You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
After STS-45 landed, it was discovered that Atlantis' right number 10 RCC panel had sustained damage. Something had struck hard enough to nearly punch a hole in the panel. Investigation showed that the damage was caused by a man made object, probably during ascent. The panel had to be scrapped.
The not-quite hole was only approximately 2 sq. in., but seems to me to be a significant impact. I don't know if it was ever conclusively determined to be a foam strike, can anyone shed some light on this?
Were major foam strikes causing near misses in re-entry before the loss of STS-107?
Offline
Like button can go here
Well of course... the whole story of the Shuttle program has been to ignore warning signs or design specs until they become problems. Trouble is, said "problems" were Challenger and Columbia.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
It's been going on some time now - former NASA engineers have spoken out about this ( Roger Boisjoly tried to save them from the first disaster but he was ignored and silenced ). Challenger was a management disaster with neglect for safety but unlike the Rogers Commission - the Columbia board had too many members who are on the government payroll - few changes have been made. Now there are a few more easygoing cowboys who think it seems ok to ignore sensors, have 16 bits of debris flying off your craft, its fine to throw away a layers of safety or crack that Shuttle arm. Maybe I'm being too harsh, Shuttle was a great ship and it done some great missions but no doubt problems remain at NASA.
A huge bulk of inside info can be found here
http://www.nasawatch.com/misc/08.27.03.caib.html
( many workers have posted anonymously )
Offline
Like button can go here
No and again no! Shuttle was never a great ship, it was a disaster before it left the drawing board, and all its missions have all been a waste of money so immense, that it would cover a large part of the federal annual budget.
No probe or satelite needed to fly on Shuttle
No space station should be assembled piecemeal without a true RLV
No repairs, its cheaper to replace then to fly Shuttle!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That said however... take what you hear from NASA Watch with a couple of moles of salt, since they are set up to ridicule NASA and make spurrious claims.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
Yeah, they've been playing Russian roulette for some time.
Of course, who knows were we'd be if we stuck with the Saturn 5. It was even more expensive, and was built for a single purpose.
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
Like button can go here
It has been a big game of chance with each launch after may changes in practice, workmanship wavers and more...
The saturn V was more than just a moon ship since it was built in multiple stages and had small stepping stones in the program to utilize. It could have been so much more if it had been kept moving forward as a back burner project in mordernization if nothing else we could fly it when the shuttle was not.
Offline
Like button can go here
We could have done a little more with Saturn-V, but honestly the thing was awfully expensive, and after we beat the Commies to the Moon, it goes to reason that NASA wouldn't have its Moon-level funding for long.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
So if we assume that the damage was caused by a foam strike (does anyone seriously doubt that was it), then why did NASA management on three occations deny engineers' requests to image Columbia to determine the extent of damage? Didn't someone assume after the launch of STS-107 that the impact was non-critical? I guess I am having problems understanding why this problem was allowed to progress for so long.
I also think that Challenger was a different type of issue. Perhaps if Thiokol had acted on the engineers warnings in late 1985 when they were screaming about the o-ring problem, NASA wouldn't have pushed back when they were told about it at the literal last minute. I can't put the entire blame for this on NASA management, Thiokol had lots to do with Challenger flying that day.
But this foam issue has been around for a while, and seems to have been causing serious damage since at least 1992. I am one who is of the opinion that even if NASA had found out there was a gaping hole in Columbia's left wing, there was nothing they could have done to save the astronauts, so maybe it is a moot point. But this issue should have been addressed looooong ago, and I have trouble when people push back with "NASA never had a serious foam issue before this" mentality. I know of sites where if you posted what I just did, you would be labelled a troll, and a shuttle basher. I would like to see what you folks think about this...
Offline
Like button can go here
They ignored requests for images because, I think, that there was nothing they could do about it; a rescue Shuttle flight probobly would not have been able to fly in time, and Columbia could not reach the ISS from equitorial orbit.
You have to realize just what a disaster it would be if terminal damage was found, think about it... can you imagine what would happen when the story got out? That Shuttle astronauts were going to die in two weeks and there was nothing NASA could do about it? The drama would be plasterd across every screen and paper around the world, and then the inevitible eventually did come...?
The Columbia crew was dead the moment the SRB clamps released at the launch pad, and nothing could realisticly have been done about it. However, the public would not understand, they would whip themselves into a "but Apollo-13 made it, why didn't Columbia" frenzy, and NASA would not have survived. The drama induced by finding the damage would have been far, far, far worse then what we got when Columbia burned up on reentry, blissfully unaware. So in this context, of course NASA didn't want images taken... they could have done nothing except destroy the agency on top of the crews' lives, instead of just them.
I agree with you that NASA's casual attitude about foam strike has been pure recklessness, that while damage to the degree of Columbia was probobly not very likly, Discovery's near miss last year on top of the Atlantis damage proves that it was not "unlikly enough." Shuttle managers did not take the problem seriously enough, and so seven more astronauts were killed.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
[url=http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070712/NEWS/707120366/1003/BUSINESS]A new role for Kevlar?
DuPont fabric could help strengthen foam shielding spacecraft[/url]
DuPont and NASA began informally testing Kevlar in foam following the catastrophic accident of space shuttle Columbia, which killed seven astronauts in 2003. In that accident, a chunk of foam broke off from the fuel tank during liftoff and damaged tiles on the wing, allowing fiery gases to penetrate the spacecraft on its return to Earth.
Now it looks like it will be tried elsewhere....
Offline
Like button can go here
Pages: 1