I'm not sure where you get the idea that an H2/O2 flame won't be visibile under any conditions, but that is indeed what the Shuttle's main engines use for fuel.
Here's a hydrogen flame -- looks pretty visible to me:
Posted on 07/04/2006 1:53:42 PM PDT by HAL9000
Up to five pieces of debris that could be foam insulation fell off the space shuttle Discovery's troublesome external fuel tank shortly after lift-off, according to NASA. The shuttle blasted off from the Kennedy Space Centre in Florida at 19.38 BST. About three minutes later, three or four pieces of debris were seen flying off the fuel tank, and another popping off a bit later, said shuttle programme manager Wayne Hale.Discovery was so high by then that there wasn't enough air to accelerate the pieces into the shuttle and cause damage, he said.
"That is the very raw, preliminary data," he said. "It will be a while before we get a complete picture of what happened during the ascent. But we're looking for these small events that were going on."
The mission is only the second since the destruction of the shuttle Columbia and the deaths of its crew in February, 2003.
NASA's top administrators decided to launch Discovery despite the objections of some key safety and engineering officials who said the shuttle's troubled fuel tank, which triggered the Columbia disaster, needed additional repairs.
There was fresh doubt about the mission on Monday when a crack was found in the tank's foam insulation.
Any serious problems with the 13-day mission is likely to bring a premature end to the US shuttle programme and leave the International Space Station unfinished.
Discovery's key goals are to test the fuel tank, carry much-needed equipment and supplies to the space station and make repairs to the orbiting outpost.
Only 5, not bad..
Public Transportation.
$500 fine for littering in Florida.
It could all be fixed if the friggin NASA people would go against the Greenies and go BACK to manufacturing the foam the old way.
HArrumph.
At one point they were actually bragging about it.....guess those days are over.
Before anybody reminds you that there are no carbon units with an oxygen/hydrogen reaction, IIRC they use kerosene to light the thing off.
What are the solid boosters using for fuel?
(And is it true that the only reason the solid boosters were used is that they're made in Walter Mondale's district?)
Blasted liberal environmentals.
That's what caused the problems on the last one, but like good "earth citizens", we're still using it.
Isn't the Shuttle an H2+O2 rocket? So everything the greenies would have done to their calculators after turning them on would have been wrong. Sure, their was lots of harder to compute carbon burned prior to launch to make it possible, but as for the launch itself the calculator had it right when it was first turned on.
The solid boosters uses a mixture of liquid polysulfide rubber, Ammonium Perchlorate, and a little powdered Aluminum. A curing agent is added to the mix before pouring and it cures to the consistency of a pencil eraser.
Not true. Snopes really should have an article on this by now. The foam that destroyed the Columbia was BX-250, a freon based foam. Additionally, foam fell off of 80% of flights that were observed (low resolution videos) by the CAIB. Foam fell off of the orbiter before most parts of the external fuel tank had their foam changed to non-freon based foam.
I would say that the shuttle probably sheds less foam that it ever has, before and after the EPA regulation change.
I'm smart for a dog, because I'm someone's dog. Labs Rule!
What a waste of taxpayer dollars....the shuttle program and the UN in NY should both be done away with.
Main engines can't be pure H2 + O2 - you can see the fire.
No, the Shuttle wouldn't be able to achieve orbit without them.
Foam loss has been on every mission, and the last mission returned the cleanest orbiter.
Shuttle has 18 more flights, then its the simple and reliable Ares flights.
Aside from filling the news for several days and prolonging this tired program until someone gets a better idea, why are we still taking this thing into orbit, spending time repeating old experiments on the space station and generally burning money just to show that we can?
Right you are, Right you are, Right you are, but that doesn't change the power the Greenies have.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that an H2/O2 flame won't be visibile under any conditions, but that is indeed what the Shuttle's main engines use for fuel.
Here's a hydrogen flame -- looks pretty visible to me:
I don't recall seeing any flames on the Hindenburg!
LOL
We got to finish the ISS so that we can use it up to its fullest extent.
This flight puts equipment onboard that will allow for a crew of 6 to work up there. Other flights will haul up the remaining truss structure and labs and living space.
LOL! Good point.
This just in:
Debris reportedly falls of Taepodong-2, shortly after launch.
You mean the old Pre-Algore foam made by using FREON, don'tcha? I'm tellin you this great nation is beginning to show way too many signs of GANG-GREEN!!!
The headline says it fell off of the shuttle, but the story seems to make clear it fell from the external tank--in this case, a huge difference.
I rather doubt that is a typical hydrogen/oxygen flame. When the shuttle engines light they show close-ups, and you can see right throught the flame.
I watch the shuttle launches from Jacksonville, and when the solid bosters stop, I can no longer see the launch, even at night.
There it is!!! You nailed it!!! And built by the lowest bidder, "cheaper, better, faster!"
Where did you come up with this? I don't believe it for a minute. There were way too many MSM articles about this being the cause of the last shuttle disaster to have ALL been wrong!!! GANG-GREEN KILLS!!!
Apropos the hindenberg, what you see are the burning carbon gasses produced by the fabric, not the Hydrogen. Yellow flame is burning carbon.
And don't forget NO (New Orleans!)
Maybe the case is, the shuttle exhaust is so hot (3200 degrees), it burns natural atmoshpheric carbon, thus creating the yellow flames. If so, that would make it a net consumer of carbon, and thus a CURE for global warming...LOL.
Keep in mind this is mostly coming from my memory from reading the book, "Challenger, a Major Malfunction".
Page 51 (a useful diagram is on the same page):
Most of the External Tank is insulated with three types of spray-on foam. NCFI 24-124, a polyisocyanurate foam applied with blowing agent HCFC 141b hydrochlorofluorocarbon, is used on most areas of the liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen tanks. NCFI 24-57, another polyisocyanurate foam applied with blowing agent HCFC 141b hydrochlorofluorocarbon, is used on the lower liquid hydrogen tank dome. BX-250, a polyurethane foam applied with CFC-11 chlorofluorocarbon, was used on domes, ramps, and areas where the foam is applied by hand.
Page 54:
The Board has concluded that the physical cause of the breakup of Columbia upon re-entry was the result of damage to the Orbiterʼs Thermal Protection System, which occurred when a large piece of BX-250 foam insulation fell from the left (–Y) bipod assembly 81.7 seconds after launch and struck the leading edge of the left wing.
You guys better call up the FR launch crew for this report.
Guess I should have read to the end of the thread. Everything was already answered. Sorry folks!
"Discovery was so high by then that there wasn't enough air to accelerate the pieces into the shuttle and cause damage, he said."
But apparently strong enough to rip them off the tank. I would sure like to know if the solid rockets had been jettisoned by this time in the flight.
NASA hadn't certified the replacement (BX-265 of 258 I believe) until about 2003. Other fuel tanks were actually outfitted with the new foam in places where BX-250 was used at the time of Columbia's launch.
The EPA really made NASA jump through some hoops, perhaps diverting their attention from the danger of foam shedding. In any case, the EPA situation is only a minor footnote of the much larger problems that doomed Columbia. The Space Shuttle is much safer today, not because of the type of foam it uses, but because of the improved QA and operational process.
I just got hit on the head with a piece of foam, call my lawyer!
I'm sorry - that "larger problem" it was recycled foam.
Columbia could have survived if foam hit a different part of it. But the point remains - and you omitted it from your posts - EPA regulations killed both Columbia and Challenger.
And, in a pinch on launch day...
Honeywell has had a non cfc or hcfc blowing agent for polyurethane foams for about 5 years now. Fa245. Foams using their blowing agent have worked well in the old R11 and hcfc systems with minor changes to the formulations. The idea that the blowing agent is a problem is not true. (I have been working in polyurethanes for 25 years).
If this is correct, then the entire shuttle program is inexcusably flawed with a catastrophic design error.
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.