PDA

View Full Version : What's with NASA going into Damage Control Mode?


gman
February 06, 2003, 13:54
When the Columbia went down they admitted to making a mistake in regards to the amount of tile damage done by the water/ice soaked foam block.

Ok, I can accept that; no one can ever be 100% correct, 100% of the time. Even if you have the absolute best and brightest engineers on your staff, you simply cannot predict everything everytime. I can accept that and I can forgive the mistake, those happen.

Now why go into damage control mode and begin saying, "something else must have happened". For once I would like to see a gub'mint agency simply accept it screwed up and get on with it. Now there will be all the fingerpointing and BS in the world when it could have just never happened.

I guess they just cannot admit the wing fell off after the hole got too big and the ship went down, since wings just don't fall off spaceships.

Blech! Those people.

EmbassyMarine
February 06, 2003, 14:10
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/02/05/MN192153.DTL

here is why...the Muslims were right Allah shot it down..

jfrost23
February 06, 2003, 14:21
There was some talk about the quality of the gluing process...yes, gluing...of the tiles on the shuttle...apparently it uses a paste...and that glue has to harden and is tested by pull and wiggle techniques. There was some speculation on the Coast to Coast show, otherwise known as the doom and gloom show, guaranteed to tell us thousands of ways we're all going to die in the near future.....possibly the company who bid the process may have cheated by adding too much water to it...essentially weakening the adhesion when placed under the incredible pressure of re-entry. Even sabotage was mentioned, as it may not have been just incompetence. All this stuff is probably being investigated.

spartacus2002
February 06, 2003, 16:12
Of course, the strangest theory I heard was that the Chinese zapped it down, to teach the US that the US isn't the only big kid on the block.

ProGun1
February 06, 2003, 22:29
A good public relation's speach is needed because they've pissed away too much for too little gain. Making martyrs using out dated technology and doing more for public relations than solving problems. What exactly do they do up there that they can't do in a vacuum chamber? Open a petri dish and swirl the jizz around. Big deal. Spend my money on a ICBM umbrella.

riffraff
February 06, 2003, 22:39
Originally posted by ProGun1
What exactly do they do up there that they can't do in a vacuum chamber? Unless you've come up with a way to eliminate gravity here on Earth, quite a bit.

Mebsuta
February 07, 2003, 01:11
Originally posted by ProGun1
A good public relation's speach is needed because they've pissed away too much for too little gain. Making martyrs using out dated technology and doing more for public relations than solving problems. What exactly do they do up there that they can't do in a vacuum chamber? Open a petri dish and swirl the jizz around. Big deal. Spend my money on a ICBM umbrella.

I think there are military missions for the shuttle that are kept in the shade. The govt. may tell us about the benign stuff. Going up into space, plucking something out of orbit, and bringing it back might be a pretty useful application. Could we have brought someone else's spy satellites back to earth?

BKinzey
February 07, 2003, 02:01
Because maybe something else happened? I hate it when people jump to conclusions.

Some people!:rolleyes:

HiramRanger
February 07, 2003, 08:17
Me too BK. I've known the NASA Administrator since I studied under him at the Maxwell School in 1994. I've never met a more honorable and honest public servant. He is a no BS, don't give me excuses give me results kind of guy... which is why he was sent to NASA in the first place. Would you rather have them say, yup that's the most obvious culprit, so it must be... or would you prefer they look at every possibility and get to the truth?

Seems to me a lot of people in this country need to have an answer... any answer immediately. Maybe it gives a sense of clsure, maybe in our microwave society we have forgotten patience. I would hardly say NASA is in damage control mode or covering anything up. I am a government political and public relations consultant. Damage control is something I am more than familiar with. NASA is engaged in the exact opposite. By providing as much information as they are they are laying their cards on the table and saying judge for yourself. That is a pretty dangerous strategy if you indeed have something to hide.

Eclipse
February 07, 2003, 08:24
Looks like the NASA administrators are attempting to insure that no one person is held responsible for the failure of the mission.

Standard goverment tactic - keep the root cause in doubt to save jobs and funding for the agency.

========================================
From Foxnews.com, it sounds like moisture laden environmentally friendly eco-foam may be the culprit.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77832,00.html

========================================

Did PC Science Cause Shuttle Disaster?

Friday, February 07, 2003
By Steven Milloy

NASA is reconsidering whether tank foam debris caused the Columbia disaster. That’s quite a shift from days earlier when the foam was the "leading candidate" -- an explanation that quickly became embarrassing.

We may never know precisely what happened to Columbia, but one thing should be clear -- NASA should not be in charge of investigating itself.

A chunk of foam insulation broke off the external fuel tank during launch, perhaps damaging Columbia’s heat-protecting tiles. “We’re making the assumption that the external tank was the root cause of the accident,” said shuttle program manager Ron Dittemore in the immediate aftermath.

It seemed a very reasonable assumption based on Columbia’s history.

Until 1997, Columbia’s external fuel tanks were insulated with a Freon-based foam. Freon is a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) supposedly linked with ozone depletion and phased out of widespread use under the international treaty known as the Montreal Protocol.

Despite that the Freon-based foam worked well and that an exemption from the CFC phase-out could have been obtained, NASA succumbed to political correctness. The agency substituted an allegedly more eco-friendly foam for the Freon-based foam.

PC-foam was an immediate problem.

The first mission with PC-foam resulted in 11 times more damaged thermal tiles on Columbia than the previous mission with the Freon-based foam.

A Dec. 23, 1997, diary entry on the NASA Web site reported: “308 hits were counted during the inspection, 132 were greater than 1-inch. Some of the hits measured 15 inches long, with depths measuring up to 1.5 inches. Considering that the depth of a tile is 2 inches, a 75 percent penetration depth had been reached.”

More than 100 tiles were damaged beyond repair, well over the normal count of 40. Flaking PC-foam was the chief suspect.

In 2001, the Environmental Protection Agency exempted NASA from the CFC phase-out. Even assuming for the sake of argument that widespread use of CFCs might significantly damage the ozone layer, the relatively small amount used by NASA would have no measurable impact. The bulk of CFC use, after all, was in consumer products such as air conditioners, refrigerators and aerosol cans.

But contrary to the exercise of common sense, NASA didn’t return to the safer Freon-based foam. Instead, NASA knowingly continued to risk tile damage -- and disaster -- with reformulated PC-foam.

This is obviously a potentially embarrassing situation for NASA.

In what smacks of an effort to avoid blame, NASA is now claiming the disintegration of Columbia has turned into a scientific mystery.

NASA says computer modeling fails to show how foam insulation striking the thermal tiles could do enough damage to cause catastrophe -- apparently ignoring that flaking foam substantially penetrated thermal tiles on an earlier flight.

NASA has even offered up the ultimate exculpatory theory -- that space junk or even a meteor could have hit the wing and damage the thermal tiles.

It’s certainly possible that a force majeure could have caused the disaster. But I’d like to see qualified independent experts come to that improbable conclusion.

Instead, NASA administrator Sean O’Keefe has activated the Space Shuttle Mishap Interagency Investigation Board. The board is a standing panel created by NASA in the mid-1990s. Its members are generals and other senior bureaucrats from the Department of Transportation -- except that no one from the National Transportation Safety Board is on the panel.

The appearance of independence is lacking. The board is a NASA creation. Its senior government bureaucrats may be reluctant to blame fellow senior bureaucrats. I also wonder whether the panel members personally possess the requisite technical expertise to investigate the accident.

The combination of NASA’s “lone meteor theory” and self-anointed commission strikes me as eerily similar to the Warren Commission and its controversial, if not dubious “lone gunman theory” for the assassination of President Kennedy.

Further, NASA previously dismantled its supposedly “independent” Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel after it questioned the agency’s long-term plans for safety.

NASA is not above pulling the wool over the public’s eyes for its own benefit.

Facing significant budget cuts in 1997, NASA produced the “Mars rock” -- a softball-sized meteorite found in Antarctica in 1984 containing complex organic molecules. Hoping to boost interest in the agency’s mission -- and its budget -- NASA boasted the rock was “evidence of primitive life on early Mars.”

Mars rock soon turned out to be Mars crock. Independent scientists arrived at a much more plausible Earth-bound explanation for the presence of the organic molecules.

NASA is an agency under pressure -- its mission is unclear and its budget demands are high. The last thing NASA needs is for its political correctness or other avoidable errors on the part of the agency to be the cause of the Columbia disaster.

The investigation into what happened to Columbia needs to be turned over to a truly independent and qualified commission -- and before the evidentiary trail starts to disappear.


Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and the author of Junk Science Judo: Self-defense Against Health Scares and Scams (Cato Institute, 2001).

EMDII
February 07, 2003, 08:27
The physics simply don't justify the notion that the foam had sufficient mv^2 (KE) or MV (Momentum) to cause significant damage to the tiles. NASA is IMO telling the truth. Yes, the shuttle was up to 1500 mph, and , the foam hit the wing structure. But the delta-V just doesn't support a conclusion of sufficient damage to cause a catastrophic failure of this sort.

I don't think it's damage control. The mediatainment leapt onto the tiles issue, and NASA's intial evaluation of 'so-what?'. Additional examinations of the event STILL lead to the conclusion that the physics won't cause a failure. Some pre-exisitng condition may have caused this IMO, or an in-flight event, perhaps even as the shuttle re-entered.

It is entirely possible that it may have been a golden BB. A VERY small piece of space debris or a micrometeorite hit the shuttle while it was nose-high attitude (high alpha) making intiial re-entry transition. Recent info about trails over California where witnesses may have observed the incipient destruction lead me to this conclusion. It is also possible the damage occurred in orbit, and again was a golden BB.

Ockham's Razor reminds us to seek the simplest solution. It has the highest probability of being the truth. The foam insulation just doesn't fit: it is too simplisitic, and not simple. In order to have caused the destruction, the tiles would've been so damaged rising to orbit while the atmosphere was MUCH DENSER . So temperature alarms would have/should have come in then too.

In all my experience with scientific casualties, the laws of physics have ALWAYS decided the eventual and true root cause. Always.

God rest their soulds. NASA has a tough job, and the Mediatainment is off and running.

gman
February 07, 2003, 10:55
Well Ted sometimes the simplistic is the answer; while the damage occurred at a lower altitude, the difference between 1,500 and 12,500 is what? Since you have understanding of physics you'll know that friction with the air increases exponentially as you go faster. So while the air was dense where the damage occurred, it became less dense as the ship went up. Since you quote Occam's Razor, I will too...

Air Force imagery confirms Columbia wing damaged
BY CRAIG COVAULT
AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY/aviationnow.com
PUBLISHED HERE WITH PERMISSION
Posted: February 7, 2003

High-resolution images taken from a ground-based Air Force tracking camera in southwestern U.S. show serious structural damage to the inboard leading edge of Columbia's left wing, as the crippled orbiter flew overhead about 60 sec. before the vehicle broke up over Texas killing the seven astronauts on board Feb. 1.

According to sources close to the investigation, the images, under analysis at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, show a jagged edge on the left inboard wing structure near where the wing begins to intersect the fuselage. They also show the orbiter's right aft yaw thrusters firing, trying to correct the vehicle's attitude that was being adversely affected by the left wing damage. Columbia's fuselage and right wing appear normal. Unlike the damaged and jagged left wing section, the right wing appears smooth along its entire length. The imagery is consistent with telemetry.

The ragged edge on the left leading edge, indicates that either a small structural breach -- such as a crack -- occurred, allowing the 2,500F reentry heating to erode additional structure there, or that a small portion of the leading edge fell off at that location.

Either way, the damage affected the vehicle's flying qualities as well as allowed hot gases to flow into critical wing structure -- a fatal combination.

It is possible, but yet not confirmed, that the impact of foam debris from the shuttle's external tank during launch could have played a role in damage to the wing leading edge, where the deformity appears in USAF imagery.

If that is confirmed by the independent investigation team, it would mean that, contrary to initial shuttle program analysis, the tank debris event at launch played a key role in the root cause of the accident.

Another key factor is that the leading edge of the shuttle wing where the jagged shape was photographed transitions from black thermal protection tiles to a much different mechanical system made of reinforced carbon-carbon material that is bolted on, rather than glued on as the tiles are.

This means that in addition to the possible failure of black tile at the point where the wing joins the fuselage, a failure involving the attachment mechanisms for the leading edge sections could also be a factor, either related or not to the debris impact. The actual front structure of a shuttle wing is flat. To provide aerodynamic shape and heat protection, each wing is fitted with 22 U-shaped reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC) leading-edge structures. The carbon material in the leading edge, as well as the orbiter nose cap, is designed to protect the shuttle from temperatures above 2,300F during reentry. Any breach of this leading-edge material would have catastrophic consequences.

The U-shaped RCC sections are attached to the wing "with a series of floating joints to reduce loading on the panels due to wing deflections," according to Boeing data on the attachment mechanism.

"The [critical heat protection] seal between each wing leading-edge panel is referred to as a 'tee' seal," according to Boeing, and are also made of a carbon material.

The tee seals allow lateral motion and thermal expansion differences between the carbon sections and sections of the orbiter wing that remain much cooler during reentry.

In addition to debris impact issues, investigators will likely examine whether any structural bending between the cooler wing structure and the more-than-2,000F leading edge sections could have played a role in the accident. There is insulation packed between the cooler wing structure and the bowl-shaped cavity formed by the carbon leading-edge sections.

The RCC leading-edge structures are bolted to the wing using Inconel fittings that attach to aluminum flanges on the front of the wing.

The initial NASA Mission Management Team (MMT) assessment of the debris impact made Jan. 18, two days after launch, noted "The strike appears to have occurred on or relatively close to the "wing glove" near the orbiter fuselage.

The term "wing glove" generally refers to the area where the RCC bolt-on material is closest to the fuselage. This is also the general area where USAF imagery shows structural damage.

The second MMT summary analyzing the debris hit was made on Jan. 20 and had no mention of the leading-edge wing glove area. That report was more focused on orbiter black tiles on the vehicle's belly. The third and final summary issued on Jan. 27 discusses the black tiles again, but also specifically says "Damage to the RCC [wing leading edge] should be limited to [its] coating only and have no mission impact." Investigators in Houston are trying to match the location of the debris impact with the jagged edge shown in the Air Force imagery.

Columbia reentry accident investigators are also trying to determine if, as in the case of the case of Challenger's accident 17 years ago, an undesirable materials characteristic noted on previous flights -- in this case the STS-112 separation of external tank insulation foam debris -- was misjudged by engineers as to its potential for harm, possibly by using analytical tools and information inadequate to truly identify and quantify the threat to the shuttle. As of late last week, NASA strongly asserted this was not the case, but intense analysis on that possibility continues.

The shuttle is now grounded indefinitely and the impact on major crew resupply and assembly flights to the International Space Station remain under intense review.

Killed in the accident were STS-107 Mission Commander USAF Col. Rick Husband; copilot Navy Cdr. William McCool; flight engineer, Kalpana Chawla; payload commander, USAF Lt. Col. Michael Anderson; mission specialist physician astronauts Navy Capt. Laurel Clark and Navy Capt. David Brown and Israeli Air Force Col. Ilan Ramon.

"We continue to recover crew remains and we are handling that process with the utmost care, the utmost respect and dignity," said Ronald Dittemore, shuttle program manager.

No matter what the investigations show, there are no apparent credible crew survival options for the failure Columbia experienced. With the ISS out of reach in a far different orbit, there were no credible rescue options if even if wing damage had been apparent before reentry -- which it was not.

If, in the midst of its 16-day flight, wing damage had been found to be dire, the only potential -- but still unlikely -- option would have been the formulation over several days by Mission Control of a profile that could have, perhaps, reduced heating on the damaged wing at the expense of the other wing for an unguided reentry, with scant hope the vehicle would remain controllable to about 40,000 ft., allowing for crew bailout over an ocean.

Reentry is a starkly unforgiving environment where three out of the four fatal manned space flight accidents over the last 35 years have occurred.

These include the Soyuz 1 reentry accident that killed cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov in 1967 and the 1971 Soyuz 11 reentry accident that killed three cosmonauts returning after the first long-duration stay on the Salyut 1 space station.

The only fatal launch accident has been Challenger in 1986, although Apollo astronauts Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee were killed when fire developed in their spacecraft during a launch pad test not involving launch.

No other accident in aviation history has been seen by so many eyewitnesses than the loss of Columbia -- visible in five states.

Telemetry and photographic analysis indicate the breakup of the historic orbiter took place as she slowed from Mach 20-to-18 across California, Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico with the loss of structural integrity 205,000 ft. over north central Texas where most of the debris fell.

The science-driven STS-107 crew was completing 16 days of complex work in their Spacehab Research Double module and were 16 min. from landing at Kennedy when lost. Landing was scheduled for 8:16 a.m. CST.

Abnormal telemetry events in the reentry began at 7:52 a.m. CST as the vehicle was crossing the coast north of San Francisco at 43 mi. alt., about Mach 20.

The orbiter at this time was in a 43-deg. right bank completing its initial bank maneuver to the south for initial energy dissipation and ranging toward the Kennedy runway still nearly 3,000 mi. away.

That initial bank had been as steep as about 80 deg. between Hawaii and the California coast, a normal flight path angle for the early part of the reentry. The abnormal events seen on orbiter telemetry in Houston indicate a slow penetration of reentry heat into the orbiter and damage on the wing, overpowering the flight control system. Key events were:


7:52 a.m. CST: Three left main landing gear brakeline temperatures show an unusual rise. "This was the first occurrence of a significant thermal event in the left wheel well," Dittemore said. Engineers do not believe the left wheel well was breached, but rather that hot gasses were somehow finding a flow path within the wing to reach the wheel well.


7:53 a.m. CST: A fourth left brakeline strut temperature measurement rose significantly -- about 30-40 deg. in 5 min.


7:54 a.m. CST: With the orbiter over eastern California and western Nevada, the mid-fuselage mold line where the left wing meets the fuselage showed an unusual temperature rise. The 60F rise over 5 min. was not dramatic, but showed that something was heating the wing fuselage interface area at this time. Wing leading edge and belly temperatures were over 2,000F. While the outside fuselage wall was heating, the inside wall remained cool as normal.


7:55 a.m. CST: A fifth left main gear temperature sensor showed an unusual rise.


7:57 a.m. CST: As Columbia was passing over Arizona and New Mexico, the orbiter's upper and lower left wing temperature sensors failed, probably indicating their lines had been cut. The orbiter was also rolling back to the left into about a 75-deg. left bank angle, again to dissipate energy and for navigation and guidance toward Runway 33 at Kennedy, then about 1,800 mi. away.


7:58 a.m. CST: Still over New Mexico, the elevons began to move to adjust orbiter roll axis trim, indicating an increase in drag on the left side of the vehicle. That could be indicative of "rough tile or missing tile but we are not sure," Dittemore said. At the same time, the elevons were reacting to increased drag on the left side of the vehicle, the left main landing gear tire pressures and wheel temperature measurements failed. This was indicative of a loss of the sensor, not the explosion or failure of the left main gear tires, Dittemore believes. The sensors were lost in a staggered fashion.


7:59 a.m. CST: Additional elevon motion is commanded by the flight control system to counteract right side drag. The drag was trying to roll the vehicle to the left, while the flight control system was commanding the elevons to roll it back to the right.
But the rate of left roll was beginning to overpower the elevons, so the control system fired two 870-lb. thrust right yaw thrusters to help maintain the proper flight path angle. The firing lasted 1.5 sec. and, along with the tire pressure data and elevon data, would have been noted by the pilots.

At about this time, the pilots made a short transmission that was clipped and essentially unintelligible

In Mission Control, astronaut Marine Lt. Col. Charles Hobaugh, the spacecraft communicator on reentry flight director Leroy Cain's team, radioed "Columbia we see your tire pressure [telemetry[ messages and we did not copy your last transmission."

One of the pilots then radioed "Roger," but appeared to be cut off in mid transmission by static. For a moment there was additional static and sounds similar to an open microphone on Columbia but no transmissions from the crew.

All data from the orbiter then stopped and the position plot display in Mission Control froze over Texas, although an additional 30 sec. of poor data may have been captured.

Controllers in Mission Control thought they were experiencing an unusual but non-critical data drop out. But they had also taken notice of the unusual buildup of sensor telemetry in the preceding few minutes.

About 3 min. after all data flow stopped, Hobaugh in mission control began transmitting in the blind to Columbia on the UHF backup radio system. "Columbia, Houston, UHF comm. check" he repeated every 15-30 sec., but to no avail. In central Texas, thousands of people at that moment were observing the orbiter break up at Mach 18.3 and 207,000 ft.

Milt Heflin, Chief of the Flight Director's office said he looked at the frozen data plots. "I and others stared at that for a long time because the tracking ended over Texas. It just stopped. It was was then that I reflected back on what I saw [in Mission Control] with Challenger."

The loss of Challenger occurred 17 years and four days before the loss of Columbia.

"Our landscape has changed," Heflin said. "The space flight business today is going to be much different than yesterday.

"It was different after the Apollo fire, it was different after Challenger."

Columbia, the first winged reusable manned spacecraft first launched in April 1981, was lost on her 28th mission on the 113th shuttle flight.

EMDII
February 07, 2003, 11:15
g-

I won't take issue w/ the quote
It is possible, but yet not confirmed, that the impact of foam debris from the shuttle's external tank during launch could have played a role in damage to the wing leading edge, where the deformity appears in USAF imagery.

It seems no one, not even USAF, has ruled on the issue. When NASA backed away from this 'foam' event, it was before they were apprised of this USAF imagery (posted the 7th, and the basis for my 'kind' rebuttal).

And if the speed increased to orbital velocities, then the 'jagged edge' would've been deformed rather well, and we still should've gotten alarms. N'est-ce pas:?

I posit that NASA and USAF and mediatainment don't yet KNOW what happened. It's not always a conspiracy :wink: and what happened at 400,000+ feet altitude (over PRKA) will be hard to ascertain. What is the resolution of the tracking camera? What is the lowest possible size of a deformity/jagged edge viewable at that resolution? Can the foam deliver sufficient delta-KE to cause this jagged edge? That is Ockam's Razor to me. Proximate Cause does NOT equal Root Cause, acccording to the all the diverse failure analysis mechanisms I've been forced to study.

I don't really know. But having friends in the scinetific community convinces me that NASA is NOT doing damage control. Lets link ALL the physics, not just the ones that suit our presumprtions.

VKR-
:smile:

gman
February 07, 2003, 11:36
"And if the speed increased to orbital velocities, then the 'jagged edge' would've been deformed rather well, and we still should've gotten alarms. N'est-ce pas"

I don't think so. From the timeline they had been in re-entry quite a while before problems started cropping up, so it appears that this took some time to get going.

I posit that NASA and USAF and mediatainment don't yet KNOW what happened. "It's not always a conspiracy"

You know Ted I take offense at that statement. I see this as a subtle tool; you don't want something discussed so you label that person as one of the conspiracy nuts that hangs out here. Gee thanks. You misread what I wrote. I stated they appeared not to be able to accept they made a mistake, not they were trying to hide something. I belive by your statement it is you Sir, who are more prone to "finding" conspiracies where there are none.

crowbait
February 07, 2003, 22:48
Do a google search on the shuttle tiles. You will find a couple of gems in there. One of the first articles to pop up explains how the
tiles are attached. Base aluminum skin, rubber based glue, Nylon
felt, rubber based glue, tile.

Another thing that will pop up is a NASA report , look for the name Curry, that explains the problems that they are having
with the carbon fiber leading edges, seals and nose cone.
According to this report, page 10, the goal for impact resistance
for the wing component leading edge is 16 INCH pounds.
Thats not very much energy resistance. This report is in PDF
format, about 800k. If you can't find it I would be happy to email to you. crowbait

u04174
February 08, 2003, 22:42
Rant on

NASA has told the media that they will issue information as they learn it and may have to rescind it after more data is learned.

NASA has not said one way or the other about a "mistaken" analysis. They are still trying to learn more and refine analysis.


No one KNOWS what happened to date.

Rant off

EMDII
February 09, 2003, 09:06
Originally posted by gman
You know Ted I take offense at that statement. I see this as a subtle tool; you don't want something discussed so you label that person as one of the conspiracy nuts that hangs out here. Gee thanks. You misread what I wrote. I stated they appeared not to be able to accept they made a mistake, not they were trying to hide something. I belive by your statement it is you Sir, who are more prone to "finding" conspiracies where there are none.

Mea Culpa good sir! While I was certainly trying to defuse the commentary, I have no fault w/ your concern that NASA has dug-in. SO, my apologies, heartfelt and sincere. I'd rather have a sceptical friend than a 'yes-gman' anytime.

Looking at the pics, it appears that the edge is WAY big. The resolution looked in the 24" size or so (SWAG). WHAT could cause that big a deformity?

CDReid
February 09, 2003, 15:44
Calm down guys no reason to get upset.

Just some tidbits.

In the 80's i saw a report that said the DOD reserved 50% of the shuttles payload. I dont know if that means they used it but at least they had a contractual right to it.

The shuttle was designed to safely reenter after losing a certain amount of tiles. In addition the shuttle carried an 'emergency tile repair' kit.

From what i saw it doesnt sound like it was an overheating problem at all. Nasa apparently lost all telemetry from the wing, quickly followed by all telemetry from the shuttle period. It sounds to me like it was a simple airframe failure. IE the shuttle is old and had developed stress fractures (the reason they retire old airliners that appear perfectly serviceable) and when it got a little off kilter the stresses caused the wing to fail. All of this is just conjecture though.


What really strikes me , as usual is nasa using the same ploy the CIA did after 9/11 and missing the fall of communism (ya.. they didnt have a clue) "We failed Horrendously.. therefore we need more money to do it right"

Only in government does catastrophic failure and astounding incompetance get you a budget increase. Time to privatise nasa?

Charles
*thinks on this and wonders if maybe the animal who shot the woman and child at ruby ridge and was involved in waco got a Raise.. only in government*

Para Driver
February 09, 2003, 15:59
In the 80's i saw a report that said the DOD reserved 50% of the shuttles payload. I dont know if that means they used it but at least they had a contractual right to it.

and what exactly do you think they are putting up there? Twinkies and Ho-Hos? Even my 5 year old knows that unloaded guns go bang if not handled properly.

The crew is 90% military, c'mon just put 2+2 together,,

ice9
February 09, 2003, 21:01
"In addition the shuttle carried an 'emergency tile repair' kit."

How could this be the case? I thought the tiles were secured over the thermal blankets with epoxy that wouldn't set in a vacum? Can you remember where you saw that, as I am curious. Thanks.

Para Driver
February 10, 2003, 11:18
Originally posted by ice9
"In addition the shuttle carried an 'emergency tile repair' kit."

How could this be the case? I thought the tiles were secured over the thermal blankets with epoxy that wouldn't set in a vacum? Can you remember where you saw that, as I am curious. Thanks.

screws and plugs would be a good thing?

CDReid
February 15, 2003, 22:25
Sorry been reinstalling over and over trying to get morrowind to run.

It was on one of those braindead morning shows or maybe on the evening news (add in braindead there too). I know they do carry emergency replacement tiles though im not sure how they attach them. I dont see why a different glue couldnt be used in space or even a different kind of tile. It only has to hold through reentry.

As to the 50% being military.. well of course theyre putting military payloads up. For one thing theyve put a Lot of GPS sattelites up. Theyve of course put a lot of spy sattelites up. Echelon i would imagine uses lots of sattelites designed to intercept data. You can bet we and the soviets have 'hunter-killer' sattelites up too. The only other ways to take 'enemy' sattelites down is a nuke in orbit which also takes yours out, or a ground based attack which is damned near silly. I imagine experimental beam weapon and other weapon projects as well. You thought your government wasnt doing evil with the 300 billion a year we're pumping into new ways to kill people who dont get with the corporate plan??

EMDII
February 16, 2003, 09:03
I imagine experimental beam weapon and other weapon projects as well. You thought your government wasnt doing evil with the 300 billion a year we're pumping into new ways to kill people who dont get with the corporate plan??

"I imagine" says it all. You conspire, and an imagination helps when you conspire. "Why wish you Jedi to be, yes:?"

Nope, no HK satellites. LOTS of KeyHoles, Iridiums, etc. The bean projects have left the ground in specially modified aircraft, but have yet to take flight in a satellite. Read some of the aviation magazines: they actually have pretty decent intel.

eodinert
February 16, 2003, 20:50
We may never know precisely what happened to Columbia, but one thing should be clear -- NASA should not be in charge of investigating itself.

They shouldn't be blamestorming, they should be trying to figure out what happened. ...Yeah, lets put the treasury department in charge of the investigation, they'll find the cause (not!).

EMDII
February 17, 2003, 13:28
I guess that's why they appointed an independent commission, and NASA is a non-voting member of the commission.