NASA: Foam Probably Not Cause of Shuttle Disaster

Reuters ^ | 2/05/03

[kattracks]

Wed February 5, 2003 05:45 PM ET
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (Reuters) - NASA said on Wednesday a piece of debris that broke loose from the fuel tank shortly after the launch of space shuttle Columbia was likely not the cause of the shuttle's loss and the death of its crew.

The foam debris, about the size of a small suitcase, was captured on video breaking away from the shuttle's external fuel tank shortly after liftoff from Florida. The foam was seen vaporizing after it hit the underside of the orbiter.

NASA shuttle program manager Ron Dittemore, casting doubt on one of the leading theories on the cause of the shuttle's disintegration on Saturday over Texas, said the foam simply was not heavy enough or traveling fast enough to damage the shuttle's heat resistant tiles.

"We're focusing our attention on what we didn't see. We believe there was something else ... there's got to be another reason," Dittemore said during a briefing at the Johnson Space Center in Houston.

Dittemore also said the shuttle's management team did not believe there was any ice under the foam that might have contributed to damage, another theory that had been offered as the root cause of the destruction of NASA's oldest space shuttle and the deaths of the seven astronauts as they returned from a 16-day science mission in space.

[HairOfTheDog]

Ooops wrong paste... live thread link here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/836686/posts

[Moonman62]

Detailed analyses show that there shouldn't have been fatal damage, either.

It's possible that the assumptions in their analysis may be wrong.

There's nothing with which to pin the blame on foam.

Except that it hit the left wing and it appears that's where the failure occurred.

If it wasn't foam, something else must have caused the problem.

That's still possible, but how probable?

The dimbulbs weighing in here are so convinced that it MUST have been foam are talking out of their collective rear end. They haven't got a single clue -- they simply assume that everything is a conspiracy.

I do know which side is doing the most name calling, at least for today.

[Lancey Howard]

Why does this sound like the beginning of a CYA?

[HairOfTheDog]

Dettemore also said just yesterday morning that NASA engineers may have underestimated the damage from the insullation.

Wonder if we can find those stills they put up... the "before and after" stills of the underside during ascent. They have cleaned up some of the images, and there sure wasn't anything to see as far as an obvious damaged area.

[DoughtyOne]

I'm still looking for evidence of second and third pieces of debris, sorta like a crossfire. Others are pushing the single debris theory.

[CyberAnt]

"If the foam insulation exploded, it would seem obvious that the tiles it hit would have as well."

Not exactly! I saw several tests on a Discovery program about the shuttle, and they put it through those type of tests, and it would take something very heavy to have damaged a tile that much.

Evidently, Dave Brown (astronaut) took pictures of damage to left wing. He e-mailed his brother - but didn't send pictures. Unless we find that piece, we may never know what kind of damage he was talking about.

But ... if Dave could see the damage from the shuttle, then the damage was not UNDER the wing, it was on top.

[TLBSHOW]

thanks

[Chad Fairbanks]

Possibly a meteor that landed in the Book Depository?

[DoughtyOne]

I've not seen a before and after of the underside of the wing. I thought we could only see the top side after the hit. I sure wouldn't mind seeing it though.

[Cboldt]

STS-107 was not the second mission after STS-107 . . .

In sequential order (per External Fuel Tank Manufacturer)

STS-105 : Aug 10-22, 2001
STS-108 : Dec 5-17, 2001
STS-109 : Mar 1-12, 2002
STS-110 : Apr 8-19, 2002
STS-111 : Jun 5-19, 2002
STS-112 : Oct 7-18, 2002
STS-113 : Nov 23 - Dec 7, 2002
STS-107 : Jan 16 - Feb 1, 2003

[DoughtyOne]

Now that you mention it... YEAH! LOL I think we're going to offend the folks in a minute. Better lay off.

[HardStarboard]

The speed of the foam, relative to the shuttle, when it hit the wing was approximately 125 mph +/- 30 mph. That is the result of time lapse analysis of the photographs.

This is reasonable if you think about it - it only had about 100'+/- to accelerate from 0mph relative to the wing until it hit it.

[Lancey Howard]

Looks like NASA took the NTSB's lead and went into cover-up mode.

I agree.
Does NASA think that the mounds of reports about foam debris breaking off of the external fuel tank and knocking off tiles will just go away? This sudden dismissal of the ongoing foam problem as a likely cause of the disaster is mighty suspicious and.... strange.

[jpthomas]

Also significant is the relative orientation of the piece of insulation when it struck the underside of the wing. If it hit edge-on, it would have hit like a karate chop, with much greater potential for major damage over a localized area. If it hit broadside, it would be more like a slap with the flat of the hand. The energy of the impact would have been distributed over a larger area, with less chance for major localized damage. I wonder whether their analysis of the impact took the specific orientation of the insulation into account.

I did hear Dittmore today mention the localized velocity of the insulation relative to the wing was estimated to be approximately 750 ft/sec, which equates to about 510 mph relative speed when impacting. I was surprised it would be so high. He said they doubled the impact speed to be conservative in their calculations.

I'm still betting on this insulation impact being a major contributing factor to the mishap.

[justshe]

"...talking out of their collective rear end."

NOW you've done.....I'll have that mental pic for HOURS!

[TLBSHOW]

Does anyone remember the guy that posted that picture and said it was a terrorist attack?

[isthisnickcool]

The dimbulbs weighing in here are so convinced that it MUST have been foam are talking out of their collective rear end. They haven't got a single clue -- they simply assume that everything is a conspiracy.

See my post above. I've been told by people that know that there were issues with "foam/ice" hitting the shuttle. Supposedly, on STS-105 a big enough piece traveling fast enough to put a good dent in the SRB. A piece of gear that's tough. Tough enough that they recycle it. Insiders say that "they should have grounded the fleet after that". And "that the skipper of that flight should have raised hell."

People like Dittemore did not listen. And they are going to pay the price. I'm not a "dimbulb" nor do I assume "everything is a conspiracy". My current views are based on what insiders are saying.

The NASA suits have themselves a problem. That's not spittle. BTW, initally, I had the same basic view you do now.

Off the topic a bit. I placed some flowers at the entrance of NASA in the the name of all Freepers last Saturday. I took some photos. Also some of the President yesterday at Ellington field. And some more from the front of NASA a couple of hours ago. They are here if anyone wants to look at them.

[HairOfTheDog]

So you weren't watching at that point? It was at today's briefing - It wasn't a clear view "straight on" of the underside on ascent, but a shot both before and after that was ~20 degrees or so below the axis of the wing? - You could see some of the underside of the whole craft, and it was entirely black.... No obvious white scars where the tile coating was damaged showing white underneath, and no obvious missing tiles... you just couldn't see anything at all.

[MainFrame65]

"The Foamheads aren't going to like this report. "

LOL - - I think it is running down their collective chins....