[Budge]

1548 - We're getting better at this, finally. :)

RE: 1544 - I notice there is another arrow bottom right, xBoB. Is that the large foam/ice hit point?

Comments anyone?

[XBob]

good - the bottom arrow is just on the original drawing pointing like the one above, except it says RCC

[freepersup]

Hi Budge- Thanks for the reply. I haven't read each and every thread from where I left off, so I will spend some time catching up before I dare opine (further) than on this image / issue.

I groaned when I saw this graphic of the tile. It is of great detail and shows a vulnerability previously unseen in the glove area. I am addressing the HRSI (heat resistant shielding insulation ?) area, where an arrow (on the left) is pointing.

I can't tell if I am looking 'through' the wing and am seeing the left wing or that I am looking at the underside of the right wing ? For the point I want to make it doesn't matter.

Most views have been looking on at the glove area from a perspective about level with the wing and from a few, to several feet away. One could not see or appreciate the tile pattern (TPS) on the wing's underside. The RCC's- # 1-8, were the prominent wing design feature appearing in the images.

There are several of these graph's depicting the TPS where the entire ship is displayed. Having just joined back up in the conversation, I more than likely have missed the conversation regarding these tiles (HRSI at left arrow), and that is why the image is appearing for obvious reasons, where it does in this thread.

Now to the chase. By not having a design where the RCC's wrap under the leading edge of the wing, such as what we see around RCC # 9-22, a vulnerability exists, where an errant object debris strike would impact the TPS 'sooner'.

Perhaps 'sooner' isn't the operative word or point. The RCC's that wrap the underside of the wing offer more protection from a debris strike, as there is more material to absorb an impact, head on, or wing leading edge on.

In addition, the structure or frame lacks intersecting bracing behind the RCC's # 1-8, so an onrushing strike in the RCC # 9 area, as proposed previously, may cause to collapse sooner, the RCC's # 1-8, as they have substantially less material regarding the 'wrap' under the wing. An additional point, (made earlier) was the domino effect of RCC's # 1-8, due to lack of forward / aft bracing.

Whether the strike was here first or at the RCC # 9 point, it is by design weaker than at other points on the leading edge of the wing, such as RCC's # 10-22. RCC # 9 is weak as well, lacking the forward / aft bracing. RCC # 8, has some forward / aft bracing about half the distance from the wing edge to the fuselage framing.

In summation, the HRSI would, if struck, be more prone to peeling, zippering, etc. because of the exposure to the aero forces (by their location and design)

[freepersup]

[freepersup]

[freepersup]

High Resolution Image (-Underside View-) of Above Shuttle Photo

[freepersup]

[freepersup]

I've been studying the large images of the shuttle which I posted today, and I don't see the tiles installed as coming anywhere close to the leading edge of the glove as is potrayed by this graph.

There does appear to be significant wrapping or cupping of the RCC material along the underside of leading edge of the left wing. The arrow in the graph points to this area and is annotated as HRSI.

RCC's # 1-4, have a somewhat narrower underside profile compared to RCC's installed sequentially along the wing edge extending to the wing tip. . I made an issue out of this design based on the graph of tile patterns. Final operational design appears to be noticeably different than what is depicted in the graph. It fooled me-