To: brityank; wirestripper; bonesmccoy; snopercod
thanks for the bump - "Pieces of foam insulation roughly the same size as the chunks seen falling away from Columbia's external tank will be fired into various wing components with a powerful "chicken gun" normally used to shoot debris into jet engines. "
FINALLY - doing something they should have done 20 years ago.
Something still disturbs me, however, the tank supposedly has insulation 1" thick, generally. But this piece which came off, is 6" thick, and no one has ever discussed this. Where in the world is the tank insulation 6 iches thick, and why? - that is just plain dumb to have insulation tht thick, without re-inforcement!
12 posted on
03/14/2003 9:57:00 PM PST by
XBob
To: XBob
Where in the world is the tank insulation 6 iches thick, and why? - that is just plain dumb to have insulation tht thick, without re-inforcement!They seem to think it was the ramp piece that covers the attatchment point. I cannot confirm that, but it fits into your observations of the shockwave and turbulence on that area of the tank. It is poured in and shaped after attachment.
I am guessing that it became loose as a result of the fact that the launch was scrubbed, the SRBs changed and it was on the pad for a long time.
I bet they do not do that again.
To: XBob; wirestripper
Where in the world is the tank insulation 6 iches thick, and why? See my notes at #3017 in bones thread; possible?
14 posted on
03/15/2003 12:03:53 PM PST by
brityank
(The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson