Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Observation on TPS damage on Orbiter
NASA photos | 2-3-03 | BoneMccoy

Posted on 02/04/2003 1:34:19 AM PST by bonesmccoy

In recent days the popular media has been focusing their attention on an impact event during the launch of STS-107. The impact of External Tank insulation and/or ice with the Orbiter during ascent was initially judged by NASA to be unlikely to cause loss of the vehicle. Obviously, loss of the integrity of the orbiter Thermal Protection System occured in some manner. When Freepers posted the reports of these impacts on the site, I initially discounted the hypothesis. Orbiters had sustained multiple impacts in the past. However, the size of the plume in the last photo gives me pause.

I'd like to offer to FR a few observations on the photos.

1. In this image an object approximately 2-3 feet appears to be between the orbiter and the ET.

2. In this image the object appears to have rotated relative to both the camera and the orbiter. The change in image luminosity could also be due to a change in reflected light from the object. Nevertheless, it suggests that the object is tumbling and nearing the orbiter's leading edge.

It occurs to me that one may be able to estimate the size of the object and make an educated guess regarding the possible mass of the object. Using the data in the video, one can calculate the relative velocity of the object to the orbiter wing. Creating a test scenario is then possible. One can manufacture a test article and fire ET insulation at the right velocity to evaluate impact damage on the test article.

OV-101's port wing could be used as a test stand with RCC and tile attached to mimic the OV-102 design.

The color of the object seems inconsistent with ET insulation. One can judge the ET color by looking at the ET in the still frame. The color of the object seems more consistent with ice or ice covered ET insulation. Even when accounting for variant color hue/saturation in the video, the object clearly has a different color characteristic from ET insulation. If it is ice laden insulation, the mass of the object would be significantly different from ET insulation alone. Since the velocity of the object is constant in a comparison equation, estimating the mass of the object becomes paramount to understanding the kinetic energy involved in the impact with the TPS.

3. In this image the debris impact creates a plume. My observation is that if the plume was composed primarily of ET insulation, the plume should have the color characteristics of ET insulation. This plume has a white color.

Unfortunately, ET insulation is orange/brown in color.

In addition, if the relative density of the ET insulation is known, one can quantify the colorimetric properties of the plume to disintegrating ET insulation upon impact.

Using the test article experiment model, engineers should fire at the same velocity an estimated mass of ET insulation (similar to the object seen in the still frame) at the test article. The plume should be measured colorimetrically. By comparing this experimental plume to the photographic evidence from the launch, one may be able to quantify the amount of ET insulation in the photograph above.

4. In this photo, the plume spreads from the aft of the orbiter's port wing. This plume does not appear to be the color of ET insulation. It appears to be white.

This white color could be the color of ice particles at high altitude.

On the other hand, the composition of TPS tiles under the orbiter wings is primarily a low-density silica.

In the photo above, you can see a cross section of orbiter TPS tile. The black color of the tile is merely a coating. The interior of the tile is a white, low-density, silica ceramic.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Editorial; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: columbiaaccident; nasa; shuttle; sts; sts107
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,601-1,6201,621-1,6401,641-1,660 ... 4,541-4,548 next last
To: freepersup
many thanks on the location north of flagstaff. I have been trying to reconstruct a timeline/geograhic position, to plug in info, observations, measurements and photos.
1,621 posted on 02/13/2003 6:48:53 PM PST by XBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1612 | View Replies]

To: bonesmccoy
Well, actually he said that this could have been done with foresight. Let's say that someone started with the report by NASA engineer Greg Katnik 5 years ago (Dec 1997), in which he identified debris from external tank to be a damage factor for TPS. Let's say that it was discovered that the shedding of insulation could not be prevented. I am not asserting that this happened; it is is only a hypothetical scenario.

In this hypothetical scenario, someone could have reasoned, hey, let's institute a backup plan: A. a way to investigate in-orbit for TPS damage; B. in the event of critical TPS damage, a way to get extra "expendables" (air, water, station-keeping propellant) to shuttle via unmanned backup system; C. a stopgap TPS patching solution; D. a backup way to get the crew home.

Yes, I know that the engineering challenges would be steep. However, few will dispute that NASA employs some really bright people. Instead of hobbling them with regulations and restrictions, what if some one had turned loose a mitigation "tiger team" of 50-200 really smart "rocket scientists" and engineers? I would be willing to venture that during 5 years such a team could have come up with a backup plan that would have some non-zero probability of success.

That NASA knew the foam was shedding, and damaging TPS tiles, has been documented elsewhere. That NASA knew that the loss of a single critical tile could result in burnthrough, and mission loss, is documented elsewhere. That NASA had no backup plan, no mitigation, is documented elsewhere (they stated this openly on the day of the disaster). This is profundly sad. I doubt very much that the NASA of Werner von Braun's time would have had no solutions to offer.

1,622 posted on 02/13/2003 6:51:04 PM PST by Resolute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1597 | View Replies]

To: bonesmccoy
Not at all interested in embarassing anyone at Rockwell or any other contractor, or NASA for that matter. I'm only interested in understanding what happened.

The TPS, was designed by RI and Lockheed, and was maintained by Lockheed and Boeing (USA). LTV actually built the RCC sections, that I think were damaged.

Please let us speak for ourselves Bones.
1,623 posted on 02/13/2003 6:53:07 PM PST by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1587 | View Replies]

To: XBob
What happened after 8:52 is pretty moot as it all began minutes earlier over the pacific. It's like watching a Indy car disintegrate as it rolls several times. When the video is studied it shows a minor suspension component failing puncturing a tire.

In all the graphics posted here I have yet to see the opening in the wing where the strut rod that attaches the shuttle to the ET mounts to the air frame. This is important because Dittemore mentioned it in day one briefing that the foam may have hit the fairing around the strut and damaged it.

1,624 posted on 02/13/2003 6:58:55 PM PST by tubebender (?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1617 | View Replies]

To: tubebender
Is this what you are looking for?

You can find the "Orbiter External Tank Forward/Aft Attach Points" in at this location:

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/sodb/2-5a.pdf
1,625 posted on 02/13/2003 7:11:03 PM PST by halfbubbleofflevel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1624 | View Replies]

To: tubebender
More on the photo...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/842855/posts
1,626 posted on 02/13/2003 7:11:09 PM PST by tubebender (?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1624 | View Replies]

To: All
I'm still very interested with understanding the RCC impact requirement on the RCC: No damage with a 16 in-lb impact.

I don't know of an engineering definition of impact, so I'm assuming the specification is actally an energy, expressed in strange units. If so, 16 inch pounds, would equal 1.33 foot pounds.

Energy = one half * weight/g*velocity^2

where weight is in pounds, g is in ft/sec^2, and velocity is feet/second. The final units would be in ft-lbs.

1.33=.5*.03*weight*vel^2

For 1 pound: vel^2=1.33*32*2=64+21.33=85.33 or
vel = about 9+ feet/sec.

On earth in a 1 g field v=at, or 9=32*t
t (to hit) is about a quater of a sec.

d=1/2at^2, or d=.5*32*.25*25, or 1 feet.

Are they really saying that a 1 pound weight dropped more than one foot on earth, onto the RCC, can damage it?

Maybe someone else can better define the meaning of impact.

1,627 posted on 02/13/2003 7:12:00 PM PST by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1623 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
1619 - "Yes, that is the AZ video. I studied it, but could not save it, and my links do not work anymore either. I believe the footage has been zapped. Or the damn Real Player has crapped. "

exactly my experience, every time I look at a reference which might have been it.
1,628 posted on 02/13/2003 7:13:33 PM PST by XBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1619 | View Replies]

To: halfbubbleofflevel
Thanks...that shows it inboard of the wing and well aft. I doubt the foam hit there by the debris exiting out board of the wing tip.
1,629 posted on 02/13/2003 7:15:45 PM PST by tubebender (?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1625 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
The detached foam was deaccelerating in the air blast at Mach 1.5 while the shuttle was continuing to accelerate up towards the foam. The relative velocity is the difference between the foam's velocity lost in the air stream and the velocity gained by the shuttle as it accelerated, all in the interval between the foam detaching from the fuel tank and it striking the shuttle.
1,630 posted on 02/13/2003 7:26:27 PM PST by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1627 | View Replies]

To: Thud
That's true, but what does it have to do with what I posted?
1,631 posted on 02/13/2003 7:39:33 PM PST by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1630 | View Replies]

To: tubebender
1624 - "What happened after 8:52 is pretty moot as it all began minutes earlier over the pacific."

The first indicators of anything out of whak was at 8:52:20, the first anomalous temp rise, well out over the pacific.

"In all the graphics posted here I have yet to see the opening in the wing where the strut rod that attaches the shuttle to the ET mounts to the air frame."

the forward attach point is right behind the front wheel well.


" This is important because Dittemore mentioned it in day one briefing that the foam may have hit the fairing around the strut and damaged it."

Looking at the video from the ice team, There is a possible initial glancing hit of the 'foam' in approximately near the forward attach point, however, there was no apparent damage, or reports of damage or out of whak sensors or photos, or anything of any problems in this area in anything I have seen.

1,632 posted on 02/13/2003 7:42:14 PM PST by XBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1624 | View Replies]

To: Thud
It's interesting that NASA assumed a 10 to 16 degree angle of attack for foam hitting the tiles. The foam could have hit the RCC at the full 90 degrees.

I didn't catch the stuff about the possibility of two pieces, but if so, a leading edge hit would seem to be the best fit.
1,633 posted on 02/13/2003 7:50:57 PM PST by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1630 | View Replies]

To: tubebender
I doubt the foam hit there by the debris exiting out board of the wing tip.

We studied the impact days ago. What we found was that the foam impacted in the gear door area, perhaps the front of it.

The appearance of the cloud exiting the wing in the way it did, is explained by the angle that the foam came from. It came from the forward mount which is located forward and center of the orbiter.

If you draw a line between the points, it seems to line up with the angle of exit. Also, the dust was accelerating much faster than the foam piece and seemed to exit almost into the camera direction. Again, those angles correlated to the path of the foam.

1,634 posted on 02/13/2003 7:57:15 PM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1629 | View Replies]

To: XBob
Did you happen to catch this in # 1618 ?

The search for debris from Columbia continued in Texas, where a preliminary analysis of low-frequency sound wave recordings indicated the shuttle exploded between the cities of Amarilla and Lubbock, about 330 miles west of Dallas.

1,635 posted on 02/13/2003 7:59:18 PM PST by freepersup (And this expectation will not disappoint us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1621 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
The other piece dissapeared going down toward the boosters.
1,636 posted on 02/13/2003 7:59:42 PM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1633 | View Replies]

To: freepersup
Yes, that would be about right.
1,637 posted on 02/13/2003 8:01:08 PM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1635 | View Replies]

To: freepersup
How sad, wasn't the pilot from Amarillo?
1,638 posted on 02/13/2003 8:09:23 PM PST by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1635 | View Replies]

To: tubebender
# 1626: This story is incredible ... one exposure of the shuttle in a 24 second window of opportunity- horizon to horizon. Wrote the software to track the shuttle the night before...
1,639 posted on 02/13/2003 8:12:00 PM PST by freepersup (And this expectation will not disappoint us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1626 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
Husband, a native of Amarillo, Texas, where he lived with his wife, Evelyn, and their two children, had served as a pilot on a previous mission aboard the space shuttle Discovery, and logged more than 235 hours in space.

A certain irony to his death occurring so close to his home town...

1,640 posted on 02/13/2003 8:16:44 PM PST by freepersup (And this expectation will not disappoint us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1638 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,601-1,6201,621-1,6401,641-1,660 ... 4,541-4,548 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson