Aerodynamics May Explain Space Shuttle Breakup: possible causes, consequences of Columbia disaster

TIME.com ^ | February 1, 2003 | Jeffrey Kluger

[Timesink]

[Centurion2000]

We need to get back up there ASAP ... we also should be building a new class of shuttles ... like an SSTO model.

[topher]

Time is way off base. Fox news has an important paragraph in their story that may have the explanation.

The Fox News article is:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77253,00.html

And it is posted under www.freerepublic under breaking news as "Space Shuttle Disintegrates over Texas".

I will post that URL in a moment.

But during liftoff, on January 16th, the Space Shuttle's wing was damaged.

Here is the paragraph that is key to explaining this disaster (in my opinion), and shows what junk TIME.COM is publishing:

Shortly after Columbia lifted off Jan. 16, a piece of insulating foam on its external fuel tank came off and was believed to have hit the left wing of the shuttle. Leroy Cain, the lead flight director in Mission Control, assured reporters Friday that engineers had concluded that any damage to the wing was considered minor and posed no safety hazard.

Basically, the wing was damaged on liftoff, and when the re-entry time came, the wing was put into "Maximum" stress by the initial re-entry -- 200,000 ft up at 12,000 mph.

So even minor damage at this speed can be disastrous.

Time reporters, as usual, are problably on dope.

If you read the Fox article, the key fact is there to be dug out.

[LS]

"would be an aerodynamic structural breakup of the shuttle caused by it rolling at the wrong angle. Remember, after reentry, the shuttle is descending without power"

This was EXACTLY the weakness I pointed to in my article, posted earlier, on the aerospace plane.

[topher]

And it is posted under www.freerepublic under breaking news as "Space Shuttle Disintegrates over Texas".

I will post that URL in a moment.

Here is the URL to the FreeRepublic Thread on the Fox News story (which is sound reporting), as opposed to the "trash" from TIME.COM, which just reported a $100 billion loss and Ted Turner stepping down as Vice Chairman.

URL:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/833975/posts

"Space Shuttle Disintegrates over Texas"

[Joe Hadenuf]

Is there a black box, so to speak, on board the shuttles?? Anyone??

[Axenolith]

Sounds like the area damaged was around the wheel well. Fits, Tire pressure was rising just before loss of contact. My idea is that that tire was being heated by burn through in the damaged area and when the tire blew it created the massive failure area that started breakup...

[Axenolith]

Following the precedent of the Challenger disaster in 1996, it's unlikely that NASA will undertake any further shuttle missions or any other manned space flights for the next two years. One immediate problem, though, is the International Space Station, which currently has a crew of three on board. They might consider one further flight to bring that crew home — the other option would be for them to return aboard a Russian Soyuz craft, which isn't the most comfortable or the safest ride. Beyond that, however, the space station is likely to be left unoccupied for a long time. NASA won't want to use the shuttle again until it can establish the cause of today's accident, and fix it. Now that we've lost two shuttles out of a fleet of five, it's even conceivable that the shuttle won't fly again.

Only if pansies are running the show! Not only do we need to get back there post haste, we need to build a couple more shuttles...

[FReepaholic]

>>...My idea is that that tire was being heated by burn through in the damaged area and when the tire blew it created the massive failure area that started breakup...<<

Yeah. Tire blows causing structural, electronics and hydraulics damage. No control of aero surfaces needed for re-entry manoevers.

[Fiddlstix]

Bump

[Mamzelle]

re: The shuttle was built as a space truck, and then the International Space Station was built to give it something to do)))

Uh, huh. Very telling.

Time for a Vision Thing. Apparently we have two years to come up with a reason to keep doing this, this way.

[TrueBeliever9]

you were asking about fuel

[RaceBannon]

Basically, the wing was damaged on liftoff, and when the re-entry time came, the wing was put into "Maximum" stress by the initial re-entry -- 200,000 ft up at 12,000 mph.

I would have to see what this 'foam' is that hit the wing. If it is just a fiberglass puff foam, I do not see how it cold have damaged the leading edge. Even if it is a hard woven glass skin with foam underneath, I do not see how it could have damaged the wing, doesnt make sense.

BUT, since this is a material that has to survive liftoff heat and speed of wind, I imagine it had a hard shell, almost ceramic outside.

Anyone here got a link on just what that material is on the center tank?

[RadioAstronomer]

Beyond that, however, the space station is likely to be left unoccupied for a long time.

I don't believe that will be the case. The Russians will continue to fly to the space station.

[ez]

My question...What caused the BOOM heard all over the south...sonic boom or other?

[RadioAstronomer]

BUT, since this is a material that has to survive liftoff heat and speed of wind, I imagine it had a hard shell, almost ceramic outside.

I can say this; the Ceramic tiles are not like the ceramics you find in a local store. I can grab the material and crush it in my hand. Feels almost like foam. I have a piece of it here in my office and it has dents from my fingers.

[Timesink]

My question...What caused the BOOM heard all over the south...sonic boom or other?

Yeah, it was a sonic boom. Even a broken-apart shuttle is going to give a boom once it breaks the sound barrier ... or perhaps many booms?

[Alberta's Child]

Former astronaut Richard Haucke was just on FOX, and he pointed out that the increase in tire pressue on the left side during re-entry may have been cause by heat. This may point to a problem with the heat tiles as a potential cause.

Based on what I've seen, it appears that there was a problem with the re-entry before the shuttle broke apart -- this is why I find the word "explosion" so annoying in this context. One of the video clips clearly shows the shuttle coming down sideways before the debris contrails start to appear.

[Movemout]

"Is there a black box, so to speak, on board the shuttles?? Anyone?? "

There are more than one. They recovered at least one after Challenger as I recall. Also don't forget that there is a constant stream of telemetry downlinked to mission control at JSC. There is very little doubt in my mind that the root cause(s) of this mishap will be identified.

[Reagan Man]

>>>Now that we've lost two shuttles out of a fleet of five, it's even conceivable that the shuttle won't fly again.

While the shuttle design is based on 30 year old technology, I highly doubt TPTB would simply trash the entire shuttle program. This would set the US back significantly and wouldn't be a logical move. Even a two year lay off wouldn't be proper decision to make. The space station needs to be manned and without the use of the space shuttles, to keep up the rountine maintenance, it would fall into disrepair and be a huge waste of money.

The next generation of space vehicles need to be moved from the planning stages and into full production, immediately.