Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Test Shows Foam Could Be Culprit

Posted by michael on from the 0.5mv^2 dept.

Ben Hutchings writes "The BBC has a report on an impact simulation that aimed to recreate the impact of insulating foam on Columbia's wing. The result was a large hole that probably could not be repaired in orbit even if it was known about."

7 of 525 comments (clear)

  1. happens often by jnguy · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was watchinbg something on channel 7 about this, and they mentioned that this happens at almost every shuttle launch. Apparently it happened, but didn't create such a large hole on another shuttle a few months before columbia. I guess they better fix their stuff before they go off blasting into space again. It also showed how everything melted down because of that hole, scary how such a minor thing can cause such disaster

    1. Re:happens often by sowellfan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ok, I went & read the FAQ you linked to, but you have misinterpreted what it says. It says that the "Lightweight" tank was used on the Columbia. Regarding the "Superlightweight" tanks, it says,

      "Since 1998, however, a revised tank model - a 'Superlightweight' tank - has been in use."

      The same FAQ says in the next paragraph,

      "In addition to the development of the 'Superlightweight' tanks, Lockheed also began using a reformulated lighter version of the inch-thick, spray-on insulation used on all external tanks in the mid-1990s. The switch was made to comply with an EPA mandate to limit ozone-depleting chemicals."

      So the new foam came into use on *ALL* tanks (doesn't say 'only superlightweight'), starting in the mid-1990s, whereas the "superlightweight" tank only came into service in 1998.

      The FAQ also says that the use of the new "Superlightweight" tank started with STS-91. But the same FAQ talks about the extensive tile damage found on the return to earth of STS-87, and it mentions that the new, 'environmentally-friendly' foaming method was used on STS-87. It also refers to this new foaming method being one of a few possible reasons for the extensive tile damage. STS-87 comes before STS-91 (unless they have some weird numbering system I don't know about), so it couldn't have used one of the new 'Superlightweight' tanks with its 'environmentally-friendly' foam. So it is apparent from this evidence also, that the new foaming method was used with the Columbia tanks.

      If you are going to try to refute somebody, and then post a link to your supposed evidence, please read your evidence carefully so I don't have to waste my time responding.

  2. Longer Article by Unknown+Relic · · Score: 5, Informative

    A slightly more detailed article is available from fox news. A couple interesting things noted here that aren't in the BBC article is that this was the seventh and final test, and that in addition to the camera lens popping off, several other guages which were measuring the experiment were damaged from the impact.

  3. Minor curiosity... by Jin+Wicked · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've been following this pretty closely since I live relatively near the Johnson Space Centre here in Houston, and quite a few NASA people come in where I work. I've heard a lot of talk about training the astronauts all to spacewalk, and be able to repair minor damage to the shuttle, but what exactly would they do if the damage was too severe to be repaired? Would a second shuttle have to be launched as a rescue mission? Would they have to just abandon the damaged shuttle in space, since it would be unfit for re-entry? There's a lot of talk of repairs but I haven't heard any predictions for scenarios where repair was impossible.

    Perhaps NASA should start looking at new designs with potentially fatal flaws. Have they not been using this design for something like 15-20 years now?

    --
    My Webcomic: Asylum on 5th Street
  4. So What Now? by CrankyFool · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It'll be interesting to see what the reaction to this failure will be.

    Challenger didn't really rock the way we did Shuttle missions because the problems that led to its explosion were not core to how the Shuttles are built -- someone / some process screwed up and there was a relatively reliable way to make sure it wouldn't happen again.

    Columbia, on the other hand, was destroyed because the design of the Shuttle is so fragile that once you develop an external problem, you're dead -- since they're using tiles that are individualized, there are no spares they could carry that would help them fix this sort of problem.

    Hopefully, this will be a step in the right direction -- either a radical redesign of the Shuttle, or its abandonment in favor of a more robust solution.

  5. Re:i have often wondered by sparkie · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, the Columbia could not have docked with the ISS. The space shuttle was launched into a much lower orbit and would not have been able to propel itself high enough to reach the ISS. That is one of the 'problems' that has been brought up. I believe they are going to put more restrictions on where in orbit the shuttle can go. However, don't take my word for it. It's been all over the news and on Nasa's website.

  6. Come on get some better links to the story ... by HerringFlavoredFowl · · Score: 5, Informative

    A quick check on Spacetoday.com points to several good articles ...

    SpaceFlightNow article
    Florida Today article and it has three video's of the test
    Orlando Sentinel article
    Washington Post article
    Houston Chronicle article

    --
    TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken