Air Force imagery confirms Columbia wing damaged

Spaceflightnow.com ^ | 02/07/03 | CRAIG COVAULT

[The Electrician]

If they were REALLY planning on flying each orbiter 100 times, at this rate each orbiter would have ended it's service life at 100+ years of age! Ridiculous! I suspect the 100-mission profile was strictly for Congressional Funding purposes.

The Shuttles have been flying considerably fewer missions per year than originally planned. Of course, skeptics could say that the original plan was also fiction invented for misleading Congress.

[Paradox]

Given the penchant for Soviet secrecy, their casualty rate might be higher than stated. Check out Lost Cosmonauts.

[Truth29]

"I suspect that the 100-mission profile was strictly for Congressional Funding purposes."

Perhaps, but the original plans were for far more flights per year and included many commercial payload missions. Various technical difficulties and the loss of the Challenger changed all of that.

[FReepaholic]

>>...High-resolution images taken from a ground-based Air Force tracking camera...<<

>>...show serious structural damage to the inboard leading edge...<<

>>...They also show the orbiter's right aft yaw thrusters firing...<<

>>...Columbia's fuselage and right wing appear normal..<<

Hmmm...the camera can see both wings, the yaw thrusters AND the fuselage...does this sound like a GROUND BASED CAMERA???

[1Old Pro]

Astronauts aboard the space shuttle Columbia were apparently so concerned about possible damage to the orbiter during launch, that they photographed the left wing and even sent e-mails about it.

NASA should release these pictures.

[Mad Dawgg]

Hugh, are you series?

[Fitzcarraldo]

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.

If something hit the leading edge hard enough it could flex the wing and cause it to crack somewhere else along the edge.

[kjam22]

Yes, shot down at 200K feet and 12K miles and hour...... If one was predisposed to shoot it down, why not sit in the middle of the swamp in FL and wait until it is making its approach at a more reasonable speed...

Because it's easier for a foriegn country to test systems designed to shoot down missles in international space than it is to smuggle the stuff into the Florida swamps.

[KC_for_Freedom]

NASA was granted an exemption two years ago from this freon issue.

True, but contractors are "scored" as to how well they have substituted from the bad list of chemicals to the "pc" list of chemicals. Many companies have management edicts to make that changeover 100%, since the environmental weenies claim that the substitutes are just as good as what they replace.

On the surface of this, it means that the path of least reisitance is to make the change and reconsider only if something goes wrong. This is what was happening in LM and LM was in charge of the fuel tank. It would be a career limiting move for a materials engineer to apply to use the exemption.

[snopercod]

A well-written and informative article, although the sensor measurements don't all jibe with what was initially reported.

Fox News has been showing the WFAA video (taken by an amateur photographer) which zoomed in on the shuttle flying "sideways" just before it broke up. Rewinding to the very beginning of that video, close inspection showed a large object separating from the orbiter.

I'm thinking that must have been the vertical stabilizer, since there was no vertical stab visible in the "sideways" frame.

[snopercod]

We wouldn't be having this controversy over the foam had NASA notified the shuttle of the incident.

They DID notify the Columbia. That has been mentioned over and over here on FR. Say, you're not a reporter from People magazine are you?

[jriemer]

The Soyuz 11 accident was caused due a loss of cabin pressure during re-entry. It was not due to a failure of the heat sheilding. It's an Apples and oranges comparison.

[Moonman62]

I'm thinking that must have been the vertical stabilizer, since there was no vertical stab visible in the "sideways" frame.

That would make sense if the orbiter had just turned sideways, putting a huge load on the vertical stab. Yesterday, NASA said they were concerned with the rate of correction of those yaw thrusters that had fired. They didn't say if it was overrate or underrate, though.

[ContemptofCourt]

Then you are a tin-foiler, if you think that a foreign gov (limited to who? Russia and China) shot down the shuttle using a space-based weapon....

[ContemptofCourt]

The original plan was for each shuttle to fly 10 missions a year. That was the whole idea of the "space truck" concept. One month turnaround time and a $5 million launch.

They only missed by $495 million dollars and 9 missions a year....

[ContemptofCourt]

Please do your homework and read the previous articles which have explained this photo....it is just a fuzzy picture of light....

[RightOnline]

As I now understand it, the piece of "foam" that peeled off and struck the left wing during the launch phase was the size of a fairly large suitcase and as hard as a brick. Now............does anyone here know what speed the launch vehicle would have attained at 80 seconds into flight? I'm betting.........pretty damned fast.

Take something that large and as hard as a brick......slam it into ceramic tiling at that speed..........and you have damage, folks. Severe damage.

[VMI70]

...took the words right out of my mouth--Bump

[DoughtyOne]

Damn whaddya know, a photo did pay off. Now just imagine if that same camera had been used 14 days earlier. Now just imagine if the next shuttle launch team and gone on 24 hour rotations to get it airborn. Then consider that the Columbia crew had used their thrusters to go higher in space rather than deorbit.

I believe it was Endearvor that landed five days later than planed. This means the Columbia could have possibly stated in space until February 6th or possibly a little longer.

The next shuttle was schedule to launch March 1, 2003. That was 40 days later. If a forty day launch process had gone 24 hour instead of 8 hour shifts, we might have seen it launched in 12-15 days.

They knew the shuttle wing was suspect on 01/18. Add 12-15 days to that and it's 01/30-02/04.

This is what I've been trying to say from day one. Early adherance to can-do attitudes could have prevented this loss. IMO

Look, I realize this is conjecture. I don't think it's wild conjecture by any means.

[snopercod]

That would make sense if the orbiter had just turned sideways, putting a huge load on the vertical stab

No (if that is what broke off), it did so before the orbiter turned sideways, which makes sense.