Very close-up, slo-mo of the Columbia launch debris.

Florida Today ^ | 02/01/03

[Jael]

Guess what? I can't get that link to open now. :-(

[XBob]

147 - "Do you know anything about the formula of the insulation foam being changed?"

Not really. I do know that the external tank foam was like high density, polyurethan, pretty hard (compared to the white foam on the shuttle), and seems to 'skim' over on drying, so that it remains relatively water proof. I remember some hail damage patches, and also some 'bird' damage. we had some birds which decided they wanted to peck some holes in the insulation, and they needed to be driven off and the holes patched. I don't remember what the solutions were to either problem, But I do remember patches.

All that work was out on the pads (about 10 miles away), where I rarely went.

Kennedy Space Center is a wild life refuge, and there are all kinds of 'greenies' guarding the 'wild life'. They routinely tried to shut down launches in the 80's. And they forced terrifffffic extra expenses. (Like catching each grain of sand and paint when sand blasting the rust on steel gantries on the edge of the ocean, and packing it all up in 55 gallon drums and trucking it as hazardous material for burial in Alabama). Catching rats, which would routinely eat the communication cable insululation, in glue traps, and then analyzing each rat to see if was one of the 'endangered' rats, before killing it. Not allowing us to return any of the daily/weekly/monthly water quality test samples from local water systems (ponds, canals, etc) back to the place we got them from , even if they were not contaminated, or even dump them into sewage disposal system. (so we built a 10,000 gallon tank, where we stored them, for years - they probably still haven't figured out what to do with them - and that is 14 years ago). Not being allowed to put any water from our drinking water (contained chlorine) system on the ground , so we had to make special disposal.

I remember how they dictated that we couldn't drinking water for the heat supression system (500,000 gallons of water pumped out in 15 seconds to cool the gantry to keep the rocket blast from melting them), we had to use 'natural' water. So jillions snails got into the (nice warm, dark, wet) giant tanks system, clogged up our gigantic tanks and pumps. It took months to fix them. Then we had to build a special plant to process 'natural water' to keep 'natural' things out of the 'natural' water.

[XBob]

thanks

[XBob]

152 - "If it punctures that readily, why doesn't the onrush of air during landing smash the tile?"

good question, and out of my area of expertice, except that the white, supersoft tile is on the top of the wing.

And perhaps on this re-entry. it did.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Catching rats, which would routinely eat the communication cable insululation, in glue traps, and then analyzing each rat to see if was one of the 'endangered' rats, before killing it.

A few local wild cats would have solved this problem?

[XBob]

You have a good point. I do know that the 'pilots' on the shuttle don't have to, and mostly don't 'fly' it. Everything can be done automatically from start to finish, but they gave them back control after re-entry for landing so that they could have some 'job' and respect.

Personally, from what you are saying, and what I have seen and heard, and know I postulate -

1. take off tile damage over the left wheel well
2. tiles start coming off at left wheel well, slowing down left side
3. computer tries to sompensate, steering right
4. heating tires, explode, blowing out wheel well and wing, losing aerodynamics
5. putting low heat tiles into high heat air stream
6. which melts/breaks airframe

scenario 2 - new computer program screws up re-entry attitude (doubt this, because everyone would have been worried over california, instead of not being worried much at all, except about no temperature guage, until they were gone over texas). In listening to the tape excerpts I have heard, I don't hear any fight for control, or worry about control, until there is none.

Does my theory #1 answer your question:

"The ultimate question will be as to why the roll control was lost."

I havent heard/analyzed a transcript, so again, this is just guessing. Plus, I didn't see any landing gear wreckage.

[XBob]

155 - "WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- President Bush wants to boost funding for NASA by almost a half-billion dollars to modernize the space agency's aging shuttle fleet and develop a new space plane, an administration official said Sunday."

The last new shuttle, to replace challenger, cost $2 billion+, used existing spare parts.

There are no more spare parts, and no more spare parts factories. Try building one, and only one brand new 1966 Studibaker.

They will spend $499 million buying $1 in spare parts.

Sorry, that was an error, it was meant to be $1 million. Freudian slip I guess.

[XBob]

160 - "I seem to vaguely recall some discussion, years ago, of replacing the current crew cabin configuration on the orbiters with an integral, reentry-survivable pod. If an emergency arose during launch, it could be ejected under its own power and soft-land. It could also re-enter the atmosphere from orbit if the orbiter failed the re-entry burn.

Do you recall why that option was never utilized? Cost? Technical hurdles?"

---

There really is no way to survive more than very minor problems. The original shuttle design they adopted can't be modified effectively.

Here is what became of that idea.

They changed the crew door, made it larger, and put explosive bolts on it. they designed a pole, about 10 feet long, for the astronauts to line up, attach pole to the doorway, and one at a time, slide down this pole and jump out in their space suits with parachutes, all the while hurtling to earth in an emergency.

(And as silly as that sounds, it is no joke - that is the proposal which was finally adopted - though I don't know if it was ever implemented) I saw the tape demonstrating how it was to be used.

You probably have never heard of it, justifiably so. But we used to play it as part of our 'training' time when we wanted a good laugh.

[XBob]

LOL - "A few local wild cats would have solved this problem?
"

well, actually, we thought about that, but were told we couldn't get a cat, or a trap, unless it could distinguish between a protected and a non-protected rat.

And so, we had to pull up the cable trays in the floor each morning and check for glued rats. and then if we had one, we had to call the rat man, who would come out and take the rat away for further determination. One day, we just found a rat leg. They wrote us up for not checking our glue traps often enough, and asked us to check every 8 hours. (but we filed that directive in the circular file and 'found' no more legs).

[XBob]

I forgot, I think you will see the astronauts wait now for about 30-45 minutes to get out after landing (while they un-explosivise the bolts).

[HiTech RedNeck]

Reowr

[null and void]

Agreed, on all points.

[ffusco]

aha! I'm a Trek fan, are they the same as reaction control thrusters ( pitch,yaw and atitude)?

[ironman]

Yes, same thing.

[kanawa]

What art of engineering allows incidents of debris to be incorporated into an acceptable design?

All mechanical engineeering. Your car hits pebbles all the time, and has an air filter. No farm equipment would work if it couldn't tolerate dirt...

I appreciate what your saying although your examples are of debris external to the vehicle, whereas in the shuttles case the debris is a functional part of the vehicle. It would be as though my cars tires falling off or the hood disengaging from the car was an acceptable design.

No?

[kanawa]

From another thread....http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/835276/posts

http://ltp.arc.nasa.gov/space/team/journals/katnik/sts87-12-23.html

"Damage numbering up to forty tiles is considered normal on each mission due to ice dropping off of the external tank (ET) and plume re-circulation causing this debris to impact with the tiles. But the extent of damage at the conclusion of this mission was not "normal." The pattern of hits did not follow aerodynamic expectations, and the number, size and severity of hits were abnormal. Three hundred and eight hits were counted during the inspection, one-hundred and thirty two (132) were greater than one inch. Some of the hits measured fifteen (15) inches long with depths measuring up to one and one-half (1 1/2) inches. Considering that the depth of the tile is two (2) inches, a 75% penetration depth had been reached. Over one hundred (100) tiles have been removed from the Columbia because they were irreparable.

[null and void]

Good point.

[Cold Heat]

Those increases for NASA were layed out and in print prior to the loss of the Columbia.

[Concerned]

B4ITS2LATE WROTE: "Yes, hindsight always 20/20."

EXCEPT in the case of the Klintons!!! The IDIOT RATS out there elected THEM TWICE!!! (And HER THREE times)

[Concerned]

AIMHIGH WROTE: "Here's what I found about the tiles: http://www.howstuffworks.com/question308.htm "

AIMHIGH CONTINUED: "The space shuttles are protected by special silica tiles. Silica (SiO2) is an incredible insulator. It is possible to hold a space shuttle tile by the edge and then heat up the center of the tile with a blow torch. The tile insulates so well that no heat makes it out to the edges. This page discusses the tiles: "

AIMHIGH CONTINUED: "Aerobraking tiles are produced from amorphous silica fibers which are pressed and sintered, with the resulting tile having as much as 93% porosity (i.e., very lightweight) and low thermal expansion, low thermal conductivity (e.g., the well known pictures of someone holding a Space Shuttle tile by the corners when the center is red hot), and good thermal shock properties. This process can be readily performed in space when we can produce silica of the required purity."

AIMHIGH CONTINUED: "And from another site:
http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/r/8/r81/055/space_shuttle/shuttle.html "

AIMHIGH CONTINUED: "Shuttle orbiters use a system of 30,000 tiles made of a silica compound that does not ablate, but does rapidly radiate heat away from the orbiter. These tiles can be repaired in space. Major disadvantages are fragility (tiles easily damaged before launch and by orbital debris -- lots of tile damage due to debris since anti-satellite tests in mid-80's) and complexity (many people needed to manually attach tiles to orbiter in a tedious and time-consuming process, and to inspect them all before launch)." [AND BEFORE REENTRY!!!]

AIMHIGH CONTINUED: "It's the easily damaged part that is of interest here. Note they can also be repaired. It would seem logical that every flight would include a space walk to ensure the integrity of the tiles."

BINGO!!! Great info.