NASA Press Conference LIVE THREAD

Fox, CNN, networks, NASA TV | February 2, 2003 | NASA

[snopercod]

Any time now...

[Jael]

Maybe they could have been fixed, if that had been planned for. I have read here that it would be impossible though.


"According to NASA, during several previous Space Shuttle flights, including the shuttle launched Nov. 29, 1998, the shuttle external tank experienced a significant loss of foam from the intertank. The material lost caused damage to the thermal protection high-temperature tiles on the lower surface of the shuttle orbiter." http://www.arnold.af.mil/aedc/newsreleases/1999/99-041.htm


One of the questions had now been answered. The ascent phase of flight was when the damage occurred. With the information provided by the photography and the mapped flow of damage, a logical reason could be established as to "what" happened. It was determined that during the ascent, the foam separation from the external tank was carried by the aerodynamic flow and pelted the nose of the orbiter and cascaded aft from that point. http://ltp.arc.nasa.gov/space/team/journals/katnik/sts87-12-23.html

[Rafterman1]

THAT'S IT! You've solved the puzzle! All the experts should now completely ignore the evidence and bow to your obviously superior knowledge!

The evidence that hasn't even been examined yet, that is... (/sarcasm off)

[Republic of Texas]

" Do you have any expertise in insulation, or foam, or freon? Or did you stay at a Holiday Inn last night? "

Don't know whether we agree on this point, but as a fan of sarcasm, I salute you sir.

[Republic of Texas]

He seems competent, business like and realistic so far.

[HairOfTheDog]

I hope Jael thinks it is funny too. I meant it that way.

[John Jamieson]

That is called the die in obit plan. There is no abort from reentry. There is no rescue plan.

Sure the shuttle tiles are a single point failure, there are a thousand others.

17 loses in 40 years seems pretty good to me, thats less than NASCAR.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks. Missed your comment first time through.

[Jael]

Someone actually posted a link to the article on another thread. It really got my interest. So I just started doing Google searches to get more information.

I wish someone would follow that up. It seems to be so vital. Also, it hits home a bit, because Marshall Space Center is in Alabama. I would like some information about changing the formula of this foam, and the known problems with it.

It's heartbreaking to wonder if these people died over something that could of been prevented.

[_Jim]

The tile and foam has been a long and continuing problem!

You know, that same diagnosis fits about EVERYTHING that was at one time in it's infancy!

I'm not on one one side or another here as I haven't looked into this matter, but, my experience tells me that often times these problems are not always as they appear on the surface ...

[John Jamieson]

I knew many very competent NASA managers, one that I really liked. But many of them could not and would not go on TV. Unsung heros of the Space Program.

[WoofDog123]

for some reason I think one is in scotland at some raf base?

[WoofDog123]

never mind, misread your comment, was thinking of re-entry, not aborted take-off

[txradioguy]

Well let's just hope that the issue with the insulation, especially if it's been going on for that long, isn't ignored or whitewashed over for the sake of PC.

[Rain-maker]

http://www.floridatoday.com/space/explore/stories/1997b/120997b.htm

 

NASA engineers also are looking at unusual tile damage to shuttle Columbia during its last flight, and want to understand the problem before allowing Endeavour to fly.

Columbia returned to Earth on Dec. 5, 1997 with 318 dents in its protective tiles - more than twice the 150 usually found. The tiles shield the ship from extreme heat when it leaves orbit and re-enters the atmosphere on its way home.

[Amelia]

This may be a stupid question, but what does "STS" stand for?

[alancarp]

No, they can be used anytime they happen to be under the flight path.

Sorry, you're right of course - but I wasn't clear: the point I think Jael was making was in the ability of the shuttle to do an emergency landing prior to getting into orbit -- and thus incurring the necessity an atmospheric re-entry. In any case, it's Real Clear that nobody was gonna decide in the first 5 minutes of this flight that such a plan might have been needed.

[Magnum44]

These guys were on their own in space. Their only option was to land.

If so, then thats not good for NASA. Not to point fingers, but you've got an operational station, an alternative in an emergency, but no plan to use it?

I just did a search and see that the ISS orbit inclination is 51 degrees while Columbia was at 39 degrees, so I can believe that a rendezvous was not possible due to fuel constraints (inclination change cost far more than altitude change). So, hindsight being what it is, you could argue that by putting ISS at the compromise inclination for russian inclusion, or by not requiring shuttle to fly at similar inclination for rescue contingencies, increased risk of loss of a crew was permitted. This is one of those things that you could trace back as far as you care to go. I have to believe that a contingency where a crew gets to orbit but can not return has been thought about before. Question is what was done to mitigate risk?

Again, not trying to point fingers but this is the type of fault/risk discussion you will hear in months to come.

[Jael]

Thanks for your replies.

[_Jim]

So far, you've managed to convince me that the space shuttle *can fly* with damaged tiles (I wrote "tiels" the first time and I've got one of those too) ...