Astronauts doomed from the start

.heraldsun ^ | 2/3/2003 | PHILLIP COOREY and ANNA COCK

[Concerned]

#3FAN WROTE: "Yes, it sprayed on impact with the wing. I wouldn't think foam would spray. Looks like to me that a large chunk of ice damaged some tiles on take-off, this damage caused more tiles to fall off over California leading to burn-through at the descent's maximum-heat phase over Texas over-heating and popping the tires early in the burn-through then on to catastrophic break-up. This is my guess until any more evidence shows otherwise. "

Sounds reasonable to me---on all counts.

[Howlin]

I believe that a few tiles coming off would've caused burn-through and would've taken a few minutes.

Which is exactly what I said. I never said it would happen immediately.

[txradioguy]

There's a report that was put out that states that the problems with the insulating foam flaking off on the external fuel tank started in 1997 when the process of making the foam was changed from a process that used freon injection into the foam to a process that didn't use freon injection. The problems started with the change.

[Jael]

The NASA link was removed from where the article was first posted. That site is a mirror site, it's not a blog site.

But on another FR post someone else documented it as well.

[TLBSHOW]

I think they have all lost any sense of discussion because all they see is attacks on The President. They are so conditioned to attack that that is all that is done now instead of discussing the topic or caring how it happened. Or how to solve it.

[TLBSHOW]

PS

and no one is attacking the President at least I am trying to discuss what happend to the shuttle. Trying!

[Howlin]

It finally wore out, as all things do? Tiles fell off just like they always do on the shuttle?

I'm not ready to say it was anybody's fault. It was an accident.

[txradioguy]

During the STS-87 mission, there was a change made on the external tank. Because of NASA's goal to use environmentally friendly products, a new method of "foaming" the external tank had been used for this mission and the STS-86 mission. It is suspected that large amounts of foam separated from the external tank and impacted the orbiter. This caused significant damage to the protective tiles of the orbiter. Foam cause damage to a ceramic tile?! That seems unlikely, however when that foam is combined with a flight velocity between speeds of MACH two to MACH four, it becomes a projectile with incredible damage potential.
____________________________________________________________

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

[#3Fan]

Good post. It looks like Russian Roulette. They're just hoping that ice and foam damage doesn't do too much damage on missions.

[A Citizen Reporter]

"I think they have all lost any sense of discussion because all they see is attacks on The President"

Not that I care a bit about what you "think", Todd. However, this thread that YOU STARTED is not discussing the President. NOBODY has brought up the President, until you, Todd, just did.

We were talking about NASA, and falling tiles over California, and debunking some "journalists" theories.

Try to stay on topic, on your own thread.

[Concerned]

A CITIZEN REPORTER WROTE: "Do you have the capability to go outside of the last airplane you flew to riolinda, and repair it while it flight? Do you think the airlines do....while in flight?"

The DIFFERENCE is that airplanes have fairly HARD, SOLID skins. They can get "dings" like a car and although it might slightly alter the aerodynamics a bit, the skin is not easily punctured.

The Shuttle, however, has a black heat-shield which is a VERY THIN, BRITTLE, FRAGILE coating on top of STYROFOAM. The coating has no supporting backing if something hits it, so it just punctures it, leaving HIGHLY-FLAMMABLE STYROFOAM exposed.

Also, planes stop from time to time and are EXAMINED when they do stop. The Shuttle was not examined for damage even though it COULD have been examined.

See my post #185.

[Jael]

As I said, the original NASA site stopped working earlier.

However, I just found this one.

http://www.quest.arc.nasa.gov/space/updates/sto32.html

[Cool Guy]

It finally wore out, as all things do? Tiles fell off just like they always do on the shuttle?

Well, when we are flying a shuttle, if it was worn out, it should never have gone out. WE are not trying to point fingers here, but trying to find out the reason for the crash, so we do not get any more of them in the future.

[#3Fan]

Which is exactly what I said. I never said it would happen immediately.

You're right, I missed your "n't" on your "would". Sorry. :^) It's getting late, my eyes have about had it, I need to get my off this thread so I can hit the hay that much earlier. I tried to earlier.

To the point: I believe that burn-through would taken the few minutes it took for the shuttle to get from California to Texas at least. The shuttle was traveling at 3.3 miles a second. A few minutes of burn-through would've covered the distance from California to Texas.

[Howlin]

I was kind of surprised listening to the guys talking on TV this last day at how OLD not only the shuttle but the technology is.

Apparently somebody in the government decided to keep THIS technology until 2020 (can that possibly be right????); I swear that is what I heard today!

[Howlin]

Agreed.

[TLBSHOW]

Howlin brought up the President or someone did. I don't plan to read it all again as it really doesn't matter and since you don't care anyways then don't post.

[A Citizen Reporter]

Oh Good grief,

I read your post and started to respond to it. Then I decided that most of the stupid things you put in there would have been answered had you watched the press conference today.

BTW, your writing style is very similiar to another freeper.....beginning with ex.....?

[Cool Guy]

Apparently somebody in the government decided to keep THIS technology until 2020 (can that possibly be right????); I swear that is what I heard today!

That could be very possible. But, I would prefer a trusted older technology to something new and untested. I think our current aircraft carrier technnology is going to last for another 50 years or so.

If they said the shuttle "columbia" was old and had a lot of wear andtear and it should not fly, that might make more sense in not trying to fly it. But from what we hear, the shuttle is inspected throughly after and before each trip and am sure this inspection is through.

[Cool Guy]

Right now, with what little facts and information we have, I also came to the same conclusion as you did, independently :)