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.
Hmm... I think I'm not properly describing what this image represents. I was trying to get features from the surface of the shuttle by doing edge extraction, so the bands represent *changes* in brightness of the image. Although these features in the photo are real enough, I'm now also noticing that these changes of brightness on the surface of the shuttle could be nothing more than extensions of the original image's background brightness gradient.
This is the technical way of saying, the original picture was brighter in the lower left corner and darker in the upper right, so there may be no shuttle-related image features in this image, but is nonetheless posted here for reference.
If you torture the data enough, it will confess...
I talked to my friend out in the Sierras the other day. He told me that yes, parts were falling off the Columbia over the Sierras, and that the concensus was that they were pieces of RCC from the left wing.
He also said that the possiblity of elevon shedding was discussed at length, but no evidence of that has been found (yet).
If you want to take (or mail) that piece you found to this guy, I'm sure he would be willing to identify it. You run the risk of losing it, of course, if it is in fact a piece of Columbia. He would have to give it to NASA.
4461 - Thanks for the interesting graphic. Sorry, somehow I missed it earlier, (following the hurricaine(s). Only lost a big tree onto the garage on Merritt Island).
Your ideas are interesting, and could be quite correct. When I was working that image I noticed the graphics algorithyms of the particular graphics programs I was using, also played a part in how the image morphed. And also the particular monitor and its drivers.
You have created something interesting and perhaps useful, for which I have no explanation. Thanks for posting it.
4465 - Thanks for the chuckle. Unfortunately, it is 'black humor'.
I assume this is at KSC?
Yup. The Titusville gate. I was down there a couple days ago, and the whole area is messed up pretty bad.
Damn. :-(
Radio news is reporting a 6 ft. piece of the Columbia crew module has been found in E. Texas.
LUFKIN, Texas More than a year and a half after the Space Shuttle "Columbia" broke apart during re-entry, another piece of the craft has been found.
Two weeks ago, a wildlife biologist discovered a six-foot-long piece of the crew compartment in Texas. Yesterday, Kennedy Space Center officials confirmed the piece was part of the Columbia.
The biologist said he found item, partially covered with moss, in a water runoff area in Newton County. NASA officials have yet to pick up the piece, which contains a hinged window.
All seven astronauts aboard the shuttle were killed when it broke apart on February first of last year, raining tens of thousands of pieces over parts of Texas and Louisiana.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/9845940.htm?1c
Posted on Wed, Oct. 06, 2004
Former NASA inspector accused of lying about shuttle checks
Associated Press
ORLANDO, Fla. - A former NASA inspector was accused of lying about inspecting crucial parts on the space shuttle Discovery before and after the Columbia disaster that killed seven astronauts and grounded the entire orbiter fleet.
Billy T. Thornton falsified records about 83 Discovery inspections over nine days from Oct. 24, 2002, to May 14, 2003, according to a federal indictment unsealed Tuesday. NASA fired him in September 2003.
The former National Aeronautics and Space Administration quality-assurance specialist was responsible for checking that contractors completed work on electronics and other components considered necessary for safe flight.
For instance, on Dec. 13, 2002, Thornton was charged with signing off on 65 inspections of Discovery's interior structure without entering the orbiter to check repairs by the civilian contractor, United Space Alliance.
Each was classified as a "criticality one" inspection. That means that the part being inspected doesn't have a backup system and could destroy the shuttle and its crew if it fails.
Thornton, 54, of Port St. John, declined to comment Tuesday. But his lawyer, Kepler Funk, denied any wrongdoing by his client.
"Mr. Thornton has been a long-standing employee up there and is known as a guy who dots his i's and crosses his t's," Funk said. "Mr. Thornton considers working on the shuttle a privilege and an honor, not merely a job to go to every day."
Thornton was charged with 83 counts of fraud involving space-vehicle parts, and each charge carries up to $500,000 in fines and 15 years in prison. Another 83 counts charge him with filing a false statement, and each carries up to 5 years in prison.
During his 15-year career, Thornton inspected the entire shuttle fleet. The Columbia disintegrated upon re-entry Feb. 1, 2003, killing all on board. Discovery is supposed to be the first shuttle to be launched since the disaster.
The independent board that investigated the Columbia accident did not find evidence that poor quality inspections contributed to the tragedy. But the board did suggest that NASA re-inspect many critical parts, as well as beef up inspections, especially at Kennedy Space Center.
Since the allegations against Thornton arose, other inspectors have reviewed the areas Thornton was responsible for, NASA spokesman Bruce Buckingham said. He was supposed to inspect the work being done during the major maintenance overhaul for Discovery.
Agents of NASA's Inspector General's Office arrested Thornton at his home late Monday. His arraignment was scheduled for Friday.
During Thornton's first court appearance Tuesday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Bruce Hinshelwood told U.S. Magistrate James G. Glazebrook that Thornton rejected an offer several weeks ago to plead guilty to a single count of fraud involving space-vehicle parts.
---
Information from: The Orlando Sentinel, http://www.orlandosentinel.com
amazing - i always thought inspections were done in the break room over coffee.
I will reserve comment on this particular event without learning more about the facts of the case.
This newspaper didn't earn it's name (Orlando Slantinel) for nothing.
Thanks for posting it, though.
4475 - "I have first-hand knowledge that KSC is firing people right now for the flimsiest of excuses just to cut the headcount."
I would believe that. However, I drank a lot of coffee while made out my parts requisitions.
4477-8 - I agree with both youall's posts.
The colombia f*up was not caused by this QC guy, or probably any other one, except that the slipshod attitude and performance was 'tolerated'.
However, I saw far too many 'pencil whipped' QC reports filled out in break rooms, and when I brought it up, I was told to keep my mouth shut, 'It's not your job". I expected some serious foul ups, but thank goodness for the excellent Techs/Mechanics, who did/do excellent work with/without QC.
Does anybody have a copy of, or link to, the photo taken in San Francisco of the "purple-corkscrew-lightning-bolt" thing?
I haven't seen it yet, I thought it was going to be available after NASA, et al. had gotten a chance to examine it first.
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.