[UPDATE] Photos of RCC hole made during 7/7/03 test now online

[Rusty Barton]

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:41:56 -0600, OM
<om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
wrote:

>...From CNN:
>
>http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/07/sprj.colu.shuttle.investigation.ap/index.html
>
>...Tom Wheeler take note: Now *that* is a hole.
>
> OM


When the foam problem is solved, there still might be a question of
bird strikes.

If a 1.5-lb piece of foam going 500-mph does this kind of damage, what
would a 3-lb to 7-lb bird struck at 200-mph or 300-mph do? KSC is a
wildlife refuge. They've never hit one yet, but there's always a first
time.



Rusty Barton - Antelope, California
--
--
Rusty Barton - Antelope, California

Visit my Titan 1 ICBM Website at:
http://www.geocities.com/titan_1_missile

"I aim for the stars, but sometimes I hit London."
- Mort Sahl speaking of Werner Von Braun

[Doug...]

In article >,
says...
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:41:56 -0600, OM
> <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
> wrote:
>
> >...From CNN:
> >
> >http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/07/sprj.colu.shuttle.investigation.ap/index.html
> >
> >...Tom Wheeler take note: Now *that* is a hole.
> >
> > OM
>
>
> When the foam problem is solved, there still might be a question of
> bird strikes.
>
> If a 1.5-lb piece of foam going 500-mph does this kind of damage, what
> would a 3-lb to 7-lb bird struck at 200-mph or 300-mph do? KSC is a
> wildlife refuge. They've never hit one yet, but there's always a first
> time.

I don't think *any* manned spacecraft has ever hit a bird upon launch
(although I could be wrong). They tend to flee the noise and vibration.
And by the time the vehicle is moving at significant speed, you're above
the flight level of a majority of the birds in the area, I would think...

Yes, it's still something of a risk, but doesn't seem to be as big a risk
as foam shedding from the ET.

--

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

[Lynndel Humphreys]

>
> Yes, it's still something of a risk, but doesn't seem to be as big a risk
> as foam shedding from the ET.
>

So with the bird and foam problem removed they can return to flight? Lots of
space debris too.







-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[Cyberia]

OM wrote:
> ...From CNN:
>
>
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/07/sprj.colu.shuttle.investigation.ap/
index.html
>
> ...Tom Wheeler take note: Now *that* is a hole.
>
> OM

The foam in the test appeared to exit the impact intact. How does this jive
with the near total disintegration into dust seen during Columbia's launch?
Wouldn't that disintegration consume a lot of the impact energy, thus
preventing so much wing damage?

--
---------------
SeeYa !
--------------
Hello....... Is this thing on ?

[OM]

....From CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/07/sprj.colu.shuttle.investigation.ap/index.html

....Tom Wheeler take note: Now *that* is a hole.

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]

"Cyberia" > wrote in
:

> OM wrote:
>> ...From CNN:
>>
>>
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/07/sprj.colu.shuttle.investigatio
> n.ap/ index.html
>>
>> ...Tom Wheeler take note: Now *that* is a hole.
>>
>> OM
>
> The foam in the test appeared to exit the impact intact. How does this
> jive with the near total disintegration into dust seen during
> Columbia's launch? Wouldn't that disintegration consume a lot of the
> impact energy, thus preventing so much wing damage?

The first impact test against real RCC was a "corner" impact, and caused
only a small crack in the RCC, but completely disintegrated the foam in a
manner similar to that seen on STS-107.

Today's test was a full-side impact, and caused a massive hole in the RCC,
while leaving the foam more intact. Both tests used the same foam mass and
speed.

The aerothermal evidence suggests that the actual size of the hole in
Columbia was on the order of 6-10 inches, rather than the 16 inches seen in
today's test.

Taken together, the above facts suggest 1) a correlation between angle of
impact and energy transfer; i.e. a corner hit results in the foam absorbing
more energy and disintegrating while causing only minor RCC damage, while a
full-side hit transfers more energy to the RCC and causes more damage, and
2) that the foam tests have successfully "bracketed" the probable damage
seen on the actual flight, and that the foam that hit STS-107 struck at an
angle somewhere in between a "corner-only" hit and a full-side hit.

Just my opinion, of course.

--
JRF

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

[Doug...]

In article >,
says...
> OM wrote:
>
> > ...From CNN:
> >
> > http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/07/sprj.colu.shuttle.investigation.ap/index.html
> >
> > ...Tom Wheeler take note: Now *that* is a hole.
> >
> > OM
> >
>
> Wouldn't a hole this big cause a noticeable trajectory anomoly on ascent?

Well, from what I understand, the actual damage to Columbia was probably
more like 6-10 inches in its greatest dimension, and possibly much
smaller in its smallest dimension. (This comes from the analysis of the
internal heating that I've seen referenced -- it would seem to indicate a
breach of the above-stated size.)

Now, at 81 seconds, you're well past maximum aerodynamic pressure and the
air is thinning rapidly. I doubt that a hole the size that was likely
created would have caused any detectable trajectory deviations. (Of
course, I'm just speaking from a gestalt sense, there are engineers here
who can give you a much more authoritative answer.)

--

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

[larry]

OM wrote:

> ...From CNN:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/07/sprj.colu.shuttle.investigation.ap/index.html
>
> ...Tom Wheeler take note: Now *that* is a hole.


I was wondering if anyone knows why the panels in the test were
gray colored while those on the shuttles are black? They said
that the hole would probably not be seen because the black interior of
the hole would not be noticeable against the black panel.
Larry


>
> OM
>
>

[Jon Berndt]

"larry" > wrote in message
>
> I was wondering if anyone knows why the panels in the test were
> gray colored while those on the shuttles are black? They said
> that the hole would probably not be seen because the black interior of
> the hole would not be noticeable against the black panel.
> Larry
>

If I am not mistaken, these panels were taken from one of the other
orbiters. These are real panels, they are grey.

Jon

[Doug...]

In article >, says...
> OM wrote:
>
> > ...From CNN:
> >
> > http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/07/sprj.colu.shuttle.investigation.ap/index.html
> >
> > ...Tom Wheeler take note: Now *that* is a hole.
>
>
> I was wondering if anyone knows why the panels in the test were
> gray colored while those on the shuttles are black? They said
> that the hole would probably not be seen because the black interior of
> the hole would not be noticeable against the black panel.

I'm not sure who the "they" are that you're referring to, but "they" may
have been discussing the problem of tile damage back when it seemed that
damaged tiles and not RCC panels were the cause of the catastrophe. The
RCC panels are, and have always been, a darkish gray.

A hole the size that was made in the test today *would* probably have
been visible in the best imagery we could have gotten of Columbia on-
orbit. It's hard to say whether or not the actual damage to Columbia was
that large, though. It was definitely enough to cause the destruction of
the vehicle, of course... *sigh*...

--

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

[larry]

Doug... wrote:

> In article >, says...
>
>>OM wrote:
>>
>>
>>>...From CNN:
>>>
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/07/sprj.colu.shuttle.investigation.ap/index.html
>>>
>>>...Tom Wheeler take note: Now *that* is a hole.
>>>
>>
>>I was wondering if anyone knows why the panels in the test were
>>gray colored while those on the shuttles are black? They said
>>that the hole would probably not be seen because the black interior of
>>the hole would not be noticeable against the black panel.
>>
>
> I'm not sure who the "they" are that you're referring to, but "they" may
> have been discussing the problem of tile damage back when it seemed that
> damaged tiles and not RCC panels were the cause of the catastrophe. The
> RCC panels are, and have always been, a darkish gray.


A quote from the above URL:
"Hubbard said it is questionable whether the best set of cameras
trained on the shuttle during liftoff would have detected such a large
hole, if they had been in focus, and they were not. He declined to say
whether spy satellites would have observed such damage, but he noted
that it was a black hole in a black piece of reinforced carbon."

Also I recall seeing photos of Columbia when it was being readied
for flight. The Panels were black not the gray of the test panels.
Larry


>
> A hole the size that was made in the test today *would* probably have
> been visible in the best imagery we could have gotten of Columbia on-
> orbit. It's hard to say whether or not the actual damage to Columbia was
> that large, though. It was definitely enough to cause the destruction of
> the vehicle, of course... *sigh*...
>
>

[David Higgins]

larry wrote:

> Also I recall seeing photos of Columbia when it was being readied
> for flight. The Panels were black not the gray of the test panels.

I believe you recall incorrectly. Here's a link to a
launch photo of a relatively recent shuttle launch
(Endeavour, STS100, April 2001)

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-100/html/ksc-01pp-0832.html

Click on the low res(*) link, and look at the leading edge
of the wing (near the USofA flag), and the shuttle's nosecap.
Both are medium dark gray, the same as the RCC panels used
in yesterday's test.

Perhaps you are confusing the black tiles with the RCC panels?

(*) -- or the high res link...

[Tom Wheeler]

>http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/07/sprj.colu.shuttle.investigation.ap/index.html
>
>...Tom Wheeler take note: Now *that* is a hole.
>
> OM


And remember, OM, where you saw it first. Pfft! How many tries did
it take them to show you that foam could cause that kind of damage?

You, for whatever reason, have an agenda, to the point you attempt to
alienate me among like-minded people, simply because I don't agree
with the company-line? Hey... I was right, all-along, and had
photographic evidence.

The emails I receive from people at Langely have nothing on you, my
friend. Space Shuttle techs are secondary to you as well, FYI.

This all smells of CYA from NASA, to my wife & I. We're
pretty-intelligent people, but that's secondary to the FACT that I've
TOLD you a leading-edge breach occurred since February, yet you post
pics from someone transparently refuting me in your "FAQ?"

Your credibility just met reality, OM.

TW

[LooseChanj]

On or about Mon, 7 Jul 2003 23:10:36 -0500, Doug . .
> made the sensational claim that:
> Well, from what I understand, the actual damage to Columbia was probably
> more like 6-10 inches in its greatest dimension, and possibly much
> smaller in its smallest dimension. (This comes from the analysis of the
> internal heating that I've seen referenced -- it would seem to indicate a
> breach of the above-stated size.)
>
> Now, at 81 seconds, you're well past maximum aerodynamic pressure and the
> air is thinning rapidly. I doubt that a hole the size that was likely
> created would have caused any detectable trajectory deviations. (Of
> course, I'm just speaking from a gestalt sense, there are engineers here
> who can give you a much more authoritative answer.)

My thought now is the hit created a hinged flap, which got thrown loose to
become the Day 2 mystery object. The rest of ascent, and maneuvering around
threw it this way and that and finally it just seperated.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

[starman]

LooseChanj wrote:
snipped
>
> My thought now is the hit created a hinged flap, which got thrown loose to
> become the Day 2 mystery object. The rest of ascent, and maneuvering around
> threw it this way and that and finally it just seperated.

There could have been some debris trapped inside the wing which later
floated out through the hole.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[Lynndel Humphreys]

"Jorge R. Frank" > wrote in message
...
> "Cyberia" > wrote in
> :
>
> > OM wrote:
> >> ...From CNN:
> >>
> >>
> > http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/07/sprj.colu.shuttle.investigatio
> > n.ap/ index.html
> >>
> >> ...Tom Wheeler take note: Now *that* is a hole.
> >>
> >> OM
> >
> > The foam in the test appeared to exit the impact intact. How does this
> > jive with the near total disintegration into dust seen during
> > Columbia's launch? Wouldn't that disintegration consume a lot of the
> > impact energy, thus preventing so much wing damage?
>
> The first impact test against real RCC was a "corner" impact, and caused
> only a small crack in the RCC, but completely disintegrated the foam in a
> manner similar to that seen on STS-107.
>
> Today's test was a full-side impact, and caused a massive hole in the RCC,
> while leaving the foam more intact. Both tests used the same foam mass and
> speed.
>
> The aerothermal evidence suggests that the actual size of the hole in
> Columbia was on the order of 6-10 inches, rather than the 16 inches seen
in
> today's test.
>
> Taken together, the above facts suggest 1) a correlation between angle of
> impact and energy transfer; i.e. a corner hit results in the foam
absorbing
> more energy and disintegrating while causing only minor RCC damage, while
a
> full-side hit transfers more energy to the RCC and causes more damage, and
> 2) that the foam tests have successfully "bracketed" the probable damage
> seen on the actual flight, and that the foam that hit STS-107 struck at an
> angle somewhere in between a "corner-only" hit and a full-side hit.
>
> Just my opinion, of course.
>
> --
Houston You definitely have a problem..




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[Herb Schaltegger]

In article >,
"Jorge R. Frank" > wrote:

> Taken together, the above facts suggest 1) a correlation between angle of
> impact and energy transfer; i.e. a corner hit results in the foam absorbing
> more energy and disintegrating while causing only minor RCC damage, while a
> full-side hit transfers more energy to the RCC and causes more damage, and
> 2) that the foam tests have successfully "bracketed" the probable damage
> seen on the actual flight, and that the foam that hit STS-107 struck at an
> angle somewhere in between a "corner-only" hit and a full-side hit.

I think one of the factors you need to consider when examining visuals
of these foam impact test results is the fact that these results are for
foam that is not rotating. I understand the impact tests have been
conducted at slightly higher velocity in order to compensate for the
lack of rotational energy. However, rotation of the foam at impact
would (it seems to me) impart greater lateral velocity to the fragments
after impact, thus resulting in the more "shower-like" spray of debris
seen on the actual launch footage. Just something to consider if/when
people comment that the latest test results don't look like the launch
films.

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

[Scott Millington]

>There's another definition of "jive" that escapes me at the moment.
>
I don't have a reference but i beieve it is iften used to connote
dishonesty or intentionally misleading statements.

Of course I'm a white guy so what the hell do I know.

[Cyberia]

Bruce Palmer wrote:
> From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913):
>
> Jibe \Jibe\, v. i.
> 1. (Naut.) To change a ship's course so as to cause a shifting of the
> boom. See {Jibe}, v. t., and {Gybe}.
>
> 2. To agree; to harmonize. [Colloq.] --Bartlett.
>

Heh, heh. Nabbed by the internet colloquialism police. :-)

--
---------------
SeeYa !
--------------
Hello....... Is this thing on ?

[larry]

David Higgins wrote:

>
>
> larry wrote:
>
>> Also I recall seeing photos of Columbia when it was being readied
>> for flight. The Panels were black not the gray of the test panels.
>
>
> I believe you recall incorrectly. Here's a link to a
> launch photo of a relatively recent shuttle launch
> (Endeavour, STS100, April 2001)


Then are there two colors of RCC panels, black and gray? Why the
difference in the colors in the photo "fitted RCC layout" at

http://www.caib.us/news/photos/shuttle_debris/ksc_facility/default.asp#


>
> http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-100/html/ksc-01pp-0832.html
>
>
> Click on the low res(*) link, and look at the leading edge
> of the wing (near the USofA flag), and the shuttle's nosecap.
> Both are medium dark gray, the same as the RCC panels used
> in yesterday's test.
>
> Perhaps you are confusing the black tiles with the RCC panels?
>
> (*) -- or the high res link...
>

[Joann Evans]

Rusty Barton wrote:
>
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:41:56 -0600, OM
> <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
> wrote:
>
> >...From CNN:
> >
> >http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/07/sprj.colu.shuttle.investigation.ap/index.html
> >
> >...Tom Wheeler take note: Now *that* is a hole.
> >
> > OM
>
> When the foam problem is solved, there still might be a question of
> bird strikes.
>
> If a 1.5-lb piece of foam going 500-mph does this kind of damage, what
> would a 3-lb to 7-lb bird struck at 200-mph or 300-mph do? KSC is a
> wildlife refuge. They've never hit one yet, but there's always a first
> time.

At what altitude does the shuttle reach these speeds?

At what maximum altitude do most birds fly?

And, falling debris is conscious of nothing. I suspect birds will
actively tend to avoid the, ah, modest disturbance that a shuttle launch
generates.

[Brian Thorn]

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 23:50:31 -0500, larry >
wrote:

>Also I recall seeing photos of Columbia when it was being readied
>for flight. The Panels were black not the gray of the test panels.

I don't know what you remember, but Columbia's (and all the Shuttles,
including Enterprise's) RCC panels were always gray.

Here's Columbia on STS-1 in 1981...
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/MEDIUM/GPN-2000-000650.jpg
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/STS-1/Medium/EC81-15104.jpg

Brian

[tim]

Scott Millington > wrote in message


PLONK

you can read CARRIE here and in the SUNDAY NEWSPAPER COMICS.

[Ian Stirling]

In sci.space.policy Joann Evans > wrote:
> Rusty Barton wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:41:56 -0600, OM
>> <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >...From CNN:
>> >
>> >http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/07/sprj.colu.shuttle.investigation.ap/index.html
>> >
>> >...Tom Wheeler take note: Now *that* is a hole.
>> >
>> > OM
>>
>> When the foam problem is solved, there still might be a question of
>> bird strikes.
>>
>> If a 1.5-lb piece of foam going 500-mph does this kind of damage, what
>> would a 3-lb to 7-lb bird struck at 200-mph or 300-mph do? KSC is a
>> wildlife refuge. They've never hit one yet, but there's always a first
>> time.
>
> At what altitude does the shuttle reach these speeds?
>
> At what maximum altitude do most birds fly?
>
> And, falling debris is conscious of nothing. I suspect birds will
> actively tend to avoid the, ah, modest disturbance that a shuttle launch
> generates.

If the shuttle is supersonic, they may not hear it coming.
Even if it isn't, they might not be able to manoever enough to generate a
miss, as it's not something they train for :)

A quick google for "highest flying bird" reveals that a vulture hit a plane
at 37000 feet.
Call this 12Km.
The shuttle goes supersonic at 40 seconds in, at around 7Km.

I think the altitude at which the shuttle outpaces the noise of ignition
is around 10-12Km, so it's even concievable that the bird might not
even hear it.

--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
'Where subtlety fails, we must simply make do with cream pies' -- David Brin