Tank Foam or SRB Equipment?

Herb Schaltegger wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:23:29 -0500, Reed Snellenberger wrote
(in article ):

Watching the replay from the ET-cam, I thought I saw some debris that
passed under the starboard wing just after SRB sep.
snip
Okay, watching the post-launch press conference they were just asked
specifically about that piece of debris - they said they'd have to wait
for the experts to analyze it and see. However, right before that,
they mentioned that preliminary radar tracks of the launch showed no
tracks prior to SRB sep; then he said, SRB sep produces things like
booster covers, etc. that they expect.

Now, whether this piece of whatever it was came from the ET or the SRB
will be interesting to determine.

That's certainly true; but NASA is showing us no such interest.

Instead, we're being bombarded (once again) with a politically
one-sided viewpoint. NASA is not showing us any photos of the recovered
SRB. NASA is expecting us to blindly accept a warped analysis of
missing tank foam (warped as to separation location, separation
dynamics, and size/proportion of the piece -- all relative to the tank
and its diameter).

Compare this slideshow http://tinyurl.com/a8wgx with NASA's analysis:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/123646main_006_post_mmt_072605.jpg
("The actual length of the object may be greater than that stated.")

NASA, that's an understatement! Show us the recovered booster!

Challenger's Ghost

" wrote in message
oups.com...
Herb Schaltegger wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:23:29 -0500, Reed Snellenberger wrote
(in article ):

Watching the replay from the ET-cam, I thought I saw some debris that
passed under the starboard wing just after SRB sep.
snip
Okay, watching the post-launch press conference they were just asked
specifically about that piece of debris - they said they'd have to wait
for the experts to analyze it and see. However, right before that,
they mentioned that preliminary radar tracks of the launch showed no
tracks prior to SRB sep; then he said, SRB sep produces things like
booster covers, etc. that they expect.

Now, whether this piece of whatever it was came from the ET or the SRB
will be interesting to determine.

That's certainly true; but NASA is showing us no such interest.

Instead, we're being bombarded (once again) with a politically
one-sided viewpoint. NASA is not showing us any photos of the recovered
SRB. NASA is expecting us to blindly accept a warped analysis of
missing tank foam (warped as to separation location, separation
dynamics, and size/proportion of the piece -- all relative to the tank
and its diameter).

Compare this slideshow http://tinyurl.com/a8wgx with NASA's analysis:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/123646main_006_post_mmt_072605.jpg
("The actual length of the object may be greater than that stated.")

NASA, that's an understatement! Show us the recovered booster!

Challenger's Ghost

Another overreacting paranoid schzoid shutdown mentality. It's just foam for
christ sakes. Put stronger glue into it, that's all. No need for a panic
grounding of the fleet. I hate that mentality. It's retarded.

Nog wrote:
" wrote in message
oups.com...
Herb Schaltegger wrote:

Now, whether this piece of whatever it was came from the ET or the SRB
will be interesting to determine.

That's certainly true; but NASA is showing us no such interest.

It's just foam for christ sakes.
Put stronger glue into it, that's all.

A newer post by attorney Schaltegger indicates that he has already
accepted NASA's "foam" determination. This is bizarre, since he prides
himself on his scientific approach to explaining and solving NASA's
problems. If (like you) he can't see the recovered SRB, why has he now
leapt so fast to NASA's "foam" conclusion?

I ask this especially in light of http://tinyurl.com/a8wgx. Have you
and he no sense of spatial origin and relative dimension?

Challenger's Ghost

If (like you) he can't see the recovered SRB, why has he now
leapt so fast to NASA's "foam" conclusion?

1: Because the video clearly shows the foam breaking off the ET, and
the post-separation photos clearly show the hole where the foam was, in
the same shape and size as the chunk seen flying off. See:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=17514

2: Because there's nothing equivalent to break off the RSRM.

Nog wrote:
" wrote in message
oups.com...
Herb Schaltegger wrote:

Now, whether this piece of whatever it was came from the ET or the SRB
will be interesting to determine.

That's certainly true; but NASA is showing us no such interest.

It's just foam for christ sakes.
Put stronger glue into it, that's all.

What manufacturing evidence can you provide to show a white
undercoating beneath the foam, as depicted he

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/123654main_010_post_mmt_072605.jpg?

To what color undercoating (if any color at all) did Lockheed "glue"
for the old tanks? What cost penalty will Lockheed incur under NASA's
newest "foam-shedding" conclusion?

Challenger's Ghost

Michael Gardner wrote:

as usual, he's chanting "its the SRB, ITS THE SRB" again. There are
other pictures showing in detail, from the side where the foam came off
- there is not ambiguity.


No...on Challenger, NASA said it was the SRB; you-know-who said it was
RCS firings of the OMS pods during ascent.
This time NASA says it's the ET, so he says it's the SRB.
If NASA had said it was the Orbiter, he would have said it was the ET.
Behold the contrarian. :-)

Pat

wrote:
If (like you) he can't see the recovered SRB, why has he now
leapt so fast to NASA's "foam" conclusion?

1: Because the video clearly shows the foam breaking off the ET, and
the post-separation photos clearly show the hole where the foam was, in
the same shape and size as the chunk seen flying off. See:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=17514

As you know, I've already posted links to the video, frame-by-frame;
and that does *not* "clearly show the foam breaking off the ET." If you
think more dynamic video does show such, then post a link to it.

I'd studied the SpaceRef frames before I began posting today. The
dimensions don't match. The breakaway object is nearly one-third the
diameter of the tank, at the vertical level where the object initially
comes into view *from behind the tank*.

2: Because there's nothing equivalent to break off the RSRM.

Sure there is. For example, the IEA (with strap-on) fits in every
respect, including dimensionally. That extends to color and the
associated wiring. Furthermore, a quick Google search reveals a long
problem history with the IEA. Historically, it has suffered impact and
other damage on ascent.

I'm overlooking (for now) the fact that you work for ATK, since so far
you're keeping our discussion technical.

Challenger's Ghost

Pat Flannery wrote:

Behold the contrarian. :-)

I call them as I see them, a privilege to which I'm entitled.

Let others see them as NASA calls them. NASA's quagmire is stark
evidence of how little backbone, detailed analysis, and independent
research that requires.

Challenger's Ghost

As you know, I've already posted links to the video, frame-by-frame;
and that does *not* "clearly show the foam breaking off the ET."

Yes, it does. It's quite clear.

If you think more dynamic video does show such, then post a link to it.

Little more than this is needed:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005...e5070_high.jpg

The missing bit matches the shape and size of the breakaway foam seen
in the ET-cam video.

The breakaway object is nearly one-third the diameter of the tank

Nope. See page 5 of the STS-114 Data Debris Collection and Processing
FD02 MMT presentation by J. Muratore, July 27, 2005.

More importantly: something nine feet long would not have fit between
the ET and the Shuttle. A frame-by-frame review of video that was
shown on NASA TV shows that this chunk was on the order of 2-3 feet
long. Not nine.

For example, the IEA (with strap-on) fits in every respect

Incorrect. Wrong location.

Pat Flannery wrote in news:11ei507icsrn244
@corp.supernews.com:



Michael Gardner wrote:

as usual, he's chanting "its the SRB, ITS THE SRB" again. There are
other pictures showing in detail, from the side where the foam came off
- there is not ambiguity.


No...on Challenger, NASA said it was the SRB; you-know-who said it was
RCS firings of the OMS pods during ascent.
This time NASA says it's the ET, so he says it's the SRB.
If NASA had said it was the Orbiter, he would have said it was the ET.
Behold the contrarian. :-)

Which is typically of kookery everywhere. Conventional knowledge
is always wrong; the kook is always right. It's not uncommon for
both parties to be wrong, too.

--Damon