Astronauts doomed from the start

I never saw anybody say that. In fact, some on the other threads last night said even though it was old, it was like driving your car once a year (not the exact words, I'm sure).

In fact, some on the other threads last night said even though it was old, it was like driving your car once a year (not the exact words, I'm sure).

Well that is one way of saying it. But that is not a very correct anology. Here, this trip is made not so frequently, but the times it is in the ground, tests, re-painr, upgrades keep happening. They want it to look like new everytime it takes off.

"The fact that it was witnessed as big and red over Las Vegas."

If I recall the news, the crew was in communication with Houston until 9:00 EST, at which time, I believe they were over North (maybe northeast) Texas, you are claiming that the shuttle was suffering catasthropic events at re-entry without the crew, or ground control noticing it?

Or could it be that the people who reported seeing this in Vegas are caught up in the moment?

"The fact that the left wing was damaged at lift off."

No Todd, that's an assumption. The fact is than on film, something appears to have struck the left wing, then disintegrate. No one knows exactly what that object may have been, and at this point, what damage that may have caused has not been ascertained. We'll have to wait until the results of the investigation to find out.

"The fact someone in Utah saw things breaking off it there and the fact NASA says it heated up in 60 seconds."

Todd, I can have sworn testimony delivered to you from thousands of people from Miami who claim that they saw the face of Jesus in an avocado pit.

Someone in Utah Todd?

I think the largest bit of debris from the shuttle found so far is less than twelve feet long, and not quite as wide. What you offer up as "proof" is that someone in Utah saw details on an object that size, roughly two hundred plus thousand feet above his or her head, traveling in a cloud of smoke at 18 times the speed of sound?

Have you ever seen a vehicle at re-entry? Would you know the difference hbetween a normal re-entry, and a catastropic one if you saw it?

"The fact that a person in California says he saw problems there as it went over."

It was going even faster and higher here, but you have another Hawkeye up for proof.

The shuttle enters the atmosphere surrounded by a fireball, that's why the tiles are in place, to protect the shuttle from the fire.

A big, red ball of fire in the sky to some.

"That is how I base my opinion as a fact as to what happend to this space shuttle.

Do you have any idea of just how incredibly ridiculous that statement is?

The fact that it was witnessed as big and red over Las Vegas."

If I recall the news, the crew was in communication with Houston until 9:00 EST, at which time, I believe they were over North (maybe northeast) Texas, you are claiming that the shuttle was suffering catasthropic events at re-entry without the crew, or ground control noticing it?

Or could it be that the people who reported seeing this in Vegas are caught up in the moment?

no louis

its here at FR

The Web Gets a Scoop

It's said that journalism is the first draft of history. If so, the Internet sometimes affords us a glimpse at history's rough outline. At 8:38 a.m. EST yesterday, a reader of the Free Republic Web site started a discussion thread for shuttle enthusiasts:

Space Shuttle Columbia is in a decent for the Kennedy Space Center in Florida and will pass over the San Francisco Area around 6:00 AM Pacific Time. Route will take the Shuttle over Las Vegas, Flagstaff, etc. NASA has still not decided which runway will be used. Landing will be at 9:16 AM Eastern.

Other freepers joined in, describing the view of the descending shuttle from the West Coast--then gradually realizing something was amiss. Someone asks at 8:58 a.m. EST, "Was it glowing at all?" The first clear sign of trouble comes in a post at 9:05 a.m. We won't quote any more than this, because you really have to read the full thread to appreciate the drama. But it's worth noting that the first word of trouble didn't come across the Associated Press wire until 9:16, the scheduled landing time. Free Republic scooped the AP by at least 11 minutes--which is an eternity in the competitive world of wire-service reporting.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003017

This is G o o g l e's cache of http://ltp.arc.nasa.gov/space/team/journals/katnik/sts87-12-23.html.
G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url:

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:ryqlvTHKXEgC:ltp.arc.nasa.gov/space/team/journals/katnik/sts87-12-23.html+greg+katnik+tile+damage&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.

These search terms have been highlighted:

greg

katnik

tile

damage

FIELD JOURNAL FIELD JOURNAL FIELD JOURNAL FIELD JOURNAL

STS-87 is Home! The Post-Flight Inspection Begins

by Greg Katnik
December 23, l997

STS-87 rolled to a stop; the mission was complete! That statement would be true for the flight of the Columbia, however a new mission began when the wheels of the Columbia came to a stop -- the post flight inspections. My division is responsible for the overall analysis of these inspections and we insure that all changes made, due to these inspections, do not affect other areas that may jeopardize the flight-worthiness of the shuttle. This division does not focus on one specific area, but analyzes all information and ensures that all aspects are kept in balance.

Immediately after the Columbia rolled to a stop, the inspection crews began the process of the post flight inspection. As soon as the orbiter was approached, light spots in the tiles were observed indicating that there had been significant damage to the tiles. The tiles do a fantastic job of repelling heat, however they are very fragile and susceptible to impact damage. Damage numbering up to forty tiles is considered normal on each mission due to ice dropping off of the external tank (ET) and plume re-circulation causing this debris to impact with the tiles. But the extent of damage at the conclusion of this mission was not "normal."

The pattern of hits did not follow aerodynamic expectations, and the number, size and severity of hits were abnormal. Three hundred and eight hits were counted during the inspection, one-hundred and thirty two (132) were greater than one inch. Some of the hits measured fifteen (15) inches long with depths measuring up to one and one-half (1 1/2) inches. Considering that the depth of the tile is two (2) inches, a 75% penetration depth had been reached. Over one hundred (100) tiles have been removed from the Columbia because they were irreparable. The inspection revealed the damage, now the "detective process" began.

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. The big question? At what phase of the flight did it happen and what changes need to be made to correct this for future missions? I will explain the entire process.

The questions that needed to be answered were:

what happened?
what phase of flight did it happen in?
why did it happen?
what corrective action is required?

At this point, virtually every inch of the orbiter was inspected and all hits were documented and mapped to aid in visualizing the damage. Maps were constructed of the lower surface, the left and right surfaces and the top surface of the orbiter. At this point, a "fault tree" was created. The fault tree provides a systematic approach in considering all possibilities of what may have happened. Everything that is on the fault tree is considered to be legitimate until it is totally ruled out. Some of the considerations were where the damage occurred -- in the OPF, in the VAB, or on the pad before launch. These were quickly eliminated because an inspection at T-3 ("t minus three") hours takes place on each mission and everything was normal.

After these and many other considerations were eliminated, the focus was placed on the ascent, orbit and re-entry phase of the mission. Because of the fore and aft flow characteristics of the damage sites, and the angle of penetration, the ascent phase seemed most likely. The orbit phase of flight was eliminated because the characteristics of these types of hits (most likely meteorites or space debris) occur in a random pattern and direction. Re-entry was eliminated because the "glazing and re-glassifying" of the tiles due to heat upon re-entry (a normal process) indicated that the damage had occurred prior to this phase. The fault-tree was now pointing to the ascent phase.

The pictures that were taken by cameras mounted in the orbiter umbilical began to give the first clues. These cameras are designed to turn on during the solid rocket booster (SRB) separation, and turn off after the separation is complete, thereby recording the event. This process occurs once again when the external tank separates from the orbiter. The initial review of these photographs did not reveal any obvious damage to the external tank. No foam missing, no "divots" (holes) and no material loss. Everything appeared normal.

The SRBs were then focused on for the answers. After inspection of the SRBs, no clues were found. In fact, the solid rocket boosters looked to be in great condition. Where to now? The external tank photographs were magnified and reviewed once again. This time some material loss was noted, but not in a significant degree. The attention was now focused on the crew cabin cameras. These cameras gave more of a side view of the external tank as it tumbled back to Earth. These photographs revealed massive material loss on a side of the external tank that could not be viewed by the umbilical cameras!

Where are we now? 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. Once again, this foam was carried in a relative air-stream between MACH two and MACH 4!

Now the big question -- why? The evidence of this conclusion has now been forwarded to Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) because this is the design center for the external tank. MSFC will pursue the cause of damage. Here are some descriptions of some of the considerations:

The primer that bonds the tank foam to the metal sub-stream was defective and did not set properly. This was eliminated as a cause because the photography indicated that the areas of foam loss (divots) did not protrude all the way down to the primer.
The aerodynamics of the roll to "heads up." The STS-87 mission was the first time this maneuver had ever been completed.
The STS-86 mission revealed a similar damage pattern but to a much lesser degree than STS-87. The STS-86 tile damage was accepted ruled as an unexplained anomaly because it was a night launch and did not provide the opportunity for the photographic evidence the STS-87 mission did. 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.
Another consideration is cryogenic loading, specifically hydrogen (-423 degrees Fahrenheit) and oxygen (-297 degrees Fahrenheit). These extreme temperatures cause the external tank to shrink up to six (6) linear inches while it is on the pad prior to launch. Even though this may not seem much when compared to the circumference of the external tank, six inches of shrinkage is significant.

This is where the investigation stands at this point in time. As you can imagine, this investigative process has required many hours and the skills of many men and women dedicated to the safety of the shuttle program. The key point I want to emphasize is the process of investigation, which is coordinated amongst many people and considers all possibilities. This investigation has used photography, telemetry, radar coverage during the launch, aerodynamic modeling, laboratory analysis and many more technical areas of expertise.

As this investigation continues, I am very comfortable that the questions will be answered and the solutions applied. In fact, some of the solutions are already in progress. At present the foam on the sides of the tank is being sanded down to the nominal minimum thickness. This removes the outer surface, which is tougher than the foam core, and lessens the amount of foam that can separate and hit the orbiter.

Check back with Space Team Online for future developments on this story!

The fact that the left wing was damaged at lift off."

No Todd, that's an assumption. The fact is than on film, something appears to have struck the left wing, then disintegrate. No one knows exactly what that object may have been, and at this point, what damage that may have caused has not been ascertained. We'll have to wait until the results of the investigation to find out.

Its more than an assumption!

The fact someone in Utah saw things breaking off it there and the fact NASA says it heated up in 60 seconds."

Todd, I can have sworn testimony delivered to you from thousands of people from Miami who claim that they saw the face of Jesus in an avocado pit.

Someone in Utah Todd?

I think the largest bit of debris from the shuttle found so far is less than twelve feet long, and not quite as wide. What you offer up as "proof" is that someone in Utah saw details on an object that size, roughly two hundred plus thousand feet above his or her head, traveling in a cloud of smoke at 18 times the speed of sound?

Have you ever seen a vehicle at re-entry? Would you know the difference hbetween a normal re-entry, and a catastropic one if you saw it?

.......
ksl tv

His video also shows the space shuttle was having problems as it passed over Utah and that the orbiter was beginning to break up.

http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?sid=8138&nid=8

Do you not now what a space shuttle looks like when it is moving AWAY from you?

It looks BIG and RED. I've seen one.

That statement means nothing.

given the history of debris flying off the fuel tanks and tiles leaving the orbiter during launch. (See Jael's post #140.) "Utopia" and "perfection" have nothing to do with that, either.

Shuttle launches and re-entry are strenuous situations for the vehicle. "Wear and tear" (including some loss of tiles) has occurred on each and every launch and is expected.

Jael's post DOES refer to "wear and tear" on flight STS-87 (December 23, l997) that was greater than previously experienced. (It also makes passing mention of similar, albeit lesser, damage that occurred on the previous flight, STS-86.)

In comparison, the tragedy we experienced with Columbia was flight STS-107.

Rather than becoming frantic over a single report of "wear and tear" suffered 20 flights ago, I'd be more interested in seeing a tabulation of the comparable inspections that occurred with the intervening 20 flights. It would have been with the benefit of that additional experience that the experts would have been basing their judgement whether any potential damage caused by the foam at liftoff was within "normally" acceptable wear & tear parameters.

"The fact that a person in California says he saw problems there as it went over."

It was going even faster and higher here, but you have another Hawkeye up for proof.

The shuttle enters the atmosphere surrounded by a fireball, that's why the tiles are in place, to protect the shuttle from the fire.

A big, red ball of fire in the sky to some.

......
NASA PRESS CONFERENCE TONIGHT NASA VERY INTERESTED

AND SOURCE

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20030201-1203-ca-spaceshuttle-astronomer.html

Return to Earth: Re-entry and Landing
On the morning of Feburary 1st, 2003, the space shuttle Columbia broke up during re-entry, more than 200,000 feet above Texas. While this was the first such incident, the risk of this kind of catastrophe has always been present. For a successful landing, dozens of things have to go just right.

First, the orbiter must be maneuvered into the proper position. This is crucial to a safe landing.

Maneuvering of the orbiter for re-entry

When a mission is finished and the shuttle is halfway around the world from the landing site (Kennedy Space Center, Edwards Air Force Base), mission control gives the command to come home, which prompts the crew to:

Close the cargo bay doors. In most cases, they have been flying nose-first and upside down, so they then fire the RCS thrusters to turn the orbiter tail first.
Once the orbiter is tail first, the crew fires the OMS engines to slow the orbiter down and fall back to Earth; it will take about 25 minutes before the shuttle reaches the upper atmosphere.
During that time, the crew fires the RCS thrusters to pitch the orbiter over so that the bottom of the orbiter faces the atmosphere (about 40 degrees) and they are moving nose first again.
Finally, they burn leftover fuel from the forward RCS as a safety precaution because this area encounters the highest heat of re-entry.

Photo courtesy NASA
Artist's concept of a shuttle re-entry

Because it is moving at about 17,000 mph (28,000 km/h), the orbiter will hit air molecules and build up heat from friction (approximately 3000 degrees F, or 1650 degrees C). The orbiter is covered with ceramic insulating materials designed to protect it from this heat. The materials include:

Reinforced carbon-carbon on the wing surfaces and underside
High-temperature black surface insulation tiles on the upper forward fuselage and around the windows
White Nomex blankets on the upper payload bay doors, portions of the upper wing and mid/aft fuselage
Low-temperature white surface tiles on the remaining areas

These materials were designed to absorb large quantities of heat without increasing their temperature very much (i.e., high heat capacity). During re-entry, the aft steering jets help to keep the orbiter at its 40 degree attitude. The hot ionized gases of the atmosphere that surround the orbiter prevents radio communication with the ground for about 12 minutes (i.e., ionization blackout).

"That is how I base my opinion as a fact as to what happend to this space shuttle.

Do you have any idea of just how incredibly ridiculous that statement is?

,,,,,,,

THAT COMING FROM THE ISLAM IS PEACE GUY REALLY MAKES ME LAUGH

TLBSHOW WROTE: Thanks for postting but I did not say that. Another poster did."

To TLBSHOW: Oops! You're right. I don't know how I got thought you made the comment I was answering. Sorry.

To TheDon: Please see #185.

To ALL: Sorry about the double post (185 & 186). I've been in the hospital with my daughter for the last week and am very tired and don't remember doing it.

THAT COMING FROM THE ISLAM IS PEACE GUY REALLY MAKES ME LAUGH

Vile. Absolutely vile.

You are a bigot.

"THAT COMING FROM THE ISLAM IS PEACE GUY REALLY MAKES ME LAUGH"

Did you think I wasn't still here, Todd? You are disgusting.

Islam is a death cult not worthy of any ones time!

You really are a mental case.

To say that Muhammad was a demon-possessed pedophile is not an attack. It's a fact. (And for the record, Timothy McVeigh is not the founder of Christianity. He wasn't even a Christian. He was an atheist who happened to be a gentile.)

snip

Muhammad makes L. Ron Hubbard look like Jesus Christ. Most people think nothing of assuming every Scientologist is a crackpot. Why should Islam be subject to presumption of respect because it's a religion? Liberals bar the most benign expressions of religion by little America. Only a religion that is highly correlated with fascistic attacks on the U.S. demands their respect and protection.

Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.org/columns/2002/090402.htm

It would have been with the benefit of that additional experience that the experts would have been basing their judgement whether any potential damage caused by the foam at liftoff was within "normally" acceptable wear & tear parameters.

"Wear and tear" is one thing and yes, a certain amount of tile loss is normal but I was under the impression that this chunk of insulation colliding with the wing at Mach2+ was an unusual event.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this. I say it was something that should have been checked out to the greatest extent possible rather than subjected to speculative risk analysis. The stakes were too high.

You need serious help. I mean it. I am sick to death of your vile postings, and your attacks on good freepers.