Not only possible, but probable. The wing melting and disintegrating as a result of the breach more like caused the crash.
Atlantis probably just lucky
by
TheRoachMan
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The article states that ground control ordered the Atlantis (which survived a breached wing and landed safely in 2000) to do a cooling-manoeuver, because they suspected the ceramic tiles to be damaged by a chunk of ice. If it hadn't been for ground control's suspicions about this damage, Atlantis would've probably shattered too. Columbia just went all-out during re-entry, because ground control was worried about tires not warming up enough to guarantee a safe landing. Talk about irony. This brings a question to my mind: Instead of using the cooling-manoeuver as a sort of 'last-resort', why not make it a standard modus operandi to do the cooling-manoeuver, unless of course there are serious reasons not to? Might save some lives and money.
Re:Atlantis probably just lucky
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yeah, and they should also build the whole shuttle out of the material used for the worm experiment.
Re:Atlantis probably just lucky
by
Matrix272
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I certainly don't mean to trivialize your argument, but I tend to think the kind folks at NASA have at least one reason for not requiring a cooling maneuver upon reentry. I understand that you may believe it could save some lives and money in this instance, but overall, it might have done the opposite. The only people that can answer your proposal would be the Rocket Scientists at NASA, or someone who's a home-study Rocket Scientist, although I doubt it.
-- "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
Re:Atlantis probably just lucky
by
operagost
·
· Score: 1
Re:Atlantis probably just lucky
by
Guppy06
·
· Score: 1
"This brings a question to my mind: Instead of using the cooling-manoeuver as a sort of 'last-resort', why not make it a standard modus operandi to do the cooling-manoeuver(?)"
Because the shuttle orbiter has the aerodynamic properties of your average cement block and needs all the speed it can get to maintain lift and control. The "cooling manuever" trades the orbiter's speed for extra cooling, but that drop in speed makes it more difficult to control. It's kinda tough to pull out of a stall situation when you're in an unpowered "glider."
I thought this was well known?
by
stefanlasiewski
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Right, foam has hit the wing before, the wings have been breached before. It was mentioned several times after the Columbia disaster. I remember listening to an 'expert' on NPR (Can't remember his name) saying the previous occurances happened without insident, and was why NASA wasn't pursuing the foam theory. Pursue the more likely scenarios first.
The Associated Press is pushing this news as if it was a big revelation, but there doesn't seem to be anything new in this report.
Am I missing something?
-- "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
Re:I thought this was well known?
by
stefanlasiewski
·
· Score: 1
'expert'
To clarify: I don't remember if he worked for NASA or what. My point is that this sort of news has been mentioned before.
-- "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
Re:I thought this was well known?
by
rjh
·
· Score: 4, Informative
While it's true that there have been several foam impacts before, NASA never (to the best of my knowledge) said wings had been breached before. Breaches are amazingly lethal conditions, and NASA takes them very seriously; when any tile gets deteriorated by more than 0.04 inches, it gets completely replaced.
NASA's line about why they didn't throw a fit over the foam has always been "well, it never caused any problems before..."
Now it turns out it did cause problems before and came within a whisker of losing Atlantis. In a fair world, it would mean the jobs of several NASA bureaucrats--not just for not paying attention to foam-strike problems, but for lying to Lehman's committee, to Congress, and to the American people about how there had never before been any foam-strike problems.
From this AP story you can read that one of the astronauts on board the Atlantis when it had the wing-breach found out about the wing-breach when she was contacted by the AP for a comment. Not only had NASA covered up the wing-breach--they weren't even informing astronauts of the risks.
Re:I thought this was well known?
by
teridon
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Now it turns out it did cause problems before and came within a whisker of losing Atlantis.
No, it did not cause problems before. Here are the relevant parts of the article: During liftoff, a 6-inch chunk of ice had smashed against the back edge of the right wing; so experts deemed it prudent to adjust Atlantis' flight to rapidly cool its wings...NASA blamed the Atlantis damage on improper installation of a seal between two protective panels on the shuttle's left wing[emphasis mine]
So ice had struck the right wing; the cooling maneuver was done to protect it. The defect (and subsequent breach) in the left wing wasn't known until after the landing.
Nowhere in the article does it say that foam caused damage to Atlantis. Even the ice strike was not the cause of the breach.
-- I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
Re:I thought this was well known?
by
lynx_user_abroad
·
· Score: 1
In a fair world, it would mean the jobs of several NASA bureaucrats--not just for not paying attention to foam-strike problems, but for lying to Lehman's committee, to Congress, and to the American people about how there had never before been any foam-strike problems.
What are you talking about? Since when is "lying to...the American people" grounds for dismissal? I thought that only happened if there was some intern and a blue dress involved...
--
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Re:I thought this was well known?
by
Matrix272
·
· Score: 1
Since when is "lying to...the American people" grounds for dismissal? I thought that only happened if there was some intern and a blue dress involved...
To be fair, the intern and the dress weren't the grounds for dismissal. It was the perjury that was the problem. I don't care who sleeps with who, or what an intern puts into her own mouth, as long as the person in question can still do their job... but when that person gets in the witness chair and lies under oath, I have a problem with it.
-- "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
Re:I thought this was well known?
by
lynx_user_abroad
·
· Score: 1
...but when that person gets in the witness chair and lies under oath, I have a problem with it.
We should rightly be concerned when a president mis-represents the truth to avoid political scandal. We should be even more concerned when it is done for the purpose of taking the country into War.
Should we place the President under oath before things like press conferences and the State Of The Union address, or should the Oath Of Office be enough?
--
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Re:I thought this was well known?
by
Matrix272
·
· Score: 1
We should rightly be concerned when a president mis-represents the truth to avoid political scandal.
I'm not going to get into a political argument here, but Clinton lied under oath, after swearing to tell "nothing but the truth" so help him God. That's not a political scandal, that's perjury, which is a felony, punishable by prison time.
We should be even more concerned when it is done for the purpose of taking the country into War.
What did Bush lie about exactly? Even Saddam admitted he had WMD's. France, Germany, Russia, the UN, etc. all agreed on it. This is all common knowledge to those who are open-minded enough to look at the facts.
Should we place the President under oath before things like press conferences and the State Of The Union address, or should the Oath Of Office be enough?
The President should be honest in his intentions, actions, and motives. In everything he does, he should always seek the best for the American people and the nation (which isn't always the same thing). The President should always uphold the Constitution, and try to make the world a better place. I can think of nothing that Bush has done to contradict his high status or office. He's never screwed an intern, or "lost" important financial papers that were dangerous to him. He's not perfect, but he's definitely a step (or a giant leap) in the right direction from the last President.
-- "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
Re:I thought this was well known?
by
lynx_user_abroad
·
· Score: 1
Thus spoke Matrix272, immediately before launching into a political argument:
What did Bush lie about exactly? Even Saddam admitted he had WMD's.
So, under your reasoning, if I "admit" black is white, it's not considered lying for you to agree that black is white where it suits your own purposes, even though you know (or should have known) it's not true?
France, Germany, Russia, the UN, etc. all agreed on it. This is all common knowledge to those who are open-minded enough to look at the facts.
You're confusing common knowledge with the facts. Under this reasoning, it was right and proper for Galileo to be excommunicated from the Church for saying that the earth revolved around the Sun, because it was common knowledge and everyone important already agreed that the sun revolved around the Earth. The wise man does not accept common knowledge as the truth, but rather searches for the truth precisely where common knowledge seems strongest.
The President should always uphold the Constitution, and try to make the world a better place.
So, when those two goals are incompatible, which should prevail? It's important to point out that we can't always agree on what will "make the world a better place", but we have a much better handle on what it means to "uphold the Constitution", which is why we wrote it down in the first place. It is the fundamental tenet of a society governed by law.
History is littered with the tales of societies which substituted the rule of law with the rule of a personality. Hitler, Pol Pot, and Hussein offer us clear examples of the results. I hope we are not headed on the same path.
Oh dear. I may have just Godwin'd myself.;-)
He's never screwed an intern, or "lost" important financial papers that were dangerous to him.
You're asserting a negative. While we all (I hope) support the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", you cannot bolster a claim of innocence with a lack of proven guilt.
He's not perfect, but he's definitely a step (or a giant leap) in the right direction from the last President.
It's not a question of weather he's better than the joker he's replacing, but a question of weather he's good enough.
--
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Re:I thought this was well known?
by
Matrix272
·
· Score: 1
So, under your reasoning, if I "admit" black is white, it's not considered lying for you to agree that black is white where it suits your own purposes, even though you know (or should have known) it's not true?
If you admit that black is white, and I agree that black is white, and the rest of the civilized world agrees that black is white, then yes, black would be white, and you wouldn't have lied.
You're confusing common knowledge with the facts.
So you're saying that Saddam was mistaken when he said he had WMD's? Maybe he wasn't given the proper facts? Maybe Hans Blitz wasn't given the proper facts when he went and saw, first-hand, the WMD's? Maybe the UN was mistaken when they said Saddam has WMD's and must disarm immediately... 18 times over 12 years? Was Saddam given faulty facts when he USED his WMD's against his own people to kll tens of thousands?
So, when those two goals are incompatible, which should prevail? It's important to point out that we can't always agree on what will "make the world a better place", but we have a much better handle on what it means to "uphold the Constitution", which is why we wrote it down in the first place. It is the fundamental tenet of a society governed by law.
I was expecting you to bite on this, so how did Bush not uphold the Constitution, or not make the world a better place? At the very least, we kept the world the same, but we certainly didn't make it worse.
You're asserting a negative. While we all (I hope) support the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", you cannot bolster a claim of innocence with a lack of proven guilt.
Asserting a negative in this respect is possible because nobody can contend any differently. No interns have come forward. While I may very well be wrong in saying that he never screwed an intern, all the evidence (which may be circumstantial, I'll admit) suggests that I'm correct.
It's not a question of weather he's better than the joker he's replacing, but a question of weather he's good enough.
Don't get me wrong, I never said he was perfect. He's done quite a few things I don't agree with (a Department of Homeland Defense? WTF is the Department of Defense for then?).
I know I said I wasn't going to get into a political argument... but what can I say, it's just so fun.:-)
-- "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
Re:I thought this was well known?
by
luna69
·
· Score: 1
> Should we place the President under oath before
> things like press conferences and the State Of
> The Union address, or should the Oath Of Office
> be enough?
I don't see why not. Why not make it clear that the President - elected or appointed, Southern Democrat or Texas Robber Baron, I don't care - is *always* under oath, and that *any* lie is grounds for impeachment?
-- No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
Re:I thought this was well known?
by
lynx_user_abroad
·
· Score: 1
...and the rest of the civilized world agrees...
But the rest of the civilized world is not in agreement on this. Or are we defining those who do not agree as uncivilized, in a Bushesque "you're either with us or your against us" kinda way?
...then yes, black would be white...
You're trolling, aren't you?i Maybe it depends on what your definition of is is?
So you're saying that Saddam was mistaken when he said he had WMD's?
That would be one way to characterize it. Mistaken, incompetent, deliberately disingenous; I'm sure we can come up with any number of terms. But you seem to be saying "We can't blame Bush, he was only trusting Saddam." or have I read this wrong? I would have expected you to say "We can't blame Bush, he was only trusting the CIA, and the rest of the world." but seeing as how the rest of the world based their decision on what Bush (and Blair) claimed, and how even the CIA is now claimimg they told the White House they had no solid evidence, I can see how you might want to avoid such circular logic.
Maybe Hans Blitz wasn't given the proper facts when he went and saw, first-hand, the WMD's?
I was unaware of this, at least in terms relevant to the current invasion. Can you provide a source?
Maybe the UN was mistaken when they said Saddam has WMD's and must disarm immediately... 18 times over 12 years?
Maybe they were, but I don't think so. But again you're missing the point. The UN not only said "disarm or face sanstions", the UN also said "you must prove you have disarmed or face sanstions". They placed the burden of proof onto Iraq. No one could even complain that Iraq had not disarmed because Iraq never really offered any adequate evidence to prove they had. So the sanctions (or some sanction of some sort) should have remained.
But, as you pointed out, that was 12 years ago.
If the UN told the US "disarm or face sanstions", would we choose to disarm, or would we choose to face sanctions? Are we allowed to make that choice? Is Iraq allowed? A civilized man realizes he does not get to make choices for others, he can only choose what he will do for himself, thus the "cooperate with us if you want us to cooperate with you" attitude of sanctions. Only a bully believes a "do what I want or I'll pummel you into the ground..." strategy has any merit.
Was Saddam given faulty facts when he USED his WMD's against his own people to kll tens of thousands?
It's deplorable that he killed "tens of thousands" of his people. It's also deplorable that he used WMD's. If I had to choose one over the other, I would have preferred that he used WMD's (but killed no people) over killing all those people (but using no MWD's).
Do you have any idea how many hundreds of thousands of Abraham Lincoln's own people were killed in the Civil War? Does it matter that Lincoln didn't use Nuclear, Chemical. or Biological weapons to accomplish it? Have we forgotten that, as recently as a few months ago, Putin used chemical weapons to kill a theatre full of his own people in a Moscow "anti-terrorist" operation?
It was made clear to Iraq that they would have to get rid of their weapons programs to get the sanctions lifted. It's not clear whether they were really trying to get rid of their WMD program to get the sanctions lifted, or whether they were trying to hide their weapons program, but there's little doubt he had WMD's at one time, which in my mind constitutes grounds for a "search warrant" only, not a prosecution, certaintly not a conviction. Blitz was in the process of searching when Bush said "you're otta time". Ironic how now it's Bush claiming they just need a little more time...
--
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Re:I thought this was well known?
by
Matrix272
·
· Score: 1
I just simply don't have time to respond to all your rantings, but quite clearly, you're going to see Bush as being an evil man, no matter what evidence or proof is shown to you. So, it's a complete waste of my time and energy to try to convince you otherwise. To me, the fact that Saddam had the weapons, used them against his own people, then couldn't and wouldn't prove that he had gotten rid of them is evidence enough to convict. If I'm a convicted murder, and I get married, and my wife appears dead in my house with a knife in her chest with my neighbors saying that they saw me with the knife around the same time she died, I'd be convicted too. So, I apologize for taking up your time, and I hope at some point in the near future, you can look at things in an objective light to see the truth that seems to be escaping you.
-- "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
Article quote : Although damage inside Atlantis' left wing was detected post-flight, NASA worried about the shuttle's return even before the discovery.
If NASA knew about that shuttles could be damaged by debris on take off before the columbia disaster, why didn't they take sufficient steps to prevent it? It seems like too much was a stake for this not to be fixed but I guess that's my opinion.
I thought this came out yesterday when ABC did a news special on NASA and the failure to listen to a guy?
Dodged a bullet, but by accident
by
jwriney
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The AP article mentions that ice impacted Atlantis' *right* wing. This motivated ground teams to perform the cold soaking procedure. But the actual damage was on the *left* wing, and was caused by improper installation of some sort of seal thingy. So Atlantis may have been saved by the cold soak, but the truly dangerous condition that could have cost them the orbiter and crew wasn't the one they prescribed the cold soak for!
Disturbing.
--riney
Re:Dodged a bullet, but by accident
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Where's Gary Seven when ya need him?
Changes needed
by
gizmo_mathboy
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
From what I've read concerning about what the review board has found this is exactly what they want to change.
It is one thing in a test/development/research environment to have something unexpected to happen, that's why you are doing testing/development/research. However, once the project goes live anything unexpected that does happen should be examined thoroughly. Like in Challenger, when the O-rings were being eroded that wasn't expected behaviour. Yes, O-rings are there to seal joints and they did their job but no one expected them to be eroded.
With Columbia there were 2 events: surface roughness and foam chunks. Hard to say which was more deadly, I'll start with the chunks. I would have thought that when things start falling off of the vehicle that NASA/Boeing/whomever would have done better testing and research into what was going on. A first guess would be that no harm would come of it, it's foam. However, it was moving at several hundred miles per hour and it wasn't something that was expected.
There was also a large amount of surface roughness on the wings. This leads to an early transition to turbulence which leads to increased heating earlier in the descent. Combine that with a foam chunk tearing a whole in the wing and you get 7 more dead astronauts.
Both these things were not part of the expected behaviour of the shuttle. Folks at NASA didn't think they were particularly harmful or didn't appear to cause any harm. So they let them go because they rationalized it away without understanding why they were occurring and what effects they may have.
Older, more effective foam was replaced
by
e_pluribus_funk
·
· Score: 2, Offtopic
The older, more effective insulation foam, which was CFC based, was replaced with a much less effective foam that was more 'environmentally friendly' that was susceptible to breaking off in ways that the old foam was not:
Re:Older, more effective foam was replaced
by
Matrix272
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
I have to make a comment on caring more about the environment than people's lives. This is an instance where it's a pretty clear-cut decision: the environment, or people's lives. The environment has gotten along just fine for 10,000,000 years before we started going into space, and now we have to endanger lives because we want care too much about the environment. It's already been proven that there is NO global warming, yet we still hear about that... now we are forced to choose between spending more money and endangering lives to be "friendly" to the environment. What a sad world we live in.
-- "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
Re:Older, more effective foam was replaced
by
Angry+Toad
·
· Score: 1
It's already been proven that there is NO global warming,
In what universe? Seriously, you may have issues with the political implications of global warming, you may have issues with the implementation of damage-control policies before a true consensus of the scientific community has been reached, but that statement is just plain wrong.
I don't have any doubt that it is repeated ad nauseum in hysterical screeds by the likes of Rush et al, but you would do yourself some good by attempting to understand the opinions of people who actually know what they are talking about.
I could go on but I won't. There's still lots of debate, and this is as it should be, but global warming has not been "disproved" except in the minds of politically motivated ideologues.
Re:Older, more effective foam was replaced
by
Matrix272
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I understand the arguments of both sides. I don't believe there is any global warming.
Read those articles, and do your own research. Don't trust me... look into it yourself, and you'll see the truth.
-- "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
Re:Older, more effective foam was replaced
by
wayward_son
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The Earth may indeed be getting warmer. (And there is still debate over this) If it is, it is seriously unlikely that it is caused by man.
Guess what, the climate has changed MANY times in Earth's history, long before man was around. Have you ever been to the sandhills of the Carolinas? These sandhills are about 100mi (160km) inland. How'd they get there? Once upon a time, that was the beach. Likewise, what is now the beach was once considerably inland during the last ice age.
If the earth wants to heat up or cool down, there is truly very little we can do about it. Man made "greenhouse gasses" are relatively minor compared to naturally occuring "greenhouse gasses" coming from volcanoes and forest fires. It's a fart in a windstorm.
I could go on but I won't. There's still lots of debate, and this is as it should be, but global warming has not been "disproved" except in the minds of politically motivated ideologues.
The global environmental movement is as politically motivated as any right-wing ideologue. To say otherwise is terribly naive.
Re:the shuttle?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How many shuttle wing breaches has Slashdot reported on lately? The last flight of Columbia is the biggest tragedy for nerds in quite some time. Should they also explain Napster, WiFi, or SCO's allegations in case you just came out of your cave?
Inform yourself: life ain't black and white
by
ianscot
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Feeding the trolls, I know, but Hello -- for the rest of us, those aren't mutually exclusive options. It isn't "save lives or protect the environment," as stark oppositional choices. And in this case, your black and white ideology is causing you to pile onto a political tactic rather than seeking the truth.
A nice synopsis of the tank types, the flights they were used on, and so on:
The tank being used on Columbia was the older style. NASA has gotten exemptions from the EPA to use the old style tanks and foam. They happened to use an old one on this launch.
"(NASA) said the piece that broke off and hit the wing of the Columbia was PROBABLY THE OLD FOAM, NOT THE NEW, MORE TROUBLE-PLAGUED MATERIAL.
When it had trouble with the replacement foam, NASA applied to the Environmental Protection Agency for an exemption from the CFC ban, saying, 'no viable alternative has been identified.' It gained the exemption in 2001, and still uses that foam in a few spots on the shuttle fleet."
--ANDREW C. REVKIN (NYT 2/6/03)
Meanwhile, astronauts have mentioned the problems with the foam since the earliest days of the program:
During the early missions, astronauts even complained over their cockpit radios during liftoffs about falling white-colored insulation from the external fuel tank hitting the shuttle's windows, according to a 1983 NASA report. It said spray-on foam insulation flying off the external tank could cause significant damage to the shuttle's heat-resistant tiles.
Engineers developed at least two procedures -- shaving foam insulation and venting it with thousands of tiny pinpricks -- to reduce the amount of insulation flying off the external tank.
But NASA stated three years ago that "venting... is only a temporary solution to the problem until a new type of foam can be formulated and applied."
The old foam is still being used.
...After Columbia's first flight in April 1981, NASA engineers said they would have had a difficult time clearing it for flight had they known in advance the insulation breakaways would produce such a debris shower.
NASA's been working on this problem since before the first launch. Gee, it doesn't seem like a stark "environment vs. people" choice they made, does it?
You might want to consider your sources before you start assuming everything falls into the neat little cubbyholes your politics make you think of. Fox "News" has run a "special" claiming that the moon launches were all a big conspiracy; maybe that's not the best source for news about NASA. You think? (Meanwhile do we hear any liberals ranting about this all being Bush's fault? They seem to actually give a crap about the problem, rather than just vying to score faked-up political points.)
-- "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
IANARS, and I'm way to late to reply to this thread, but why can't aerogel be used to fill any damage on shuttles' tiles?
When it first appeared in science rags and TV, it was promoted to be an easy and simple insulator of heat, showing blow torches applied opposite a piece of ice for emphasis. NASA's own website includes the pictures "1,400 degrees C" on one side, room temperature on the other.
John Glenn's flight, STS-95 included experiments on making the stuff in space.
Is anyone working with aerogel today and why can't we inject it into the wings of the shuttles to make them "solid insulator material" the whole way through or at least paste the stuff in any holes created like a space based caulk?
It's used on Stardust to capture, well, dust, and was used on pathfinder...
The only complaint I've seen, it is fragile so perhaps it would be pulverized on return...
Slashdot Mirror
So it's possible that the breach is not the cause of the crash?
The article states that ground control ordered the Atlantis (which survived a breached wing and landed safely in 2000) to do a cooling-manoeuver, because they suspected the ceramic tiles to be damaged by a chunk of ice. If it hadn't been for ground control's suspicions about this damage, Atlantis would've probably shattered too. Columbia just went all-out during re-entry, because ground control was worried about tires not warming up enough to guarantee a safe landing. Talk about irony. This brings a question to my mind: Instead of using the cooling-manoeuver as a sort of 'last-resort', why not make it a standard modus operandi to do the cooling-manoeuver, unless of course there are serious reasons not to? Might save some lives and money.
Right, foam has hit the wing before, the wings have been breached before. It was mentioned several times after the Columbia disaster. I remember listening to an 'expert' on NPR (Can't remember his name) saying the previous occurances happened without insident, and was why NASA wasn't pursuing the foam theory. Pursue the more likely scenarios first.
The Associated Press is pushing this news as if it was a big revelation, but there doesn't seem to be anything new in this report.
Am I missing something?
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
It happened on 2003/02/01, right?
Article quote : Although damage inside Atlantis' left wing was detected post-flight, NASA worried about the shuttle's return even before the discovery.
If NASA knew about that shuttles could be damaged by debris on take off before the columbia disaster, why didn't they take sufficient steps to prevent it? It seems like too much was a stake for this not to be fixed but I guess that's my opinion.
In linux libertas
I thought this came out yesterday when ABC did a news special on NASA and the failure to listen to a guy?
The AP article mentions that ice impacted Atlantis' *right* wing. This motivated ground teams to perform the cold soaking procedure. But the actual damage was on the *left* wing, and was caused by improper installation of some sort of seal thingy. So Atlantis may have been saved by the cold soak, but the truly dangerous condition that could have cost them the orbiter and crew wasn't the one they prescribed the cold soak for!
Disturbing.
--riney
From what I've read concerning about what the review board has found this is exactly what they want to change.
It is one thing in a test/development/research environment to have something unexpected to happen, that's why you are doing testing/development/research. However, once the project goes live anything unexpected that does happen should be examined thoroughly. Like in Challenger, when the O-rings were being eroded that wasn't expected behaviour. Yes, O-rings are there to seal joints and they did their job but no one expected them to be eroded.
With Columbia there were 2 events: surface roughness and foam chunks. Hard to say which was more deadly, I'll start with the chunks. I would have thought that when things start falling off of the vehicle that NASA/Boeing/whomever would have done better testing and research into what was going on. A first guess would be that no harm would come of it, it's foam. However, it was moving at several hundred miles per hour and it wasn't something that was expected.
There was also a large amount of surface roughness on the wings. This leads to an early transition to turbulence which leads to increased heating earlier in the descent. Combine that with a foam chunk tearing a whole in the wing and you get 7 more dead astronauts.
Both these things were not part of the expected behaviour of the shuttle. Folks at NASA didn't think they were particularly harmful or didn't appear to cause any harm. So they let them go because they rationalized it away without understanding why they were occurring and what effects they may have.
The older, more effective insulation foam, which was CFC based, was replaced with a much less effective foam that was more 'environmentally friendly' that was susceptible to breaking off in ways that the old foam was not:
m l2 /20 03/02/01.html/ DailyNews/shutt le_ross_safetyproblems030204.htmla rea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/510079 4.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77832,00.ht
http://education.atu.edu/people/sadams/blogger
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt
http://www.bay
How many shuttle wing breaches has Slashdot reported on lately? The last flight of Columbia is the biggest tragedy for nerds in quite some time. Should they also explain Napster, WiFi, or SCO's allegations in case you just came out of your cave?
A nice synopsis of the tank types, the flights they were used on, and so on:
The tank being used on Columbia was the older style. NASA has gotten exemptions from the EPA to use the old style tanks and foam. They happened to use an old one on this launch.
Meanwhile, astronauts have mentioned the problems with the foam since the earliest days of the program:
NASA's been working on this problem since before the first launch. Gee, it doesn't seem like a stark "environment vs. people" choice they made, does it?
You might want to consider your sources before you start assuming everything falls into the neat little cubbyholes your politics make you think of. Fox "News" has run a "special" claiming that the moon launches were all a big conspiracy; maybe that's not the best source for news about NASA. You think? (Meanwhile do we hear any liberals ranting about this all being Bush's fault? They seem to actually give a crap about the problem, rather than just vying to score faked-up political points.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
IANARS, and I'm way to late to reply to this thread, but why can't aerogel be used to fill any damage on shuttles' tiles?
When it first appeared in science rags and TV, it was promoted to be an easy and simple insulator of heat, showing blow torches applied opposite a piece of ice for emphasis. NASA's own website includes the pictures "1,400 degrees C" on one side, room temperature on the other.
John Glenn's flight, STS-95 included experiments on making the stuff in space.
Is anyone working with aerogel today and why can't we inject it into the wings of the shuttles to make them "solid insulator material" the whole way through or at least paste the stuff in any holes created like a space based caulk?
It's used on Stardust to capture, well, dust, and was used on pathfinder...
The only complaint I've seen, it is fragile so perhaps it would be pulverized on return...