Skip to comments.
Shuttle Foam Test Yields Hole in Wing (Produces vs Yields)
AP ^
| 07/07/2003
| MARCIA DUNN, AP Aerospace Writer
Posted on 07/07/2003 1:10:51 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-105 next last
To: TLBSHOW
ping.
To: DoughtyOne
Thank God the Clinton Administration had the foresight to realize The Environment is so much safer with this foam!
To: DoughtyOne
The one thing I do not understand about all this is that there must have been estimates of the RELATIVE velocity of the foam with respect to the shuttle. These estimates could be formed from the timing on the videos that show the impact. But the relative velocity is never discussed in any of these articles. Do you or anyone else have the information?
To: DoughtyOne
The 1.67-pound piece of fuel tank foam insulation shot out of a 35-foot nitrogen-pressurized gun and slammed into a carbon-reinforced panel removed from shuttle Atlantis. ...
This time, the entire 11 1/2-inch width of the foam chunk rather than just a corner during previous tests hit the wing, putting maximum stress on the suspect area.
I'm curious about this gun. Doesn't the piece of foam need to be shaped to fit the barrel ... or not?
To: DoughtyOne; snopercod; Boot Hill
No surprise there. Snopercod deserves a lot of credit for bringing this to our attention.
6
posted on
07/07/2003 1:30:38 PM PDT
by
Carry_Okie
(There are people in power who are truly evil.)
To: All
I'M BACK!!!
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC
Donate Here By Secure Server
Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY A BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD (It's in the Breaking News sidebar!)
7
posted on
07/07/2003 1:31:54 PM PDT
by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: Investment Biker
From www.space.com:
81 seconds into the flight, a 20-inch, 2 1/2-pound piece of the foam fell off and struck Columbia's left wing. The shuttle Columbia was moving more than at twice the speed of sound. The impact is thought to have involved a relative speed of no more than 500 mph.
I'd have to research more to determine the airspeed 81 seconds into flight, but the relative speed was about 500 mph -- so the tests are on spot.
8
posted on
07/07/2003 1:44:13 PM PDT
by
Procyon
Comment #9 Removed by Moderator
To: wideminded
Not really.
They have a huge pneumatic gun used to fire chicken carcasses into aircraft windscreens to test their durability and resistance to bird impact during flight.
The tube is round, the chicken isn't but the speed they shoot the uncooked beasty at reaches jumbo jet speeds close to 500 MPH or so.
The French bought such a gun off of us a long time ago.
They were horrified when the first chicken shot out of it smashed through their test windscreen and made a huge dent in the back cabin wall. (Full scale mockup test.)
They asked if this was normal, our techies told them:
"Thaw the chicken first."
10
posted on
07/07/2003 1:51:29 PM PDT
by
Darksheare
("Here I come to ... Whatever" -Mighty Mouse on Prozac.)
To: DoughtyOne
Video of foam test.
LINKThis is an MPG file
You can open your Quicktime/RealOne or other device and paste this address: http://www.knfo.net/video/foamtest.mpg
Both Quicktime/RealOne were tested, and do work.
Sorry about the prior incorrect link.
11
posted on
07/07/2003 1:55:51 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(Brother, has your faith lapsed. Renew your conservatism today!)
To: JennysCool
Can you help me find a good non-partisan comparison of the pre-CFC and post-CFC foam performance?
To: Carry_Okie
Please link us to SnoperCod's previous post. I'd like to post a link to the video of the test that appeared on FoxNews. I didn't see it when I searched.
13
posted on
07/07/2003 1:58:09 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(Brother, has your faith lapsed. Renew your conservatism today!)
To: DoughtyOne
I don't have it. It was days after the Columbia accident when he told us that both the foam and the cleaning materials prior to applying it had been altered for environmental reasons.
14
posted on
07/07/2003 2:06:31 PM PDT
by
Carry_Okie
(There are people in power who are truly evil.)
To: DoughtyOne
Hi all,
You may not remember me on this topic, but I was pretty lambasted for airing the exact same scenario shortly after the disaster.
It was a tragic event, and I'm happy the truth is finally appearing.
Regards,
Joe
15
posted on
07/07/2003 2:06:53 PM PDT
by
Sonar5
To: DoughtyOne
I found this rulemaking from EPA site saying the EPA
DID grant an exception for NASA's use of the BX-250 foam. So how did we get from there to here?
[Federal Register: November 15, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 221)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 57511-57523] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr15no01-18] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 82 [FRL-7101-1] RIN 2060-AH99
-
EPA received a comment from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) regarding the use of specific plastic foam products for the space shuttle. NASA identified one particular product, BX-250, a foam which is part of the thermal protection system of the Space Shuttle External Tank and which uses CFC-11 as a blowing agent. NASA stated that ``although extensive efforts have been made and continue to be made to replace this material, no viable alternative has been identified.'' NASA requested that EPA revise the proposed rule to provide an exemption for CFC-blown foam products in applications that are associated with space vehicles. NASA suggested that EPA consider using the same language that EPA has previously adopted under 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG (40 CFR 63.742) for the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) program. NASA provided EPA with additional information concerning its proactive pursuit of potential alternative blowing agents.
-
Since human space flight safety is of paramount importance to NASA, prior to implementing any new material, that material must undergo a rigorous development and qualification program for which no suitable substitute has yet been identified. NASA requested that EPA consider using the language at 40 CFR 63.742:
-
Space vehicle means a man-made device, either manned or unmanned, designed for operation beyond earth's atmosphere. This definition includes integral equipment such as models, mock-ups, prototypes, molds, jigs, tooling, hardware jackets, and test coupons. Also included is auxiliary equipment associated with test, transport, and storage, which through contamination can compromise the space vehicle performance. [[Page 57518]]
-
EPA agrees that an exception is necessary, but EPA disagrees with NASA's proposed language. This language is far broader than what EPA concludes is actually necessary based on an evaluation of the information NASA presented. If EPA were to simply exempt all foams used for any applications associated with space vehicles EPA could be exempting products where there are already suitable substitutes. NASA only provided information concerning one particular type of foam used in applications associated with the Space Shuttle External Tank. Therefore, based on that information, through this action, EPA will modify Sec. 82.66(c) to provide an exemption for foam products manufactured with or containing Class I substances that are used as part of the thermal protection system of external tanks for space vehicles and will add the definition of space vehicles found at Sec. 63.742 to Sec. 82.62. The exemption will be limited to the use of CFC-11 as a blowing agent and where no other CFCs are contained in the foam product. Although EPA did not propose this exemption or the additional definition, they are logical outgrowths of the comment submitted by NASA and thus it is appropriate to proceed to final action without providing any additional proposal or opportunity for further comment.
To: Carry_Okie
That's okay, I had thought you were referencing a prior thread with this hole discussed on it.
17
posted on
07/07/2003 2:09:11 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(Brother, has your faith lapsed. Renew your conservatism today!)
To: Sonar5
18
posted on
07/07/2003 2:10:36 PM PDT
by
Sonar5
To: sam_paine
Good question Sam. And how did NASA come to the conclusion that the foam wasn't worthy of considering as cause for a fatal event? That's what I want to know.
Wouldn't you think a first grader would have had more curiosity about the foam strike than NASA management did? I sure would!
19
posted on
07/07/2003 2:13:30 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(Brother, has your faith lapsed. Renew your conservatism today!)
To: Sonar5
Good job Joe.
20
posted on
07/07/2003 2:14:04 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(Brother, has your faith lapsed. Renew your conservatism today!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-105 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson