NASA examining images showing debris falling from Discovery

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- The rush of emotion from a near-perfect launch of the space shuttle Discovery was dampened today when NASA reported sightings of the same type of debris falling from the craft that fatally damaged Columbia 2 1/2 years ago.

Thundering upward atop a pillar of fiery exhaust, Discovery soared safely into orbit today to end a near 30-month ban on NASA shuttle flights imposed by the 2003 Columbia accident.

The shuttle and its seven astronauts lifted off from the Kennedy Space Center at 9:39 a.m. CDT, climbing steeply on a northerly course into a brilliant blue sky.

But NASA this afternoon acknowledged two different observations of debris falling away from space shuttle Discovery afternoon just minutes after the vehicle's launch.

Two chase planes and more than 100 cameras documented the ascent from every possible angle to capture any sign of flying debris of the sort that doomed the last flight.

The observations, one by radar, one by a new camera mounted on the external tank, show potential debris at the time when two solid rocket boosters fell away from the shuttle.

Julie Payette, at Johnson Space Center's mission control, informed the crew of the observations by the imagery team shortly before the astronauts' 3:39 p.m. bed time.

She stressed that the analysis was preliminary, and would be reviewed during the coming hours by specialists.

Payette said mission control would have more information for the crew when it woke up, around midnight.

She also said the observations would not change tomorrow's game plan, which includes the extension of a 100-foot robotic arm to observe the wings and nose of the space shuttle for potential damage from debris during the shuttle's ascent.

It was also disclosed that the nose cone of the fuel tank hit a bird during a liftoff.

Space shuttle Columbia was damaged when a chunk of foam fell from its external tank during the first 90 seconds of its launch in 2003 and clipped its wing.

Unlike the Columbia astronauts, who had no knowledge of the gaping hole in their spacecraft's wing and no realistic way of plugging it, the Discovery crew has a variety of inspection and repair techniques on board. But they are all untested. And even the best of the bunch could not fix a hole the size of the one that destroyed Columbia.

The astronauts will try out the repair kits on deliberately broken samples of thermal tiles and panels. They will practice working with goo and other patching materials and different types of brushes, putty knives and a caulking gun.

If any serious damage is found, NASA will have to choose between attempting repairs or, more likely, moving the shuttle crew into the space station for at least a month to await rescue by space shuttle Atlantis, which is already being readied for liftoff. Both scenarios are extremely risky.

The emotion that accompanied the dramatic display of NASA's long recovery from Columbia's demise was evident in the cockpit as the final moments of the countdown ticked away.

The firing room in the Launch Control Center was hushed of all but the crisp exchanges between NASA launch and test directors as they made their last-minute safety checks and reported the outcome to the mission management team.

"Our long wait may be over. On behalf of the many millions of people who believe so deeply in what we do, Godspeed," launch director Mike Leinbach told Discovery commander Eileen Collins and her six colleagues.

"Our hopes and prayers are with you," added Mark Taffet, the Discovery test conductor.

A crowd inside an auditorium at Johnson Space Center roared when Discovery safely lifted off. Hundreds of employees, students and their families had packed the auditorium to watch the launch on a movie screen.

"This is a huge morale booster," said Kristen Painting, an engineering co-operative student at NASA from Valparaiso University. "I really believe this is going to help us get things going here."

Some two hours later, after Discovery had settled into orbit, Discovery commander Eileen Collins radioed back: ``We know that the folks back on the planet Earth are just feeling great right now, and our thanks to everybody for all the super work that's been done over the past 2½ years to get us flying again.''

Collins' crew includes pilot Jim Kelly, flight engineer Steve Robinson as well as mission specialists Andy Thomas, Wendy Lawrence, Charles Camarda and Soichi Noguchi of Japan.

Temporarily overcome by the emotion of the long recovery from the Feb. 1, 2003 Columbia tragedy, members of NASA's launch and mission control teams at Kennedy and the Johnson Space Center in Houston broke into applause and embraced as Discovery soared away.

First lady Laura Bush topped a short list of dignitaries who gathered at the Florida shuttleport for the sendoff. Also present were surviving family members of the 14 astronauts who perished aboard Columbia as well as aboard the shuttle Challenger in a 1986 launch explosion.

The first lady said it is "pretty terrific'' that the mission commander is a woman. "You're inspiring everybody,'' she later told launch controllers, following liftoff.

From Washington, the president wished the crew a safe and successful mission. "Our space program is a source of great national pride,'' he said in a statement, ``and this flight is an essential step toward our goal of continuing to lead the world in space science, human spaceflight and space exploration.''

Today's liftoff kicked off a 12-day mission to the international space station, a destination Discovery was on course to reach early Thursday.

Puzzling electrical problems with one of Discovery's four hydrogen fuel gauges forced NASA to scrub Discovery's July 13 launch attempt.

Monitored throughout the night by the launch control team, the gauges never faltered as the fuel tank was filled with superchilled liquid hydrogen and oxygen propellants.

The outcome raised confidence in the minor repairs ordered by shuttle managers to Discovery's electrical grounding system and the checks of dozens of power cable connections after the failed launch attempt. Though confident their actions would solve the problem, mission managers were prepared to launch the mission with just three working gauges if necessary.

With the help of the Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration, this week's countdown unfolded under heavy security. Air Force fighter jets patrolled a 35-mile no-fly zone around Discovery's launch pad and heavily armed federal security agents escorted the shuttle crew to the launch pad in the pre-dawn darkness.

The flight is making the first use of a vast new array of ground and airborne tracking cameras assembled by NASA to search for the kinds of destructive debris impacts that led to Columbia's demise. New debris impact sensors mounted in the shuttle wings as well as a camera and laser sensor boom developed for post-launch inspections of the shuttle's heat shielding by the astronauts will be evaluated as well.

More than a test flight, though, Discovery's crew carries supplies, repair gear and research equipment for the two-man space station.

"This flight represents probably the most critical moment for the continuation of space station assembly we've ever had," said NASA's Bill Gerstenmaier, the station program manager.

The orbital outpost and its crew -- Russian Sergei Krikalev and American John Phillips -- sailed 225 miles over the southern Indian Ocean west of Australia as Discovery lifted off.

With Columbia grounded, the space agency was forced to suspend the station's assembly in mid-stream. Though major construction will not resume until early next year, Discovery's crew has trained to make some additions.

At the top of the list are spacewalk repairs to the station's gyroscope steering system. Two of the four flywheels that steer and steady the outpost have faltered since mid-2002. Without repairs, it would not be possible to finish the assembly task.

During spacewalks, Robinson and Noguchi will re-wire one of the gyros that experienced a power failure in March and replace another that ground to a sudden stop in June 2002.

The two men also plan to install an equipment storage platform on the outside of the station to hold spare parts for the cooling system.

Discovery's liftoff marks the beginning of the end for the space shuttle fleet, which launched the first of its 114 flights in April 1981.

As a result of the Columbia tragedy, President Bush directed NASA to retire the remaining orbiters -- Atlantis, Endeavour and Discovery -- by 2010 and accelerate the development of a successor that will transport American astronauts back to the moon as well as back and forth to the space station.

"That's enough," NASA administrator Mike Griffin told reporters earlier this month. "It's time to take what we have learned and move on." Griffin said the shuttle was as safe as NASA could make it, but was still a risky venture.

"Some things simply are inherent to the design of the bird and cannot be made better without going and getting a new generation of spacecraft. That's as true for the space shuttle as it is for your toaster oven,'' he told The Associated Press on the eve of launch.

Griffin is working on a plan to scale back the 28 missions on the shuttle's flight schedule after the Columbia tragedy. He's promised to present Congress with a curtailed flight schedule by September.

The flights that remain will be dedicated to the space station with the exception of a possible mission to the Hubble Space Telescope to extend operations of the 15-year-old orbital observatory.

Launched on the first of the ship's 31 missions in 1984, Discovery also had the distinction of leading NASA back into space in Challenger's aftermath.

Looking on were the major news organizations of Europe, Japan, Canada and Australia as well as the United States. NASA estimated a worldwide television audence of 500 million.

Discovery is due back on Earth Aug. 7 and is scheduled to touch down in Florida at 4:51 a.m. CDT.

Article says: *****The astronauts will try out the repair kits on deliberately broken samples of thermal tiles and panels. They will practice working with goo and other patching materials and different types of brushes, putty knives and a caulking gun.

Is this not a bit obsurd for the amount of money NASA uses
to get this bird into orbit? I sometimes think that the
space shuttle flights are part of a massive disinformation campaign to make everyone think that America's space vehicles are clunkers that need to be scrapped, and that the halycon days of Space Balls are indeed at an end.

Nothing can be further from the truth because the US Black Ops budget at the Skunkworks and in Nevada's allegedly non existant military test sites fly vehicles which are likely already transiting into space from our atmosphere. The government doesn't want anyone to know. Todays experimental aircraft are built of large extruded components with redundant electronic circuits channeled right into the body skin of the aircraft. They are flown by wire, computer augmented controls. Knowing these little tidbits one wonders why our NASA astronauts are playing around with goop and glue? Those days have been over for quite some time.

Take a look at the American Federation of Scientists Web site and its photos, and you too will see that NASA's days are numbered unless it incorporates new technology already being used by the Black Ops military divisions:

http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/aurora.htm

"... Aurora was being flown from a base in the Nevada desert to an atoll in the Pacific, then on to Scotland to refuel before returning to the US at night. Specially modified tanker aircraft are being used to top up Aurora's tanks with liquid methane fuel in mid-air... The US Air Force is using the remote RAF airbase at Machrihanish, Strathclyde, as a staging point... The mystery aircraft has been dropping in at night before streaking back to America across the North Pole at more than six times the speed of sound... An F-111 fighter bomber is scrambling as the black-painted aircraft lands, flying in close formation to confuse prying civilian radars."

Anything that can cruise at Mach 6 is likely to be able to leave the atmosphere of the earth by simply stepping on the gas a little. I mean we are talking over 4000 miles
per hour! Its not such a great leap to imagine that these
new Black Ops vehicles can actually do the 25,000 miles per hour necessary to achieve escape velocity in our upper atmosphere, and do so without the possibility of detection. If not, then why all the secrecy about the Tanopa Test Range and Area 51?

I sometimes think NASA is a disinformation agency. Its hard for me to take NASA seriously as much more than a boondoggle whose days are numbered because of its scientific attrition.

It's not a step backwards. It's just the acknowledgment that we have hurt ourselves by focusing only on the Space Shuttle and the types of missions that it can do. The Space Shuttle can perform heavy lift operations to low earth orbit, can dock with other spacecraft, can return heavy objects from space, and can perform spacewalks.

The Space Shuttle cannot go to high earth orbit, cost effectively go to low earth orbit, perform a lunar insertion, or land on any extraterrestrial object. The technology for these missions requires a vastly different type of spacecraft than the Space Shuttle. Since these are the types of missions that will move our space program forward the fastest, we want to build a spacecraft that will perform them. For this reason we retire the Space Shuttle. The CEV program will also build a heavy lift rocket (probably just robotic) to supplement its abilities. This means that the only real capability that is lost from retiring the Space Shuttle is returning heavy objects from space, while gaining all of the capabilities I listed. Seems a wise idea to me.

The reason is simple. The compacted foam that hit Columbia had a relative speed of 500 miles per hour. This is because when it detached from the liquid fuel tank, it rapidly decelerated in the atmosphere. The spacecraft continued at about the same speed (technically it was accelerating) and rammed the foam with a relative difference in speed of 500 miles per hour.

The tiles and carbon plates on the space shuttle are not weak. They only appear that way when something hits them at 500 miles per hour. A piece of plastic has trivial strength compared to the carbon plates or the heat shield tiles. It won't do a thing to help the spacecraft.

It was a huge mistake to forego the heavy lift systems for the space shuttle. I would be glad to see an updated system with the Saturn V lift capability. Having said that I can also see the need for a reusuable reentry vehicle, and having taken it this far it would be a mistake to abandon the program.

What I would like to see is a shuttle like replacement that is capable of high Earth and luna orbital; which makes use of the new Ramjet tech; and, which has a hull made out of something far more durable then these fragile tiles. The shuttle format offers a versatility and modular design which should be retained. If NASA doesn't want to do it, we should just give the new shuttle project to the military. I am sure that they will come up with a use for it.

Hope everything's OK, but I only saw the frame-by-frame of the insulation debris and it didn't appear to hit the bird.

I haven't seen any video or slideshow of the ceramic tile separation yet, but I thought they lose a few tiles with each launch (or maybe it's on landing).

I don't know about the rest of youz', but I almost got a hard on just watching that 4-1/2 million TON beast blast off again after what, 2-1/2 years. I wonder what Cmdr. Eileen Collins felt as pilot?

Begs the question: if "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" then do female pilots "Pop a Rod with the Need for Speed?"

Don't get me wrong, I admire the heck out of her (and think she's cute), and I heard that she's got tons of hours in all kinds of aircraft, but I've never met a woman having a man's testoterone-fueled, gearhead, speed affliction.

Maybe I need to meet a different type of of woman.

I have to disagree with you here. While I believe that there will be developed a technology that can make a strong reusable spacecraft, that is not NASA's job. Its the job of the private sector. NASA's mission is stated:

To understand and protect our home planet,
To explore the universe and search for life,
To inspire the next generation of explorers
. . . as only NASA can

NASA's mission is not to develop aircraft and spacecraft technologies in general. The private sector can do that better and cheaper. If it becomes economical, the private sector will do just that. NASA's job is to go places no one has been before, learn things that no one knew, and to share that knowledge with the world. It gives the motivation for the private sector to eventually develop world-changing technologies (like communication and navigation satellites). For this reason, I don't think it's NASA's job to optimize any technology (unless absolutely needed to accomplish its mission).

It would be great to have a spacecraft that could launch from solid rockets on Earth, be accelerated by a scram-jet, be further sent into orbit with liquid fueled rockets, be able to go to high earth orbit, land on the Moon, and come back again with the ability to be flown the next day. This would be an amazing spacecraft. But in the time and money that NASA could spend on making this spacecraft, they could have bases on the Moon, and landings on Mars with much simpler spacecraft while the private sector decided on how they wanted to make a reusable spacecraft.

I should note that my views are somewhat biased due to my libertarian philosophy. Technically, I think that NASA should be owned and operated by various universities in the country (private, of course!). I especially don't want NASA to become a technology developer. That reeks of socialism to me.

NASA does not and never has developed anything. Their job is to propose a mission, provide the funding, and manage the private contractors who actually generate the bulk of the research. It is private enterprise at work; the public funding subsidizes the raw reseach, and it is awarded on a competitive basis. No private company can afford to expose themselves as NASA does; NASA shield private enterprise and allows its technology to advance in quantum leaps. Of course that only works as long as there is a challenge. That excludes going back to a Gemini program no matter how efficient it may be.

Possibly. But there is no evidence that one came off today. There is evidence that part of one came off. The Shuttle has landed with damaged tiles before. We certainly don't want it to land if the damage penetrates the spacecraft.

I don't want to speculate too much on what-ifs. There is a calculated risk in everything the Shuttle does (as well as what we do). When I used to go underway on submarines there were plenty of ways that I could be killed. A torpedo could explode, we could have a fire, flooding could occur, or we could ram an underwater structure. I didn't lose sleep over it (except sometimes when I slept next to the torpedoes) because the risk was small. Americans have died from fire, flooding, undersea mount ramming, and torpedo explosions on submarines. They have also died when the heat shield failed on the Space Shuttle. But we have to put it into perspective.

I agree with you except where you think that we are going back to Gemini and Apollo. I like compare Apollo to the Trieste. The Trieste was able to go to the deepest part of the ocean, take some measurements, and return. Because it was able to go to the deepest part of the ocean, it was famous and historic. But it certainly wasn't able to allow humans to survive down there, or even be there for an extended period of time.

The CEV is not the Trieste. It is not going to go to the Moon, look at a couple of things, and come back. It is an infrastructure of technologies that will allow us to build a base on the Moon, survive long duration spaceflights, and eventually go to Mars.

I think it is more apt to say that the CEV may mix the aerodynamic properties and some of the simplicity of Apollo while also including the habitability technologies learned on the Space Shuttle, MIR, and the ISS.

To simplify it down as much as I can: the CEV will allow us to build a Moon base, something Apollo could never do.

I hope someone can explain clearly why this is not something to be worried about.

I'm pretty much a space nut, Aunt's a big wig at KSC and I've seem about 1/2 dozen launches. This was the most detailed photos ever taken of a launch. The tile system was designed to be robust; that is: designed to take hits on launch, on orbit and survive entry. I watched the launch live, that was probably the cleanest launch they ever had. There usually is a whole bunch of foam and ice flying off the ET, this time there was, what , 2 pieces video taped and neither hit the Orbiter.

So far , GREAT JOB GUYS

The shuttle is a magnificent machine and the crew a brave and capable bunch. I sure hope the craft is fine and I suspect it will be from what we know so far.

Assuming everything is fine, the crew can get down to the important work of making those new drugs and those perfect space ball bearings we've been promised for years.

Really, until we come up with some totally new type of propulsion (and I don't mean solar sails or tiny nuclear explosions), getting to orbit will be too expensive and hard and traveling any real distance in space will take way too long. Shooting fire out of a ships tail is old news and is way too self limiting. It's like the universe is built to discourage any real travel in space. It's not that we are at the beginning of a long period of research that will lead to our being able to do something worthwile in space - in fact, we really don't have a clue as to how to move to a much better level of capability.

And don't get me started on these private companys that promise to be so much more "efficent" than NASA. In reality, their only contribution to space exploration is likely to be ferrying a few well to do folks on a siteseeing trip. For now, space is a dead end except for putting up cameras, telescopes and audio/video relay stations.

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.