Shuttle Foam Test Yields Hole in Wing - Associated Press

[Rusty B]

Shuttle Foam Test Yields Hole in Wing

Columbia Investigators Fire Foam Insulation at Shuttle Wing, Blowing
Open 2-Foot Hole

The Associated Press

SAN ANTONIO July 7 —
The team investigating the Columbia disaster fired a chunk of foam
insulation at shuttle wing parts Monday and blew open a gaping 2-foot
hole, offering dramatic evidence to support the theory of what doomed
the spaceship.

The crowd of about 100 gasped and cried, "Wow!" when the foam hit.

The foam struck roughly the same spot where insulation that broke off
Columbia's big external fuel tank during launch smashed into the
shuttle's wing. Investigators believe the damage led to the ship's
destruction during re-entry over Texas in February, killing all seven
astronauts.

It was the seventh and final foam-impact test by the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board, and it yielded by far the most severe damage.

The 1.67-pound piece of fuel tank foam insulation shot out of a
35-foot nitrogen-pressurized gun and slammed into a carbon-reinforced
panel removed from shuttle Atlantis.

The countdown boomed through loudspeakers, and the crack of the foam
coming out at more than 500 mph reverberated in the field where the
test was conducted.

Twelve high-speed cameras six inside the wing mock-up and six outside
captured the event. Hundreds of sensors registered movements, stresses
and other conditions.

NASA will continue gathering more information about the poorly
understood pieces that line the vulnerable leading edges of shuttle
wings, board member Scott Hubbard said.

One month ago, another carbon shuttle wing panel smaller and farther
inboard was cracked by the impact, in addition to an adjoining seal.
This time, the entire 11 1/2-inch width of the foam chunk rather than
just a corner during previous tests hit the wing, putting maximum
stress on the suspect area.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030707_1189.html

[Kegwasher]

Rusty B wrote:

> Shuttle Foam Test Yields Hole in Wing
>
> Columbia Investigators Fire Foam Insulation at Shuttle Wing, Blowing
> Open 2-Foot Hole
>
> The Associated Press
>
> SAN ANTONIO July 7 —
> The team investigating the Columbia disaster fired a chunk of foam
> insulation at shuttle wing parts Monday and blew open a gaping 2-foot
> hole, offering dramatic evidence to support the theory of what doomed
> the spaceship.
>
> The crowd of about 100 gasped and cried, "Wow!" when the foam hit.
>

In the immortal words of Rosanne Rosanna Dana,

Well now, that's different.

[Dale]

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 22:21:00 +0200, Kegwasher > wrote:

>In the immortal words of Rosanne Rosanna Dana,
>
>Well now, that's different.

I think that was Emily Litella :)

Dale

[Steven Van Impe]

> The 1.67-pound piece of fuel tank foam insulation shot out of a
> 35-foot nitrogen-pressurized gun and slammed into a carbon-reinforced
> panel removed from shuttle Atlantis.

/me gets an image flash of all remaining shuttles being blown to pieces by
the CAIB investigators... "look, if you punch it here, it breaks too!"

I didn't realize they were stripping the existing fleet to perform these
tests. Couldn't they take spare parts for this, or produce test samples?


Steven

[Herb Schaltegger]

In article >,
"Steven Van Impe" > wrote:

> I didn't realize they were stripping the existing fleet to perform these
> tests. Couldn't they take spare parts for this, or produce test samples?
>

One of the purposes of the impact tests is to characterize damage caused
to flight-aged RCC segments. A serious issue (one that hasn't been
studied much if at all) is how RCC ages - how do its mechanical
properties change with time and exposure to flight conditions, for
example? Testing flight components of similar age to those on Columbia
will allow the CAIB the greatest confidence available in reaching its
conclusions. Testing newly-made test articles and/or stored spares
would be valuable in quantifying age as a factor in Columbia's
destruction - for instance, if new-made RCC segments don't fracture
under test conditions like the test articles have, then it becomes a
priority for NASA to institute some RCC manufaturing capability and make
up some new flight sets. On the other hand, such tests aren't truly
necessary for the CAIB's purpose, which is to determine the most likely
cause or set of contributing factors to the loss of Columbia and her
crew.

--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks

[Brian Thorn]

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 22:21:00 +0200, Kegwasher >
wrote:


>> SAN ANTONIO July 7 —
>> The team investigating the Columbia disaster fired a chunk of foam
>> insulation at shuttle wing parts Monday and blew open a gaping 2-foot
>> hole, offering dramatic evidence to support the theory of what doomed
>> the spaceship.
>>
>> The crowd of about 100 gasped and cried, "Wow!" when the foam hit.

>Well now, that's different.

Or, "let's keep firing bigger pieces of foam at the wing until we get
results that match our theory..."

Nevermind that the foam chunks are now much larger and travelling much
faster than the computer models predict for STS-107. I don't want to
start sounding like JTM, but there seems to be something a little
weird about these tests.

Brian

[Paul F. Dietz]

Brian Thorn wrote:

> Nevermind that the foam chunks are now much larger and travelling much
> faster than the computer models predict for STS-107. I don't want to
> start sounding like JTM, but there seems to be something a little
> weird about these tests.

The foam is the same mass as used on earlier tests, I believe.
The impact energy also is a function of how fast the foam was spinning,
and the damage is a function of whether the foam hits flat
side on or edge on (the latter delivers the impulse over a longer
period, for a lower maximum force.)

BTW, I hope those persons who were arguing against improved photography
will now have the grace to reconsider their positions.

Paul

[Hallerb]

>I didn't realize they were stripping the existing fleet to perform these
>tests. Couldn't they take spare parts for this, or produce test samples?
>
>
>Steven
>

The want to use flight flown parts.

[Mr. Computer]

"Rusty B" > wrote in message
om...
> Shuttle Foam Test Yields Hole in Wing
>
> Columbia Investigators Fire Foam Insulation at Shuttle Wing, Blowing
> Open 2-Foot Hole
>
> The Associated Press
>
> SAN ANTONIO July 7 -
> The team investigating the Columbia disaster fired a chunk of foam
> insulation at shuttle wing parts Monday and blew open a gaping 2-foot
> hole, offering dramatic evidence to support the theory of what doomed
> the spaceship.
>
> The crowd of about 100 gasped and cried, "Wow!" when the foam hit.
>
> The foam struck roughly the same spot where insulation that broke off
> Columbia's big external fuel tank during launch smashed into the
> shuttle's wing. Investigators believe the damage led to the ship's
> destruction during re-entry over Texas in February, killing all seven
> astronauts.
>
> It was the seventh and final foam-impact test by the Columbia Accident
> Investigation Board, and it yielded by far the most severe damage.
>
> The 1.67-pound piece of fuel tank foam insulation shot out of a
> 35-foot nitrogen-pressurized gun and slammed into a carbon-reinforced
> panel removed from shuttle Atlantis.
>
> The countdown boomed through loudspeakers, and the crack of the foam
> coming out at more than 500 mph reverberated in the field where the

500 MPH!!!!! How did anyone come up with that figure? Seems excessive to
me.

> test was conducted.
>
> Twelve high-speed cameras six inside the wing mock-up and six outside
> captured the event. Hundreds of sensors registered movements, stresses
> and other conditions.
>
> NASA will continue gathering more information about the poorly
> understood pieces that line the vulnerable leading edges of shuttle
> wings, board member Scott Hubbard said.
>
> One month ago, another carbon shuttle wing panel smaller and farther
> inboard was cracked by the impact, in addition to an adjoining seal.
> This time, the entire 11 1/2-inch width of the foam chunk rather than
> just a corner during previous tests hit the wing, putting maximum
> stress on the suspect area.
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030707_1189.html

jbw

[OM]

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 22:21:00 +0200, Kegwasher >
wrote:

>In the immortal words of Rosanne Rosanna Dana,
>
>Well now, that's different.

....Emily Litella, actually.


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Jorge R. Frank]

"Mr. Computer" > wrote in
. com:

> "Rusty B" > wrote in message
> om...
>> Shuttle Foam Test Yields Hole in Wing
>>
>> Columbia Investigators Fire Foam Insulation at Shuttle Wing, Blowing
>> Open 2-Foot Hole
>>
>> The Associated Press

>> The countdown boomed through loudspeakers, and the crack of the foam
>> coming out at more than 500 mph reverberated in the field where the
>
> 500 MPH!!!!! How did anyone come up with that figure? Seems
> excessive to me.

http://www.caib.us/news/meetings/ph030506_present_byrne.html


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[Murray Anderson]

"Brian Thorn" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 22:21:00 +0200, Kegwasher >
> wrote:
>
>
> >> SAN ANTONIO July 7 -
> >> The team investigating the Columbia disaster fired a chunk of foam
> >> insulation at shuttle wing parts Monday and blew open a gaping 2-foot
> >> hole, offering dramatic evidence to support the theory of what doomed
> >> the spaceship.
> >>
> >> The crowd of about 100 gasped and cried, "Wow!" when the foam hit.
>
> >Well now, that's different.
>
> Or, "let's keep firing bigger pieces of foam at the wing until we get
> results that match our theory..."
>
> Nevermind that the foam chunks are now much larger and travelling much
> faster than the computer models predict for STS-107. I don't want to
> start sounding like JTM, but there seems to be something a little
> weird about these tests.
>
> Brian

The best estimate of the foam size/impact speed is 1240 cubic inches/775
fps, according to Scott Hubbard's May 13 press briefing
(http://www.caib.us/news/press_briefings/rt030513_present.html, slide 9).
The foam size for the June 6 test was 1391 cubic inches (calculated from
dimensions), weight 1.68 lbs, and the the impact velocity 768 fps, according
to Scott Hubbard's June 12 press briefing
(http://www.caib.us/news/press_briefings/rt030612_present.html).
According to Hubbard's June 24 briefing, the target foam size in all the
tests is 1.67 lbs and the target speed of impact is 775 fps
(http://www.caib.us/news/press_briefings/rt030624.html).
According to William Harwood
(http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts107/030707impacttest/) the foam
weighed 1.67 lbs and the impact speed was "over 500 mph". 775 fps = 528 mph.

Thus the foam size is slightly larger than the best estimate of Columbia
foam size, possibly to take rotational kinetic energy into account, and the
impact speed is the same. Why do you think there's something wrong with the
tests?

Murray Anderson

[Brian Thorn]

On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 22:17:28 -0400, "Murray Anderson"
> wrote:

>Thus the foam size is slightly larger than the best estimate of Columbia
>foam size, possibly to take rotational kinetic energy into account, and the
>impact speed is the same. Why do you think there's something wrong with the
>tests?

It seems to me that they're adjusting the tests to fit the theory
('there was a hole in the RCC') instead of performing the tests and
adjusting the theory to fit observed results.

They started with a 2" crack as a result of the test. Then they tested
again and got a bigger crack and a loose T-Seal. Now they've gotten a
big honkin' hole in the RCC. Well, if they fire 100 lbs of foam, I bet
they can take the whole wing off. Is that tomorrow's test?

Brian

[Jorge R. Frank]

Brian Thorn > wrote in
:

> They started with a 2" crack as a result of the test. Then they tested
> again and got a bigger crack and a loose T-Seal. Now they've gotten a
> big honkin' hole in the RCC. Well, if they fire 100 lbs of foam, I bet
> they can take the whole wing off. Is that tomorrow's test?

It was my impression that the tests used the same foam mass and speed, and
the main variables were 1) the first RCC test used an (age unknown) panel 6
while today's used panel 8 from Discovery (the fleet leader), and 2) the
angle of impact (corner vs. full-side).

If any of those impressions are incorrect, please correct me.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[OM]

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 03:10:52 GMT, Brian Thorn >
wrote:

>It seems to me that they're adjusting the tests to fit the theory
>('there was a hole in the RCC') instead of performing the tests and
>adjusting the theory to fit observed results.

....Hardly. The early tests pretty much matched the tests to a "T"(*),
and had the tests included atmospheric ascent drag for the full
duration from launch to orbit, we would probably have seen more
fracturing. Subsequent tests are to validate existing test results, as
well as push envelopes.

Bottom Line: There hasn't been any need to adjust the theory because
the tests so far have pretty much confirmed it's accurate as-is.

(*) No pun intended, natch.
OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Steven Van Impe]

> Steven Van Impe > wrote:
> >I didn't realize they were stripping the existing fleet to perform these
> >tests. Couldn't they take spare parts for this, or produce test samples?
>
> If you're trying to test vulnerability of existing shuttles, you want a
> used part, not a fresh spare. (And the same argument applies if you
> suspect that the test is going to wreck an extremely expensive part.)

Thanks Henry and Herb, I hadn't thought of that. I've just seen the pictures
of the test at the CNN website, really frightening.


Steven

[Jan C. Vorbrüggen]

> It was my impression that the tests used the same foam mass and speed, and
> the main variables were 1) the first RCC test used an (age unknown) panel 6
> while today's used panel 8 from Discovery (the fleet leader), and 2) the
> angle of impact (corner vs. full-side).

I believe that the panel 6 that was used was also from Discovery, or possibly
Atlantis, which have seen a similar number of missions. The big difference is
that panel 6 is short and only slightly curved, while panel 8 is the largest
of all and strongly curved.

Seems Columbia suffered the hit at the worst possible spot.

Jan

[Paul F. Dietz]

Jan C. Vorbrüggen wrote:

> Seems Columbia suffered the hit at the worst possible spot.

Which should be very troubling. If this accident turns out to
have had a low a priori probability, then it's likely that fixing
its causes does very little to improve the safety of the shuttle.

Paul

[Hallerb]

>
>Which should be very troubling. If this accident turns out to
>have had a low a priori probability, then it's likely that fixing
>its causes does very little to improve the safety of the shuttle.
>Paul
>

Yeah but still must be fixed. Wonder how many other such problems are in the
shuttle?

I would like to see what a newer panel does under the same test.

[jeff findley]

"Steven Van Impe" > writes:
>
> /me gets an image flash of all remaining shuttles being blown to pieces by
> the CAIB investigators... "look, if you punch it here, it breaks too!"
>
> I didn't realize they were stripping the existing fleet to perform these
> tests. Couldn't they take spare parts for this, or produce test samples?

Not really. You want to test with parts that are as close as possible
to the ones on the aircraft you're investigating. Since Columbia was
such an old bird, this means finding RCC that's flown many times
before, not some spare sitting on the shelf or a new part just
delivered by the manufacturer.

Besides, given the down time, it might be prudent to put the best,
newest RCC parts possible on the remaining orbiters, before next
flight. Considering the degradation of the panels due to time sitting
on the pad (sea air and paint flecks from the launch pad), this seems
especially prudent.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

[Dosco Jones]

"jeff findley" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven Van Impe" > writes:

> Besides, given the down time, it might be prudent to put the best,
> newest RCC parts possible on the remaining orbiters, before next
> flight. Considering the degradation of the panels due to time sitting
> on the pad (sea air and paint flecks from the launch pad), this seems
> especially prudent.
>
> Jeff


The RCC parts were given a 25 flight life limit when they were originally
flown. After the first few flights, this number was raised to 100. This
shift was made using very little data. Columbia was on her 27th flight. I
wonder if this point will be investigated.

Dosco

[Murray Anderson]

"Dosco Jones" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> "jeff findley" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Steven Van Impe" > writes:
>
> > Besides, given the down time, it might be prudent to put the best,
> > newest RCC parts possible on the remaining orbiters, before next
> > flight. Considering the degradation of the panels due to time sitting
> > on the pad (sea air and paint flecks from the launch pad), this seems
> > especially prudent.
> >
> > Jeff
>
>
> The RCC parts were given a 25 flight life limit when they were originally
> flown. After the first few flights, this number was raised to 100. This
> shift was made using very little data. Columbia was on her 27th flight.
I
> wonder if this point will be investigated.
>
> Dosco
>
>
>
What was this original 25 flight life based on? There doesn't seem to have
been any experimental evidence of the susceptibility of the RCC panels to
foam impact before the CAIB tests these past two months, so maybe the 100
flight limit was based on just as good evidence as the original 25.
Then anyone who objected would be forced to prove that it wasn't safe to fly
the RCC on the 100th flight, using only evidence that wouldn't impeach its
reliability on the 25th flight.

Murray Anderson

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Murray Anderson" > writes:

> What was this original 25 flight life based on? There doesn't seem to have
> been any experimental evidence of the susceptibility of the RCC panels to
> foam impact before the CAIB tests these past two months, so maybe the 100
> flight limit was based on just as good evidence as the original 25.
> Then anyone who objected would be forced to prove that it wasn't safe to fly
> the RCC on the 100th flight, using only evidence that wouldn't impeach its
> reliability on the 25th flight.

A best-guess conservative esitmate before anybody had gathered any
real experience. If yo sit down & figure it out, hamankind has about
30 +/- hours of aerodynamic flight experience in the hypersonic
region. A;; but about 30 minutes of that comes from Shuttle
re-entries. The assessment was changed as we gathered experience, to
match the behavior observed.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[JGM]

Peter Stickney wrote:

> The assessment was changed as we gathered experience, to
>match the behavior observed.

Which is, unfortunately, exactly the thought process that leads to the problem.
If there were technical underpinnings for the initial extimate then simply
"gaining time" should do nothing to change that estimate. Unless you can point
to specific measurements or analyses that were performed post-flight and
compared with pre-flight assumptions, this explanation (which I desperately
hope is an armchair one) is fatally flawed.

JGM

[dave schneider]

(JGM) wrote in with:
> Peter Stickney wrote:
>
> > The assessment was changed as we gathered experience, to
> >match the behavior observed.
>
> Which is, unfortunately, exactly the thought process that leads to the problem.
> If there were technical underpinnings for the initial extimate then simply
> "gaining time" should do nothing to change that estimate

Ummm, where's the context for this quote? I couldn't find it in this thread.

/dps

[Murray Anderson]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Murray Anderson" > writes:
>
> > What was this original 25 flight life based on? There doesn't seem to
have
> > been any experimental evidence of the susceptibility of the RCC panels
to
> > foam impact before the CAIB tests these past two months, so maybe the
100
> > flight limit was based on just as good evidence as the original 25.
> > Then anyone who objected would be forced to prove that it wasn't safe to
fly
> > the RCC on the 100th flight, using only evidence that wouldn't impeach
its
> > reliability on the 25th flight.
>
> A best-guess conservative esitmate before anybody had gathered any
> real experience. If yo sit down & figure it out, hamankind has about
> 30 +/- hours of aerodynamic flight experience in the hypersonic
> region. A;; but about 30 minutes of that comes from Shuttle
> re-entries. The assessment was changed as we gathered experience, to
> match the behavior observed.
>

Do you have a reference for this, like a report or published paper used by
Nasa? For example they could have taken the leading edge panels off one of
the orbiters and done a complete set of non-destructive tests to determine
their state. Ideally they would have done destructive tests on some of the
panels too, but we know they didn't.

Murray Anderson

> --
> Pete Stickney
> A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
> bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[MasterShrink]

>The RCC parts were given a 25 flight life limit when they were originally
>flown. After the first few flights, this number was raised to 100. This
>shift was made using very little data. Columbia was on her 27th flight. I
>wonder if this point will be investigated.

Um...were the RCC's on any of the shuttles ever replaced? Had Columbia been
flying with the same ones on STS 107 that it had on STS 1?

I mean, aside from damaged thermal tiles how much of the shuttle exactly gets
replaced and upgraded between missions? The term tossed around the media most
is that the bird gets practically "rebuilt" between flights but its a pretty
damn misleading term obviously.

-A.L.

[Hallerb]

>
>Um...were the RCC's on any of the shuttles ever replaced? Had Columbia been
>flying with the same ones on STS 107 that it had on STS 1?
>

All but 3 were originals. Or some similiar number.

[Doug...]

In article >,
says...
> >The RCC parts were given a 25 flight life limit when they were originally
> >flown. After the first few flights, this number was raised to 100. This
> >shift was made using very little data. Columbia was on her 27th flight. I
> >wonder if this point will be investigated.
>
> Um...were the RCC's on any of the shuttles ever replaced? Had Columbia been
> flying with the same ones on STS 107 that it had on STS 1?
>
> I mean, aside from damaged thermal tiles how much of the shuttle exactly gets
> replaced and upgraded between missions? The term tossed around the media most
> is that the bird gets practically "rebuilt" between flights but its a pretty
> damn misleading term obviously.

I believe I heard that four of Columbia's RCC panels had been replaced
during its lifetime. The panels in the impact area were all original
equipment.

--

It's not the pace of life I mind; | Doug Van Dorn
it's the sudden stop at the end... |

[Homer J. Fong]

In article >, Kegwasher
> wrote:

> Rusty B wrote:
>
> > Shuttle Foam Test Yields Hole in Wing
> >
> > Columbia Investigators Fire Foam Insulation at Shuttle Wing, Blowing
> > Open 2-Foot Hole
> >
> > The Associated Press
> >
> > SAN ANTONIO July 7 —
> > The team investigating the Columbia disaster fired a chunk of foam
> > insulation at shuttle wing parts Monday and blew open a gaping 2-foot
> > hole, offering dramatic evidence to support the theory of what doomed
> > the spaceship.
> >
> > The crowd of about 100 gasped and cried, "Wow!" when the foam hit.
> >
>
> In the immortal words of Rosanne Rosanna Dana,
>
> Well now, that's different.


No, that was Emily Litella. She would foam at the mouth getting angry
over something she misheard, then when it was explained to her, she'd
say "Oh! That's different."

Rosanne Rosannadana's tag line was "It's always somethin'"