Shuttle Columbia

[VaBeachGuy 12]

Click for Spoiler:

NASA investigator Dan Bell examines a 16-inch hole seen in a carbon-reinforced wing panel removed from shuttle Atlantis after a 1.67-pound piece of fuel-tank foam insulation was shot out of a 35-foot nitrogen-pressurized gun and slammed into it during a test in San Antonio, Monday July 7, 2003. The Columbia investigation team said the test was the 'smoking gun' that proves what brought down the Columbia shuttle. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

 

 

 

 

~ Shuttle Columbia on Yahoo News

 

WASHINGTON - Columbia accident investigators said Friday the foam test that gouged a large hole in a replica of a space shuttle's wing has allowed them to "connect the dots even further" and solve some lingering puzzles about the disaster.

 

The experiment not only demonstrated the catastrophic effect of breakaway foam insulation but provided compelling evidence about the identities of a mystery object that floated from Columbia in orbit and the many parts that peeled away from the shuttle as it flew over the United States to its disintegration over Texas.

 

 

Those shedding pieces probably were fragments of the wing panel that had been damaged on takeoff two weeks earlier, said Scott Hubbard, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board member who managed the foam-impact experiments.

 

 

"This single test, together with what else we know, is really allowing us to really connect the dots even further and draw some lines between various pieces of evidence," Hubbard said.

 

 

The gaping 16-inch hole created by the chunk of foam insulation during Monday's test in San Antonio probably was larger than the gap in Columbia's left wing where scorching gases entered during re-entry Feb. 1, said James Hallock, a physicist on the investigation board. A hole that big would have let in so much heat all at once that the shuttle would have broken apart much sooner than it did.

 

"Columbia would not have made it to the state of Texas," he said.

 

Hallock said the hole in the leading edge of Columbia's wing was probably 6 inches to 10 inches in size, based on thermal and other calculations.

 

 

"For us to create a piece of damage which was so close to the predicted piece, we find to be compelling," said the board's chairman, retired Navy Adm. Harold Gehman Jr. "But yet, I wouldn't get into inches. The fact that this hole is even larger than what the thermodynamic analysis indicates and how much heat got into the wing, it's in the right ball park. We found this to be important."

 

 

Gehman said Monday's test will enable him and the 12 other board members to use stronger language when describing the accident's cause. They plan to release their final report by the end of August, a month later than planned.

 

 

Click for Spoiler:

Hubbard, a high-ranking NASA official, said Monday's test "brought home to people in a very visceral and emotional way what most of us had known intellectually" — that a piece of foam weighing just 1 1/2 pounds could mortally wound a space shuttle.

 

 

"At the beginning, there were people who didn't appreciate maybe the calculation. Or maybe they did the calculation, but it didn't sink in how much force can be transmitted at 500 mph by even a light material like foam," he said.

 

The chunk of foam from Columbia's external fuel tank broke off 81 seconds after liftoff in January and slammed into the vulnerable leading edge of the left wing. Camera views were so blurred that NASA could not make out the precise impact spot or any damage.

 

 

Based on Monday's foam-shooting test, the investigators believe the object that drifted away from Columbia on its second day in orbit probably was a shard of the damaged wing panel. No one knew about the mystery object until it was spotted after the accident as a result of poring through scores of Air Force radar images of the orbiting spaceship.

 

 

The foam almost certainly punched through the reinforced carbon wing panel along the leading edge, and fragments were wedged inside. One of those pieces easily could have been bumped out on Flight Day 2 after a shuttle maneuver, Hubbard said.

 

 

Besides creating a gaping hole, the foam strike in Monday's test left a maze of cracks in the wing panel — some nearly a foot long — and broke an attachment lug on an adjoining seal. If the same lug had been damaged aboard Columbia, the loose seal would have flapped back and forth, which is what the shuttle debris indicates happened because of the scorch marks, Hubbard said.

 

 

In addition, all the cracks in the panel would have caused sections of the reinforced carbon to rip off during Columbia's re-entry in zipperlike fashion, which probably was what witnesses saw dropping away from the shuttle as it descended over California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and, finally, Texas.

 

 

The shuttle ultimately shattered into tens of thousands of pieces, and all seven astronauts were killed.

 

Gehman said he still believes NASA can resume shuttle flights in six to nine months, despite the dramatic foam-test results.

 

"My crystal ball tells me that probably the most difficult, challenging return to flight recommendation has already been issued, and that's the on-orbit repair," he said.

 

Gehman estimated the investigation will have cost as much as $20 million by its completion.

 

 

 

 

You can also visit the Columbia Accident Investigation Board website for more information.

 

This story and photo are from http://news.yahoo.com/

[Chataeya 0]

:biggrin: This is so sad, just like the other one in 86 ? I think it was. They need to make sure of themself, before an liftoff takes place.

[Yillara Skye 1]

I think they showed a clip of it on the news...remember watching something on the net...surprised me the size of the gash it created...

[prometheus 0]

I watched a documentary about the disaster. The blame was put on the fact that:

 

1. the shuttle was put on the side of the rocket and so when bits of the top of the rocket fell off, they hit the shuttle and damaged it.

 

2. The pay load area on the shuttle was large and so when the shuttle re-entered the earth's atmosphere it had to go down at a shallower angle, exposing the shuttle to extra time of heat.

 

3. The shuttle used heat absorbing tiles, stuck on the underside, to absorb re-entry heat. These were literally glued on and could fall off on launch creating exposed areas.

 

They proposed that the next shuttle have:

 

1. A smaller payload bay so the shuttle would be smaller and could re-enter the earth's atmosphere at a steeper angle and therefore be exposed to the atmosphere for less time.

 

2. Putting the shuttle at the tip of the rocket so falling debris would be no-where near it.

 

3. A better heat absorbtion system, rather than silly tiles.

[Yillara Skye 1]

I watched a documentary about the disaster. The blame was put on the fact that:

 

1. the shuttle was put on the side of the rocket and so when bits of the top of the rocket fell off, they hit the shuttle and damaged it.

 

2. The pay load area on the shuttle was large and so when the shuttle re-entered the earth's atmosphere it had to go down at a shallower angle, exposing the shuttle to extra time of heat.

 

3. The shuttle used heat absorbing tiles, stuck on the underside, to absorb re-entry heat. These were literally glued on and could fall off on launch creating exposed areas.

 

They proposed that the next shuttle have:

 

1. A smaller payload bay so the shuttle would be smaller and could re-enter the earth's atmosphere at a steeper angle and therefore be exposed to the atmosphere for less time.

 

2. Putting the shuttle at the tip of the rocket so falling debris would be no-where near it.

 

3. A better heat absorbtion system, rather than silly tiles.

That is interesting, and I agree with the ideas they proposed about how to lessen the chance of damage to the shuttle

[VaBeachGuy 12]

I guess going from Apollo to STS was a huge leap forward but now, in the 21st century it could be done much better. I've always thought the Shuttle was short sighted anyway. It can't even leave earth orbit. The next shuttle should at least have the ability to go to the moon.

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1]

These "silly tiles" are an extremely good way to keep the shuttle from burning up. My dad told me he once saw a guy take a blow torch to a spare space shuttle tile, then had someone touch it. The person who touched it said it was still cold.

 

I think, as far as the cerammic tiles go, they need to find a better way to attach them to the shuttle. However, all the other changes sound excellent.

 

Here's a question: Why not find a way to slow the shuttle's atmospheric re-entry?

[Klingonmike 0]

I agree with you VBG,they need to build shuttles that can reach the moon and back. Humans have been orbiting the earth for years now,its time to expand the distances and our knowledge.

[obaona 0]

Here's a question: Why not find a way to slow the shuttle's atmospheric re-entry?

Taking a huge, uneducated leap - the only way I can think of to accomplish that is to have something like you see in all those scifi movies, and have an opposing (against gravity) force, such as thrusters facing the other way. Wouldn't that require not only extra fuel (which would have to be carried up), but a new design?

 

And I definitely think we should go back to the moon, and even farther.

[Yillara Skye 1]

I agree with you VBG,they need to build shuttles that can reach the moon and back. Humans have been orbiting the earth for years now,its time to expand the distances and our knowledge.

I agree.

 

 

Here's a question: Why not find a way to slow the shuttle's atmospheric re-entry?

Picard, that may not work for two reasons I can think of offhand: 1) The slowing down of reentry would require more fuel, which would mean a new design to accomodate more fuel which adds another variable that is thus untested. and 2) In order for the shuttle to reenter the earth's atmosphere at its given window(so they may land in a scheduled location:Canaveral, et al) they must fly at a specified speed. This velocity accomodates the earths rotation, and several other key elements to ensure a proper and safe return. So slowing down the shuttle may not be the solution

[A l t e r E g o 9]

You all have probably heard by now but in case you didn't - the foam falling off the external fuel tank and slamming into the leading edge of the wing about 80 seconds into the flight has been labeled the cause, along with Human Error, Nasa was said to have gotten lax in its safety protocols. (Again)

[VaBeachGuy 12]

Yeah, they say they were lax but no matter what NASA would have done after the launch they would still have burned up.

 

NASA should have ordered pictures and did all of that but my understanding is that nothing else could have been done to save the crew.

 

They couldn't go to the ISS because it was too far away, another Shuttle wouldn't have been ready in time and in flight repairs weren't possible either.

 

I wouldn't blame NASA unless there was something they could have done to prevent the accident in the first place.

 

I think it was just a tragic accident.

[A l t e r E g o 9]

I'm torn when it comes to blaming NASA or not.

 

On the one hand everybody knew the risk and accepted it, hell I'd fly tomorrow if they'd let me.

 

On the other hand everybody knew the risks, that's why video tape of the foam hitting the wing was available, they knew the possibility of tragedy from this happening and documented it to perfection so knowing what they did about the risk should have caused emergency procedures to have been established before the fact.