Posted on 07/27/2005 6:09:10 PM PDT by anymouse
The shuttle Discovery, like Columbia, shed a large chunk of foam debris during liftoff that could have threatened the return of the seven astronauts, NASA said Wednesday.
While there are no signs the piece of insulation damaged the spacecraft, NASA is grounding future shuttle flights until the hazard can be fixed.
"Call it luck or whatever, it didn't harm the orbiter," said shuttle program manager Bill Parsons. If the foam had broken away earlier in flight, when the atmosphere is thicker increasing the likelihood of impact, it could have caused catastrophic damage to Discovery.
"We think that would have been really bad, so it's not acceptable," said Parsons' deputy, Wayne Hale. But he said early signs are Discovery is safe for its return home.
A large chunk of foam flew off Discovery's redesigned external fuel tank just two minutes after what initially looked like a picture-perfect liftoff Tuesday morning. But in less than an hour NASA had spotted images of a mysterious object whirling away from the tank.
Mission managers did not realize what the object was — or how much havoc it would cause to the shuttle program — until Wednesday after reviewing video and images taken by just a few of the 100-plus cameras in place to watch for such dangers.
Officials do not believe the foam hit the shuttle, posing a threat to the seven astronauts when they return to Earth on Aug. 7. But they plan a closer inspection of the spacecraft in the next few days to be sure.
"You have to admit when you're wrong. We were wrong," Parsons said. "We need to do some work here, and so we're telling you right now that the ... foam should not have come off. It came off. We've got to go do something about that."
The loss of a chunk of debris, a vexing problem NASA thought had been fixed, represents a tremendous setback to a space program that has spent 2 1/2 years and over $1 billion trying to make the 20-year-old shuttles safe to fly.
"We won't be able to fly again," until the hazard is removed, Parsons told reporters in a briefing Wednesday evening.
Engineers believe the foam was 24 to 33 inches long, 10 to 14 inches wide, and anywhere between 2 and 8 inches thick, only somewhat smaller than the chunk that smashed into Columbia's left wing during liftoff in 2003. Its weight was not immediately known.
It broke away from a different part of the tank than the piece that mortally wounded Columbia. After the accident, the tank was redesigned to reduce the risk of foam insulation falling off.
Discovery's astronauts were told of the foam loss before going to sleep Wednesday.
Parsons stressed that Discovery's 12-day mission was a test flight designed to check the safety of future shuttle missions. He refused to give up on the spacecraft that was designed in the 1970s.
"We think we can make this vehicle safe for the next flight," he said, declining to judge the long-term impact on the manned space program. "We will determine if it's safe to fly."
Atlantis was supposed to lift off in September, but that mission is now on indefinite hold. Parsons refused to speculate when a shuttle might fly again, but did not rule out the possibility that Discovery's current mission may be the only one for 2005.
He said it was unlikely that Atlantis would be needed for a rescue mission, in the event Discovery could not return safely to Earth and its astronauts had to move into the international space station. Discovery, fortunately, appears to be in good shape for re-entry, he said.
In addition to the big chunk of foam, several smaller pieces broke off, including at least one from an area of the fuel tank that had been modified in the wake of the Columbia disaster.
Thermal tile was also damaged on Discovery's belly; one tile lost a 1 1/2-inch piece right next to the set of doors for the nose landing gear, a particularly vulnerable area.
Hale said none of the tile damage looked particularly serious, and likely would not require repairs in orbit.
Imagery experts and engineers expect to know by Thursday afternoon whether the gouge left by the missing piece of tile needs a second look. The astronauts have a 100-foot, laser-tipped crane on board that could determine precisely how deep the gouge is.
The tile fragment broke off less than two minutes after liftoff Tuesday and was spotted by a camera mounted on the external fuel tank.
If NASA decides to use its new inspection tool to get a 3-D view of the tile damage, the astronauts will examine the spot on Friday, a day after docking with the international space station.
On Wednesday, Discovery's astronauts spent nearly six hours using the boom to inspect Discovery's wings and nose cap for launch damage. The wings and nose are protected by reinforced carbon panels capable of taking the brunt of the searing re-entry heat.
Hale said the laser inspection turned up nothing alarming, but the analysis is ongoing.
It's one thing to finance an expedition to explore new territory that will create wealth. It's another to create a bloated government bureaucracy that maintains an expensive and useless outpost to grow worms in zero gravity.
The flight back is going to be a real nail biter - could break rating records.
Wish them all the luck!
It is my impression that no one in authority ever raises the issue that it is the CFC free foam itself, and not the application process that is the root of the problem. It's like Cannon law. You can't indicate that the environmentally friendly processes are the real danger. This delay will probably prove mortal to the shuttle and the ISS, but is there a legal way to go back to the old freon foam process or is that forever bared by treaty?
Spending over $1 billion.
Looks like they've spent that $1 billion on a bunch of new cameras to take higher resolution pictures of the foam insulation falling off to prove that the new foam sucks.
Putting it that way sure makes them look stupid. NASA, go back to the old foam.
Thanks, NASA. A real fine piece of work. Who got paid off in this one?
Since I was a little boy, I have dreamed of the day we would hear from the first men to land on Mars.
Now, it no longer matters-I don't speak Mandarin.
Outside of my expertise here. Mission operations (mission control), mission management, and space to ground communications engineering are my specialties. However, I did take a brief detour and was an orbit analyst for a while.
I have been working in the US space program for more than 27 years now. :-)
Not all of us.
Well, this will make the greens happy.
So once again, bowing to the pressure of the eco-whackos is costing lives. I missed this FR thread right after Columbia, but I think its apparent now that it is this shift in foam that is directly responsible for the death of the Columbia crew.
FOAM HAS PLAGUED NASA FOR 5 YEARS
A Yahoo search found this article on the subject from 2004: NASA environmental protection causes deaths
Oh please, I know your qualifications. You're awesome. No two ways about it.
What are your thoughts on the foam and the environmentalists though?
"What part of "test' flight is not understood? She wont fly again until this new data is processed and acted upon. thats the way it works."
E X A C T L Y !
The STS has yet to be deemed "operational" for that reason. This is akin to flight test failures and standowns a la military aircraft. But since the potential failures are so spectacular ans so very PUBLIC, the critics bay like restless hounds.
A lot of people don't realize that the often praised Russian space program has been a great deal more deadly. But then again, they launch and land their systems on the nearly-deserted tundra under some secrecy. To this day.
We launch and land the Shuttle off of a resort coast down the road from freeking Disney! The wailing and gnashing of teeth is nauseating.
If they need to insulate the external tank, why not put the foam on the inside. Nothing has flaked off my thermos in 20 years. They can build the tank with a inner liner attached to the outer wall and pump the insulation in through holes in the sides. There's got to be some lightweight material to make this a weight-neutral solution. The solid rocket boosters (purpose is to lift the tank) can be configured to handle a small amount of additional weight. The performance of the SRBs depends on how the solid fuel is installed.
As I recall, the amount of tile damage was minimal before the new foam. After they changed it, the damage increased by an order of magnitude.
We could always drop out of the treaty, especially since it is based on bogus science.
My mom suggested shrinkwrap. In seriousness, I'm wondering why not. It still would add noticable weight, but such a tactic might help.
Though just going back to the good foam would seem to be the obvious solution. Fark the EPA.
Heh. Great minds, et al.
I'm sure they've spent a lot more than that. What a waste of money.
Yeah, but military aircraft don't take a quarter of a century to develop. That's because most military aircraft are designed by engineers not by the democratic process like the shuttle was.
And it isn't so much about loss of life as it is about cost and reliability.
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.