Shuttle Foam Test is Incorrect

[Richard Schumacher]

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

> Bill Clark wrote:
>
> > The foam impacted the wing at a velocity of about 500 miles per hour.
> > The shuttle itself may have been going that fast, but that's
> > irrelevant. What matters is the relative velocity of the foam with
> > respect to the shuttle. This could not have been 500 MPH, but more
> > likely a fraction of that.
>
> Bill, they tracked the foam in multiple frames of film, from more
> than one angle. Even you could compute the velocity from that.

And the static test is less strenuous than the in-flight impact because the
static test includes no aerodynamic load on the wing.

[Bill Clark]

I watched a video on TV last night of the test NASA ran to verify that
the foam breaking off the fuel tanks could have made a large hole in a
leading edge of one of the shuttle wings. I have some problems with
their test.

The foam impacted the wing at a velocity of about 500 miles per hour.
The shuttle itself may have been going that fast, but that's
irrelevant. What matters is the relative velocity of the foam with
respect to the shuttle. This could not have been 500 MPH, but more
likely a fraction of that.

It would take only a few seconds for the foam to reach the shuttle
wing once it broke off the fuel tank. The NASA tests assumed that in
this time its absolute velocity went to zero. That is not possible,
given the boundary layer of the speeding aircraft; whose friction
would keep the foam going at a high velocity.

Bill Clark
http://home.austin.rr.com/cmlab/

[edward ohare]

On 8 Jul 2003 10:25:07 -0700, (Bill Clark)
wrote:

>I watched a video on TV last night of the test NASA ran to verify that
>the foam breaking off the fuel tanks could have made a large hole in a
>leading edge of one of the shuttle wings. I have some problems with
>their test.
>
>The foam impacted the wing at a velocity of about 500 miles per hour.
>The shuttle itself may have been going that fast, but that's
>irrelevant. What matters is the relative velocity of the foam with
>respect to the shuttle. This could not have been 500 MPH, but more
>likely a fraction of that.


Oh, but that mph figure has been bounced around in the press for
months. I thought it sounded kind of high for a closing speed, but
what the heck.


>It would take only a few seconds for the foam to reach the shuttle
>wing once it broke off the fuel tank. The NASA tests assumed that in
>this time its absolute velocity went to zero. That is not possible,
>given the boundary layer of the speeding aircraft; whose friction
>would keep the foam going at a high velocity.


OK. So what is your math on this?

[Murray Anderson]

"Bill Clark" > wrote in message
om...
> I watched a video on TV last night of the test NASA ran to verify that
> the foam breaking off the fuel tanks could have made a large hole in a
> leading edge of one of the shuttle wings. I have some problems with
> their test.
>
> The foam impacted the wing at a velocity of about 500 miles per hour.
> The shuttle itself may have been going that fast, but that's
> irrelevant. What matters is the relative velocity of the foam with
> respect to the shuttle. This could not have been 500 MPH, but more
> likely a fraction of that.
>
> It would take only a few seconds for the foam to reach the shuttle
> wing once it broke off the fuel tank. The NASA tests assumed that in
> this time its absolute velocity went to zero. That is not possible,
> given the boundary layer of the speeding aircraft; whose friction
> would keep the foam going at a high velocity.
>
> Bill Clark
> http://home.austin.rr.com/cmlab/

They measured the speed from the video. There's a large gap between shuttle
and external tank into which the foam fell, where the airstream would be
going backwards (relative to the shuttle) at a high proportion of the
shuttle speed.

Murray Anderson

[Bruce Palmer]

Bill Clark wrote:

> I watched a video on TV last night of the test NASA ran to verify that
> the foam breaking off the fuel tanks could have made a large hole in a
> leading edge of one of the shuttle wings. I have some problems with
> their test.
>
> The foam impacted the wing at a velocity of about 500 miles per hour.
> The shuttle itself may have been going that fast, but that's
> irrelevant. What matters is the relative velocity of the foam with
> respect to the shuttle. This could not have been 500 MPH, but more
> likely a fraction of that.
>
> It would take only a few seconds for the foam to reach the shuttle
> wing once it broke off the fuel tank. The NASA tests assumed that in
> this time its absolute velocity went to zero. That is not possible,
> given the boundary layer of the speeding aircraft; whose friction
> would keep the foam going at a high velocity.

Check it out...
"http://www.caib.us/news/meetings/ph030506_present_byrne.html"

On the 3d panel from the end, note the statement "... velocity relative
to the Orbiter at impact range from 610-840 ft/s." This is equivalent
to 416-572 miles/hr. The time involved is not "a few seconds". I think
a couple hundred milliseconds is more like it.

--
bp

[Paul F. Dietz]

Bill Clark wrote:

> The foam impacted the wing at a velocity of about 500 miles per hour.
> The shuttle itself may have been going that fast, but that's
> irrelevant. What matters is the relative velocity of the foam with
> respect to the shuttle. This could not have been 500 MPH, but more
> likely a fraction of that.

Bill, they tracked the foam in multiple frames of film, from more
than one angle. Even you could compute the velocity from that.

Paul

[John Maxson]

Io, io, it's off to io we go (io.com, host for Mosley's abuse).

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)



OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:46:07 -0500, Herb Schaltegger
> > wrote:
>
> >See above. Google this ng since February 1 to read hundreds (if not
> >thousands) of posts on this very topic.
>
> ...While you're at it, do a google on Bill Clark, He's a known
> nutcase, tho not quite in the Maxson class. Regardless, just killfile
> the fool and let him rot on his own.
>
>
> 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

[OM]

On 8 Jul 2003 10:25:07 -0700, (Bill Clark)
wrote:

>I watched a video on TV last night of the test NASA ran to verify that
>the foam breaking off the fuel tanks could have made a large hole in a
>leading edge of one of the shuttle wings. I have some problems with
>their test.

....Who cares? Texas U's school of engineering proved you were a nutter
months ago when they kicked you out of the AE school for pushing
whacko theories and making threats if your research wasn't given a
"fair hearing".

The tests were correctly done. Deal with it and get lost.


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

[OM]

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:46:07 -0500, Herb Schaltegger
> wrote:

>See above. Google this ng since February 1 to read hundreds (if not
>thousands) of posts on this very topic.

....While you're at it, do a google on Bill Clark, He's a known
nutcase, tho not quite in the Maxson class. Regardless, just killfile
the fool and let him rot on his own.


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

[Terrence Daniels]

"OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote
in message ...
> ...While you're at it, do a google on Bill Clark, He's a known
> nutcase,

You forgot "troll". In each of his apparently hallucinogen-inspired threads
I see only ONE post from him.

Und now ve are klicken on ze "sender geblocken", vich makes de
"geplonken"... Vielen dank.

[OM]

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 05:47:19 GMT, "Terrence Daniels"
> wrote:

>"OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote
>in message ...
>> ...While you're at it, do a google on Bill Clark, He's a known
>> nutcase,
>
>You forgot "troll". In each of his apparently hallucinogen-inspired threads
>I see only ONE post from him.

....Ah, but you forget - I've already been called down for calling a
"nutcase" a "troll". Doesn't change the fact that they're trolling,
but Rhonda says I can't call nutcases, whackos, psychotics and
conspiracy theorists "trolls" anymore.

Of course, there's the arguement that those terms automatically
include the act of trolling, but...


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

[jeff findley]

"Paul F. Dietz" > writes:
>
> Bill, they tracked the foam in multiple frames of film, from more
> than one angle. Even you could compute the velocity from that.

All this requires is a passing grade in high school physics.

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

[Stephen Stocker]

In article >, jeff findley wrote:
> "Paul F. Dietz" > writes:
>>
>> Bill, they tracked the foam in multiple frames of film, from more
>> than one angle. Even you could compute the velocity from that.
>
> All this requires is a passing grade in high school physics.
>
> Jeff

Physics? Hell, most of the posters on here couldn't pass 5th grade
English. But that's beside the point.

I wonder if any of those who stoop to the name-calling realize how
pathetic you sound to those of us who pass through Usenet every few
months? "Oh, look him up, he's a troll, a nutcase, a psycho..." Yep,
sure sounds like a wonderful body of scientific thinkers on here!

Those who are secure in their competence don't need to resort to silly
epithet-slinging. I had hoped to learn something about the problems
which seem to have plagued the shuttles over the years by reading
through the various threads here. Instead, I see threads full of
unadulterated idiocy, offset by the occasional poster who's secure
enough in his knowledge to ignore it.

It'd be a hell of a lot easier to make a list of people to *not*
killfile. I guess some things never change, though. Usenet was pretty
much the same sewer in 1995 as it appears to be now. What a waste of
time!

Steve

[OM]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:15:25 -0000, Stephen Stocker >
wrote:

> Physics? Hell, most of the posters on here couldn't pass 5th grade
> English.

....Actually, most of us got past Senior English in High School, and
slept thru college course English because it offered absolutely
nothing new we didn't learn already. Physics, on the other hand, is
generally taught to freshmen by TAs from third-world countries to whom
English is either a 9th or 12th language, and never really took a
course in speaking English, much less learning how to use it.

So yeah, Physics *is* the problem, not the language...


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