Smoking Gun, Now What?

If NASA are satisfied wing damage caused the tragedy, what do they plan on
doing to avoid a similar incident?

Some means of deflection?
What could possibly be done to protect the shuttle from a similar accident?

--
Gareth Slee

http://www.garethslee.com
http://www.lapie.com

"Gareth Slee" wrote in message

If NASA are satisfied wing damage caused the tragedy, what do they plan on
doing to avoid a similar incident?

Some means of deflection?
What could possibly be done to protect the shuttle from a similar
accident?

Some of the possibilities I have heard tossed about a

1) flying ascent at a smaller (or slightly negative) alpha than they were
at - particularly at higher qbar. The idea is that this would take any
flying debris under and past the orbiter without contact.
2) discussion has already taken place on how to remove the foam-shedding
problem, either by removing the foam from the bipod ramp, or by covering it
with a metal cover.

Perhaps both of these would be done. Does anyone recall from where on the
ET shedding has been seen before? Also, given yesterdays test results, I
wonder if there will be any impetus to design and fabricate new RCC panels.

Jon

Also, given yesterdays test results, I
wonder if there will be any impetus to design and fabricate new RCC panels.

Jon

Well since you cant elminate foam shedding 100% it would be foolish not to
redesign the RCC.

Heck it means they are terribly vulernable to a minor debris strike too.

PLONK

Fool
--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
With simpathy for the co-joined Iranian twins

"Hallerb" wrote in message
...
Also, given yesterdays test results, I
wonder if there will be any impetus to design and fabricate new RCC
panels.

Jon

Well since you cant elminate foam shedding 100% it would be foolish not to
redesign the RCC.

Heck it means they are terribly vulernable to a minor debris strike too.

"Jon Berndt" wrote in
:

"Gareth Slee" wrote in message

If NASA are satisfied wing damage caused the tragedy, what do they
plan on doing to avoid a similar incident?

Some means of deflection?
What could possibly be done to protect the shuttle from a similar
accident?

Some of the possibilities I have heard tossed about a

1) flying ascent at a smaller (or slightly negative) alpha than they
were at - particularly at higher qbar. The idea is that this would
take any flying debris under and past the orbiter without contact.

Any idea what the performance delta would be?

2) discussion has already taken place on how to remove the
foam-shedding problem, either by removing the foam from the bipod
ramp, or by covering it with a metal cover.

They've actually already made the choice - it will be the former, with
heaters added to prevent ice formation.

Perhaps both of these would be done. Does anyone recall from where on
the ET shedding has been seen before?

Besides the bipod ramp, the suspect areas have been the intertank
stringers, the lower intertank flange, and areas on the LO2 tank ogive.

Also, given yesterdays test
results, I wonder if there will be any impetus to design and fabricate
new RCC panels.

It's being studied, but for implementation well after return-to-flight.


--
JRF

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

"Raymond Chuang" wrote in message
...
"Gareth Slee" wrote in message
...

If NASA are satisfied wing damage caused the tragedy, what do they plan
on
doing to avoid a similar incident?

I see the following changes:

1. The foam insulation material will go back to the material used before
they switched to the "environmentally friendly" material that had a
penchant
to flake off like mad.

The problem is, even the old foam flaked off.


4. NASA will require _all_ ground tracking cameras be operating during
shuttle launches.

Fairly likely I'd agree.



--
Raymond Chuang
Mountain View, CA USA

doing to avoid a similar incident?

I see the following changes:

1. The foam insulation material will go back to the material used before
they switched to the "environmentally friendly" material that had a
penchant
to flake off like mad.

The problem is, even the old foam flaked off.


4. NASA will require _all_ ground tracking cameras be operating during
shuttle launches.

Fairly likely I'd agree.



--
Raymond Chuang

Its going to have to go beyond this.

Whatever flys again cant be so fragile, and the foam is going to be fixed but
not perfect.

Inspection will not help with a totally smashed panel either.

There a redesign coming just like the challengers O rings solids.

:Likely as long of a delay too.

I think just switching to the older foam insulating material will reduce the
foreign object damage (FOD) problem in the first place. It was

You do realize foam flaking was a problem from day one. Short of some sort of
shield I doubt even using the old stle foam will fix things.

That would be like contiuning to fly after challenger only on warm days.

Whats the rush anyway? True ISS is a problem but other than that a years delay
for redesign is better than another lost vehicle. Espically since as is in
orbit repairs on such a large hole will be duifficult if not impossible.

Jon Berndt wrote:

"Gareth Slee" wrote in message


If NASA are satisfied wing damage caused the tragedy, what do they plan on
doing to avoid a similar incident?

Some means of deflection?
What could possibly be done to protect the shuttle from a similar

accident?

Some of the possibilities I have heard tossed about a

1) flying ascent at a smaller (or slightly negative) alpha than they were
at - particularly at higher qbar. The idea is that this would take any
flying debris under and past the orbiter without contact.
2) discussion has already taken place on how to remove the foam-shedding
problem, either by removing the foam from the bipod ramp, or by covering it
with a metal cover.

Perhaps both of these would be done. Does anyone recall from where on the
ET shedding has been seen before? Also, given yesterdays test results, I
wonder if there will be any impetus to design and fabricate new RCC panels.

I'd like to see the latest test repeated using a NEW RCC panel. That
might help answer the question of whether or not age or flight cycles
have any bearing.

--
bp

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message
...

Some of the possibilities I have heard tossed about a

1) flying ascent at a smaller (or slightly negative) alpha than they were
at - particularly at higher qbar. The idea is that this would take any
flying debris under and past the orbiter without contact.
2) discussion has already taken place on how to remove the foam-shedding
problem, either by removing the foam from the bipod ramp, or by covering
it
with a metal cover.

Perhaps both of these would be done. Does anyone recall from where on the
ET shedding has been seen before? Also, given yesterdays test results, I
wonder if there will be any impetus to design and fabricate new RCC
panels.

Jon

There may be a point with a redesign of the RCC in light of previous foam
shedding on ascent. I saw the video on the first test with the foam being
shot at a orbiter section of RCC panel and was very surprised on how such a
brittle composite vibrated from the impact. Then I saw the pictures with
foam wedged in a RCC joint which surprised me even more. Don't get me wrong
I'll never claim to be a shuttle expert but I thought I would mention my
$0.02 worth. However if the above did take place then a longer standdown
before return to flight would be in order. See link below also mentioning
previous foam losses on ascent.

BA

http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/st...30408shedding/