Slashdot Mirror
NASA's Foam Test Offers Lesson in Kinetic Energy
Puneet submitted a followup story on the foam test that NASA conducted to get an idea of what sort of damage could be caused by foam falling off the shuttle fuel tank at launch. As it turns out: a lot.
... could be possible terorist weapons :)
Fry: heh, Yakov Smirnoff said it
Leela: No he didn't.
Foam fell off my shelf the other week.
Should I be worried?
foam and southern florida to science. I tend to get flashbacks of spring break.
I've been wondering this from the beginning of the foam investigations and tests...
They've talked about firing foam samples at wing mockups at hundreds/thousands of miles an hour, 'cause (I think) the Shuttle was flying at that speed when it was hit. But wasn't the foam also flying at that speed? Shouldn't the actual velocity of the foam hitting the wing edge be fairly minimal?
Or are they assuming that the wind drag on the foam chunk would reduce its absoute speed significantly, thus increasing the relative speed with which it hit the wing?
In other words, did the foam fall off and drop, low speed, into the wing, or did the foam flake off and stop dead in the air, then the shuttle ran into it at a huge velocity?
...than Columbia's as well.
From the article:
The next round of tests in Texas could add weight to the growing consensus about the cause of the accident. Last week's tests used wing panels from the Enterprise, a test vehicle that never flew in space. That craft's leading edge panels were made from fiberglass because the Enterprise never had to face the heat of re-entry.
Foam testing will resume on Thursday with the first effort to fire a chunk of foam at the actual material used on the leading edge of the shuttle's wing. The material, reinforced carbon-carbon taken from the shuttle Discovery, is substantially weaker and less flexible than fiberglass.
A lesson in kinetics indeed. Perhaps it was a micro-meteorite or junk, but based on this data I'd say they've solved it.
> F = Ma
It's not really force/acceleration that's important, it's kinetic energy and momentum:
Kinetic Energy = 0.5 * mass * (velocity^2)
Momentum = mass * velocity
So a 1g spec of dirt travelling at 20,000mph has the same momentum as a 1KG block travelling at 20mph - something best avoided!
It's frightening that such a light-weight piece of foam can doom a fantastically complex and brilliant piece of machinery like the shuttle, not to mention the crew on board who are far more complex and brilliant - and the loss of whom is so much more painful. But it's not really a surprise. I mean, if a penny can kill - and it certainly can - then so can a big block of foam, even if it doesn't weigh much.
Unfortunately, dangers such as these are just a part of space flight. It's never going to go away: as someone else posted earlier, birds can bring down planes and that's a mature technology. If space flight ever becomes routine, it will still be filled with dangers - the question is whether or not people are willing to take the risk. From a scientific perspective, we're very, very lucky that so many astronauts are willing to take it to advance our understanding of the world and the universe.
Still, it's really hard to see that shuttle crew lost to a piece of foam. Or a piece of rubber (Challenger). It strikes me as odd that on something as monstrously complicated as the shuttle, the only two complete failures were due to relatively simple components. It also strikes me as a major accomplishment. Anyway...
Well, there are a couple things at play here:
1) Materials are stronger at higher strain rates; essentially, the foam can probably remain elastic to much higher stresses when it is being deformed quickly, in a case such as this. To know more, you would want to do a series of high-strain rate tests on the foam to measure it's basic properties. In hindsight, choosing a foam with poor high-strain-rate performance should have been a requirement.
2) The piece of foam they fired was so big that it probably acted as a constriant; essentially, a piece of foam being confined laaterally will have greater apparent strength than one that is not. When a very small piece of foam is fired, this effect would not be present. Scale is important, beyond just increased mass causing increased damage.
It seems so obvious now, but I hadn't thought of these things before. Ideally, NASA would've conducted tests long ago with many sizes of foam hitting many parts of the shuttle, instead of abandoning the tests after seemingly benign results, in addition to basic experiments-- tests of the confined and unconfined foam.
I don't have the numbers right here, and I'm too hungover to crunch them out, but I remember a few years back being told by a professor that a penny can't kill someone. It's too light, and the air resistance creates a terminal velocity that prevents it from becoming all that dangerous.
And the empire state building is wedge shaped, with ledges ever couple of stories. There's no way for a penny to even make it to the ground.
Also, it's not the fact that the foam was going 500 mph hour, it's the fact that the shuttle was.
Tufte also examined the Challenger evidence in his excellent book Visual Explanations.
AlpineR
So a 1g spec of dirt travelling at 20,000mph has the same momentum as a 1KG block travelling at 20mph - something best avoided!
Not only that, but the 1g spec of dirt has a much smaller surface area than the block, therefore excerting a huge weight per surface area. And that's what punches a hole through you.
The videos are here (where the panel visibly ripples after the impact) and here.
The accompanying slide presentation has the details: the 1.7 pound foam block was fired at 531 mph and, where it struck a T-seal between two panels, displaced them and caused a 4/10 inch gap. This fake wing was made of fiberglass, but given the results, a test with actual shuttle wing material from the Space Shuttle Discovery is planned for today.
Here are some of the headlines from news.google.com:
Shuttle Wing Under Gun
Investigator Amazed by Shuttle Foam Force
Foam theory faces pivotal test
Tests Show Foam Causing Wing of Shuttle to Deform
Foam chunk was shuttle's undoing, tests indicate
So a 1.7lb chunk of foam going 500 mph would do SERIOUS damage. Come on! I mean, what kind of physicists are they hiring that can't wrap their brains around this?
500mph = 804,672 m/h = 224 m/s
1.7lb = 0.77kg
from 1/2mv^2, we get...
0.5*0.77kg*(224 m/s)^2 = 19,000 joules of energy!
From a website on the power of explosives...
TNT releases 2.72x10^6 J/kg
So...
g of TNT = (19,000 J/ (2.72x10^6 J/kg) )*1000g/kg = 7g ~ 0.25 Oz
The size of a large blasting cap.
Now, if you asked Nasa if setting off a blasting cap on the shuttle wing would be good or bad, well, I'd think they'd give you an incredulous look and call the FBI on you for being a terrorist and asking suspicious questions.
This back of the envelop calculation MAY be off somewhat. But any engineer who sat down and said "Does this make sense" could have done it on an envelop as a sanity check.
Now, knowing that foam hitting the wing is like setting off a blasting cap on it, perhaps people will realize the dangers of light things traveling very fast...
Hmmm, I wonder how much energy a feather traveling at 0.5C would release...
The article says he is the Director of NASA Ames research center, not that he *is* a rocket scientist. He is not a rocket scientist. His bio (http://www.arc.nasa.gov/about_ames/hubbard.html) from NASA shows him to be a long time administrator, with his original scientific background in radiation detection materials and devices.
So will people *PLEASE* quit insulting rocket scientists.
. there used to be a sig here.....
Almost. But you converted your 200 feet into miles -- which you weren't supposed to do. Using the correct numbers, you get (733^2)/400 = 1344 = about 42 g's. Since air resistance is proportional to a (very large) velocity, that doesn't seem too farfetched.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
The tank is coated in a hard foam similar to the polyurethane foam used in insulation.
Do a little experiment yourself here (warning: not for little children : ) Go to the hardware store and find a can of "Great Stuff" foam insulation spray. It's used to fill the holes in walls around pipes.
Now, lay out a plastic trash bag, and empty the entire can onto the bag -- (warning: the stuff expands as it hardens; so, start in the middle of the bag).
Once it hardens, take a look at the result. This is similar stuff, not quite as nice as what they use on the shuttle of course... Also, keep in mind that an entire can of "Good Stuff" is only 12oz. (3/4 lb). You'd need over two cans of the stuff to make a piece the size they're talking about.
Think about that hitting you doing 500 mph...
You say "I would think". Well, if I was a responsible engineer at the time and place, I would have thought of a lot more than either you or they seem to have.
1) Aerodynamic drag at 50,000 feet is hardly "negligible". Drag is proportional to local atmospheric density times the square of the velocity. Atmospheric density at 50,000 feet is 15% that at sea level. Therefore the drag at that altitude is equal to the drag at sea level at 39% of the speed. In other words (pick a number) 500 mph at 50,000 feet causes the same drag as 195 mph at sea level.
2) Therefore, not only was the space shuttle ACcelerating, but the foam was DEcelerating - probably a LOT - but the point is, it needs to be taken into consideration.
3) The foam coating the fuel tank is HARDLY the same as that a nerf ball is made of. It is much more substantial.
4) As I understand it, the piece of foam that broke off was very likely coated with ice. I think if you got hit by a piece of ice travelling 75 mph (much less at an even higher speed), you would most certainly be injured, and so would the leading edge.
5) Prior strikes were grazing blows on the surface of the wing. We are postulating a direct hit on the leading edge of the wing, made up of very brittle carbon fiber composite.
All that said, in the end I don't blame those on the scene as much as those responsible for the crappy concept as a whole. Hopefully I would have thought of the case of a direct strike on the leading edge, and hopefully I would have woken up to danger (albeit maybe too late) when a piece of the shuttle was OBSERVED to part company while in orbit, but my true ire is reserved for whoever is responsible for the design concept as a whole. If the fuel tank was coated with crappy insulation that frequently broke off in chunks during launch, that in itself doesn't constitute a hazard. But as soon as you mount a manned space vehicle directly in the path of the debris, that is just unforgiveably negligible.