"Cyberia" wrote in
:
OM wrote:
...From CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/0...e.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.