Skip to comments.
NASA's debris experts have been working on
foam issue for years
Florida Today ^
| Feb. 3, 2003
| John Kelly
Posted on 02/03/2003 10:30:49 AM PST by McGruff
Edited on 05/07/2004 6:04:05 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
HOUSTON - From tiny fragments to bowling ball size chunks, NASA has known for years that pieces of the foam insulating its external tank would break off and sometimes strike the bottom of the orbiter during its climb to orbit.
(Excerpt) Read more at floridatoday.com ...
TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
A little background info. before you make a decision.
1
posted on
02/03/2003 10:30:49 AM PST
by
McGruff
To: McGruff
As of the time of that release, the Air Force said NASAs efforts so far to discover the cause of the foam shedding were unsuccessful. So why don't they just up and change the material? We hear that even a raindrop can damage a tile, but the external fuel tank has been shedding bits for years and they don't change anything? Insane.
2
posted on
02/03/2003 10:35:38 AM PST
by
dirtboy
To: McGruff; Jael
Jael has been all over this.
PC KILLS
3
posted on
02/03/2003 10:37:07 AM PST
by
fooman
To: dirtboy
Its worse than that. The old foam did not shed and do the damage. It started happening when they used the new foam sans freon.
4
posted on
02/03/2003 10:38:25 AM PST
by
fooman
To: dirtboy
Its worse than that. The old foam did not shed and do the damage. It started happening when they used the new foam sans freon.
5
posted on
02/03/2003 10:38:42 AM PST
by
fooman
To: McGruff; dirtboy; fooman
"NASA knew from the second day of Columbia's 16-day research mission that a piece of the insulating foam on the external fuel tank had peeled off just after liftoff and struck the left wing, possibly ripping off some of the tiles that keep the ship from burning up when it re-enters Earth's atmosphere."
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030203-87326768.htm
http://ltp.arc.nasa.gov/space/team/journals/katnik/sts87-12-23.html
"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.
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."
http://www.arnold.af.mil/aedc/newsreleases/1999/99-041.htm
"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.
Although the AEDC Tunnel A tests did not replicate the in-flight failures, they did provide detailed measurements to better understand the flight environment and fundamental failure mode. From these tests, NASA determined the failure is caused principally by foam cell expansion due to external heating at approximately Mach 4 combined with pressure change and aerodynamic shear. Specialized miniature shear gages and other instrumentation were installed during the test to measure these forces."
6
posted on
02/03/2003 10:42:07 AM PST
by
Jael
To: fooman
To: Jael; fooman
Great. Now I'm really pi**ed about this. Seven of our best and brightest dead because of a bunch of PC enviro-whacko bullcrap. The idiots making these decisions aren't facing the deadly consequences of their actions.
8
posted on
02/03/2003 10:46:19 AM PST
by
dirtboy
To: Jael
"NASA changed the way it foamed the external tank sometime shortly before that mission in an effort to be more environmentally friendly by reducing the use of ozone-depleting materials. The Environazis strike again.
Deal with them as terrorists.
To: McGruff
You would think they would go to a double-hulled tank with the insulation sprayed between.
10
posted on
02/03/2003 10:50:29 AM PST
by
dirtboy
To: dirtboy
It's the coupling between the shuttle and tank that needs insulating
To: dirtboy; spokeshave
Now let's get motivated about. Write the people who represent you and demand and investigation into this aspect of this disaster.
12
posted on
02/03/2003 10:54:40 AM PST
by
Jael
To: spokeshave
It's the coupling between the shuttle and tank that needs insulatingLikewise, you think they could devise a better system there. This stuff has to withstand serious vibrations and Mach 4 slipstream.
13
posted on
02/03/2003 10:55:59 AM PST
by
dirtboy
To: ContemptofCourt
You may right, but the frequency and intensity of the foam hits seems to linked to the change in material.
Its worth investigating along with ALL other possible causes.
Still, I doubt you won't see this angle on MSNBC if it were true.
They might trumpet thier scoop on the memo and maybe video, but wont talk about how the foam changed and then was not re-certified.
14
posted on
02/03/2003 10:57:23 AM PST
by
fooman
To: Jael
that a piece of the insulating foam on the external fuel tank had peeled off just after liftoff and struck the left wing, possibly ripping off some of the tiles And the report from the inspection of the grounds (looking for pieces of tile or foam insulation) at KSC indicated ???
(Obviously, if this occurred over the water the odds of finding tile/foam changes.)
Without that information this is an incomplete report ...
15
posted on
02/03/2003 10:58:29 AM PST
by
_Jim
(NASA has a better safety recored than NASCAR")
To: McGruff
If this holds up, it could very well be a case of these seven human beings having been sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. When will this country say
enough is enough?MM
To: McGruff
17
posted on
02/03/2003 11:01:27 AM PST
by
1Old Pro
To: MississippiMan
Bump!
18
posted on
02/03/2003 11:02:25 AM PST
by
fooman
(PC Kills!)
To: McGruff
Does anybody here know anything about the nature of this "foam" we keep hearing about? Is it liquid foam when it's applied, and then solidifies? How hard does it get? I'm thinking it's probably not much like the foam rubber in my chair, but I don't actually know that -- is it more like the foam stuff you stick silk flowers into (e.g. rigid and prone to snapping/flaking? Does its hardness change significantly during the temperature changes at launch?
I think I'd be able to follow all these speculations better, if I knew SOMETHING about this mystery foam. Right now, all these references to "foam" might as well be references to "chocolate" -- gooey fudge? hard block of baker's chocolate? soft, melt-prone milk chocolate laced with puffed rice?
To: GovernmentShrinker
It's more like the foam you spray into cracks around your window. If you want a demonstration, you can get a can of it at home depot for under $5. It's great stuff for insulating your house.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson