts were damaged by debris during liftoff, but NASA engineers never found a complete solution for the safety soft spot.

Now the failure of the tiles is a leading theory for the catastrophic end of Columbia.

NASA struggled for years in trying to ensure that the tiles were firmly attached to the shuttle, Paul Fischbeck, an engineering professor at Carnegie Mellon University, said in his analysis.

He said Tuesday that NASA engineers "took a lot of our advice to heart" and made changes to lower the risk of debris hitting the tiles during launch. But the problems were never completely solved, he said.

A patch of foam insulation breaking off from the shuttle's external fuel tank during launch and striking tiles on the underside of the left wing is being studied as the possible cause of Columbia's destruction Saturday, which left all seven astronauts dead.

"There are very important tiles under there. If you lose the tiles on those stretches ... it can cause the shuttle to be lost," Fischbeck said.

Meanwhile, the search for bits and pieces of the shattered Columbia was expanded westward to California and Arizona, where teams were checking reports of debris. That material could provide clues to the earliest stages of Columbia's disintegration.

Investigators also were examining military photos taken from an Apache helicopter of Columbia's fiery final descent.

Fischbeck and his colleagues made an initial report to NASA in 1990 and published a follow-up paper in 1994.

They conducted a risk analysis of the shuttle's thermal protection tile system and found that the spacecraft was highly vulnerable to tiles being knocked off or broken by insulation falling from the fuel tank and from other debris.

In the follow-up paper, Fischbeck said he studied debris strikes during the first 50 shuttle launches and concluded that about 25 thermal tiles per flight sustained at least one inch of damage.

The analysis found that the most vulnerable shuttle parts were the undersides of the wings close to the fuselage and right under the crew compartment.

NASA experts said that data from Columbia shows a sudden temperature rise — a marker for failed tiles — in the left wheel well, an area Fischbeck's report said was a critical risk.

Fischbeck's report said that a key problem faced by NASA was training technicians to glue tiles on the hull of the space shuttle and then test the strength of the bonding.

An adhesive used for the tiles hardened more quickly if it was wet, and the report said NASA found one technician helping the process along by spitting into the glue. The wetting, however, compromised the bond.

To find loose tiles, workers conducted a pull test, using a special machine, but the study found this technique missed some problems. The best method was a "wiggle test" that only experienced technicians learned to do, the study found.

Investigators searching for clues to Columbia's loss are focusing on a 2 1/2-pound, 20-inch chunk of foam insulation that fell from the shuttle's external tank moments after liftoff and stuck the underside of the wing, possibly damaging the tiles. The shuttle was traveling at 2 1/2 times the speed of sound at the time, or just over 1,900 mph.

Kostelnik said that foam insulation has peeled off during earlier launches, but none was the size of the chunk that went sailing off Columbia's fuel tank.

Fischbeck said NASA has improved the protection and maintenance of the tile system since his study. Foam insulation on the fuel tank was changed, and there are stricter limits on how much ice is allowed on the fuel tank before launch. Ice forms because of the supercold liquid hydrogen and oxygen propellants in the tank.

___

On the Net:

NASA: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov



TOPICS: Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: foaminsulation; nasa; shuttle; sts107; thermaltiles
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last
Investigators searching for clues to Columbia's loss are focusing on a 2 1/2-pound, 20-inch chunk of foam insulation that fell from the shuttle's external tank moments after liftoff and stuck the underside of the wing, possibly damaging the tiles. The shuttle was traveling at 2 1/2 times the speed of sound at the time, or just over 1,900 mph.
1 posted on 02/05/2003 12:13:36 PM PST by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
He acknowledged, however, that there are key sites on the underside of the wing, such as the covers of the landing gear compartment, that make the craft vulnerable during re-entry into Earth's atmosphere.

The piece that was filmed coming off Columbia over northern Arizona seemed pretty big -- much brighter than you'd expect from a tile. I wonder if it could have been one of the landing gear covers.

2 posted on 02/05/2003 12:20:36 PM PST by Interesting Times
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
2.5 lbs at 1,900 mph

a .223 travels at what, about 1300fps? ...

1900 mph is about 2786.66~ feet per second

somebody has probably already worked out the energy transfer on another thread, I'm sure ... and of course a lot depends upon the impact angle ...
3 posted on 02/05/2003 12:23:15 PM PST by Bobby777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
I wonder if the foam insulation was also applied with spit...

Un-friggin'-believable!

4 posted on 02/05/2003 12:25:28 PM PST by Capitalist Eric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
As you suggest, this was discussed in detail on some other threads. The short version is that the chunk of insulation wasn't going at 1,900 mph relative to Columbia, but at whatever speed the 1,900 mph airsteam could accelerate it to in the distance between the point where it broke off and the point where it hit the wing.
5 posted on 02/05/2003 12:26:12 PM PST by Interesting Times
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
(the impacting debris was decelerating from the same speed as the vehicle obviously, so the difference between the object and the impact area is the question ... not an easy answer I suppose) ...
6 posted on 02/05/2003 12:28:47 PM PST by Bobby777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
2.5 lbs at 1,900 mph a .223 travels at what, about 1300fps? ... 1900 mph is about 2786.66~ feet per second somebody has probably already worked out the energy transfer on another thread, I'm sure ... and of course a lot depends upon the impact angle ...

About the only thing you have correct is that it depends on the impact angle.

7 posted on 02/05/2003 12:29:17 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
"We've had good success with the tile system."

Not now, we haven't.

8 posted on 02/05/2003 12:30:22 PM PST by KellyAdmirer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times
yes, thank you ... I was just in the process of posting a reply to myself so that people would know I understood that ... appreciate your mentioning it, too ...
9 posted on 02/05/2003 12:30:30 PM PST by Bobby777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times
but at whatever speed the 1,900 mph airsteam could de-accelerate it to in the distance between the point where it broke off and the point where it hit the wing.
10 posted on 02/05/2003 12:30:42 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
are the speeds wrong? ... please correct then ...
11 posted on 02/05/2003 12:31:30 PM PST by Bobby777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
Yeah, well the foam that drops off is ALSO travelling at 1900 mph. In the dozen or so feet of falling, it wouldn't lose that much speed. You might be talking a relative impact speed ballparked 200 to 20 mph.
12 posted on 02/05/2003 12:33:06 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
I wonder... how does NASA know it was insulation and not a large chunk of ice ? In my lay mind a chunk of ice would have a much greater mass which would deliver far more energy into the wing's surface than something pliable like foam (which I have no clue, as to it's composition).
13 posted on 02/05/2003 12:33:25 PM PST by freepersup (And this expectation will not disappoint us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
I said 'accelerate' because I had just said 'relative to Columbia'...
14 posted on 02/05/2003 12:34:21 PM PST by Interesting Times
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
About the only thing you have correct is that it depends on the impact angle.

again, what speed numbers are incorrect? ... I'm not talking impact speed ... I already referenced that ...
15 posted on 02/05/2003 12:35:52 PM PST by Bobby777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bvw
see my #6
16 posted on 02/05/2003 12:36:38 PM PST by Bobby777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
If you watch the video, the object (ice or foam ?) appears to stall in the burble, before exiting this turbulent space and then gets swept into the onrushing relative wind.
17 posted on 02/05/2003 12:38:16 PM PST by freepersup (And this expectation will not disappoint us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bvw
You might be talking a relative impact speed ballparked 200 to 20 mph.

With respect, I must disagree. The effects of gravity will be negligible. What will make the difference, is the surface area exposed to the airstream. Considering the relatively low density of the foam, and a 1,900 MPH airstream hitting this piece of foam, it would decelerate the foam piece FAST, so that by the time it hit the wing, there would be a significant difference in speed at time of impact.

While no physics expert (only a few university classes), I would guess that the differential was significantly greater than your highest guess of 200 MPH...

Not trying to start an argument... JMHO.

FReegards,

18 posted on 02/05/2003 12:39:13 PM PST by Capitalist Eric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
If you know the frame rate of the video it is easy enough to calculate the relative speed. I don't know that frame rate.
19 posted on 02/05/2003 12:43:10 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
We've had good success with the tile system

So - that complicated structure making up the wing's leading edge HAS been cleared?

THAT'S news ...

20 posted on 02/05/2003 12:45:13 PM PST by _Jim (//NASA has a better safety record than NASCAR\\)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson