NASA's debris experts have been working on foam issue for years

Florida Today ^ | Feb. 3, 2003 | John Kelly

[McGruff]

HOUSTON - From tiny fragments to bowling ball size chunks, NASA has known for years that pieces of the foam insulating its external tank would break off and sometimes strike the bottom of the orbiter during its climb to orbit.

[McGruff]

A little background info. before you make a decision.

[dirtboy]

As of the time of that release, the Air Force said NASA’s efforts so far to discover the cause of the foam shedding were unsuccessful.

So why don't they just up and change the material? We hear that even a raindrop can damage a tile, but the external fuel tank has been shedding bits for years and they don't change anything? Insane.

[fooman]

Jael has been all over this.

PC KILLS

[fooman]

Its worse than that. The old foam did not shed and do the damage. It started happening when they used the new foam sans freon.

[fooman]

Its worse than that. The old foam did not shed and do the damage. It started happening when they used the new foam sans freon.

[Jael]

"NASA knew from the second day of Columbia's 16-day research mission that a piece of the insulating foam on the external fuel tank had peeled off just after liftoff and struck the left wing, possibly ripping off some of the tiles that keep the ship from burning up when it re-enters Earth's atmosphere." http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030203-87326768.htm

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.

During the STS-87 mission, there was a change made on the
external tank.

*****Because of NASA's goal to use environmentally
friendly products, a new method of "foaming" the external tank
had been used for this mission and the STS-86 mission.*****

It is
suspected that large amounts of foam separated from the external
tank and impacted the orbiter. This caused significant damage to
the protective tiles of the orbiter."



http://www.arnold.af.mil/aedc/newsreleases/1999/99-041.htm
"According to NASA, during several previous Space Shuttle flights, including the shuttle launched Nov. 29, 1998, the shuttle external tank experienced a significant loss of foam from the intertank. The material lost caused damage to the thermal protection high-temperature tiles on the lower surface of the shuttle orbiter.

Although the AEDC Tunnel A tests did not replicate the in-flight failures, they did provide detailed measurements to better understand the flight environment and fundamental failure mode. From these tests, NASA determined the failure is caused principally by foam cell expansion due to external heating at approximately Mach 4 combined with pressure change and aerodynamic shear. Specialized miniature shear gages and other instrumentation were installed during the test to measure these forces."

[ContemptofCourt]

That is not entirely true, as missions from as far back as 1988 have experienced this problem ... see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/835018/posts (STS-27)

[dirtboy]

Great. Now I'm really pi**ed about this. Seven of our best and brightest dead because of a bunch of PC enviro-whacko bullcrap. The idiots making these decisions aren't facing the deadly consequences of their actions.

[spokeshave]

"NASA changed the way it “foamed” the external tank sometime shortly before that mission in an effort to be more environmentally friendly by reducing the use of ozone-depleting materials.

The Environazis strike again.

Deal with them as terrorists.

[dirtboy]

You would think they would go to a double-hulled tank with the insulation sprayed between.

[spokeshave]

It's the coupling between the shuttle and tank that needs insulating

[Jael]

Now let's get motivated about. Write the people who represent you and demand and investigation into this aspect of this disaster.

[dirtboy]

It's the coupling between the shuttle and tank that needs insulating

Likewise, you think they could devise a better system there. This stuff has to withstand serious vibrations and Mach 4 slipstream.

[fooman]

You may right, but the frequency and intensity of the foam hits seems to linked to the change in material.

Its worth investigating along with ALL other possible causes.

Still, I doubt you won't see this angle on MSNBC if it were true.

They might trumpet thier scoop on the memo and maybe video, but wont talk about how the foam changed and then was not re-certified.

[_Jim]

that a piece of the insulating foam on the external fuel tank had peeled off just after liftoff and struck the left wing, possibly ripping off some of the tiles

And the report from the inspection of the grounds (looking for pieces of tile or foam insulation) at KSC indicated ???

(Obviously, if this occurred over the water the odds of finding tile/foam changes.)

Without that information this is an incomplete report ...

[MississippiMan]

If this holds up, it could very well be a case of these seven human beings having been sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. When will this country say enough is enough?

MM

[1Old Pro]

First they say the foam is no problem and had nothing to do with the crash. Now they are backtracking.

YOU ARE A REPORTER. What Question would you ask Sean O'Keefe about the shuttle tragedy-

[fooman]

Bump!

[GovernmentShrinker]

Does anybody here know anything about the nature of this "foam" we keep hearing about? Is it liquid foam when it's applied, and then solidifies? How hard does it get? I'm thinking it's probably not much like the foam rubber in my chair, but I don't actually know that -- is it more like the foam stuff you stick silk flowers into (e.g. rigid and prone to snapping/flaking? Does its hardness change significantly during the temperature changes at launch?

I think I'd be able to follow all these speculations better, if I knew SOMETHING about this mystery foam. Right now, all these references to "foam" might as well be references to "chocolate" -- gooey fudge? hard block of baker's chocolate? soft, melt-prone milk chocolate laced with puffed rice?

[Britton J Wingfield]

It's more like the foam you spray into cracks around your window. If you want a demonstration, you can get a can of it at home depot for under $5. It's great stuff for insulating your house.