That Interesting Foam Situation

You just have to laugh, or cry, concerning NASA's current Shuttle
situation. So they have spent two and a half years, and countless
billions, fixing these problems, where from the public point of view
they are now back to square one.

So despite all this time and money the exact same "foam problem" that
destroyed the Columbia remains. And that is why the Shuttles have once
again been grounded, where the anti-Shuttle crowd are now calling for
the immediate termination of the entire Shuttle program.

It just seems to me that there are more than a few idiots around these
days. Sure this is not an ideal situation, but then it is neither as
bad as what most people are currently seeing.

The first thing I noticed about this launch was how much the camera
coverage had improved. Then they did not quite do that for the TV and
Internet viewers did they? I also noticed how nice looking the ET was
these days, with a multi colour system.

That camera on the ET is a very good thing for NASA publicity, but in
this case there is also a down side. As I indeed noticed the live
coverage of that foam chunk breaking off.

The first case of the paranoid idiot syndrome crops up from those
people who cannot even do a simple E=MC2 calculation.

Columbia's foam problem came about due to using weaker CFC free foam
that lead to foam breaking off while still thick in the Earth's
atmosphere. That thick atmosphere quickly slowed the foam that lead to
a large velocity difference when it impacted Columbia's wing. Lots of
energy transfer and a resulting big hole.

Now in this case the foam broke off high in Earth's atmosphere, where
you can watch this foam slowly drift away. Just by working out how
much energy this foam had, then you can see that it would not have
been a problem had it struck Discovery. I am sure that you could have
even head butted that foam without knocking your brains out. :-]

What is more is that this foam only came off a few seconds following
SRB separation. Guess what caused this foam to come off? And so this
foam successfully survived the trip all through the thick atmosphere,
only to be knocked out, for some unknown reason, by the violent SRB
separation.

I am also sure that it is true to say that foam breaking off in this
weak spot is unlikely to hit the Shuttle anyway. Should it ever do so,
then lets keep in mind that this is high atmosphere and low energy
foam.

So is this successful and safe launch reason to ground the entire
Shuttle fleet? Let me guess. Paranoia over "killer foam" and not
understanding the real risk to blame.

Sure it would be nice to not have any foam break off, but lets keep in
mind that this is "foam". One knock and it is off in other words. And
even in the worst case situation, then does not NASA now do a post
launch inspection for damage?

So again, no problem.

And so NASA is now back to the drawing board trying to solve a
problem, that is not really a problem, and one that they are unlikely
to (easily) fix anyway. Do I really need to point out a successful
launch?

I even heard them say that it was a mistake to launch Discovery. Oh so
you thought that it would work out fine, where you would not wish to
test it out? Idiots...

So the wonderful situation now exists where NASA does not wish to
launch their astronauts in the safest Shuttle System yet made. That to
me kind of harms the memory of every successful and more risky launch
that came before this one.

I think that NASA needs to accept that the Shuttle will always be the
not so ideal system. Not that it is "fundamentally flawed" in any area
beyond a crew escape system, when I see the Shuttle more like a
software application that simply needs to be debugged, but with using
foam and these weak tiles you really are always going to have bits
breaking off.

And so until NASA has their "moon ship" then they really are going to
have to "deal with it". Too bad that they cannot have put the foam on
the inside, but there you go.

The other problem is that the main reason for why the Shuttle exists
is to build space stations. And it now seems questionable if these
Shuttles are even going to manage to complete even one.

History will not look kindly on the Shuttle anyway, but to not
actually complete the ISS is a crime that makes the whole point of
having the Shuttle kind of pointless.

It also seems to me that Congress is willing to give NASA the time
and/or money in order to complete the ISS. And so all it now takes is
NASA's desire to actually do it.

So they lack the desire to kill another Shuttle crew. Even if the
Shuttle now appears perfectly safe, until the next crew killing post
obvious "surprise" pops up. That attitude won't help them much with
even more risky Moon, Mars and beyond missions.

Well you can only do the best that you can do, even if you kill people
in the process. Anyone that knows the Shuttle knows that this
Discovery launch was really the safest one yet. And so NASA is doing
great in failing to build the ISS due to their "foam paranoia".

People were nervous due to this being Columbia Disaster +1, where they
were on the look out for killer foam. And NASA's new ET camera filming
the violent SRB separation gave then exactly what they wanted. Except
that the public does not understand harmless foam, where the
anti-Shuttle people are playing on this.

Their next Shuttle launch was due in September. And I hope that NASA
deals with their foam paranoia, where the next launch of their "safest
Shuttle yet" will still go ahead.

The thing is that NASA has to make a choice. Fly the Shuttle, or to
ground it forever. Since they are obligated to fly the Shuttle anyway,
when your country would not permit less, then it is time to stop
assing about and to actually launch it.

I see another year long delay in trying even harder to get foam not to
do what it does best, along with billions more wasted, as clearly
unacceptable. This is a case of don't try to fix what is not really a
problem.

What is more is that they should increase the Shuttle launch rate in
order to complete the ISS before September 2010. That is called
completing their assigned task, using the safest Shuttle System yet
made.

They should also show some balls and to service Hubble. Oh dear foam
falling off and not even going to the safety of the ISS! NASA's
Shuttle problem is not one of safety, but one of weak leadership that
allows paranoia to run rampant.

What NASA needs is not to ground their fleet, but to educate the
population over "harmless foam". After all, it is not a question of if
it comes off, when that is the very nature of foam, but exactly where
and when it comes off. And NASA does have a Plan B in case of a now
very unlikely worse case situation.

Oh yes Plan B. Just like how they strap, and bolt, their astronauts
into these Shuttles and expect them to live following a "killer
glitch". I am not even sure if they would survive if fire broke out,
when it seems to me like it would take 30 minutes to de-bolt and
de-strip them all.

So just how long would it have taken them to launch their backup
Shuttle? And they worry about harmless foam...

The bravest thing that an astronaut does is to be willing to ride the
Shuttle in the first place. I hear no complaints. After that they role
the dice and hope that they do not role snake eyes.

Anyway, my rant is now over. Would NASA kindly get a grip and to
launch the Shuttle in order to service Hubble and complete the ISS. I
would ask anyone here to point out NASA's next killer oversight, which
they cannot do, but we can all now be certain that this won't be foam.

Should NASA lose another Shuttle, then that is Shuttle game over. That
is a situation that they will have to deal with should it ever come
about. Hopefully not.

So at the end of all this my conclusion is that NASA's management
needs some balls. A statement along the line of "We have Hubble to
service, a ISS to build, and all we see is some harmless foam" would
be nice.

Cardman.

Cardman wrote in part:


The first case of the paranoid idiot syndrome crops up from those
people who cannot even do a simple E=MC2 calculation.

I'm not familiar with this equation. Perhaps you're thinking of E=mc^2.
Or maybe the MC5. They rocked, that's for sure.

Columbia's foam problem came about due to using weaker CFC free foam
that lead to foam breaking off while still thick in the Earth's
atmosphere.

Thanks, Rush.


--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:07:24 GMT, Unclaimed Mysteries
theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysterie s.net wrote:

Cardman wrote in part:

The first case of the paranoid idiot syndrome crops up from those
people who cannot even do a simple E=MC2 calculation.

I'm not familiar with this equation. Perhaps you're thinking of E=mc^2.
Or maybe the MC5. They rocked, that's for sure.

I am sure that you know what I meant. I did desire to do a small 2,
but I lacked the keyboard character for it. Next time I will keep in
mind the correct Usenet version for this equation.

Well it is true to say that many people have gone quite paranoid over
this minor foam issue. I was just watching my local news report, where
they called it "foam shrapnel". Beyond the clear incorrect use of this
word, then I would still find it hard to put these two words together.

They also called it a near repeat of the Columbia incident. This
clearly highlights their avoidance of the truth in order to make more
of a story of it than what there is. Liars.

I am sure that it cannot just be me who considers this the safest
Shuttle Launch to date? How many of you would like them to fly with
the old leaking SRBs and the CFC free foam? Yikes. And they really did
used to be happy doing that.

This is not to say that I have not directly said before that anything
hitting the orbiter is undesirable. However, this is clearly not a
foam problem, but a SRB separation one.

After they had worked hard to improve their explosive bolts system,
then it is hard to say just what did fly off this SRB and to cause
this foam to detach. Maybe it was a small piece of bolt. It could have
also been a fluke that may not be seen again for a long time.

So I agree that this matter should be investigated and any suitable
improvement made. However, I would certainly disagree with grounding
the Shuttle fleet, in order to fix a minor problem that could simply
be worked out during future production.

There is no real risk from any foam coming off at this point anyway.

And so they want to switch off their human space flight programme for
another year, just because they are too "girlie" to say that this slow
moving foam is an acceptable risk. An acceptable risk that they could
minimise in future on-time flights anyway.

I do not see that NASA's current position is acceptable. With every
unwelcomed creak and groan ye olde Shuttle makes they are going to
ground them. And with this current attitude I doubt that they will
even manage 12 ISS construction flights before 2010.

And NASA is not even voicing the right words to say that this foam was
harmless and that this was the safest Shuttle flight to-date. I also
know why they are not saying the obvious, when anyone voicing
something that goes against apparent safety would be virtually
"murdered". So instead these publicity seeking hypocrites like to say
things like "They were lucky to escape undamaged".

However, their current position is disrespecting all their own
employees, who worked long and hard to make the latest Shuttle launch
as safe as it currently is.

I am sure all astronauts, would be perfectly happy to ride this new
Shuttle, exactly how it is. The safest one to date. And where this
foam detaching during SRB separation really is a harmless event. You
can estimate the energy of that foam for yourself.

It would even be more valid to question the very safety of their
"cannot be turned off" SRBs. I like their SRBs. However, even I can
see that these are more unsafe, by their very nature, than this chunk
of slow moving media seeking foam.

Just maybe they will come around in time. Then again they could really
ground their perfectly working Shuttle for another year, over this
very foam paranoia.

And you would really let this management send people to the Moon and
beyond? They certainly would not get far, when they are now unable to
handle acceptable risks.

Maybe this fear of being wrong, in such judgement calls, is another
legacy of Columbia. That however is not what leadership is about. No
leadership is about doing the job that you are required to do, then to
let history judge your actions.

And any Shuttle Manager should be happy to risk the lives of a crew
over this minor foam problem, when as I pointed out above, this
Shuttle could easily kill a crew though a SRB or SSME mistake. It is a
worthy note of Shuttle safety that there has not yet been such an
incident.

The problem here is that NASA, out of simple fear, is failing to do
the job that the US government, and local tax payers, is paying them
s**t loads of money to do.

In time they could certainly "come around", but the current leadership
does seem to be quite lacking.

Yes, the Shuttle does really kill astronauts at a rather high rate. It
does not seem an acceptable solution to solve this problem though
non-use, when planes and cars are also known to kill people. Does
society stop when people die? No...

It is true to say that maybe ISS construction is not worth the life of
another 7 crew members. However, NASA due to events has drawn the
"short straw", where they have an ISS to build, even if it does one
day cost the lives of another crew.

At least NASA is no longer playing the game of removing all likely
hood of an accident through safety upgrades. However, they have yet to
find an alternate way of dealing with the possibility of another
Shuttle loss. Currently they are playing avoidance, where that is not
an acceptable solution.

So would NASA please fly the Shuttle that they have just spent many
more billions on. Yes, so it is a little "flaky", but this is
certainly not a matter to be concerned about. Past launches are sure
to have been much worse.

Cardman.

"Cardman" wrote in message
...

The first thing I noticed about this launch was how much the camera
coverage had improved. Then they did not quite do that for the TV and
Internet viewers did they? I also noticed how nice looking the ET was
these days, with a multi colour system.


No, they did that so they could study thefoam problem


That camera on the ET is a very good thing for NASA publicity, but in
this case there is also a down side. As I indeed noticed the live
coverage of that foam chunk breaking off.

The first case of the paranoid idiot syndrome crops up from those
people who cannot even do a simple E=MC2 calculation.

Columbia's foam problem came about due to using weaker CFC free foam
that lead to foam breaking off while still thick in the Earth's
atmosphere.

Thanks for playing. The bipod ramp was manually sprayed on using the old
CFC containing foam.



I am also sure that it is true to say that foam breaking off in this
weak spot is unlikely to hit the Shuttle anyway. Should it ever do so,
then lets keep in mind that this is high atmosphere and low energy
foam.

See, this is the thinking that doomed Columbia.


So is this successful and safe launch reason to ground the entire
Shuttle fleet? Let me guess. Paranoia over "killer foam" and not
understanding the real risk to blame.

No, I don't think it's NASA that doesn't understand the true risks.


Sure it would be nice to not have any foam break off, but lets keep in
mind that this is "foam". One knock and it is off in other words. And
even in the worst case situation, then does not NASA now do a post
launch inspection for damage?

Which is part of what they are doing on this flight.


So again, no problem.

And so NASA is now back to the drawing board trying to solve a
problem, that is not really a problem, and one that they are unlikely
to (easily) fix anyway. Do I really need to point out a successful
launch?

Columbia's launch was successful.


You'd be funnier if you weren't so tragically wrong about your facts.

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:28:57 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

"Cardman" wrote in message
.. .

The first thing I noticed about this launch was how much the camera
coverage had improved. Then they did not quite do that for the TV and
Internet viewers did they? I also noticed how nice looking the ET was
these days, with a multi colour system.

No, they did that so they could study thefoam problem

No? As I did not give a reason for why they did this, when I only said
that it looked good, then so there is nothing to say "no" to. I will
assume that you simply wish to be unfairly objectionable.

I am also sure that it is true to say that foam breaking off in this
weak spot is unlikely to hit the Shuttle anyway. Should it ever do so,
then lets keep in mind that this is high atmosphere and low energy
foam.

See, this is the thinking that doomed Columbia.

With risk assessment you always have to set a level. Too low and
people die. Too high and you don't get the job done.

To ground the Shuttle fleet over this foam problem is clearly a bad
call, by stopping ISS construction at the expense of safety. I am well
aware of NASA's past bad safety decisions, where now these are
preventing them from making fair risk assessments.

NASA can do all the tests that they want. This foam coming off at the
point of SRB separation comes no where close to the same risk that
past Shuttle launches have faced by losing foam as the Shuttle passed
through the lower and thicker atmosphere.

Just compare the Columbia foam to this foam to see what I mean.

The new foam system seems fine, when only the SRB separation knocked
this large section out for some unknown reason. And so Discovery
safely passed through the lower thick atmosphere, where foam coming
off can indeed pose a *rare* problem.

So it seems very much a case of problem solved.

So is this successful and safe launch reason to ground the entire
Shuttle fleet? Let me guess. Paranoia over "killer foam" and not
understanding the real risk to blame.

No, I don't think it's NASA that doesn't understand the true risks.

Then why don't you care to educate us all? For now I will take it that
you are one of those people who likes to be critical without providing
any facts to support your case. Since that is what you are currently
doing.

I do really love safety as it happens. This is why I know that what
NASA has to do had it really valued safety would be to immediately
cancel the entire shuttle programme.

No crew escape system. Dangerous SRBs that cannot be turned off. The
SSMEs that could easily fail with really bad results. And most of all
an initial bad design. Not to mention that the Shuttle is not a very
good crew and cargo system.

However, the fact is that NASA does not have the option to cancel the
Shuttle program, when they are stuck with it. More importantly they
have an obligation to use it to build their ISS. And NASA certainly
cannot blame anyone other than themselves for this situation.

And since this is the Shuttle, then already you have to take on
additional risks. That certainly includes bits of foam and tile
falling off.

The true risk here is not a question of safety, but one of a space
organization being able to do real space exploration. And I am sorry
to say that with this attitude they will be unable to do this job.

The only thing that would happen is that costs will spiral out of
control, services will fail, where more people will die anyway.

At the current time NASA is unable to accept any foam falling off. It
seems to me that fate is watching NASA closely, when right at the
point of SRB separation on live TV did fate clearly highlight that no
matter their intentions this foam will still come off.

NASA should learn to listen to fate. That after all also got them
their moon base project. You just have to understand what fate is
saying to you. :-]

Sure it would be nice to not have any foam break off, but lets keep in
mind that this is "foam". One knock and it is off in other words. And
even in the worst case situation, then does not NASA now do a post
launch inspection for damage?

Which is part of what they are doing on this flight.

Yes, I noticed these appealing shuttle maneuvers. ET inspection. Their
new Canada arm in action. Then the inspection from the ISS.

So again, no problem.

And so NASA is now back to the drawing board trying to solve a
problem, that is not really a problem, and one that they are unlikely
to (easily) fix anyway. Do I really need to point out a successful
launch?

Columbia's launch was successful.

That is was. And so it should now be back in action, where this foam
loss can be investigated and corrected during on-going shuttle
operations.

You'd be funnier if you weren't so tragically wrong about your facts.

If you could say that it was not the SRB separation that directly
knocked out this foam, then you would indeed have a valid safety
concern. However, since these two events are clearly linked, then so
this is only a minor problem that does not pose a safety risk.

The new foam system seems to work just fine. Anyone saying that
Discovery was at foam risk during this mission would be very
incorrect.

Cardman.

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:28:57 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

"Cardman" wrote in message
.. .

I am also sure that it is true to say that foam breaking off in this
weak spot is unlikely to hit the Shuttle anyway. Should it ever do so,
then lets keep in mind that this is high atmosphere and low energy
foam.

See, this is the thinking that doomed Columbia.

I feel like covering this point some more, when you are quite right in
this statement. That is called being human and calling things as you
see them.

Like who would have ever thought that a piece of soft foam falling
only a short distance could have taken out a Shuttle? Certainly once
they ran the tests things became obvious enough, but I do not recall
anyone running around saying that Columbia was doomed.

And naturally it was not long before other people started looking
around for who to blame. I cannot really blame this former management
for being subject to human failings in the pursuit of doing their job,
when the main failing of the shuttle is with the initial design.

So now the NASA management is being asked to be inhuman. They are
being asked to avoid all problems in a launch system that is basically
flawed. That sounds like a conflicting concept.

We already know that it won't be the foam that takes out another
shuttle, when I am already sure that this problem has been solved well
enough. Maybe even NASA's new zero tolerance policy may actually catch
the design flaw that is due to take out another shuttle, should that
ever come about.

My point would be in what you actually lose by always putting safety
first. As I already know that with this policy they will stand a
snowball's chance in Hell of actually completing the ISS to any
acceptable degree.

I am sure that most people are aware that their new launch system is
good to go. Works great, where it is the safest shuttle yet. And yet
there is the thought of what seemingly harmless foam did to Columbia.

The difference in this case was that this foam that came off
Discovery's ET really was harmless. That is obvious enough to see
should you figure it out.

What is more is that it seems obviously enough as to why this foam
came off in the first place. That is certainly not a failure of the
foam, when you simply cannot avoid it from being knocked off when
struck.

My problem is that grounding the shuttle, for what could easily be a
year, is wrong considering this easily understood harmless event. And
as a result of this bad decision, then so does the ISS construction
fail to meet even it's lesser construction goal.

This seems like a good time to point out that it is no good having a
human space flight organization, when you don't actually do human
spaceflight to an acceptable degree.

Not that NASA has ever done that ever since Challenger blew.

There is only one outcome to dealing with death, where that is
acceptance. The shuttle's main problem is in having no opt out option
should things go belly up.

This shuttle management needs to see things from the astronauts point
of view, when the shuttle is dangerous in it's very design, but you
still have to launch them anyway.

Maybe they should take their cue from all other manned vehicles, when
it is always the captain of the very vehicle who has the final say on
starting and stopping.

I do not see why the shuttle should be any different. As these
astronauts are putting their own lives at risk, then should they not
have final say on what risks it is that they want to accept? Now that
the management is unable to make rational decisions.

As if anyone has to right to kill them, then it seems fair to make
that their own decision. And if I was an astronaut then I would
certainly be happy with this foam situation. Mark it down as a point
that needs investigation and correction, then to be pleased to get
busy getting this ISS job nailed.

Naturally NASA has a lot more to lose than with another 7 crew
members, when loose another shuttle and they lose their space flight
ability until the CEV is complete. I don't see that keeping the
shuttle in service until 2010 through non-use is an acceptable answer.

Anyway, if this lack of action out of fear is NASA's new policy, then
so will they be going nowhere quickly. Maybe the CEV will improve
their confidence, but I doubt that even CEV spaceflight will be that
safe.

So now NASA has a perfectly working shuttle that they lack the desire
to use, just because the SRB separation knocked out some foam. That is
almost like they acted in surprise that their ET was covered with foam
in the first place. Shock horror.

Oddly enough they are blaming the foam for being knocked out by the
SRB. Weird of what.

As I said before this situation is in need of good strong NASA
leadership. Someone that can say that their new shuttle system works
great and to get busy completing the ISS. Someone to also take the
direct blame should another shuttle go up in flames.

Well the Chinese are really going to mop the floor with the US on this
one. In China if you get in the way of the state, then you move. And
should they kill you, then so are you a proud loyal citizen who died
for his country and is now a hero.

Even us soppy Europeans could do better. We are rational. big grin

Cardman.