[UPDATE] Photos of RCC hole made during 7/7/03 test now online

....From CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html

....Tom Wheeler take note: Now *that* is a hole.

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 18:41:56 -0600, OM
om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org
wrote:

...From CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html

...Tom Wheeler take note: Now *that* is a hole.

OM


When the foam problem is solved, there still might be a question of
bird strikes.

If a 1.5-lb piece of foam going 500-mph does this kind of damage, what
would a 3-lb to 7-lb bird struck at 200-mph or 300-mph do? KSC is a
wildlife refuge. They've never hit one yet, but there's always a first
time.



Rusty Barton - Antelope, California
--
--
Rusty Barton - Antelope, California

Visit my Titan 1 ICBM Website at:
http://www.geocities.com/titan_1_missile

"I aim for the stars, but sometimes I hit London."
- Mort Sahl speaking of Werner Von Braun

In article ,
says...
On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:41:56 -0600, OM
om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org
wrote:

...From CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html

...Tom Wheeler take note: Now *that* is a hole.

OM


When the foam problem is solved, there still might be a question of
bird strikes.

If a 1.5-lb piece of foam going 500-mph does this kind of damage, what
would a 3-lb to 7-lb bird struck at 200-mph or 300-mph do? KSC is a
wildlife refuge. They've never hit one yet, but there's always a first
time.

I don't think *any* manned spacecraft has ever hit a bird upon launch
(although I could be wrong). They tend to flee the noise and vibration.
And by the time the vehicle is moving at significant speed, you're above
the flight level of a majority of the birds in the area, I would think...

Yes, it's still something of a risk, but doesn't seem to be as big a risk
as foam shedding from the ET.

--

It's not the pace of life I mind; | Doug Van Dorn
it's the sudden stop at the end... |

Yes, it's still something of a risk, but doesn't seem to be as big a risk
as foam shedding from the ET.


So with the bird and foam problem removed they can return to flight? Lots of
space debris too.







-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Rusty Barton wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:41:56 -0600, OM
om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org
wrote:

...From CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html

...Tom Wheeler take note: Now *that* is a hole.

OM

When the foam problem is solved, there still might be a question of
bird strikes.

If a 1.5-lb piece of foam going 500-mph does this kind of damage, what
would a 3-lb to 7-lb bird struck at 200-mph or 300-mph do? KSC is a
wildlife refuge. They've never hit one yet, but there's always a first
time.

At what altitude does the shuttle reach these speeds?

At what maximum altitude do most birds fly?

And, falling debris is conscious of nothing. I suspect birds will
actively tend to avoid the, ah, modest disturbance that a shuttle launch
generates.

In sci.space.policy Joann Evans wrote:
Rusty Barton wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 18:41:56 -0600, OM
om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org
wrote:

...From CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html

...Tom Wheeler take note: Now *that* is a hole.

OM

When the foam problem is solved, there still might be a question of
bird strikes.

If a 1.5-lb piece of foam going 500-mph does this kind of damage, what
would a 3-lb to 7-lb bird struck at 200-mph or 300-mph do? KSC is a
wildlife refuge. They've never hit one yet, but there's always a first
time.

At what altitude does the shuttle reach these speeds?

At what maximum altitude do most birds fly?

And, falling debris is conscious of nothing. I suspect birds will
actively tend to avoid the, ah, modest disturbance that a shuttle launch
generates.

If the shuttle is supersonic, they may not hear it coming.
Even if it isn't, they might not be able to manoever enough to generate a
miss, as it's not something they train for

A quick google for "highest flying bird" reveals that a vulture hit a plane
at 37000 feet.
Call this 12Km.
The shuttle goes supersonic at 40 seconds in, at around 7Km.

I think the altitude at which the shuttle outpaces the noise of ignition
is around 10-12Km, so it's even concievable that the bird might not
even hear it.

--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
'Where subtlety fails, we must simply make do with cream pies' -- David Brin

OM wrote:
...From CNN:


http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/0...estigation.ap/
index.html

...Tom Wheeler take note: Now *that* is a hole.

OM

The foam in the test appeared to exit the impact intact. How does this jive
with the near total disintegration into dust seen during Columbia's launch?
Wouldn't that disintegration consume a lot of the impact energy, thus
preventing so much wing damage?

--
---------------
SeeYa !
--------------
Hello....... Is this thing on ?

"Cyberia" wrote in
:

OM wrote:
...From CNN:


http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/0...e.investigatio
n.ap/ index.html

...Tom Wheeler take note: Now *that* is a hole.

OM

The foam in the test appeared to exit the impact intact. How does this
jive with the near total disintegration into dust seen during
Columbia's launch? Wouldn't that disintegration consume a lot of the
impact energy, thus preventing so much wing damage?

The first impact test against real RCC was a "corner" impact, and caused
only a small crack in the RCC, but completely disintegrated the foam in a
manner similar to that seen on STS-107.

Today's test was a full-side impact, and caused a massive hole in the RCC,
while leaving the foam more intact. Both tests used the same foam mass and
speed.

The aerothermal evidence suggests that the actual size of the hole in
Columbia was on the order of 6-10 inches, rather than the 16 inches seen in
today's test.

Taken together, the above facts suggest 1) a correlation between angle of
impact and energy transfer; i.e. a corner hit results in the foam absorbing
more energy and disintegrating while causing only minor RCC damage, while a
full-side hit transfers more energy to the RCC and causes more damage, and
2) that the foam tests have successfully "bracketed" the probable damage
seen on the actual flight, and that the foam that hit STS-107 struck at an
angle somewhere in between a "corner-only" hit and a full-side hit.

Just my opinion, of course.

--
JRF

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

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
"Cyberia" wrote in
:

OM wrote:
...From CNN:


http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/0...e.investigatio
n.ap/ index.html

...Tom Wheeler take note: Now *that* is a hole.

OM

The foam in the test appeared to exit the impact intact. How does this
jive with the near total disintegration into dust seen during
Columbia's launch? Wouldn't that disintegration consume a lot of the
impact energy, thus preventing so much wing damage?

The first impact test against real RCC was a "corner" impact, and caused
only a small crack in the RCC, but completely disintegrated the foam in a
manner similar to that seen on STS-107.

Today's test was a full-side impact, and caused a massive hole in the RCC,
while leaving the foam more intact. Both tests used the same foam mass and
speed.

The aerothermal evidence suggests that the actual size of the hole in
Columbia was on the order of 6-10 inches, rather than the 16 inches seen
in
today's test.

Taken together, the above facts suggest 1) a correlation between angle of
impact and energy transfer; i.e. a corner hit results in the foam
absorbing
more energy and disintegrating while causing only minor RCC damage, while
a
full-side hit transfers more energy to the RCC and causes more damage, and
2) that the foam tests have successfully "bracketed" the probable damage
seen on the actual flight, and that the foam that hit STS-107 struck at an
angle somewhere in between a "corner-only" hit and a full-side hit.

Just my opinion, of course.

--
Houston You definitely have a problem..




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

In article ,
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

Taken together, the above facts suggest 1) a correlation between angle of
impact and energy transfer; i.e. a corner hit results in the foam absorbing
more energy and disintegrating while causing only minor RCC damage, while a
full-side hit transfers more energy to the RCC and causes more damage, and
2) that the foam tests have successfully "bracketed" the probable damage
seen on the actual flight, and that the foam that hit STS-107 struck at an
angle somewhere in between a "corner-only" hit and a full-side hit.

I think one of the factors you need to consider when examining visuals
of these foam impact test results is the fact that these results are for
foam that is not rotating. I understand the impact tests have been
conducted at slightly higher velocity in order to compensate for the
lack of rotational energy. However, rotation of the foam at impact
would (it seems to me) impart greater lateral velocity to the fragments
after impact, thus resulting in the more "shower-like" spray of debris
seen on the actual launch footage. Just something to consider if/when
people comment that the latest test results don't look like the launch
films.

--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks