Posted on 05/12/2009 11:59:02 AM PDT by buccaneer81
Space Shuttle Damaged After Lift-Off
Updated 2:47 PM EDT, Tue, 12, 20 May09
The space shuttle Atlantis suffered damage to the exterior two minutes after take-off.
Astronauts discovered a 21-inch stretch of nicks over four or give of thermal times on the right side of Atlantis.
A 1980? No way. But a 42 year old Chevy? Yeah, I'd take a '67 Camaro, immaculately maintained and constantly upgraded as the Shuttle is. That would be an epic road trip.
Switch back to the old foam and we would not have to worry about this. NASA should insist on a waiver for this stupid, PC, idiotic, dumb-butt, ozone foam rule.
I wouldn’t take a BUFF into space. But anywhere else is fine with me!
Added a fusillade of high-speed cameras to monitor launches
Added a camera boom to the cargo arm to allow close-up inspections
Practiced EVA in case an even closer inspection is needed
Started carrying repair materials
Developed procedures including another shuttle on the pad in case needed
Cancelled all Shuttle missions except those that no other booster can perform, namely ISS construction and this one last Hubble repair”
Great looks like they did everything except fix the problem itself !!!! Why is that? Typical of a Government run operation ,I can only Imagine the Constraints put on the fuel tank contractor.
Maybe future spacecraft will sit on top of the ice covered fuel tanks instead of being put in harms way where the ice can do damage. Am I the only person that thinks about this?
Exactly and it cost lives there was a rumor about the putty used in the “O” ring area also some enviro friendly crap also.Also this is not a place where merit secures a position but race/gender do and play a roll with peoples lives.
We have to have a new system and more importantly a new desire to conquer the divide of space.
No matter what Washington D.C. thinks.
NOVA on PBS last night was on the shuttle disasters and they said that the shuttle replacement design is basically what you are thinking. A cone on top the booster like the old days. This makes sense. Also crews on separate rocket from payload. Again makes sense. Sometimes you don't need a crew. Sometimes you don't need a huge payload bay.
Anybody got info on the shuttle replacement design Pres. Bush approved in 2004?
I will agree with you re: foam falling off. It worked much better when we used to paint it, and when we used a better foam. Now, they can’t go back. Is that NASA’s fault? Not really, except for the original question of removing the paint.
As for the “Russian Roulette” comment - that’s the kind of nail-biting hysterics I’m talking about. The system is built to take the strikes, and tiles are meant to be replaced. These scratches are not significant, and everything is working as intended. This is not a cause to declare it “Russian roulette”.
That is how Orion works. You’re not the only “genius”. :rolleyes:
? But we have cameras to see .... Let's say if the leading edge of the left wing took a hit! BTW sound familiar!! Hey why not just Fix the damm problem?
Fixing the problem requires a new vehicle. The foam is required to insulate the Shuttle ET, and TPTB won’t allow the use of the better foam. Does that suck?
Yes. It. Does.
NASA has scrubbed away as much foam as they think they can off of the tank in areas prone to sloughing off, and as a result of this strike event, they’ll modify the tank assembly AGAIN. You say “fix the problem” - the fix requires iterative testing through launch at this point. Analysis didn’t predict this, or did not predict it with a high probability, but reality shows differently. So the tank will be “fixed” in the suspect area. Sometimes, there is no substitute for flight testing, and that is what this amounts to. The analytical “fixes” for the foam shedding has picked up the obvious problems and addressed them.
My objection to your line of thought is that you are embarrassed by something that ONLY the US can achieve at this time. Is it a perfect, IMMACULATE achievement? No. NOTHING IS. It is a gov’t progam, and WILL ALWAYS be bent to political needs.
It is still a wonderful thing, though there is significant risk.
A lot of the risk is reduced or eliminated in the new spacecraft system, but it is still in development. Until it deploys, Shuttle is the way to orbit for this sort of work.
I find your embarassment to be embarassing.
Yes. It. Does.
NASA has scrubbed away as much foam as they think they can off of the tank in areas prone to sloughing off, and as a result of this strike event, they’ll modify the tank assembly AGAIN. You say “fix the problem” - the fix requires iterative testing through launch at this point. Analysis didn’t predict this, or did not predict it with a high probability, but reality shows differently. So the tank will be “fixed” in the suspect area. Sometimes, there is no substitute for flight testing, and that is what this amounts to. The analytical “fixes” for the foam shedding has picked up the obvious problems and addressed them.
My objection to your line of thought is that you are embarrassed by something that ONLY the US can achieve at this time. Is it a perfect, IMMACULATE achievement? No. NOTHING IS. It is a gov’t progam, and WILL ALWAYS be bent to political needs.
It is still a wonderful thing, though there is significant risk.
A lot of the risk is reduced or eliminated in the new spacecraft system, but it is still in development. Until it deploys, Shuttle is the way to orbit for this sort of work.
I find your embarassment to be embarassing.”
Really ??? Well this Depends on how you look at it NOW if I was not in the composite business obviously my comments would be different,Plus my decisions Crew oversight, material selections could get someone killed and I could not live with that easily!! Which brings us to this point that you seem to find comical; I do not BTW What I do find ludicrous is the fact that this seems to be a problem NASA can't fix and I do not want to hear the new vehicle thing!! that is saying that keeping the foam on the tank is imposable..Maybe what is needed is a new crew.
I submit that you do not understand the problem, nor do you understand flight testing. I find nothing you have said to be humorous, rather it is quite alarming the level of unreal perfection you and those like you demand on an experimental program.
YES. I said EXPERIMENTAL. The STS is not an operational vehicle, and is not intended to be. Experimental programs carry risk, and would be somewhat worthless if they didn’t.
As for the materials on the tank, it is what it is. I didn’t say I like the funky eco-foam, but there is a constraint involved that is now NOT in NASA’s power to reverse. Halting all flights until a new vehicle with the design flaw eliminated is not an option.
As for the impossibility of keeping the foam on the tank, it is certainly not impossible, but it apparently not something that can be GUARANTEED. As I said earlier, you are confusing an operational program with an experimental flight test program. The development costs and timelines are much longer and more demanding for operational systems. The STS is accepted as an experimental program, and is how flight research has always been conducted.
I can understand your desire to stay away from experimental programs, and I can’t really blame you. But to assuage your falsely-applied sense of outrage, and to address your misplaced sense of embarrassment, please consider that the flight crews and mission specialists know that a STS flight is not a drive to the beach.
How do you read a desire to stay away from experiential Programs into my posting??
I am considering the flight crews in my comments and I will not accept anything less than a 100% assurance that something as critical as the Foam Bonding is not reliable, give me a break.
Frank look when the Columbia lifted off there was an interview with someone (NASA Expert) who said that there was nothing to worry about Referring to the briefcase size piece that hit the wing..Now whth that said I really do not have much faith in anything they say.
They did not know it was briefcase-sized at the time. Just to be accurate. Yes, discounting the strike as harmless without active knowledge of the effect of the strike was wrong.
However, in this case, they can directly see (and measure!) the strike damage. It is not castastrophic. It is not even serious. And there is data to back up the determination.
“How do you read a desire to stay away from experiential Programs into my posting??”
Well, you say it yourself in the next paragraph:
“I am considering the flight crews in my comments and I will not accept anything less than a ***100% assurance*** that something as critical as the Foam Bonding is not reliable, give me a break.”
You don’t have “100% assurance” that you won’t get a flat tire on the way to work, what in the world makes you think you’ll have **anything** on an experimental flight test program that has “100% assurance”. If that is your participation criteria, then you must not want to be on experimental programs.
As I said, you don’t seem to understand how these things work.
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.