Posted on 07/27/2005 3:25:59 PM PDT by MindBender26
Don't forget the possibility of the "enviro-friendly" low VOC or water-based primers as potential causes.
Looks like the innocent stuff falling off yesterday that was downplayed wasn't so innocent after all.
Hopefully this crew gets back without NASA killing them as well.
What is to understand......they are running old machines into space.
Old stuff falls apart.
Ok, what did they do to fix the problem after Columbia?
Did they go back to the original foam insulation?
Does anyone know anything about this ?
A review of the records of the STS-86 records revealed that a change to the type of foam was used on the external tank. This event is significant because the pattern of damage on this flight was similar to STS-87 but to a much lesser degree. The reason for the change in the type of foam is due to the desire of NASA to use "environmentally friendly" materials in the space program. Freon was used in the production of the previous foam. This method was eliminated in favor of foam that did not require freon for its production. MSFC is investigating the consideration that some characteristics of the new foam may not be known for the ascent environment.
The link is here http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/journals/space/katnik/sts87-12-23.html
A freeper posted this previously when Columbia went down.
So because of a little asbestos in the O-Ring putty, and some Freon in the Foam, we killed many good people....This is Big and it's really F----- Up.....
Al Gore and Bill Clinton should be sent an Asbestos based, Freon frosted Thank You Cake....
The three remaining Saturn V boosters are at KSC (Cape Canavaral), JSC (Houston) and MSFC (Huntsville).
They will for the same reason they did in the first place -- liquid-fueled rockets can't come close to providing the thrust-to-weight ratio that solid rockets have.
bump
A small piece of foam fell off the external tank. It did not strike the orbiter. I've seen no indication that the Discovery crew is in any danger, or that there's any damage to the orbiter's thermal protection system, which is being scrutinized more closely than a drill sergeant's date on prom night.
The debris in question was caught on a high-speed video camera mounted on the tank, and the bare patch where it came off was photographed by an astronaut with a hand-held digital still camera inspecting the tank after separation. Both of those measures were implemented after the Columbia tragedy, so it's entirely possible that this kind of thing happened in all 100+ successful shuttle launches. The systems weren't in place to detect it until now.
So what we have is a small piece of foam that did not strike the orbiter,and would have been unlikely to cause harm if it had; but it raises the possibility that in the future a larger piece could cause damage. So NASA is being hypercautious, appropriately, and will wait until all the data are in before planning their next move. It's too early for hysterical hyperbole like:
Hopefully this crew gets back without NASA killing them as well.
In a lot of the posts in this thread, there seems to be the overall impression that the Shuttle is a death trap. Explorers take risks; it's part of the job. The Shuttle has had two catastrophic failures out of 114 missions, which would be a poor record for a commercial airline, but is a pretty good batting average for folks who plunge into the unknown.
In NASA's history, 17 astronauts have died (three of them on Earth) out of something like 700 who've flown. Of course, one death is more than we'd like, and any way of making an inherently dangerous enterprise safer is a good idea, but 17 out of 700 isn't too shabby. Columbus, Cook and Magellan would have given a limb for that kind of safety record.
What galls me is that replacement craft for the Shuttle have been repeatedly killed over the last 30 years. We should have had a next-generation shuttle in the R&D pipeline before the current shuttle first launched. Instead, our only manned spacecraft is one that was gee-whiz technology at the same time LED digital watches and Betamax VCRs were cutting-edge.
I have high hopes for private space ventures, but they're not ready for prime time yet. At best, Rutan can put three people and no cargo into space, but not into orbit. It's a promising first step, but it's just a first step.
We might be moving toward a new model, where astronauts go into space on reusable light craft, cargo goes into space on heavy disposable rockets, and they meet up at the job site. If that works, great -- NASA can buy off-the-shelf technology and save a bunch of money that can be better used elsewhere.
Elsewhere in space. I'm not talking about Medicare or tax cuts. We humans have a hard-wired love for the the unknown. We push boundaries, traverse oceans and plant flags in strange soil. It's who we are and what we do, and to cut off exploration would be to deny our nature and refuse our destiny. Until we've gone everywhere that is goable and learned everything that is knowable, we're not done.
The problem is, every engineering intern we hire of late, seeks an MBA, and go into sales or management.
is because of this:
Now, the concept of mentoring a young graduate along is over as an engineer is surplussed as soon as he reaches 50 years old these days.
Greedy, penny-pinching vermin in management decide "it's cheaper to go with a new graduate" (never mind that without mentoring, the younger engineers spend years re-inventing the square wheel).
Apply. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
Ummm, yeah.
Tell me again how the best and the brightest are behind this...
Another contributing factor behind this is that we have unaccountable govt. bureaucrats behind this, combining extravagant pork with cost cutting or PC considerations on the essentials.
Anyone else would have been sued out of existence for such a dismal record.
No cheers, unfortunately.
While I am guilty of not flagging sarcasm, I'm more guilty of not attributing my quote. That was said in a speech by the Rev. Dr. Ralph Abernathy who led the Poor People's March to Cape Canaveral on the eve of the launch of Apollo II. "We have millions of poor people in America, and you're spending billions to send people to the moon for no purpose; how can you justify yourself?"
Thanks for the link. However, do you really think we will follow the plan?
In the span of one human lifetime, we went from the Wright Brothers sputtering a few hundred yards through the air to Alan Shepard chipping golf balls on the moon. Call me a pie-eyed optimist, but I think that's pretty damn cool.
Another contributing factor behind this is that we have unaccountable govt. bureaucrats behind this, combining extravagant pork with cost cutting or PC considerations on the essentials.
Right cause, wrong target. Congress makes the appropriations that the bureaucrats carry out. It's the members of Congress who "bring home the bacon" to their districts, whether it's in the best interests of the country or not. Pork barrel politics is found in both parties and all ideologies, because it's about self-preservation, not principle.
Excellent post!
Here's the question: Do we try and find that elusive fix for the foam on the external tank, at God knows what cost?, or, do we completely abandon the shuttle program immediately, and accelerate the CEV program? If we poured assets into CEV, it might be possible to have it built a lot sooner than 2014.
I can envision NASA forging blindly onward for a couple of years and several more billions of dollars in a vain attempt to repair the un-repairable.
I also wonder if the paint-job that the original ET carried, while very heavy, might not have contributed to stabilizing the foam on the ET...they did away with painting the tanks as a means to save weight on the tanks, and increase the payload of the shuttle.
I don't follow it was known by all that VonBraun and others were former Nazis.
The program was cancelled for budetary as well as we had been there done that, reasons.
"Anyone else would have been sued out of existence for such a dismal record."
Wow. Talk about rewriting history. Dismal record, my ass; NASA has a series of accomplishments more dramatic than any government agency, and is one of the few that can claim a solid return on their very small investment.
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.