Shuttle Foam Test Yields Hole in Wing (Produces vs Yields)

AP ^ | 07/07/2003 | MARCIA DUNN, AP Aerospace Writer

[DoughtyOne]

One thing bothers me about this test. There aren't tiles on the wing.

[Sloth]

I find it hard to believe that the foam slowed down enough to go from a delta-V of zero to 500 MPH in the short distance involved. Then again, it's hard to say without knowing the air density, shape of the chunk, and so forth.

[Sloth]

Who says?

[Sloth]

Disregard my previous post... I understand now. No tiles in the test.

[Freeper]

PLEASE

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."

Tell me this is true!

[TC Rider]

Imagine a plunger that fits the barrel. Anything placed on the plunger will be accelerated.

This is basically how your 'guy shot out of a cannon' at the circus works.

[DoughtyOne]

No problem.

[Aaron0617]

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.

A Nasa administrator was asked about the foam and he dismissed it. He had a foam sample on the table during one of the press conferences.

Pointing to the foam, he said he didn't think it was possible for that light a material to cause that much damage. I believe he said foam falls off all the time. They never noticed damage before.

Right now CNN is showing results of that test. It is a HUGH hole in a demo wing they have set up.

Now the question is. Since they always noticed foam fall off before on launches. Did NASA do multiple tests to see if foam falling off hitting the shuttle can cause damage?

Obviously not.

[Darksheare]

It was related to me by a guy in the aircraft industry.
If it's true, he'd know.
But I related it somewhat as a joke.
If it's true, I wouldn't doubt it.

[Aaron0617]

The crowd of about 100 gasped and cried, "Wow!" when the foam hit.

Yeah...WOW

Everyone is surprised that rock hard foam falling at that height hitting the wing causes that much damage.

NASA knew foam fell on every launch but assumed it wouldn't cause that much damage.

[Carry_Okie]

Now the question is. Since they always noticed foam fall off before on launches. Did NASA do multiple tests to see if foam falling off hitting the shuttle can cause damage?

Obviously not.

Analyses of statistical risks involving multivariate combinations don't come cheap. Meanwhile, I wonder why nobody's talking about ice coming off with the foam.

[DoughtyOne]

To: JohnHuang2; Guenevere

Left wing of shuttle struck during launch by piece of insulation foam detaching from main lauch fuel tank.

That's the cause. No terrorism.

318 posted on 02/01/2003 6:49 AM PST by Lazamataz (I have learned, over the years, to NEVER assume ANYTHING..)
 

You might like to check this out.  Less than 50 minutes after the shuttle loss, Freepers were already naming what would become the most likely cause of it's loss.

[TLBSHOW]

bttt

[steplock]

At the right angle, speed, etc, you can stick a flimsy straw through a potato.
A tornado can shoot a piece of straw through a tree.

You CANNOT fortell everything that MAY happen!

Actually, come to think of it, you can. EVERYTHING WILL HAPPEN at least once!

[DoughtyOne]

Yep. That last sentence is self evident isn't it. Negligence? Seems like it to me.

[Dark Wing]

FYI

[unspun]

You/we called it as we saw it, T.

[DoughtyOne]

Well with the foam falling off regularly, it would seem a natural to test if that foam could cause a problem.

[longtermmemmory]

remember the foam was switched to this environmentally friendly foam during algore's tenure.

[kazander]

From spaceflight.com:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts107/030707impacttest/

"The foam was fired at the wing mockup at roughly 775 feet per second, or about 530 mph, at an impact angle of 22 degrees. That's higher than the impact angle during Columbia's launch. But by adjusting the impact angle, engineers were able to account for rotational energy imparted by the tumbling foam. Hubbard said the impact imparted about a ton of force to the RCC panel. All of the test parameters, taken together, represented an "average" set of conditions. The actual impact could have been somewhat worse or somewhat less violent. But the hole that was blown in RCC 8 leaves little doubt the foam strike caused the breach responsible for Columbia's destruction."