A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 8th 03, 06:10 AM
David Higgins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [UPDATE] Photos of RCC hole made during 7/7/03 test now online



larry wrote:

Also I recall seeing photos of Columbia when it was being readied
for flight. The Panels were black not the gray of the test panels.


I believe you recall incorrectly. Here's a link to a
launch photo of a relatively recent shuttle launch
(Endeavour, STS100, April 2001)

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...01pp-0832.html

Click on the low res(*) link, and look at the leading edge
of the wing (near the USofA flag), and the shuttle's nosecap.
Both are medium dark gray, the same as the RCC panels used
in yesterday's test.

Perhaps you are confusing the black tiles with the RCC panels?

(*) -- or the high res link...

  #12  
Old July 8th 03, 06:51 AM
LooseChanj
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [UPDATE] Photos of RCC hole made during 7/7/03 test now online

On or about Mon, 7 Jul 2003 23:10:36 -0500, Doug . .
made the sensational claim that:
Well, from what I understand, the actual damage to Columbia was probably
more like 6-10 inches in its greatest dimension, and possibly much
smaller in its smallest dimension. (This comes from the analysis of the
internal heating that I've seen referenced -- it would seem to indicate a
breach of the above-stated size.)

Now, at 81 seconds, you're well past maximum aerodynamic pressure and the
air is thinning rapidly. I doubt that a hole the size that was likely
created would have caused any detectable trajectory deviations. (Of
course, I'm just speaking from a gestalt sense, there are engineers here
who can give you a much more authoritative answer.)


My thought now is the hit created a hinged flap, which got thrown loose to
become the Day 2 mystery object. The rest of ascent, and maneuvering around
threw it this way and that and finally it just seperated.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

  #13  
Old July 8th 03, 09:16 AM
starman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [UPDATE] Photos of RCC hole made during 7/7/03 test now online

LooseChanj wrote:
snipped

My thought now is the hit created a hinged flap, which got thrown loose to
become the Day 2 mystery object. The rest of ascent, and maneuvering around
threw it this way and that and finally it just seperated.


There could have been some debris trapped inside the wing which later
floated out through the hole.


-----= 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! =-----
  #14  
Old July 8th 03, 12:32 PM
Lynndel Humphreys
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [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! =-----
  #15  
Old July 8th 03, 12:57 PM
Herb Schaltegger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [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
  #16  
Old July 8th 03, 05:08 PM
Scott Millington
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [UPDATE] Photos of RCC hole made during 7/7/03 test now online

There's another definition of "jive" that escapes me at the moment.

I don't have a reference but i beieve it is iften used to connote
dishonesty or intentionally misleading statements.

Of course I'm a white guy so what the hell do I know.
  #17  
Old July 8th 03, 11:10 PM
Cyberia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [UPDATE] Photos of RCC hole made during 7/7/03 test now online

Bruce Palmer wrote:
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913):

Jibe \Jibe\, v. i.
1. (Naut.) To change a ship's course so as to cause a shifting of the
boom. See {Jibe}, v. t., and {Gybe}.

2. To agree; to harmonize. [Colloq.] --Bartlett.


Heh, heh. Nabbed by the internet colloquialism police. :-)

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



  #18  
Old July 9th 03, 12:02 AM
larry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [UPDATE] Photos of RCC hole made during 7/7/03 test now online

David Higgins wrote:



larry wrote:

Also I recall seeing photos of Columbia when it was being readied
for flight. The Panels were black not the gray of the test panels.



I believe you recall incorrectly. Here's a link to a
launch photo of a relatively recent shuttle launch
(Endeavour, STS100, April 2001)



Then are there two colors of RCC panels, black and gray? Why the
difference in the colors in the photo "fitted RCC layout" at

http://www.caib.us/news/photos/shutt...y/default.asp#



http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...01pp-0832.html


Click on the low res(*) link, and look at the leading edge
of the wing (near the USofA flag), and the shuttle's nosecap.
Both are medium dark gray, the same as the RCC panels used
in yesterday's test.

Perhaps you are confusing the black tiles with the RCC panels?

(*) -- or the high res link...


  #19  
Old July 9th 03, 02:41 AM
Brian Thorn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [UPDATE] Photos of RCC hole made during 7/7/03 test now online

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 23:50:31 -0500, larry
wrote:

Also I recall seeing photos of Columbia when it was being readied
for flight. The Panels were black not the gray of the test panels.


I don't know what you remember, but Columbia's (and all the Shuttles,
including Enterprise's) RCC panels were always gray.

Here's Columbia on STS-1 in 1981...
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/MEDIU...000-000650.jpg
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/pho...EC81-15104.jpg

Brian
  #20  
Old July 9th 03, 03:49 PM
tim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [UPDATE] Photos of RCC hole made during 7/7/03 test now online

Scott Millington wrote in message


PLONK

you can read CARRIE here and in the SUNDAY NEWSPAPER COMICS.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.