Skip to comments.
Shuttle Foam Test Yields Hole in Wing (Produces vs Yields)
AP ^
| 07/07/2003
| MARCIA DUNN, AP Aerospace Writer
Posted on 07/07/2003 1:10:51 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
Science - AP
Shuttle Foam Test Yields Hole in Wing
59 minutes ago
By MARCIA DUNN, AP Aerospace Writer
SAN ANTONIO - The team investigating the Columbia disaster fired a chunk of foam insulation at shuttle wing parts Monday and blew open a gaping 2-foot hole, offering dramatic evidence to support the theory of what doomed the spaceship.
The crowd of about 100 gasped and cried, "Wow!" when the foam hit.
The foam struck roughly the same spot where insulation that broke off Columbia's big external fuel tank during launch smashed into the shuttle's wing. Investigators believe the damage led to the ship's destruction during re-entry over Texas in February, killing all seven astronauts.
It was the seventh and final foam-impact test by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, and it yielded by far the most severe damage.
The 1.67-pound piece of fuel tank foam insulation shot out of a 35-foot nitrogen-pressurized gun and slammed into a carbon-reinforced panel removed from shuttle Atlantis.
The countdown boomed through loudspeakers, and the crack of the foam coming out at more than 500 mph reverberated in the field where the test was conducted.
Twelve high-speed cameras six inside the wing mock-up and six outside captured the event. Hundreds of sensors registered movements, stresses and other conditions.
NASA (news - web sites) will continue gathering more information about the poorly understood pieces that line the vulnerable leading edges of shuttle wings, board member Scott Hubbard said.
One month ago, another carbon shuttle wing panel smaller and farther inboard was cracked by the impact, in addition to an adjoining seal. This time, the entire 11 1/2-inch width of the foam chunk rather than just a corner during previous tests hit the wing, putting maximum stress on the suspect area.
TOPICS: Breaking News; Extended News; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: caib; foam; hole; shuttle; test
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-105 next last
To: Freeper
To: DoughtyOne; Carry_Okie; bonesmccoy; XBob
Wait a minute you guys. It was
bonesmccoy and
XBob (as well as many others) that had this nailed from the first. My function was to play devil's advocate and look for alternative scenarios. This latest evidence seems to be a Q.E.D. moment. (Of course somebody will probably speculate that the test was rigged..hehee) Here is bone's epic thread: (FReepers rule!)
Observation on TPS damage on Orbiter
To: Procyon
43
posted on
07/07/2003 3:38:52 PM PDT
by
mvpel
(Michael Pelletier)
To: Normal4me; RightWhale; demlosers; Prof Engineer; BlazingArizona; ThreePuttinDude; Brett66; ...
Thank you very much EPA.....
Space Ping! This is the space ping list! Let me know if you want on or off this list!
44
posted on
07/07/2003 3:41:05 PM PDT
by
KevinDavis
(Let the meek inherit the Earth, the rest of us will explore the stars!)
To: sam_paine
How the heck did you find that? I'm impressed.
Previous posts indicated that NASA was given an exemption, but obviously that is not the case. They were given an exemption for the blowing agent on flight-hardware only. Cleaners, solvents, and adhesives were not exempted. Neither were test articles...
Nice work.
To: sam_paine
...and another thing. The bureaucrat who wrote that should be tracked down and charged with manslauter.
To: Procyon
Do you have the math to show a 500 mph relative speed?
Seems high to me, I'd expect a lot lower
47
posted on
07/07/2003 5:24:34 PM PDT
by
fnord
( Hyprocisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue)
To: mvpel
it's not the speed which is important, but the acceleration
48
posted on
07/07/2003 5:29:44 PM PDT
by
fnord
( Hyprocisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue)
To: Investment Biker
I seem to remember very early after the disaster that a relative velocity of something like 80 mph was mentioned. I don't know for sure if that is true, but I seem to recall that was what the engineers were tossing out.
To: snopercod; bonesmccoy; DoughtyOne; Carry_Okie
thanks for the ping and acknowledgements SC.
I want to toss this out for evaluation again. I ran the film of todays test. It is very clear, and very clearly, not where the foam impacted.
Everyone has seemed to ignore the fact that the original impact point of the foam was not on the leading edge RCC, but down on the more central part of the wing, on the thermal tiles, near the wheel well - not the RCC.
This is plain as day from the original films we have been using since the beginning.
In addition, the weight of the foam chunk magically went from 2.5 lbs to 1.5 lbs, with no explanation.
I really would like to see some tests with the proper weight and size of the chunk, and the proper location of the impact.
I am about to the point, where I won't trust anything coming out from the investigation board.
50
posted on
07/07/2003 6:18:15 PM PDT
by
XBob
To: XBob
Two things stuck out in yesterday's test. Location wasn't dead on, and tiles were not affixed.
Both will leave us demanding more tests for anything conclusive. And after all, does anyone really think this was about anything other than stalling?
What investigation that involved our federal government has been run professionally in the last decade?
51
posted on
07/07/2003 6:24:13 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(Brother, has your faith lapsed. Renew your conservatism today!)
To: XBob
I'm with you on this whole testing scenario... and the board.
imho, these tests, while having some limited value, are and never can be an accurate reflection of what occurred that launch day.
When they showed a clip of test #7, I almost laughed at what they were doing. They said the angle that they shot the foam allowed them to more accurately imitate the rolling effect the chunk(s) of foam took that day.
CAIB, just issue the report and get on with the "process".
52
posted on
07/07/2003 6:41:33 PM PDT
by
NormsRevenge
(Semper Fi..Support FR . "California-Fighting the rising tide of socialism" . http://www.DRAFTTom.com)
53
posted on
07/07/2003 6:50:25 PM PDT
by
NormsRevenge
(Semper Fi..Support FR . "California-Fighting the rising tide of socialism" . http://www.DRAFTTom.com)
To: fnord
The foam has a very high surface area to mass ratio, so it wouldn't be surprising that with the shuttle travelling at as high as 1,700 miles per hour that the foam would slow down by about a third of that by the time it reached the wing. Ever thrown a styrofoam cup out a car window at highway speeds?
54
posted on
07/07/2003 6:57:33 PM PDT
by
mvpel
(Michael Pelletier)
To: DoughtyOne
51 - " tiles were not affixed"
the RCC panels (there are 22 on each wing leading edge) on the leading edges are the 'tiles'. There are no additional insulating tiles on them, by design. However, the 'chunk' hit numbers of feet back, not on the RCC, but back by the wheel well, where there are tiles. We have had film of the impact point since day 1.
55
posted on
07/07/2003 7:20:52 PM PDT
by
XBob
To: XBob
I am about to the point, where I won't trust anything coming out from the investigation board. Remember all the weaseling by NASA and Morton/Thiokol after the Challenger accident? They had to bring in Feynman to bring out the obvious.
56
posted on
07/07/2003 7:23:59 PM PDT
by
Carry_Okie
(There are people in power who are truly evil.)
To: Aaron0617
Yes they assumed. Nobody would have believe this foam would cause that much damage. Despite all the new testing I still confess I have a hard time believing it even now.
To: XBob
I think this was the last test and was perhaps only supposed to identify what the maximum amount of damage that the lightest possible piece of foam from the bipod area could do... a fatal amount of damage, easily.
Very probably, the actual shuttle damage could have been seen from a military satellite. We hear about being able to read a newspaper headline from satellites, and you wouldn't even have to look thru any atmosphere to image the shuttle! The AMOS telescope on the ground could probably see the damage from this last test.
To: XBob
Bob, what you said may have been quite clear to everyone else, but being the slow guy that I am, I'd sure appreciate it if you could explain that a little more clearly.
59
posted on
07/07/2003 8:41:01 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(Brother, has your faith lapsed. Renew your conservatism today!)
To: unspun; TLBSHOW; aristeides; Jael
Like you said from the beginning, TLB, this mission was doomed from takeoff.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-105 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson