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

Skip to comments.

Test Results Back Columbia Foam Theory
Yahoo! News ^ | 6/6/03 | Marcia Dunn - AP

Posted on 06/06/2003 4:40:35 PM PDT by NormsRevenge

SAN ANTONIO - A chunk of foam fired at high speed cracked a space shuttle wing panel Friday, offering what investigators said was the most powerful evidence yet to support the theory that a piece of the stiff, lightweight insulation doomed Columbia.

Photo
AP Photo

The test was the latest and most crucial in a series of firing experiments meant to simulate what investigators believe happened to the shuttle during liftoff.

During the test, the 1 1/2-pound piece of foam cracked the reinforced carbon panel and knocked it out of alignment, creating a gap of less than one-tenth of an inch between the panel and an adjoining seal. The crack was at least 3 inches long.

"We demonstrated for the first time that foam at the speed of the accident can actually break" reinforced carbon wing pieces, said NASA (news - web sites) executive Scott Hubbard, the member of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board in charge of the testing.

"To me, that's a step forward, maybe even a significant step forward, in our knowledge and we need to complete the test series ... to understand the whole story."

He said more analysis would be needed to show that the damage would have allowed hot atmospheric gases to enter the wing during re-entry, as investigators believe happened to Columbia.

A suitcase-size piece of foam broke off the shuttle's big external fuel tank during the January liftoff. Investigators suspect it damaged the leading edge of the left wing enough to cause the ship's destruction. Seven astronauts died when the shuttle broke up over Texas on Feb. 1.

Friday's outdoor test was conducted at the independent Southwest Research Institute. To recreate the conditions at Columbia's launch, the foam was fired at 525 mph through the 35-foot barrel of a nitrogen-pressurized gun normally used to shoot debris at airplane parts. The key pieces tested were taken from another shuttle, Discovery.

Nearly 100 observers were on hand, including two shuttle astronauts. Twelve high-speed cameras documented the experiment, six of them inside the wing, six of them outside. Some of the footage was later played back in slow motion.

The foam skidded across the 22-inch-long panel and shattered — which is also what happened to the chunk that hit Columbia.

On close examination, the crack in the panel was visible to the naked eye.

"If such a crack had been found on an inspection, you would not fly with it. You would not take a piece that is this damaged into space," Hubbard said.

The test, originally planned for Thursday, was delayed twice, first by thunderstorms and then by a brief electrical problem Friday.

The investigation board plans to complete its report by the end of July, and some elements of the latest draft outline were reported in Friday's Orlando Sentinel. Among the board's concerns were poor risk management, questionable policy decisions and constant budget battles.

Board spokeswoman Laura Brown declined to provide any copies of the draft, and emphasized that the outline was "a work in progress" and probably would change. She said the draft, dated May 23, was already the sixth revision and stressed that it had no findings or recommendations.

Friday's test on the shuttle panel was the first in which the foam was shot at the panels and seals that form the leading edge of shuttle wings.

Last week, a similar-size piece of foam was fired at a wing replica made up of fiberglass panels and seals taken from the never-launched shuttle prototype Enterprise (news - web sites). The parts that took the brunt of the impact were deformed by the foam.

But reinforced carbon is more brittle than fiberglass. And Hubbard predicted before the test that the foam might even shatter the reinforced carbon.

___

On the Net:

Columbia Accident Investigation Board: www.caib.us




TOPICS: Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 next last
A chunk of foam breaks apart after hitting a  space shuttle wing replica for testing at the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Friday, June 6, 2003.  The chunk of foam fired at a space shuttle wing panel cracked it, according to officials, offering what investigators say is the most powerful evidence yet to support the theory that a piece of the hard, lightweight insulation doomed Columbia.  (AP Photo/Eric Gay-POOL)
Fri Jun 6, 6:05 PM ET

A chunk of foam breaks apart after hitting a space shuttle wing replica for testing at the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Friday, June 6, 2003. The chunk of foam fired at a space shuttle wing panel cracked it, according to officials, offering what investigators say is the most powerful evidence yet to support the theory that a piece of the hard, lightweight insulation doomed Columbia. (AP Photo/Eric Gay-POOL)

1 posted on 06/06/2003 4:40:36 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: brityank; snopercod; XBob
ping!
2 posted on 06/06/2003 4:43:41 PM PDT by gwmoore (As the Russian manual for the Nagant Revolver states: "Target Practice: "at the deserter, FIRE")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Well I'll be darned! [sarc]
3 posted on 06/06/2003 4:46:18 PM PDT by Cold Heat (Negotiate!! .............(((Blam!.)))........... "Now who else wants to negotiate?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gwmoore
Cool. It looks like they have the test rig sitting outside. (Maybe it's a PhotoShop background).

Remember when...who was it...darn, can't remember...the builders of the Lunar Excursion Module took the prototype out to Huntington Beach for a photo shoot? The sand hit the fan over that one...

4 posted on 06/06/2003 4:48:35 PM PDT by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: leadpenny
Ping!!
5 posted on 06/06/2003 4:49:05 PM PDT by Springman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
Memo to self: Read the article before replying.
6 posted on 06/06/2003 4:49:37 PM PDT by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
A chunk of foam breaks apart after hitting a space shuttle wing replica for testing at the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Friday, June 6, 2003.

The foam that hit the Columbia was pulverized into a white powder. The foam in the picture doesn't look anything like that.

7 posted on 06/06/2003 4:55:19 PM PDT by Moonman62
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
So much for all the foamologists jumping to conclusions, eh? ;-)
8 posted on 06/06/2003 4:56:48 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi .. Support FRee Republic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
What? No spray effect? :-\

To perfectly re-enact the events of launch day is damn nigh impossible what with all the aerodynamic effects etc involved. Drop your cynicism level just a tad.

9 posted on 06/06/2003 4:59:38 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi .. Support FRee Republic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: gwmoore
The test firing was not a glancing blow, it was dead on, a hard hit. Does that differ from the launch incident?
10 posted on 06/06/2003 5:01:09 PM PDT by RightWhale (gazing at shadows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Who was that NASA guy who early on said the foam had been "ruled out" as a cause?
11 posted on 06/06/2003 5:02:49 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge; Moonman62
Moonman: How rude of you to point out the obvious. Some folks (including the CAIB) already had the problem solved, and now you come along and tell the emperor that he has no clothes. Shame on you.

It had to be ice, and was probably (in my feeble mind) complicated by some underlying weakness in the RCC or some external factor. I note that the "blue lightning" electrostatic discharge scenario has disappeared just like the Palmdale theory.

12 posted on 06/06/2003 5:03:42 PM PDT by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
The "Foamologists" (I'm one of them) don't just rely on the foam strike to support their theory. The fact the shuttle came apart due to hot gasses getting into the wing where the foam hit is the most important supporting fact, because the odds of a different cause of a fault at the same location are very very small.

The test might have cast doubt on foam causing the fault, but, in the event, it didn't. The test wasn't needed to be reasonably certain about what happened.
13 posted on 06/06/2003 5:08:03 PM PDT by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: snopercod; Moonman62
I thought that lightning theory had legs too. Oh well.

Agreed. Ice would be the most ready explanation for the spray effect. Obviously, this test chunk of foam is neither brittle or chilled or moisture laden as was the chunk on launch day.

Based on my viewing of the videos, I also would tend to believe the strike was more on the down side of the panel and not top or center of the panel sustained.

14 posted on 06/06/2003 5:11:20 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi .. Support FRee Republic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge; wirestripper
Well I'll be darned! [sarc]

as one of the group of "foamologists" on FR, I'm relieved that finally, NASA has officially recognized the problem and begun working on the solution ... ignoring the problem would have potentially doomed another shuttle ... it took time ... and they're coming clean ... better late than never I guess ... nonetheless, too late for Columbia ...
15 posted on 06/06/2003 5:23:37 PM PDT by Bobby777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
From The Federalist, 5/30/2003:

On the frontiers of junk science, the panel investigating the Columbia breakup reports it is likely that foam insulation broke off the external fuel tank during launch, and damaged Columbia's thermal tiles, concurring with shuttle program manager Ron Dittemore, who noted days after Columbia's breakup, "We're making the assumption that the external tank was the root cause of the accident."

What is not being reported is that until 1997, the Columbia's external fuel tanks were insulated with Freon-based (chlorofluorocarbon-CFC) foam, which worked well. CFCs, which were widely used in air conditioners, refrigerators and aerosol cans, were thought to be linked with ozone depletion. Though the EPA exempted NASA from the CFC phase-out, agency environmentalists opted for a non-CFC foam. The first mission using the non-CFC foam resulted in a 1000% increase in damage to thermal tiles. A Dec. 23, 1997 NASA report stated, "308 hits were counted during the inspection, 132 were greater than 1 inch. Some of the hits measured 15 inches long, with depths measuring up to 11⁄2 inches. Considering that the depth of a tile is 2 inches, a 75% penetration depth had been reached."

And now you know the rest of the story -- another bureaucratic blunder of astronomical -- and proportions.
16 posted on 06/06/2003 5:41:49 PM PDT by day10 (Homeschool Rocks! Spare your children the misery of the public school system.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
Reuters article

Shuttle Wing Cracks in Test by Columbia Crash Probe

Jim Forsyth

SAN ANTONIO, Texas (Reuters) - A test firing of insulation foam at a space shuttle wing panel like the one on the doomed Columbia caused a crack that would have been too dangerous to fly with, a NASA (news - web sites) investigator said on Friday.

The test results gave credence, but not final confirmation, to the theory that Columbia broke apart on Feb. 1 because flying foam from its fuel tank damaged the left wing and allowed the intense heat of re-entry to penetrate the orbiter's protective shield.

"We don't know the structural or thermal implications of this crack yet, but I can say if such a crack had been found on inspection, you would not fly with it. You would not take a piece that is this damaged into space," said Scott Hubbard, director of NASA's Ames Research Center in California and member of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board.

Columbia disintegrated over Texas as it flew toward landing in Florida, killing the seven astronauts on board.

The leading theory is that the 3,000 degree Fahrenheit (1,650 Celsius) gases generated by re-entry into the atmosphere leaked into the shuttle through a breach caused when loose foam struck the left wing shortly after takeoff on Jan. 16.

To test the theory, a briefcase-size piece of foam weighing 1.67 pounds was fired at 530 miles per hour -- the approximate speed of the actual foam strike -- by a giant gas-pressurized gun into a wing panel from the shuttle Discovery.

Hubbard said the foam caused a narrow three-inch long crack in the panel, but it would take several days to determine if it could have caused the shuttle's demise.

The test was the latest and most critical of a series being conducted at the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board.

Foam shot into a fiberglass replica of a shuttle wing last week caused a 22-inch (55.88 cm) long gap. More tests are scheduled next week and the board hopes to complete its report on the accident in late July.

On Friday, the Orlando Sentinel said an outline for the report showed the board will point to NASA's poor risk management, questionable policy decisions and constant budget battles as some of the root causes for the Columbia tragedy.

17 posted on 06/06/2003 5:43:15 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi .. Support FRee Republic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Article from the Orlanco Sentinel

COLUMBIA INVESTIGATION - Report on shuttle accident to slam NASA decisions, culture

Michael Cabbage

HOUSTON -- NASA's poor risk management, questionable policy decisions and constant budget battles were among the root causes of the shuttle Columbia accident, according to an upcoming report by the board investigating the mishap.

A detailed 10-page draft outline of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board's report obtained by the Orlando Sentinel presents a sweeping, hard-hitting review of the technical, organizational and political factors that resulted in America's second space-shuttle disaster. The report traces the accident's causes from the program's origins in the late 1960s to Columbia's breakup over central Texas on Feb. 1.

"It is intended to be the base line for a very serious public-policy debate on the future of the safety of the shuttle program and its role in the manned spaceflight program," retired Navy Adm. Harold Gehman, the investigation board's chairman, said recently.

The report's outline suggests investigators will identify a debris strike on the shuttle's left wing during launch as the "probable cause" that triggered the mishap. However, as the 13-member board consistently has pledged, the report goes far beyond an engineering analysis of Columbia's final moments to examine the bigger institutional and historical issues that allowed the disaster to occur.

Many of the issues covered in the outline come as no surprise after being discussed repeatedly in the board's hearings and news conferences during the past four months. Others, however, have received little public mention.

The report remains a work in progress and some parts likely will change. But according to a May revision of the report outline, major concerns include:


18 posted on 06/06/2003 5:52:15 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi .. Support FRee Republic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
A 'voluminous' report. Retired Navy Adm. Harold Gehman heads the investigation into the loss of Columbia, which broke up over Texas on Feb. 1. The report has a much broader focus than just the Columbia accident, however. It also traces the history of the shuttle program and details longtime NASA practices.
(PAT SULLIVAN/THE ASSOCIATED PRESS)

June 6, 2003


19 posted on 06/06/2003 5:54:59 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi .. Support FRee Republic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
good info ... thanks
20 posted on 06/06/2003 6:19:02 PM PDT by Bobby777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 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