Endeavour's heatsheild damage

In the Columbia tragedy NASA did not suspect there was a problem until after the craft was in orbit and the launch video was reviewed and at that time officials at NASA determined there was no problem with landing the shuttle. How do we know that NASA officials won't make the same error in judgement in reviewing what to do concerning Endeavour's heatsheild damage ?

After the Challenger and Columbia accidents it is just hard for me to believe NASA when it comes to the safety of our brave astronauts. I have to wonder if the astronauts aboard Endeavour feel the same way.


--
Thanks!
Kurt Kemp
Checkout The Kurt Kemp For President in 2008 Campaign Website on Myspace
http://www.myspace.com/kurtjkemp
My BlogSpot Blog On:
http://kempforpresident2008.blogspot.com/

"Courage is not the lack of fear but the ability to face it."
---- Lt. John B. Putnam Jr. (1921-1944)

To be fair, they did not do any test as far as I know on the Columbia. It
was considered as I recall, that rcc was so robust that only a mmod strike
might be a problem.

Foam? nah, they thought.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Kurt Kemp" wrote in message
news:KaXwi.7375$xc5.1353@trnddc06...
In the Columbia tragedy NASA did not suspect there was a problem until after
the craft was in orbit and the launch video was reviewed and at that time
officials at NASA determined there was no problem with landing the shuttle.
How do we know that NASA officials won't make the same error in judgement in
reviewing what to do concerning Endeavour's heatsheild damage ?

After the Challenger and Columbia accidents it is just hard for me to
believe NASA when it comes to the safety of our brave astronauts. I have to
wonder if the astronauts aboard Endeavour feel the same way.


--
Thanks!
Kurt Kemp
Checkout The Kurt Kemp For President in 2008 Campaign Website on Myspace
http://www.myspace.com/kurtjkemp
My BlogSpot Blog On:
http://kempforpresident2008.blogspot.com/

"Courage is not the lack of fear but the ability to face it."
---- Lt. John B. Putnam Jr. (1921-1944)

"Kurt Kemp" wrote in message news:KaXwi.7375$xc5.1353@trnddc06...
In the Columbia tragedy NASA did not suspect there was a problem until after the craft was in orbit and the launch video was reviewed and at that time officials at NASA determined there was no problem with landing the shuttle. How do we know that NASA officials won't make the same error in judgement in reviewing what to do concerning Endeavour's heatsheild damage ?

After the Challenger and Columbia accidents it is just hard for me to believe NASA when it comes to the safety of our brave astronauts. I have to wonder if the astronauts aboard Endeavour feel the same way.


--
Thanks!
Kurt Kemp
Checkout The Kurt Kemp For President in 2008 Campaign Website on Myspace
http://www.myspace.com/kurtjkemp
My BlogSpot Blog On:
http://kempforpresident2008.blogspot.com/

"Courage is not the lack of fear but the ability to face it."
---- Lt. John B. Putnam Jr. (1921-1944)

I would personally prefer them to try and repair the damage. If they decide not to, and the worst happens, then there are gonna be a lot of questions asked, not to mention lives lost and end of program!

If there is little risk of an EVA accidentally damaging the shuttle, then why not just err on the side of caution and repair the damage?

snip

This kind of damage is not really new.

On Aug 16, 7:44?pm, "TimK" wrote:
snip

This kind of damage is not really new.

sure its just a maintence issue foam loss is normal = 7 dead columbia
crew

o ring erosion is normal = 7 dead crew

"dezmaas" wrote in message ...

I would personally prefer them to try and repair the damage. If they decide not to, and the worst happens, then there are gonna be a lot of questions asked, not to mention lives lost and end of program!


And if they repair it and the resultant repair results in the worst happening.. what then?




If there is little risk of an EVA accidentally damaging the shuttle, then why not just err on the side of caution and repair the damage?

As others have pointed out the result isn't necessarily that low and there's a lot more risks than just the EVA itself.





--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:21:57 -0700, "
wrote:

On Aug 16, 7:44?pm, "TimK" wrote:
snip

This kind of damage is not really new.

sure its just a maintence issue foam loss is normal = 7 dead columbia
crew

o ring erosion is normal = 7 dead crew
Small little divot in two tiles fully evaluated. Human space flight
inherently dangerous. People who fancy themselves experts in Usenet
group. = Drama Queens

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

TimK wrote:


snip

This kind of damage is not really new.

Are you sure? I would think the probability of this kind of damage is quite
low, and there haven't been that many flights. Most damage would fall into
the category of random. This one seems to have some interesting
aerodynamics to it.

"Craig Fink" wrote in message
...
TimK wrote:


snip

This kind of damage is not really new.

Are you sure? I would think the probability of this kind of damage is
quite
low, and there haven't been that many flights. Most damage would fall into
the category of random. This one seems to have some interesting
aerodynamics to it.

Can't say about that as the cameras are pretty new and maybe we've just not
seen that aspect of it (the "bounce"), but there have been chipped out bits
like this before. Whether or not it went all the way to felt I can't say
(and wouldn't, unless it had been reported in the press - gotta be careful
that way, you know) but it's not new to have to replace tiles that have
gouges as big as we have now. The problem, at this stage in the program
and after as much money has been thrown at it since Columbia, is frustrating
to say the least.

TimK wrote:


"Craig Fink" wrote in message
...
TimK wrote:


snip

This kind of damage is not really new.

Are you sure? I would think the probability of this kind of damage is
quite
low, and there haven't been that many flights. Most damage would fall
into the category of random. This one seems to have some interesting
aerodynamics to it.

Can't say about that as the cameras are pretty new and maybe we've just
not seen that aspect of it (the "bounce"), but there have been chipped out
bits
like this before. Whether or not it went all the way to felt I can't say
(and wouldn't, unless it had been reported in the press - gotta be careful
that way, you know) but it's not new to have to replace tiles that have
gouges as big as we have now. The problem, at this stage in the program
and after as much money has been thrown at it since Columbia, is
frustrating to say the least.

Right, the cameras are new, there hasn't been any before pictures, just the
after entry. Random damage having no aerodynamic shape would be much more
likely, that damage that had a good aerodynamic shape. So I would suspect
that most damage observed after landing would be of the random type, like
the example they showed, STS-26,

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/1..._081107_08.jpg

At yesterdays Mission Status Briefing, the head of the MMT even mentioned
the (compression) face in the damage area perpendicular to the bottom as a
cause of this type of damage...

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/1...shannon_01.jpg

....in the arc jet facility test, a troublesome shape, thin boundary layer?
turbulent flow? arc jet shock waves? that wasn't expected on a real entry.

An arc jet artifact? Observed many times?

Or,

Is it the true aerodynamics of this hole in the heat shield?