Pad damage

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:22:50 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

So then, what is the cause. Is it subsidence? Sounds like some ultrasound
testing might be in order in the trench.

....And weren't you also noting that the downlink audio had a
significant vibration to it? I'm now wondering if there was more to it
now, Brian.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:11:35 -0500, OM
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:22:50 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

So then, what is the cause. Is it subsidence? Sounds like some ultrasound
testing might be in order in the trench.

...And weren't you also noting that the downlink audio had a
significant vibration to it? I'm now wondering if there was more to it
now, Brian.

And the disturbing increase in number and size of debris from a Tank
that was supposed to be the "best yet" (but in reality looks to be the
second worst since RTF.)

Related? Probably not, but with NASA seemingly unwilling to
acknowledge that the new Tank gave a far from stellar performance, its
hard to just dismiss the possibility.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:
Related? Probably not, but with NASA seemingly unwilling to
acknowledge that the new Tank gave a far from stellar performance, its
hard to just dismiss the possibility.


Did they have significant foam shedding?
From what I read only around five very small sections of foam shed
during ascent:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttl...d2/index2.html
It certainly looks to be in very good shape from the post separation
imaging.
Still, this is the first all-new ET incorporating all of the
post-Columbia loss improvements, so it should have had almost no foam
shedding at all.

Pat

Did all the water sprays actually work correctly do we know.

From the tank point of view, I'd say this is a red herring, myself. The
fact is that this is a new tank and has been made with the mods from the
ground up. What is not known of course is how much of the good performance
of the modified tanks was due to the re application of foam after the mods
being better than the normal application.


I'd have expected a lot more damage to the tank than apparently there was if
the debris from the pad had hit it, likewise with the orbiter of course. One
tiny bit of torn blanket patch is hardly major damage, though one has to
wonder if micro sized debris got into the oms mechanics and upset the back
up striiing later in the ascent.

I doubt anyone will be able to tell for certain till the orbiter gets back.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:11:35 -0500, OM
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:22:50 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

So then, what is the cause. Is it subsidence? Sounds like some ultrasound
testing might be in order in the trench.

...And weren't you also noting that the downlink audio had a
significant vibration to it? I'm now wondering if there was more to it
now, Brian.

And the disturbing increase in number and size of debris from a Tank
that was supposed to be the "best yet" (but in reality looks to be the
second worst since RTF.)

Related? Probably not, but with NASA seemingly unwilling to
acknowledge that the new Tank gave a far from stellar performance, its
hard to just dismiss the possibility.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:11:35 -0500, OM
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:22:50 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

So then, what is the cause. Is it subsidence? Sounds like some ultrasound
testing might be in order in the trench.
...And weren't you also noting that the downlink audio had a
significant vibration to it? I'm now wondering if there was more to it
now, Brian.

And the disturbing increase in number and size of debris from a Tank
that was supposed to be the "best yet" (but in reality looks to be the
second worst since RTF.)

Now that *all* the imagery is in and analyzed, I don't think that's a
valid statement. Overall debris looks to be in line with other post-RTF
tanks.

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 11:03:05 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:


And the disturbing increase in number and size of debris from a Tank
that was supposed to be the "best yet" (but in reality looks to be the
second worst since RTF.)

Now that *all* the imagery is in and analyzed, I don't think that's a
valid statement. Overall debris looks to be in line with other post-RTF
tanks.

I'm glad I was wrong. But that sure _looked_ like a lot of debris
shedding.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 11:03:05 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:


And the disturbing increase in number and size of debris from a Tank
that was supposed to be the "best yet" (but in reality looks to be the
second worst since RTF.)
Now that *all* the imagery is in and analyzed, I don't think that's a
valid statement. Overall debris looks to be in line with other post-RTF
tanks.

I'm glad I was wrong. But that sure _looked_ like a lot of debris
shedding.

Just bad luck that most of the debris incidents happened to be within
the FOV of the one live-downlinked camera.

In sci.space.history OM wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:22:50 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:
So then, what is the cause. Is it subsidence? Sounds like some
ultrasound testing might be in order in the trench.

...And weren't you also noting that the downlink audio had a
significant vibration to it? I'm now wondering if there was more to
it now, Brian.

How much can come off an SRB without it being "fatal?" Could a chunk
of propellant have come-loose and detonated somewhere in the tunnel?
How about the liquid propellants?

Or perhaps something more prosaic - like someone left something behind
in the tunnel?

rick jones
--
Wisdom Teeth are impacted, people are affected by the effects of events.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On Jun 2, 8:11 pm, Rick Jones wrote:

How much can come off an SRB without it being "fatal?" Could a chunk
of propellant have come-loose and detonated somewhere in the tunnel?
How about the liquid propellants?


The solid propellant doesn't detonate and if a chunk came out, it
would mean there is a problem with the SRM. Impossible with the
liquids.

wrote:
The solid propellant doesn't detonate and if a chunk came out, it
would mean there is a problem with the SRM. Impossible with the
liquids.


The SRB propellant is pretty flexible anyway (something along the lines
of a pencil eraser), so it wouldn't be prone to shedding a chunk.
Early solid fuels could suffer fractures in their grains due to
temperature variations, like taking them into very cold or hot
environments, but that ceased to be a problem several decades ago with
improved fuel mixtures.
(This led to the odd heaters mounted inside of the cylinder that
surrounded the Soviet Frog-1 artillery rocket as it rode around on its
tank chassis in the cold Russian winter:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/m...frog-1_002.jpg
It may also account for why early Falcon AAMs were only carried
internally by interceptors that operated at high and cold altitudes,
though I'm not sure about that.)
I'll tell you one thing though... if you want a _lot_ of thrust out of a
solid fueled rocket engine, fire one with cracks in its fuel
grain...you'll be amazed at the short burn time and high thrust. I tried
out a ignition system on one of my homemade ones that involved a soda
straw full of black powder inserted up the bore in the grain, and it
shattered the grain when the black powder went off...and converted a
planned burn time of around three seconds at around one hundred pounds
thrust into a burn time of around one second at around five hundred to
seven hundred pounds thrust - that shot out a exhaust flame around
twenty feet long which set fire to the tree is it was being fired
nozzle-up under. It was buried in the ground when this happened, and
thank God the casing held... as otherwise it probably would have gone
off like a landmine. Considering that the casing was a iron plumbing
pipe this would probably not have been good from a shrapnel viewpoint...
particularly since the test was going on around twenty feet from my
childhood house. :-D

Pat