Debris Falls Off Shuttle After Launch

Sky News ^ | July 4, 2006

[Nik Naym]

"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?)"

Solid boosters use an Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant.

AP is the oxidizer. Not sure what the rest is, but likely it is a mixture of some metals such as Aluminum (Guessing here) and others, held in a rubber binder. (Speculating here)

The solid boosters were used because it is a cheap way to get a lot of thrust. Drawback is that once they are lit, they go full blast until they run out of fuel. Can't be throttled or turned off.

They were originally made by Morton Thiokol in Utah. Hardly Mondale's district. However, they are made in sections (which caused the first disaster) so they can be transported to Florida. Of course, way back in the day bids for one piece boosters made closer to the launch site were rejected due to powerful politicians in Thiokol's home state.

The shuttle is an amazing technological answer to a question we never asked.

Politics had everything to do with its very existence, and much to do with its design.

We should have continued with Apollo to its end and progressed from there, IMHO.

[HighWheeler]

You guys better call up the FR launch crew for this report.

[Nik Naym]

Guess I should have read to the end of the thread. Everything was already answered. Sorry folks!

[HighWheeler]

"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.

[burzum]

BX-250 was banned in 2001 in favor of
nothing.

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.

[Pylon]

I just got hit on the head with a piece of foam, call my lawyer!

[alecqss]

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.

[Libloather]

And, in a pinch on launch day...

[mrmargaritaville]

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).

[Ronaldus Magnus]

foam fell off of 80% of flights that were observed (low resolution videos) by the CAIB.

If this is correct, then the entire shuttle program is inexcusably flawed with a catastrophic design error.

[Inyo-Mono]

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.

Is GM making Shuttles now?

[alecqss]

...and old Mercuries were flying just fine, too.

It does not matter that there agents you are sure in (with minor modifications). EPA irresponsibility banned production of the foam and mandated to use a recycled one (now recycled foam use is prohibited).

They could mandate the phase out in 5 years or something like that - until a new agent is certified to be just as good as an old one. But they banned outright. And that lead to a catastrophe (they could get away with it if foam damaged the less critical parts of the shuttle, but no luck).

Asbestos ban caused changes that resulted in Challenger tragedy.

In both case EPA irresponsibility proved to cost human lives.

[Ben Hecks]

Main engines can't be pure H2 + O2 - you can see the fire.

This is just a guess but the liquid rocket engine nozzles are coated with an ablative material, some of which burns off during flight. It's possible that the residue from this is visible.

[patton]

Well then, that is not pure, is it? ;)

[burzum]

I'm sorry - that "larger problem" it was recycled foam.

You missed my point, which was easy to do since I really didn't explain it very well. My point is that perfectly fine non-recycled BX-250 foam fell off of the bipod strut of 10% of flights that were observed by the CAIB. 80% of flights had other foam fall off (much of that was BX-250).

The EPA didn't kill those astronauts any more than the Russians killed the astronauts of Apollo 1. NASA's failure to determine the danger of the foam (recycled, freon, on non-freon) is what killed the astronauts. If recycled BX-250 was too dangerous, NASA always could have canceled the launch. They didn't. There are many agencies and regulations that sometimes conflict with what NASA wants to do. It is the job of NASA to communicate with them and work around the problems, and if necessary alter their programs in a safe manner. If I had to assign blame for the loss of Columbia, I would put 0.01% (at most) at the hands of the EPA and 99.99% at the hands of NASA.

[Central Scrutiniser]

More like Sen. Jake Garn from Utah, a Republican who strong armed NASA into putting him on a shuttle flight, thereby causing a real, trained astronaut to sit on the ground, and any actual work that astronaut could have done going to waste.

Same goes for Florida Senator Bill Nelson and John Glenn.

In fact, in Mike Mullane's book, a very prominent senator tried like hell to get put on a flight, but was rebuffed after NASA finished their stupid stunts with non trained personnel.

[jdm]

NASA should sell advertising space on all the falling pieces of foam.

[burzum]

If this is correct, then the entire shuttle program is inexcusably flawed with a catastrophic design error.

Absolutely. I don't think it is realistic to fly the shuttle without losing foam. Here are some of the findings from the CAIB report (none of these used high resolution cameras, or extra cameras like we have today as far as I know):

F3.2−5

The Board found instances of left bipod ramp shedding on launch that NASA was not aware of, bringing the total known left bipod ramp shedding events to 7 out of 72 missions for which imagery of the launch or External Tank separation is available.

F3.2−7

Foam loss occurred on more than 80 percent of the 79 missions for which imagery was available to confirm or rule out foam loss.

[alecqss]

I'm sorry I was vague in explaining my point.

Without EPA interference disaster would not happened. Previous foam break-offs were 1) small in size, and 2) small in numbers.

As for the new twist (about "non-recycled foam" breaking off)- it's not possible to know whether the foam was new or recycled as nothing survived to examine.

Since the break-offs accelerated (both in size and that the culprit was the recycled one.

[alecqss]

"I would put 0.01% (at most) at the hands of the EPA and 99.99% at the hands of NASA"

That's why no sane person wants to go to work for NASA anymore: you'll get forced by the ideological kooks into risky deals and that risk will all be yours.