Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Foam Shot Causes Damage to Shuttle Mockup

Posted by michael on from the deploy-foam-cannons-for-homeland-security dept.

DoraLives writes "The New York Times is running a story describing the effects caused by a piece of foam fired at a fiberglass mock up of the Space Shuttle's wing. Although fiberglass is stronger than the RCC material on Columbia's wing, "The impact produced a 22-inch-long gap." Not good."

14 of 43 comments (clear)

  1. Summary by ArmorFiend · · Score: 4, Informative

    To summarise the article: nobody really thinks this is news until they test it on the actual substance (carbon-carbon) that the wing is made out of.

  2. Terrorists next tool: by qqtortqq · · Score: 3, Funny

    Nerf guns

  3. Now that's quite a nerf gun by SnowDog_2112 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I mean, I've seen some cool nerf guns, but check this out (from the article):

    "Researchers shot a 1.67-pound chunk of foam from a gas cannon ... at about 530 miles per hour"

    --
    Not representing or approved by my company or anybody else.
  4. Why does everyone give links to NYT? by stienman · · Score: 4, Informative

    Let's all say this together - "We don't need no stinkin' registration for the majority of news!"

    Use Google News to find it elsewhere, and reported better as often as not.

    Shuttle Wing Foam Collision Tests

    And a direct Reuters link which is pretty much what all the other articles say for those who are too lazy to click twice.

    -Adam

  5. Re:"Not Good"? by iuyterw · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Finding the cause isn't "not good".

    If this discovery means there is a risk of destruction of the remaining shuttles that cannot be mitigated, then that is very very "not good"

  6. Related: Why a Space Plane? by StormForge · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why did NASA choose the shuttle design anyway? They took a perfectly good spaceship and added wings, control surfaces, tail, landing gear, etc... just so it could fly home like a plane. Lot's of heavy stuff just to switch from an inherently-safe re-entry method (ballistic with heat shield&chute) to a much more risky one (landing like a plane). I don't see how the "plane" part of the design is worth it... Just cuz it's sexy?

    1. Re:Related: Why a Space Plane? by FirstManOnMoon · · Score: 5, Informative

      A plane design is the only way to carry heavy loads from space. The ballistic method severely limits the amount of material you could bring back. This isn't as big of an issue now, but originally the shuttle was designed to capture and return satellites for maintenance.

    2. Re:Related: Why a Space Plane? by KillerBob · · Score: 4, Informative

      You also forget the single most important reason they chose the shuttle design: Reusability. The shuttles are Reusable launch vehicles. Sure, they cost a lot more than a capsule, they're more complicated, more can go wrong, but they can be reused. Had they been flying capsules instead of the shuttles, the cost to date would have been much higher than it was. Considering the shoestring that NASA gets to work with these days, that's important.

      Apollo 6 is sitting in a museum I pass every day on my way to work. I'm not aware of any shuttles that are sitting in a museum.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    3. Re:Related: Why a Space Plane? by rusty0101 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Enterprise is sitting at the Smithsonian.

      It is a prototype however, a test bed for the technology that went into the "production" shuttles, and as far as I know not capable of being re-fitted for space. So you are correct in that sense.

      Then again, I could be wrong. Perhaps the Smithsonian will donate it back to NASA to be used. I just doubt that will happen.

      -Rusty

      --
      You never know...
  7. Shuttle Astronauts killed by the EPA by Picass0 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Dryden Flight Research Center:

    DRYDEN F-15B SUPPORTS SHUTTLE EXTERNAL TANK INSULATION TESTS
    http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewsReleases/199 9/99-01.html
    Published in 1999

    fourth paragraph:

    "The experiment was part of an effort to determine why small particles of spray-on foam insulation flaked off of the inter-tank section of the external fuel tank on Space Shuttle mission STS-87 as the Shuttle ascended. The new lightweight insulation material was developed to comply with an EPA mandate to reduce ozone-depleting chemicals released into the atmosphere. Although such flaking or erosion of the insulation off the external tank posed no safety hazard to the Shuttle or its crew, engineers wanted to determine its cause to prevent future maintenance and operational problems. The flights aboard Dryden's F-15B were just one of many tests to which the new insulation material is being subjected. "

    The EPA required Nasa to continue using a foam that was not as safe as the older tank foam. The EPA has a direct responsiblity for this disaster.
    1. Re:Shuttle Astronauts killed by the EPA by E-prospero · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The EPA has a direct responsiblity for this disaster.

      Yeah. And they eat babies too.

      Nice try at a "EPA Kills Astronauts" causality, but no.
      1. The EPA required NASA to use materials that will prevent Ozone depletion.
      2. NASA chose a foam. The chosen foam had some problems on STS-87. NASA tested it.
      3. NASA continued to use the same foam.

      If you want to play the blame game (and I have to say that IMHO, it's a particularly nonproductive game in this case unless you can point at a single individual who personally ignored evidence, or loosened a bolt, etc) NASA is the one with the responsibility here. The only thing the EPA is directly responsible for is instigating the change in foam. You could claim an indirect responsibility for enforcing a change, but the EPA didn't tell them which foam to use. NASA is the one directly responsible for selecting, testing and using the new foam. If NASA was concerned about safety, they had the option of halting launches until the issue was resolved.

      Sh*t happens. Sometimes, Really Unpleasant Sh*t happens. Using the emotional effect of the occurence of unpleasant sh*t as a way to lend credibility for an argument belittles us all.

      If you want to pick on the EPA, pick on them for something they actually did, not for something that happened as a result of something that happened as a result of something they did. By your logic, JFK is directly responsible for the death of the Columbia astronauts because he encouraged the rapid development of the space program.

      Russ %-)
      --
      ... and never, ever play leapfrog with a unicorn.
  8. the design of the external tank by Maimun · · Score: 2, Interesting
    There has to be a good reason for this design choice, but I cannot see it. Why not have the foam sandwiched between two coaxial metal cylinders, rather than being sprayed onto one? Then the problem with the falling pieces would vanish.

    What about other rockets that use cryo-fuel? Do they have thermo insulator as an outer layer? I can't be positive, I've never touched a rocket, but they seem to have metal skins...

    1. Re:the design of the external tank by foistboinder · · Score: 4, Informative
      There has to be a good reason for this design choice, but I cannot see it. Why not have the foam sandwiched between two coaxial metal cylinders, rather than being sprayed onto one? Then the problem with the falling pieces would vanish.

      Money and weight (really the same thing for spacecraft).

      What about other rockets that use cryo-fuel? Do they have thermo insulator as an outer layer? I can't be positive, I've never touched a rocket, but they seem to have metal skins...

      You can often see large chunks of ice falling away from rockets during lauch (check out old footage of Saturn V's).

      --
      Yet Another Web Site
    2. Re:the design of the external tank by pipingguy · · Score: 3, Informative

      They have an "Ice Team" to check the external tanks.

      Bulk storage cryogenic tanks use vacuum space for insulation similar to the "two coaxial metal cylinders" mentioned above.