Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Air Force imagery confirms Columbia wing damaged
Spaceflightnow.com ^ | 02/07/03 | CRAIG COVAULT

Posted on 02/07/2003 4:30:37 AM PST by The Magical Mischief Tour

Air Force imagery confirms Columbia wing damaged BY CRAIG COVAULT AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY/aviationnow.com PUBLISHED HERE WITH PERMISSION Posted: February 7, 2003

High-resolution images taken from a ground-based Air Force tracking camera in southwestern U.S. show serious structural damage to the inboard leading edge of Columbia's left wing, as the crippled orbiter flew overhead about 60 sec. before the vehicle broke up over Texas killing the seven astronauts on board Feb. 1.

According to sources close to the investigation, the images, under analysis at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, show a jagged edge on the left inboard wing structure near where the wing begins to intersect the fuselage. They also show the orbiter's right aft yaw thrusters firing, trying to correct the vehicle's attitude that was being adversely affected by the left wing damage. Columbia's fuselage and right wing appear normal. Unlike the damaged and jagged left wing section, the right wing appears smooth along its entire length. The imagery is consistent with telemetry.

The ragged edge on the left leading edge, indicates that either a small structural breach -- such as a crack -- occurred, allowing the 2,500F reentry heating to erode additional structure there, or that a small portion of the leading edge fell off at that location.

Either way, the damage affected the vehicle's flying qualities as well as allowed hot gases to flow into critical wing structure -- a fatal combination.

It is possible, but yet not confirmed, that the impact of foam debris from the shuttle's external tank during launch could have played a role in damage to the wing leading edge, where the deformity appears in USAF imagery.

If that is confirmed by the independent investigation team, it would mean that, contrary to initial shuttle program analysis, the tank debris event at launch played a key role in the root cause of the accident.

Another key factor is that the leading edge of the shuttle wing where the jagged shape was photographed transitions from black thermal protection tiles to a much different mechanical system made of reinforced carbon-carbon material that is bolted on, rather than glued on as the tiles are.

This means that in addition to the possible failure of black tile at the point where the wing joins the fuselage, a failure involving the attachment mechanisms for the leading edge sections could also be a factor, either related or not to the debris impact. The actual front structure of a shuttle wing is flat. To provide aerodynamic shape and heat protection, each wing is fitted with 22 U-shaped reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC) leading-edge structures. The carbon material in the leading edge, as well as the orbiter nose cap, is designed to protect the shuttle from temperatures above 2,300F during reentry. Any breach of this leading-edge material would have catastrophic consequences.

The U-shaped RCC sections are attached to the wing "with a series of floating joints to reduce loading on the panels due to wing deflections," according to Boeing data on the attachment mechanism.

"The [critical heat protection] seal between each wing leading-edge panel is referred to as a 'tee' seal," according to Boeing, and are also made of a carbon material.

The tee seals allow lateral motion and thermal expansion differences between the carbon sections and sections of the orbiter wing that remain much cooler during reentry.

In addition to debris impact issues, investigators will likely examine whether any structural bending between the cooler wing structure and the more-than-2,000F leading edge sections could have played a role in the accident. There is insulation packed between the cooler wing structure and the bowl-shaped cavity formed by the carbon leading-edge sections.

The RCC leading-edge structures are bolted to the wing using Inconel fittings that attach to aluminum flanges on the front of the wing.

The initial NASA Mission Management Team (MMT) assessment of the debris impact made Jan. 18, two days after launch, noted "The strike appears to have occurred on or relatively close to the "wing glove" near the orbiter fuselage.

The term "wing glove" generally refers to the area where the RCC bolt-on material is closest to the fuselage. This is also the general area where USAF imagery shows structural damage.

The second MMT summary analyzing the debris hit was made on Jan. 20 and had no mention of the leading-edge wing glove area. That report was more focused on orbiter black tiles on the vehicle's belly. The third and final summary issued on Jan. 27 discusses the black tiles again, but also specifically says "Damage to the RCC [wing leading edge] should be limited to [its] coating only and have no mission impact." Investigators in Houston are trying to match the location of the debris impact with the jagged edge shown in the Air Force imagery.

Columbia reentry accident investigators are also trying to determine if, as in the case of the case of Challenger's accident 17 years ago, an undesirable materials characteristic noted on previous flights -- in this case the STS-112 separation of external tank insulation foam debris -- was misjudged by engineers as to its potential for harm, possibly by using analytical tools and information inadequate to truly identify and quantify the threat to the shuttle. As of late last week, NASA strongly asserted this was not the case, but intense analysis on that possibility continues.

The shuttle is now grounded indefinitely and the impact on major crew resupply and assembly flights to the International Space Station remain under intense review.

Killed in the accident were STS-107 Mission Commander USAF Col. Rick Husband; copilot Navy Cdr. William McCool; flight engineer, Kalpana Chawla; payload commander, USAF Lt. Col. Michael Anderson; mission specialist physician astronauts Navy Capt. Laurel Clark and Navy Capt. David Brown and Israeli Air Force Col. Ilan Ramon.

"We continue to recover crew remains and we are handling that process with the utmost care, the utmost respect and dignity," said Ronald Dittemore, shuttle program manager.

No matter what the investigations show, there are no apparent credible crew survival options for the failure Columbia experienced. With the ISS out of reach in a far different orbit, there were no credible rescue options if even if wing damage had been apparent before reentry -- which it was not.

If, in the midst of its 16-day flight, wing damage had been found to be dire, the only potential -- but still unlikely -- option would have been the formulation over several days by Mission Control of a profile that could have, perhaps, reduced heating on the damaged wing at the expense of the other wing for an unguided reentry, with scant hope the vehicle would remain controllable to about 40,000 ft., allowing for crew bailout over an ocean.

Reentry is a starkly unforgiving environment where three out of the four fatal manned space flight accidents over the last 35 years have occurred.

These include the Soyuz 1 reentry accident that killed cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov in 1967 and the 1971 Soyuz 11 reentry accident that killed three cosmonauts returning after the first long-duration stay on the Salyut 1 space station.

The only fatal launch accident has been Challenger in 1986, although Apollo astronauts Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee were killed when fire developed in their spacecraft during a launch pad test not involving launch.

No other accident in aviation history has been seen by so many eyewitnesses than the loss of Columbia -- visible in five states.

Telemetry and photographic analysis indicate the breakup of the historic orbiter took place as she slowed from Mach 20-to-18 across California, Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico with the loss of structural integrity 205,000 ft. over north central Texas where most of the debris fell.

The science-driven STS-107 crew was completing 16 days of complex work in their Spacehab Research Double module and were 16 min. from landing at Kennedy when lost. Landing was scheduled for 8:16 a.m. CST.

Abnormal telemetry events in the reentry began at 7:52 a.m. CST as the vehicle was crossing the coast north of San Francisco at 43 mi. alt., about Mach 20.

The orbiter at this time was in a 43-deg. right bank completing its initial bank maneuver to the south for initial energy dissipation and ranging toward the Kennedy runway still nearly 3,000 mi. away.

That initial bank had been as steep as about 80 deg. between Hawaii and the California coast, a normal flight path angle for the early part of the reentry. The abnormal events seen on orbiter telemetry in Houston indicate a slow penetration of reentry heat into the orbiter and damage on the wing, overpowering the flight control system. Key events were:

* 7:52 a.m. CST: Three left main landing gear brakeline temperatures show an unusual rise. "This was the first occurrence of a significant thermal event in the left wheel well," Dittemore said. Engineers do not believe the left wheel well was breached, but rather that hot gasses were somehow finding a flow path within the wing to reach the wheel well.

* 7:53 a.m. CST: A fourth left brakeline strut temperature measurement rose significantly -- about 30-40 deg. in 5 min.

* 7:54 a.m. CST: With the orbiter over eastern California and western Nevada, the mid-fuselage mold line where the left wing meets the fuselage showed an unusual temperature rise. The 60F rise over 5 min. was not dramatic, but showed that something was heating the wing fuselage interface area at this time. Wing leading edge and belly temperatures were over 2,000F. While the outside fuselage wall was heating, the inside wall remained cool as normal.

* 7:55 a.m. CST: A fifth left main gear temperature sensor showed an unusual rise.

* 7:57 a.m. CST: As Columbia was passing over Arizona and New Mexico, the orbiter's upper and lower left wing temperature sensors failed, probably indicating their lines had been cut. The orbiter was also rolling back to the left into about a 75-deg. left bank angle, again to dissipate energy and for navigation and guidance toward Runway 33 at Kennedy, then about 1,800 mi. away.

* 7:58 a.m. CST: Still over New Mexico, the elevons began to move to adjust orbiter roll axis trim, indicating an increase in drag on the left side of the vehicle. That could be indicative of "rough tile or missing tile but we are not sure," Dittemore said. At the same time, the elevons were reacting to increased drag on the left side of the vehicle, the left main landing gear tire pressures and wheel temperature measurements failed. This was indicative of a loss of the sensor, not the explosion or failure of the left main gear tires, Dittemore believes. The sensors were lost in a staggered fashion.

* 7:59 a.m. CST: Additional elevon motion is commanded by the flight control system to counteract right side drag. The drag was trying to roll the vehicle to the left, while the flight control system was commanding the elevons to roll it back to the right.

But the rate of left roll was beginning to overpower the elevons, so the control system fired two 870-lb. thrust right yaw thrusters to help maintain the proper flight path angle. The firing lasted 1.5 sec. and, along with the tire pressure data and elevon data, would have been noted by the pilots.

At about this time, the pilots made a short transmission that was clipped and essentially unintelligible

In Mission Control, astronaut Marine Lt. Col. Charles Hobaugh, the spacecraft communicator on reentry flight director Leroy Cain's team, radioed "Columbia we see your tire pressure [telemetry[ messages and we did not copy your last transmission."

One of the pilots then radioed "Roger," but appeared to be cut off in mid transmission by static. For a moment there was additional static and sounds similar to an open microphone on Columbia but no transmissions from the crew.

All data from the orbiter then stopped and the position plot display in Mission Control froze over Texas, although an additional 30 sec. of poor data may have been captured.

Controllers in Mission Control thought they were experiencing an unusual but non-critical data drop out. But they had also taken notice of the unusual buildup of sensor telemetry in the preceding few minutes.

About 3 min. after all data flow stopped, Hobaugh in mission control began transmitting in the blind to Columbia on the UHF backup radio system. "Columbia, Houston, UHF comm. check" he repeated every 15-30 sec., but to no avail. In central Texas, thousands of people at that moment were observing the orbiter break up at Mach 18.3 and 207,000 ft.

Milt Heflin, Chief of the Flight Director's office said he looked at the frozen data plots. "I and others stared at that for a long time because the tracking ended over Texas. It just stopped. It was was then that I reflected back on what I saw [in Mission Control] with Challenger."

The loss of Challenger occurred 17 years and four days before the loss of Columbia.

"Our landscape has changed," Heflin said. "The space flight business today is going to be much different than yesterday.

"It was different after the Apollo fire, it was different after Challenger."

Columbia, the first winged reusable manned spacecraft first launched in April 1981, was lost on her 28th mission on the 113th shuttle flight.


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: classicthread; hugh
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-321 next last

1 posted on 02/07/2003 4:30:37 AM PST by The Magical Mischief Tour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
Has NASA even commented on the possibilty of pre-launch sabotage? I've heard nothing about it in the media (suprise suprise) but I can't believe it isn't being considered.
2 posted on 02/07/2003 4:34:17 AM PST by tcostell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
I take it there's little to no chance that we'll ever actually SEE this photograph...
3 posted on 02/07/2003 4:36:51 AM PST by Pyrion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
This is hugh.
4 posted on 02/07/2003 4:38:20 AM PST by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
bttt
5 posted on 02/07/2003 4:40:39 AM PST by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: leadpenny
huge
6 posted on 02/07/2003 4:42:47 AM PST by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Freedom'sWorthIt; KneelBeforeZod; wirestripper; glock rocks; honway; thinden; aristeides
fyi
7 posted on 02/07/2003 4:43:47 AM PST by Lion's Cub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: leadpenny
Hi, Hugh!
8 posted on 02/07/2003 4:45:31 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Doh!
9 posted on 02/07/2003 4:47:22 AM PST by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
ping
10 posted on 02/07/2003 4:48:37 AM PST by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
NASA's been trying to discredit the foam damage theory, but it looks more and more like that was the root cause. I heard a report the other day that said the foam never broke off until they made the manufacturer "take freon out of the recipe" to make it more environmentally friendly. Chalk another one up to being too overzealously environmentally whacko...
11 posted on 02/07/2003 4:48:55 AM PST by trebb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: leadpenny
A series serious of hugh blungers.
12 posted on 02/07/2003 4:49:10 AM PST by dasboot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dasboot
All your series hugh blunders belong to us.
13 posted on 02/07/2003 4:51:11 AM PST by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dasboot
This is vey hugh...
14 posted on 02/07/2003 4:53:26 AM PST by Chad Fairbanks ('I WISH, at some point, that you would address those damned armadillos in your trousers." - JustShe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
These include the Soyuz 1 reentry accident that killed cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov in 1967 and the 1971 Soyuz 11 reentry accident that killed three cosmonauts returning after the first long-duration stay on the Salyut 1 space station.

Careful!
This is going to upset that bowling ball who posted the crack that we should be using russian proletariat superior technology because they never had accidents like we do.

*Smirk*

15 posted on 02/07/2003 4:55:31 AM PST by Publius6961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
It would be nice if NASA would release the picture.
16 posted on 02/07/2003 4:58:26 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trebb
NASA's been trying to discredit the foam damage theory, but it looks more and more like that was the root cause.

From reading this article, I came to exactly the opposite conclusion. This excerpt from the article says the damage in the Air Force photograph is at the wing root:

show a jagged edge on the left inboard wing structure near where the wing begins to intersect the fuselage

But the photos of the foam striking the wing during lift-off show the foam striking farther out on the wing. This makes me tend to agree with NASA's decision to keep looking rather than settle for the foam damage explanation.

17 posted on 02/07/2003 5:04:41 AM PST by e_engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: trebb
how could it be foam damage? that's not where the debris hit on launch.
18 posted on 02/07/2003 5:11:48 AM PST by I_dmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Chad Fairbanks
This news item corrects a falsehood posted earlier that the Russians have had no accidents using using 1/10th the money.
19 posted on 02/07/2003 5:13:20 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
does it strike any one oddly that a photo was snapped basically when we lost contact?

Is ground based photog normal ops ?

20 posted on 02/07/2003 5:14:01 AM PST by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA
Is there a NASA press conference today?
21 posted on 02/07/2003 5:14:54 AM PST by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: e_engineer
We wouldn't be having this controversy over the foam had NASA notified the shuttle of the incident. They could have inspected the wing while they were in orbit to determine if there was any damage.

I don't buy the theory that they didn't notify them because there isn't anything they could have done about it. Even if they couldn't have affected repairs, they could have waited until another shuttle was sent to bring them down (they were scheduled for 18 days, they could have stretched that quite a bit if they were careful.) I find it hard to believe that NASA (working night and day on an emergency basis) couldn't get another shuttle up there in 3 weeks.

At the very least, if you are going to fly a crippled ship home, you at least have the right to know that so you have some time to wrap things up should things go for the worse (as they did here.)
22 posted on 02/07/2003 5:16:15 AM PST by Brookhaven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: e_engineer
From reading this article, I came to exactly the opposite conclusion.

Put on your heat resistant tiles -- you will be flamed. The "experts" here have already concluded that the insulation caused it and NASA is in total cover-up mode.

23 posted on 02/07/2003 5:21:02 AM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
Excellent report...

The data base is growing, however the cause has yet to be determined.

One think that comes directly to mind. The wing, if damaged initially after launch on the leading edge located near the body of the fuselage, is dang near directly under the opening of the shuttle bay and should have been visable to anyone looking at the wing.

Someone correct me if I am wrong.

24 posted on 02/07/2003 5:21:42 AM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven
We wouldn't be having this controversy over the foam had NASA notified the shuttle of the incident. They could have inspected the wing while they were in orbit to determine if there was any damage.

NASA apparently did notify them because they did what they could to inspect the wing, but the underside was inaccessible. There were no MMUs on board, and no way to get under the wing without one.

25 posted on 02/07/2003 5:21:43 AM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Truth29
Is there a NASA press conference today?

Yes, both live on C-SPAN. 11:30 for the Washington Press Conference and 4:30 for Houston. Eastern Time

26 posted on 02/07/2003 5:21:57 AM PST by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
Is this the only AF photography out there? Was there any done while the shuttle was still in orbit?
27 posted on 02/07/2003 5:22:36 AM PST by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW; Fred Mertz; Jael; BureaucratusMaximus
FYI. I heard on the radio this morning that the investigation is being taken away from NASA.
28 posted on 02/07/2003 5:23:53 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Gee, I wonder why.
29 posted on 02/07/2003 5:25:18 AM PST by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
I suppose the question I should ask is, who the hell ever thought that the Russians never had any losses? I'm still not convinced that Yuri Gagarin made it back alive... course, I never did trust teh old Soviet Union to ever be truthful, so call me a skeptic... ;0)
30 posted on 02/07/2003 5:26:14 AM PST by Chad Fairbanks ('I WISH, at some point, that you would address those damned armadillos in your trousers." - JustShe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: e_engineer
I'm with you.
From the video, it also seems the foams strikes the underside of the wing, not the junction at the wing and fuselage.
31 posted on 02/07/2003 5:27:59 AM PST by dtel (Texas Longhorn cattle for sale at all times. We don't rent pigs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven
Even if they couldn't have affected repairs, they could have waited until another shuttle was sent to bring them down (they were scheduled for 18 days, they could have stretched that quite a bit if they were careful.) I find it hard to believe that NASA (working night and day on an emergency basis) couldn't get another shuttle up there in 3 weeks.

I heard a NASA rep explain the reasons they couldn't. I believe the crux of the rescue issue was that, unlike castaways on an island, rationing in space is not as easy. There's no effective means (on the shuttle I guess) to maintain adequate air supply for too long. If it were just a matter of food and water, yes, they could string it out.

In addition, they would be running the risk of compounding the problem with another accident. Remember, the incident during launch had not been even close to resolution. They would be scrambling to launch another shuttle without necessarily knowing what happened to Columbia. High risk.

32 posted on 02/07/2003 5:28:53 AM PST by Mr. Bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: leadpenny
All your series hugh blunders ARE belong to us!
33 posted on 02/07/2003 5:29:39 AM PST by TheJollyRoger (George W. Bush for president in 2004....AGAIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven
I understand the crew DID know about the foam impact and accepted the analysts opinion that there was no significant structural damage. I'm sure someone will tell me if I'm wrong.
34 posted on 02/07/2003 5:29:42 AM PST by Trust but Verify
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: e_engineer
But the photos of the foam striking the wing during lift-off show the foam striking farther out on the wing. This makes me tend to agree with NASA's decision to keep looking rather than settle for the foam damage explanation.

Well worth repeating, over and over again.

I concur and have viewed and studied the loop. It looks like it hit the back side at a narrow angle(maybe 2 or 3 degrees.)

It definitely hit toward the center of the wing span, and at a relatively low speed, contrary to many. (maybe 100MPH)

If this is correct, the new pics indicate that the foam did not damage the craft.

35 posted on 02/07/2003 5:30:44 AM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
Is ground based photog normal ops ?

I thnk it was a photo of opportunity, based on the Shuttle's flight path. The facility at White Sands has one of the best CCD (digital camera) telescopes in the world which the Air Force uses to look at sattelites as well as track asteroids, they've almost tripled (I think) the number of asteroids identified.

36 posted on 02/07/2003 5:30:45 AM PST by Tijeras_Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TheJollyRoger
Darn! I can't even get that right.
37 posted on 02/07/2003 5:30:51 AM PST by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne; _Jim
Columbia USAF photo discussion ping
38 posted on 02/07/2003 5:31:21 AM PST by csvset (I thought photos "couldn't have been taken". What's up with that? Hmmmmmmm ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trust but Verify
FOX reported this morning that one of the astronauts was concerned about the damage and mentioned it to a family member.
39 posted on 02/07/2003 5:31:40 AM PST by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Trust but Verify
Dittemore plainly stated, they brought in the Astronaut reps and talked over the situation with them.
The crew obviously knew what was going on.
40 posted on 02/07/2003 5:32:45 AM PST by dtel (Texas Longhorn cattle for sale at all times. We don't rent pigs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: dtel
About the video, Jay Barbree on Imus this morning, said something about the person responsible for the video of the debris had screwed up somehow and that's why the video was blurred. Something about the guy pulling a cable 30 seconds into the flight. Anyone else catch that?
41 posted on 02/07/2003 5:34:25 AM PST by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: I_dmc
how could it be foam damage? that's not where the debris hit on launch.

Not according to this article:

"The initial NASA Mission Management Team (MMT) assessment of the debris impact made Jan. 18, two days after launch, noted "The strike appears to have occurred on or relatively close to the "wing glove" near the orbiter fuselage.

"The term "wing glove" generally refers to the area where the RCC bolt-on material is closest to the fuselage. This is also the general area where USAF imagery shows structural damage."

42 posted on 02/07/2003 5:34:39 AM PST by DSH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: e_engineer
But the photos of the foam striking the wing during lift-off show the foam striking farther out on the wing. This makes me tend to agree with NASA's decision to keep looking rather than settle for the foam damage explanation.

What if, instead of damaging the wing by smashing it, the foam torqued the wing backwards and caused damage at the front end of the wing-fusilage joint? Seems like the wing would be particularly well-reinforced there, but this WAS the 28th mission.

What if the constant stress on that wing joint weakened it over time?

43 posted on 02/07/2003 5:37:24 AM PST by ez ("`The course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others.'' GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: e_engineer
The initial NASA Mission Management Team (MMT) assessment of the debris impact made Jan. 18, two days after launch, noted "The strike appears to have occurred on or relatively close to the "wing glove" near the orbiter fuselage.

The term "wing glove" generally refers to the area where the RCC bolt-on material is closest to the fuselage. This is also the general area where USAF imagery shows structural damage.

The second MMT summary analyzing the debris hit was made on Jan. 20 and had no mention of the leading-edge wing glove area. That report was more focused on orbiter black tiles on the vehicle's belly. The third and final summary issued on Jan. 27 discusses the black tiles again, but also specifically says "Damage to the RCC [wing leading edge] should be limited to [its] coating only and have no mission impact." Investigators in Houston are trying to match the location of the debris impact with the jagged edge shown in the Air Force imagery.

This tells me they made three assesments of the situation.

The first on Jan 18, two days after the launch, which states the strike appears to have occurred on or relative close to the "wing glove" area near the orbital fuselage.

The second, on Jan 20 which made no mention of the wing glove area.

And finally the third, on Jan 27 which also neglected to mention the wing glove area.

My question is, why did they leave the area they initially though was struck out of their subsequent two assesments? It looks to me like overlooking first impressions.

44 posted on 02/07/2003 5:37:48 AM PST by Balata
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven
. They could have inspected the wing while they were in orbit to determine if there was any damage.

Given the equipment the crew had at their disposal and the configuration of the shuttle on this mission how could they have inspected the wing?

45 posted on 02/07/2003 5:50:10 AM PST by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
Knowing the astronauts suffered is extremely upsetting. The only comfort is they're safe now. I just prayed for their families again. We can't afford to lose these quality people.
46 posted on 02/07/2003 6:00:26 AM PST by Man of the Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
According to the NY Post this morning, COLUMBIA COVERUP, NASA didn't have to use the PC foam on Columbia -- the EPA had granted it an exemption.
47 posted on 02/07/2003 6:07:11 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Balata; dd5339
The term "wing glove" generally refers to the area where the RCC bolt-on material is closest to the fuselage. This is also the general area where USAF imagery shows structural damage.

The article states the RCC is the same as the wing-glove area, so the MMT concluded twice that some kind of damage occurred to the RCC/wing-glove area, right where the USAF photos show...duh!

48 posted on 02/07/2003 6:09:08 AM PST by Vic3O3 (-47 below keeps the riffraff out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
Nasa makes an official claim that the military couldn't have taken pics that were high enough res to see anything of use--didn't believe this when I heard it. Now we have a "we could SO take a good pic" from the military. Figured this was coming--the AF satellite engineers aren't just going to sit still for such a claim. But the brass is hanging on to their pic.

Now, whether Nasa also had these pics is an interesting question. Or could they had gotten them if they had wanted them, and chose not to ask?

49 posted on 02/07/2003 6:09:30 AM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
Anyone else catch that?

I did, and that is what he said. The man put the cam out of focus and killed another one that would have shown the back side of the wing.

50 posted on 02/07/2003 6:10:44 AM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-321 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson