Posted on 02/07/2003 4:30:37 AM PST by The Magical Mischief Tour
Not according to this article:
"The initial NASA Mission Management Team (MMT) assessment of the debris impact made Jan. 18, two days after launch, noted "The strike appears to have occurred on or relatively close to the "wing glove" near the orbiter fuselage.
"The term "wing glove" generally refers to the area where the RCC bolt-on material is closest to the fuselage. This is also the general area where USAF imagery shows structural damage."
What if, instead of damaging the wing by smashing it, the foam torqued the wing backwards and caused damage at the front end of the wing-fusilage joint? Seems like the wing would be particularly well-reinforced there, but this WAS the 28th mission.
What if the constant stress on that wing joint weakened it over time?
The term "wing glove" generally refers to the area where the RCC bolt-on material is closest to the fuselage. This is also the general area where USAF imagery shows structural damage.
The second MMT summary analyzing the debris hit was made on Jan. 20 and had no mention of the leading-edge wing glove area. That report was more focused on orbiter black tiles on the vehicle's belly. The third and final summary issued on Jan. 27 discusses the black tiles again, but also specifically says "Damage to the RCC [wing leading edge] should be limited to [its] coating only and have no mission impact." Investigators in Houston are trying to match the location of the debris impact with the jagged edge shown in the Air Force imagery.
This tells me they made three assesments of the situation.
The first on Jan 18, two days after the launch, which states the strike appears to have occurred on or relative close to the "wing glove" area near the orbital fuselage.
The second, on Jan 20 which made no mention of the wing glove area.
And finally the third, on Jan 27 which also neglected to mention the wing glove area.
My question is, why did they leave the area they initially though was struck out of their subsequent two assesments? It looks to me like overlooking first impressions.
Given the equipment the crew had at their disposal and the configuration of the shuttle on this mission how could they have inspected the wing?
The article states the RCC is the same as the wing-glove area, so the MMT concluded twice that some kind of damage occurred to the RCC/wing-glove area, right where the USAF photos show...duh!
Now, whether Nasa also had these pics is an interesting question. Or could they had gotten them if they had wanted them, and chose not to ask?
I did, and that is what he said. The man put the cam out of focus and killed another one that would have shown the back side of the wing.
Oh dear. Is 'hugh' to be added to the list with 'series', moose, and cheese? Does anyone have the updated list?:)
Well, the estimated weight of the insulation is about 2 1/2 pounds and the orbiter was designed for 100 missions. The weight, unless drastically increased by ice, does not seem significant enough to cause torque on the frame and the design parameters for missions are far beyond the actual 28 flights. Of course, the public statements by NASA could be seriously in error, but these variances indicate that the search for another cause will go on.
Quite a coincidence! One should never underestimate the incompetence of bureaucrats, but that coincidence does suggest we should be thinking of sabotage in addition to incompetence.
Please don't get off the topic of what they were referring to.
What they were saying is that a two dimensional view of the bottom, top or any flat surface would not have the depth to see anything except a mark or discoloration. The tiles are as much as 4" thick. The pic will not show depth. They will see a mark(maybe) but not a gouge or to put another way, 3.75 inches or tile might be missing but they could never verify it from a two dimensional view.
Ever see a pic of the moon and think the craters are mounds instead of holes?
Security is tight, but you never know. This could have only happened at the turnaround facility, if it did. NASA says it is revieving all repair records and investigating any discrepency, no matter how small.
I should say the commission now has that responsibility.
Secondly, the shuttle was coming down anyway. It really is a moot point, but they do need to establish a contingency plan for future flight. On this we agree.
Robot cams would be a possibility and the ability to do temporary patches in space is required.
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.