Shuttle Foam Test Yields Hole in Wing - Associated Press

[Rusty B]

Shuttle Foam Test Yields Hole in Wing

Columbia Investigators Fire Foam Insulation at Shuttle Wing, Blowing
Open 2-Foot Hole

The Associated Press

SAN ANTONIO July 7 —
The team investigating the Columbia disaster fired a chunk of foam
insulation at shuttle wing parts Monday and blew open a gaping 2-foot
hole, offering dramatic evidence to support the theory of what doomed
the spaceship.

The crowd of about 100 gasped and cried, "Wow!" when the foam hit.

The foam struck roughly the same spot where insulation that broke off
Columbia's big external fuel tank during launch smashed into the
shuttle's wing. Investigators believe the damage led to the ship's
destruction during re-entry over Texas in February, killing all seven
astronauts.

It was the seventh and final foam-impact test by the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board, and it yielded by far the most severe damage.

The 1.67-pound piece of fuel tank foam insulation shot out of a
35-foot nitrogen-pressurized gun and slammed into a carbon-reinforced
panel removed from shuttle Atlantis.

The countdown boomed through loudspeakers, and the crack of the foam
coming out at more than 500 mph reverberated in the field where the
test was conducted.

Twelve high-speed cameras six inside the wing mock-up and six outside
captured the event. Hundreds of sensors registered movements, stresses
and other conditions.

NASA will continue gathering more information about the poorly
understood pieces that line the vulnerable leading edges of shuttle
wings, board member Scott Hubbard said.

One month ago, another carbon shuttle wing panel smaller and farther
inboard was cracked by the impact, in addition to an adjoining seal.
This time, the entire 11 1/2-inch width of the foam chunk rather than
just a corner during previous tests hit the wing, putting maximum
stress on the suspect area.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030707_1189.html

[Kegwasher]

Rusty B wrote:

> Shuttle Foam Test Yields Hole in Wing
>
> Columbia Investigators Fire Foam Insulation at Shuttle Wing, Blowing
> Open 2-Foot Hole
>
> The Associated Press
>
> SAN ANTONIO July 7 —
> The team investigating the Columbia disaster fired a chunk of foam
> insulation at shuttle wing parts Monday and blew open a gaping 2-foot
> hole, offering dramatic evidence to support the theory of what doomed
> the spaceship.
>
> The crowd of about 100 gasped and cried, "Wow!" when the foam hit.
>

In the immortal words of Rosanne Rosanna Dana,

Well now, that's different.

[Mr. Computer]

"Rusty B" > wrote in message
om...
> Shuttle Foam Test Yields Hole in Wing
>
> Columbia Investigators Fire Foam Insulation at Shuttle Wing, Blowing
> Open 2-Foot Hole
>
> The Associated Press
>
> SAN ANTONIO July 7 -
> The team investigating the Columbia disaster fired a chunk of foam
> insulation at shuttle wing parts Monday and blew open a gaping 2-foot
> hole, offering dramatic evidence to support the theory of what doomed
> the spaceship.
>
> The crowd of about 100 gasped and cried, "Wow!" when the foam hit.
>
> The foam struck roughly the same spot where insulation that broke off
> Columbia's big external fuel tank during launch smashed into the
> shuttle's wing. Investigators believe the damage led to the ship's
> destruction during re-entry over Texas in February, killing all seven
> astronauts.
>
> It was the seventh and final foam-impact test by the Columbia Accident
> Investigation Board, and it yielded by far the most severe damage.
>
> The 1.67-pound piece of fuel tank foam insulation shot out of a
> 35-foot nitrogen-pressurized gun and slammed into a carbon-reinforced
> panel removed from shuttle Atlantis.
>
> The countdown boomed through loudspeakers, and the crack of the foam
> coming out at more than 500 mph reverberated in the field where the

500 MPH!!!!! How did anyone come up with that figure? Seems excessive to
me.

> test was conducted.
>
> Twelve high-speed cameras six inside the wing mock-up and six outside
> captured the event. Hundreds of sensors registered movements, stresses
> and other conditions.
>
> NASA will continue gathering more information about the poorly
> understood pieces that line the vulnerable leading edges of shuttle
> wings, board member Scott Hubbard said.
>
> One month ago, another carbon shuttle wing panel smaller and farther
> inboard was cracked by the impact, in addition to an adjoining seal.
> This time, the entire 11 1/2-inch width of the foam chunk rather than
> just a corner during previous tests hit the wing, putting maximum
> stress on the suspect area.
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030707_1189.html

jbw

[Jorge R. Frank]

"Mr. Computer" > wrote in
. com:

> "Rusty B" > wrote in message
> om...
>> Shuttle Foam Test Yields Hole in Wing
>>
>> Columbia Investigators Fire Foam Insulation at Shuttle Wing, Blowing
>> Open 2-Foot Hole
>>
>> The Associated Press

>> The countdown boomed through loudspeakers, and the crack of the foam
>> coming out at more than 500 mph reverberated in the field where the
>
> 500 MPH!!!!! How did anyone come up with that figure? Seems
> excessive to me.

http://www.caib.us/news/meetings/ph030506_present_byrne.html


--
JRF

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

[jeff findley]

"Steven Van Impe" > writes:
>
> /me gets an image flash of all remaining shuttles being blown to pieces by
> the CAIB investigators... "look, if you punch it here, it breaks too!"
>
> I didn't realize they were stripping the existing fleet to perform these
> tests. Couldn't they take spare parts for this, or produce test samples?

Not really. You want to test with parts that are as close as possible
to the ones on the aircraft you're investigating. Since Columbia was
such an old bird, this means finding RCC that's flown many times
before, not some spare sitting on the shelf or a new part just
delivered by the manufacturer.

Besides, given the down time, it might be prudent to put the best,
newest RCC parts possible on the remaining orbiters, before next
flight. Considering the degradation of the panels due to time sitting
on the pad (sea air and paint flecks from the launch pad), this seems
especially prudent.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

[Dosco Jones]

"jeff findley" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven Van Impe" > writes:

> Besides, given the down time, it might be prudent to put the best,
> newest RCC parts possible on the remaining orbiters, before next
> flight. Considering the degradation of the panels due to time sitting
> on the pad (sea air and paint flecks from the launch pad), this seems
> especially prudent.
>
> Jeff


The RCC parts were given a 25 flight life limit when they were originally
flown. After the first few flights, this number was raised to 100. This
shift was made using very little data. Columbia was on her 27th flight. I
wonder if this point will be investigated.

Dosco

[Murray Anderson]

"Dosco Jones" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> "jeff findley" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Steven Van Impe" > writes:
>
> > Besides, given the down time, it might be prudent to put the best,
> > newest RCC parts possible on the remaining orbiters, before next
> > flight. Considering the degradation of the panels due to time sitting
> > on the pad (sea air and paint flecks from the launch pad), this seems
> > especially prudent.
> >
> > Jeff
>
>
> The RCC parts were given a 25 flight life limit when they were originally
> flown. After the first few flights, this number was raised to 100. This
> shift was made using very little data. Columbia was on her 27th flight.
I
> wonder if this point will be investigated.
>
> Dosco
>
>
>
What was this original 25 flight life based on? There doesn't seem to have
been any experimental evidence of the susceptibility of the RCC panels to
foam impact before the CAIB tests these past two months, so maybe the 100
flight limit was based on just as good evidence as the original 25.
Then anyone who objected would be forced to prove that it wasn't safe to fly
the RCC on the 100th flight, using only evidence that wouldn't impeach its
reliability on the 25th flight.

Murray Anderson

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Murray Anderson" > writes:

> What was this original 25 flight life based on? There doesn't seem to have
> been any experimental evidence of the susceptibility of the RCC panels to
> foam impact before the CAIB tests these past two months, so maybe the 100
> flight limit was based on just as good evidence as the original 25.
> Then anyone who objected would be forced to prove that it wasn't safe to fly
> the RCC on the 100th flight, using only evidence that wouldn't impeach its
> reliability on the 25th flight.

A best-guess conservative esitmate before anybody had gathered any
real experience. If yo sit down & figure it out, hamankind has about
30 +/- hours of aerodynamic flight experience in the hypersonic
region. A;; but about 30 minutes of that comes from Shuttle
re-entries. The assessment was changed as we gathered experience, to
match the behavior observed.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Murray Anderson]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Murray Anderson" > writes:
>
> > What was this original 25 flight life based on? There doesn't seem to
have
> > been any experimental evidence of the susceptibility of the RCC panels
to
> > foam impact before the CAIB tests these past two months, so maybe the
100
> > flight limit was based on just as good evidence as the original 25.
> > Then anyone who objected would be forced to prove that it wasn't safe to
fly
> > the RCC on the 100th flight, using only evidence that wouldn't impeach
its
> > reliability on the 25th flight.
>
> A best-guess conservative esitmate before anybody had gathered any
> real experience. If yo sit down & figure it out, hamankind has about
> 30 +/- hours of aerodynamic flight experience in the hypersonic
> region. A;; but about 30 minutes of that comes from Shuttle
> re-entries. The assessment was changed as we gathered experience, to
> match the behavior observed.
>

Do you have a reference for this, like a report or published paper used by
Nasa? For example they could have taken the leading edge panels off one of
the orbiters and done a complete set of non-destructive tests to determine
their state. Ideally they would have done destructive tests on some of the
panels too, but we know they didn't.

Murray Anderson

> --
> Pete Stickney
> A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
> bad measures. -- Daniel Webster