Shuttle Foam Test Yields Hole in Wing - Associated Press

Shuttle Foam Test Yields Hole in Wing

Columbia Investigators Fire Foam Insulation at Shuttle Wing, Blowing
Open 2-Foot Hole

The Associated Press

SAN ANTONIO July 7 —
The team investigating the Columbia disaster fired a chunk of foam
insulation at shuttle wing parts Monday and blew open a gaping 2-foot
hole, offering dramatic evidence to support the theory of what doomed
the spaceship.

The crowd of about 100 gasped and cried, "Wow!" when the foam hit.

The foam struck roughly the same spot where insulation that broke off
Columbia's big external fuel tank during launch smashed into the
shuttle's wing. Investigators believe the damage led to the ship's
destruction during re-entry over Texas in February, killing all seven
astronauts.

It was the seventh and final foam-impact test by the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board, and it yielded by far the most severe damage.

The 1.67-pound piece of fuel tank foam insulation shot out of a
35-foot nitrogen-pressurized gun and slammed into a carbon-reinforced
panel removed from shuttle Atlantis.

The countdown boomed through loudspeakers, and the crack of the foam
coming out at more than 500 mph reverberated in the field where the
test was conducted.

Twelve high-speed cameras six inside the wing mock-up and six outside
captured the event. Hundreds of sensors registered movements, stresses
and other conditions.

NASA will continue gathering more information about the poorly
understood pieces that line the vulnerable leading edges of shuttle
wings, board member Scott Hubbard said.

One month ago, another carbon shuttle wing panel smaller and farther
inboard was cracked by the impact, in addition to an adjoining seal.
This time, the entire 11 1/2-inch width of the foam chunk rather than
just a corner during previous tests hit the wing, putting maximum
stress on the suspect area.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030707_1189.html

Rusty B wrote:

Shuttle Foam Test Yields Hole in Wing

Columbia Investigators Fire Foam Insulation at Shuttle Wing, Blowing
Open 2-Foot Hole

The Associated Press

SAN ANTONIO July 7 —
The team investigating the Columbia disaster fired a chunk of foam
insulation at shuttle wing parts Monday and blew open a gaping 2-foot
hole, offering dramatic evidence to support the theory of what doomed
the spaceship.

The crowd of about 100 gasped and cried, "Wow!" when the foam hit.


In the immortal words of Rosanne Rosanna Dana,

Well now, that's different.

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 22:21:00 +0200, Kegwasher wrote:

In the immortal words of Rosanne Rosanna Dana,

Well now, that's different.

I think that was Emily Litella

Dale

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 22:21:00 +0200, Kegwasher
wrote:

In the immortal words of Rosanne Rosanna Dana,

Well now, that's different.

....Emily Litella, actually.


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

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 22:21:00 +0200, Kegwasher
wrote:


SAN ANTONIO July 7 —
The team investigating the Columbia disaster fired a chunk of foam
insulation at shuttle wing parts Monday and blew open a gaping 2-foot
hole, offering dramatic evidence to support the theory of what doomed
the spaceship.

The crowd of about 100 gasped and cried, "Wow!" when the foam hit.

Well now, that's different.

Or, "let's keep firing bigger pieces of foam at the wing until we get
results that match our theory..."

Nevermind that the foam chunks are now much larger and travelling much
faster than the computer models predict for STS-107. I don't want to
start sounding like JTM, but there seems to be something a little
weird about these tests.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:

Nevermind that the foam chunks are now much larger and travelling much
faster than the computer models predict for STS-107. I don't want to
start sounding like JTM, but there seems to be something a little
weird about these tests.

The foam is the same mass as used on earlier tests, I believe.
The impact energy also is a function of how fast the foam was spinning,
and the damage is a function of whether the foam hits flat
side on or edge on (the latter delivers the impulse over a longer
period, for a lower maximum force.)

BTW, I hope those persons who were arguing against improved photography
will now have the grace to reconsider their positions.

Paul

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 22:21:00 +0200, Kegwasher
wrote:


SAN ANTONIO July 7 -
The team investigating the Columbia disaster fired a chunk of foam
insulation at shuttle wing parts Monday and blew open a gaping 2-foot
hole, offering dramatic evidence to support the theory of what doomed
the spaceship.

The crowd of about 100 gasped and cried, "Wow!" when the foam hit.

Well now, that's different.

Or, "let's keep firing bigger pieces of foam at the wing until we get
results that match our theory..."

Nevermind that the foam chunks are now much larger and travelling much
faster than the computer models predict for STS-107. I don't want to
start sounding like JTM, but there seems to be something a little
weird about these tests.

Brian

The best estimate of the foam size/impact speed is 1240 cubic inches/775
fps, according to Scott Hubbard's May 13 press briefing
(http://www.caib.us/news/press_briefi...3_present.html, slide 9).
The foam size for the June 6 test was 1391 cubic inches (calculated from
dimensions), weight 1.68 lbs, and the the impact velocity 768 fps, according
to Scott Hubbard's June 12 press briefing
(http://www.caib.us/news/press_briefi...2_present.html).
According to Hubbard's June 24 briefing, the target foam size in all the
tests is 1.67 lbs and the target speed of impact is 775 fps
(http://www.caib.us/news/press_briefings/rt030624.html).
According to William Harwood
(http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttl...707impacttest/) the foam
weighed 1.67 lbs and the impact speed was "over 500 mph". 775 fps = 528 mph.

Thus the foam size is slightly larger than the best estimate of Columbia
foam size, possibly to take rotational kinetic energy into account, and the
impact speed is the same. Why do you think there's something wrong with the
tests?

Murray Anderson

On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 22:17:28 -0400, "Murray Anderson"
wrote:

Thus the foam size is slightly larger than the best estimate of Columbia
foam size, possibly to take rotational kinetic energy into account, and the
impact speed is the same. Why do you think there's something wrong with the
tests?

It seems to me that they're adjusting the tests to fit the theory
('there was a hole in the RCC') instead of performing the tests and
adjusting the theory to fit observed results.

They started with a 2" crack as a result of the test. Then they tested
again and got a bigger crack and a loose T-Seal. Now they've gotten a
big honkin' hole in the RCC. Well, if they fire 100 lbs of foam, I bet
they can take the whole wing off. Is that tomorrow's test?

Brian

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 03:10:52 GMT, Brian Thorn
wrote:

It seems to me that they're adjusting the tests to fit the theory
('there was a hole in the RCC') instead of performing the tests and
adjusting the theory to fit observed results.

....Hardly. The early tests pretty much matched the tests to a "T"(*),
and had the tests included atmospheric ascent drag for the full
duration from launch to orbit, we would probably have seen more
fracturing. Subsequent tests are to validate existing test results, as
well as push envelopes.

Bottom Line: There hasn't been any need to adjust the theory because
the tests so far have pretty much confirmed it's accurate as-is.

(*) No pun intended, natch.
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

Brian Thorn wrote in
:

They started with a 2" crack as a result of the test. Then they tested
again and got a bigger crack and a loose T-Seal. Now they've gotten a
big honkin' hole in the RCC. Well, if they fire 100 lbs of foam, I bet
they can take the whole wing off. Is that tomorrow's test?

It was my impression that the tests used the same foam mass and speed, and
the main variables were 1) the first RCC test used an (age unknown) panel 6
while today's used panel 8 from Discovery (the fleet leader), and 2) the
angle of impact (corner vs. full-side).

If any of those impressions are incorrect, please correct me.


--
JRF

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