1 posted on
02/02/2003 6:35:58 PM PST by
TLBSHOW
To: TLBSHOW
I'm afraid that the media have already decided that the foam insulation is the "obvious" cause, and will never accept any other explanation, no matter how thorough and competent the investigation and analysis.
2 posted on
02/02/2003 6:41:32 PM PST by
Willie Green
(Go Pat Go!!!)
To: TLBSHOW
"we see your tyre pressure messages"
?
To: TLBSHOW
NASA had concluded only two days ago there was no serious damage to the tiles, but was uncertain last night.
"As we look at that now in hindsight we cannot discount that there might be a connection," stunned shuttle manager Ron Dittemore said.
Having listened to Dittemore at the news conference, it seemed that the fact that they couldn't do anything about tile damage if they discovered it, played a role in dismissing any investigation into the tile damage.
10 posted on
02/02/2003 7:20:27 PM PST by
TheDon
To: TLBSHOW
You know... the more I hear this story about foam damaging the wing tiles... the more I don't believe it.
29 posted on
02/02/2003 7:53:37 PM PST by
kjam22
To: TLBSHOW
The article headline is saying something very different from the first sentence of the article. Headline states that they were doomed from the start. The first sentence of the article says they MAY have been doomed from the start.
30 posted on
02/02/2003 7:54:17 PM PST by
GOPyouth
To: TLBSHOW
No one seems to be even entertaining the hypothesis that a piece of space junk (of thich there is a lot out there) could have struck and fatally damaged the left side of the shuttle while in orbit. I would consider that to be a VERY credible hypothesis, and the truth is, it is probably inevitable that a spacecraft the size of the shuttle would have a damaging collision with orbiting space junk AT LEAST once in every hundred flights or so.
To: TLBSHOW
Re:
Astronauts doomed from the start
With friends like this, who needs enemies?
To: TLBSHOW; dtel; Willie Green; Illbay; Psycho_Bunny; TheDon; First_Salute; Howlin; NFifty15; ...
http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts107/status.html
Dittemore says of the external tank foam insulation striking Columbia's left wing during launch: "It was judged that event did not represent a safety concern."
The foam was seen breaking free from the bi-pod area of the tank where the orbiter nose attaches to the tank.
"As we now look at that in hindsight, that impact was with the left wing" and the signs of problems today are all on that wing. Dittemore says NASA "cannot discount there might be a connection" but there shouldn't be a "rush to judgement."
"Dittemore says foam was also lost from the same area of the external tank on STS-112 -- two flights ago in October -- as was noted January 16 during Columbia's launch. The last flight in November didn't appear to shed any chunks of foam. He said even prior to today, a review was being conducted to understand why two of the last three missions has suffered foam loss. That review would have determine what was causing the problem before clear the next shuttle for launch in March."
["As this investigation continues, I am very comfortable that the questions will be answered and the solutions applied." Dec. 1997 Greg Katnik is a mechanical systems engineer at the Kennedy Space Center for the group that is responsible for the shuttle's external tank, solid rocket boosters, main engine and thermal protection system.]
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
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 unlikly, 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.
http://ltp.arc.nasa.gov/space/team/journals/katnik/sts87-12-23.html
The above link is where I found the original article from a fellow Freeper. THat link will not open any longer.
The page however was mirrored here.
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/2121/used_news.htm
140 posted on
02/02/2003 9:22:35 PM PST by
Jael
To: TLBSHOW
Astronauts doomed from the start An Australian Newspaper *knows* this already? I can pass off anyone who already claims to know anything as a fool I don't even have to read from.
145 posted on
02/02/2003 9:27:59 PM PST by
HairOfTheDog
(And I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.)
I'll be happy with any finding that the Left Wing is to blame.
To: TLBSHOW
There were rumblings of something dire for years. Critics of NASA have been trying to get the attention of someone in power, to convince them of mistakes, corner cutting, and plain ol poor judgement. After the last disaster to overtake the shuttle missions, more money was thrown at the program, no one was fired, and it seems nothing has been learned.
218 posted on
02/02/2003 10:24:57 PM PST by
jeremiah
(Sunshine scares all of them, for they all are cockaroaches)
To: TLBSHOW
The title doesn't fit the text of the story. It's all speculation.
237 posted on
02/02/2003 10:35:53 PM PST by
Jean S
To: TLBSHOW
BUMP
338 posted on
02/03/2003 9:34:18 AM PST by
TLBSHOW
(God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
To: TLBSHOW
Bump
To: All
BUMP
370 posted on
03/09/2003 7:08:26 AM PST by
TLBSHOW
(God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
To: All
bump
371 posted on
03/09/2003 7:43:18 PM PST by
TLBSHOW
(God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson