|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
[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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
[UPDATE] Photos of RCC hole made during 7/7/03 test now online
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
[UPDATE] Photos of RCC hole made during 7/7/03 test now online
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! =----- |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
[UPDATE] Photos of RCC hole made during 7/7/03 test now online
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 ? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
[UPDATE] Photos of RCC hole made during 7/7/03 test now online
"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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
[UPDATE] Photos of RCC hole made during 7/7/03 test now online
"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! =----- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
[UPDATE] Photos of RCC hole made during 7/7/03 test now online
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
[UPDATE] Photos of RCC hole made during 7/7/03 test now online
OM wrote:
...From CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html ...Tom Wheeler take note: Now *that* is a hole. I was wondering if anyone knows why the panels in the test were gray colored while those on the shuttles are black? They said that the hole would probably not be seen because the black interior of the hole would not be noticeable against the black panel. Larry OM |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
[UPDATE] Photos of RCC hole made during 7/7/03 test now online
In article , says...
OM wrote: ...From CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html ...Tom Wheeler take note: Now *that* is a hole. I was wondering if anyone knows why the panels in the test were gray colored while those on the shuttles are black? They said that the hole would probably not be seen because the black interior of the hole would not be noticeable against the black panel. I'm not sure who the "they" are that you're referring to, but "they" may have been discussing the problem of tile damage back when it seemed that damaged tiles and not RCC panels were the cause of the catastrophe. The RCC panels are, and have always been, a darkish gray. A hole the size that was made in the test today *would* probably have been visible in the best imagery we could have gotten of Columbia on- orbit. It's hard to say whether or not the actual damage to Columbia was that large, though. It was definitely enough to cause the destruction of the vehicle, of course... *sigh*... -- It's not the pace of life I mind; | Doug Van Dorn it's the sudden stop at the end... | |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Shuttle Foam Test Yields Hole in Wing - Associated Press | Rusty B | Space Shuttle | 29 | August 12th 03 03:30 AM |
[UPDATE] Photos of RCC hole made during 7/7/03 test now online | Rusty Barton | Space Shuttle | 23 | July 13th 03 06:10 PM |
[UPDATE] Photos of RCC hole made during 7/7/03 test now online | Rusty Barton | Policy | 20 | July 13th 03 06:10 PM |
Shuttle Foam Test Yields Hole in Wing - Associated Press | Rusty B | History | 8 | July 10th 03 12:05 AM |
Shuttle Foam Test Yields Hole in Wing - Associated Press | Rusty B | Policy | 3 | July 8th 03 12:36 AM |