Air Force imagery confirms Columbia wing damaged

Spaceflightnow.com ^ | 02/07/03 | CRAIG COVAULT

[Stallone]

Politically-Correct, new environmentally-friendly insulation was the true cause of the loss of the shuttle, along with the loss of seven valuable lives.

Despite the record of increased tile damage due to the switch to P.C. foam and the heightened risk of heat-shield breech, the Enviro-Nazis prevailed.

Tell everyone you know:

P.C. Foam killed the Shuttle Astronauts

[ContemptofCourt]

Yes, shot down at 200K feet and 12K miles and hour......

If one was predisposed to shoot it down, why not sit in the middle of the swamp in FL and wait until it is making its approach at a more reasonable speed...

[Jambe]

We wouldn't be having this controversy over the foam had NASA notified the shuttle of the incident. They could have inspected the wing while they were in orbit to determine if there was any damage.

NASA did notify the crew of the potential problem earlier in the flight. The crew even took pictures of the wing (as best they could without an EVA). There are reports that some crew members even mentioned the "potential" wing damage with family members via email.

I also recall hearing one report that the crew had been requested to photo the external fuel tank after separation to help identify where the foam object released from and it's size. What's not clear si how the crew would have been able to do this as it was 24 hrs after launch (+ -) that a review of the launch video 1st detected the wing being struck by an object. Don't know what the position of the external tank was at that point.

Can anyone else confirm this?

[Chad Fairbanks]

Hugh must be mistaken, because everyone knows that only Hugh can prevent Florist Friars...

[Mamzelle]

re: NASA said they have tried it in the past. I will have to take their word that the pics would not have given them the needed detail.)))

I doubt that those who take the pics, if they believe otherwise, will accept that word. I'll be listening to see if Nasa repeats the claim.

[sam_paine]

Oh dear. Is 'hugh' to be added to the list with 'series', moose, and cheese? Does anyone have the updated list?:)

I just wish we could have a spelling day for "loose" vs. "lose."

[Fred Mertz]

I'd like to see the image also.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Well, let's see... at 200,000 feet, doing Mach 18 - I'm sure that whatever photos they have taken as it flew overhead are of the HIGHEST quality, showing even the most minor details...

Call me a skeptic :0)

[Vic3O3]

If NASA's claiming the USAF doesn't have hi-res cameras that's plain BS! They had the AF specifically take ground based photos of an EARLY shuttle launch that was thought to have tile damage. They rolled the shuttle over to present a good target to the camera and saw enough to allay their fears. And that was in the early 1980's.

[Vic3O3]

and the orbiter was designed for 100 missions.

I suspect that 100-mission plan per orbiter is way out of line with reality. Since in a fleet of 5 (counting the replaced Challenger) Columbia had the most flight time with 28 missions, in a 22 yr service life...If they were REALLY planning on flying each orbiter 100 times, at this rate each orbiter would have ended it's service life at 100+ years of age! Ridiculous! I suspect the 100-mission profile was strictly for Congressional Funding purposes.

[TLBSHOW]

That is one way to put it.

[Mo1]

Has this photo been released?

[1Old Pro]

Wouldn't this have been visible by the astronauts? I would think that the leading edge would have been visually inspected as SOP.

[Fred Mertz]

If NASA's claiming the USAF doesn't have hi-res cameras that's plain BS! They had the AF specifically take ground based photos of an EARLY shuttle launch that was thought to have tile damage. They rolled the shuttle over to present a good target to the camera and saw enough to allay their fears. And that was in the early 1980's.

Poohbah had me convinced it would be nearly impossible to capture images with enough resolution to see the damage. I believed him.

[winodog]

NASA was granted an exemption two years ago from this freon issue.
So IF the foam did cause the Columbia to burn up on reentry I would blame it more on NASA management ( the same people who gave the OK to launch the Challenger when they were told not to because the o-rings might fail) then on PC people.

[Moonman62]

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.

When I look at that video it appears that the entire orbiter flexes away from the rocket stack.

[Doctor Raoul]

I doubt we'll ever see it as it'll give away the resolution (ability to see detail) to our enemies.

[Vinnie_Vidi_Vici]

My impression is that the picture was taken by the Sloan Digital sky survey camera at Apache point on the white sands reservation, it a civilian camera used for automated deep space photography and asteroid finder. I believe they were just testing the tracking mechanism on the shuttle when they got the picture. the camer has a .6 meter lens and a 150 megapixel CCD camera.

[Doctor Raoul]

This tracking camera may not have been used prior to re-entry. If not, that's a major blunder. I wonder at what altitude was this picture taken and if the same resolution (enough to see the damage) would have shown the damage while the shuttle was on orbit?

[Mo1]

NASA didn't have to use the foam but did anyhow .. why?