NEWS: Engineers Suspect Foam Hit Shuttle Wing During Liftoff - ABC News

[Rusty]

Engineers Suspect Foam Hit Shuttle Wing During Liftoff

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ShuttleReturn/story?id=987399

July 28, 2005 — NASA analysts suspect at least one piece of foam did
in fact hit the wing of the space shuttle Discovery as it took off on
Tuesday, ABC News has learned.

Engineers had believed that the foam did not strike Discovery, but new
analysis has led them to suspect at least one small piece of foam did
hit the shuttle's wing, leaving what engineers described as a scuff
mark.

Video taken of Discovery's liftoff on Tuesday showed a piece of foam
broke away from the fuel tank but then fell clear of the craft without
striking it. Foam debris damaged the tiles of the shuttle Columbia on
its ill-fated final journey in 2003.

[Hi Ho Silver]

The NASA news conference indicated that the accelerometer sensors in the
potentially affected wing area did not indicate a significant hit, and the
OBSS inspection so far shows no evidence of a hit. They also said that the
analysts looking at the offending foam trajectory were divided as to whether
it made contact with the wing.
---------------------------

"Rusty" > wrote in message
...
> Engineers Suspect Foam Hit Shuttle Wing During Liftoff
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ShuttleReturn/story?id=987399
>
> July 28, 2005 - NASA analysts suspect at least one piece of foam did
> in fact hit the wing of the space shuttle Discovery as it took off on
> Tuesday, ABC News has learned.
>
> Engineers had believed that the foam did not strike Discovery, but new
> analysis has led them to suspect at least one small piece of foam did
> hit the shuttle's wing, leaving what engineers described as a scuff
> mark.
>
> Video taken of Discovery's liftoff on Tuesday showed a piece of foam
> broke away from the fuel tank but then fell clear of the craft without
> striking it. Foam debris damaged the tiles of the shuttle Columbia on
> its ill-fated final journey in 2003.
>
>

[OM]

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 23:54:22 GMT, "Hi Ho Silver" >
wrote:

>The NASA news conference indicated that the accelerometer sensors in the
>potentially affected wing area did not indicate a significant hit, and the
>OBSS inspection so far shows no evidence of a hit. They also said that the
>analysts looking at the offending foam trajectory were divided as to whether
>it made contact with the wing.

....If we're talking about the Big Strip, from the playbacks if
anything hit it *might* have been one of those straps. I saw a
playback last night on a 32" HDTV screen, and from what I could tell
it really didn't look like it came anywhere near close to hitting the
wing.

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

[Jorge R. Frank]

OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
wrote in :

> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 23:54:22 GMT, "Hi Ho Silver" >
> wrote:
>
>>The NASA news conference indicated that the accelerometer sensors in
>>the potentially affected wing area did not indicate a significant hit,
>>and the OBSS inspection so far shows no evidence of a hit. They also
>>said that the analysts looking at the offending foam trajectory were
>>divided as to whether it made contact with the wing.
>
> ...If we're talking about the Big Strip, from the playbacks if
> anything hit it *might* have been one of those straps. I saw a
> playback last night on a 32" HDTV screen, and from what I could tell
> it really didn't look like it came anywhere near close to hitting the
> wing.

This particular piece of debris wasn't the Big Strip. The footage shown in
the news conference showed that the debris came off after the roll to
heads-up, well after the Big Strip was already gone.

--
JRF

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

[Larry Haines]

I can't believe we're going to have to watch another fatal fireworks
display on reentry! This is ridiculous. They might as well go ahead
and give them the last rites now.

[Pat Flannery]

Rusty wrote:

>Engineers Suspect Foam Hit Shuttle Wing During Liftoff
>
>http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ShuttleReturn/story?id=987399
>
>July 28, 2005 — NASA analysts suspect at least one piece of foam did
>in fact hit the wing of the space shuttle Discovery as it took off on
>Tuesday, ABC News has learned.
>
>

Well, that's all she wrote.

Pat

[Carl Anderson]

don't be such a grim reaper!

"Larry Haines" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I can't believe we're going to have to watch another fatal fireworks
> display on reentry! This is ridiculous. They might as well go ahead
> and give them the last rites now.
>

[Scott Hedrick]

> "Larry Haines" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> I can't believe we're going to have to watch another fatal fireworks
>> display on reentry!

You don't *have* to watch it. You're free to put on the foil beanie and
stick your head under a pillow.

[Herb Schaltegger]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 01:31:49 -0500, Pat Flannery wrote
(in article >):

>
>
> Rusty wrote:
>
>> Engineers Suspect Foam Hit Shuttle Wing During Liftoff
>>
>> http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ShuttleReturn/story?id=987399
>>
>> July 28, 2005 — NASA analysts suspect at least one piece of foam did
>> in fact hit the wing of the space shuttle Discovery as it took off on
>> Tuesday, ABC News has learned.
>>
>>
>
> Well, that's all she wrote.
>
> Pat

Pat, please - don't be even more of a fatalist.

--
"Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever." ~Anonymous
"I believe as little as possible and know as much as I can."
~Todd Stuart Phillips
<www.angryherb.net>

[Pat Flannery]

Herb Schaltegger wrote:

>>>
>>>
>>Well, that's all she wrote.
>>
>>Pat
>>
>>
>
>Pat, please - don't be even more of a fatalist.
>
>

I was in a hurry, and should have phrased that better. What I meant was
that this ups the possibility that the Shuttle will be permanently
grounded; not that it's going to have any problems on reentry.
In fact, that little ding on the tile up by the nose gear would be a
perfect one to test their orbital repair capability out on- it's too
small to present a real problem, so if the repair didn't work- no big
deal. At the same time you could get some great real world data on how
the repair patch technology works on an actual reentry.
Jeffrey Bell has weighed in on the Shuttle. Surprisingly, he wants to
permanently ground it ;-) :
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zq.html
I've still got to check up on that B-17 math of his.

Pat

[Derek Lyons]

Pat Flannery > wrote:

> Jeffrey Bell has weighed in on the Shuttle. Surprisingly, he wants to
>permanently ground it ;-) :
>http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zq.html
>I've still got to check up on that B-17 math of his.

It's seriously wrong.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

[Peter Stickney]

Derek Lyons wrote:

> Pat Flannery > wrote:
>
>> Jeffrey Bell has weighed in on the Shuttle. Surprisingly, he wants
>> to
>>permanently ground it ;-) :
>>http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zq.html
>>I've still got to check up on that B-17 math of his.
>
> It's seriously wrong.

It's about as wrong as its possible to get.
I'll dig out my copy of the USAAF Statistical Digest a bit later, &
see what that comes up with.

--
Pete Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee.

[Andrew Gray]

On 2005-07-30, Derek Lyons > wrote:

>>http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zq.html
>>I've still got to check up on that B-17 math of his.
>
> It's seriously wrong.

I was very impressed by him describing it as "the most dangerous
aircraft in the most intense air war ever fought.", then quoting figures
to support it which showed a three-times higher loss rate of Bomber
Command Manchesters... smart cookie, that one.

--
-Andrew Gray

[Pat Flannery]

Andrew Gray wrote:

>I was very impressed by him describing it as "the most dangerous
>aircraft in the most intense air war ever fought.", then quoting figures
>to support it which showed a three-times higher loss rate of Bomber
>Command Manchesters... smart cookie, that one.
>
>

He may have meant American aircraft; but I still think you are going to
have a far better chance in a B-17 than in a Douglas Devastator or a
Brewster Buffalo.

Pat

[Jim Davis]

Pat Flannery wrote:

> He may have meant American aircraft; but I still think you are
> going to have a far better chance in a B-17 than in a Douglas
> Devastator or a Brewster Buffalo.

Much depends on circumstances. In a USMC F2A defending Midway against
Japanese carrier strikes you're in way over your head; in a Finnish
F2A against the Soviets you can hold your own. If you're in a TBD
squadron in a carrier sailing to oppose the Japanese at Midway better
not start reading any magazine serials; against Japanese merchant
shipping in the Gilberts and Marshalls earlier in 1942 you'll
probably have no reason to curse your aircraft.

Jim Davis

[Pat Flannery]

Jim Davis wrote:

>in a Finnish
>F2A against the Soviets you can hold your own.
>
>

Now I'm having this image of a Buffalo fighting a I-16 Rata- sort of the
"battle of the second rate fighters".
If we could get a Swedish P-35 in there, we'd have all the bases covered.
I'd hate to be in a Buffalo and meet one of those lend-lease P-47s though.

Pat

[Terrell Miller]

Pat Flannery wrote:
>
>
> Jim Davis wrote:
>
>> in a Finnish F2A against the Soviets you can hold your own.
>>
>
> Now I'm having this image of a Buffalo fighting a I-16 Rata- sort of the
> "battle of the second rate fighters".
> If we could get a Swedish P-35 in there, we'd have all the bases covered.
> I'd hate to be in a Buffalo and meet one of those lend-lease P-47s though.

Airacomet'd whup all their asses good

--
Terrell Miller


"Suddenly, after nearly 30 years of scorn, Prog is cool again".
-Entertainment Weekly

[Pat Flannery]

Terrell Miller wrote:

>>
>> Now I'm having this image of a Buffalo fighting a I-16 Rata- sort of
>> the "battle of the second rate fighters".
>> If we could get a Swedish P-35 in there, we'd have all the bases
>> covered.
>> I'd hate to be in a Buffalo and meet one of those lend-lease P-47s
>> though.
>
>
> Airacomet'd whup all their asses good

Hell, even an _Airacobra_ might be able to take that bunch on. :-D

Pat

[Dale]

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 01:35:57 -0500, Pat Flannery > wrote:

>Terrell Miller wrote:
>
>>> Now I'm having this image of a Buffalo fighting a I-16 Rata- sort of
>>> the "battle of the second rate fighters".

Hey... the I-16 was quite a plane in 1934. Obsolescence by WW2 wasn't
it's fault. It remains one of my favorite planes.

>>> If we could get a Swedish P-35 in there, we'd have all the bases
>>> covered.
>>> I'd hate to be in a Buffalo and meet one of those lend-lease P-47s
>>> though.

>> Airacomet'd whup all their asses good
>
>Hell, even an _Airacobra_ might be able to take that bunch on. :-D

My dad flew those. Never had a bad thing to say about them. But if
he'd been able to take a plane home after the war the way some guys
took home their service revolvers, I think it would have been a P-38.

Dale

More likely a C-17, now that I think about it...

[Dale]

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 23:56:48 -0700, I wrote:

>More likely a C-17, now that I think about it...

Errr, I was confusing civilian and military designations
there. I meant a Beech Staggerwing (UC-43), not a
Globemaster :)

Dale

[Pat Flannery]

Dale wrote:

>>Hell, even an _Airacobra_ might be able to take that bunch on. :-D
>>
>>
>
>My dad flew those. Never had a bad thing to say about them.
>

What theater of the war was he in, and what altitude was he flying it at?
It was supposed to be a pretty good ground attack aircraft (the Soviets
loved it in that role, and wanted all of them we could supply), but had
real problems when flown at anything above about 10,000-15,000 feet due
to its lack of a supercharger.

> But if
>he'd been able to take a plane home after the war the way some guys
>took home their service revolvers, I think it would have been a P-38.
>

Me, I'd take a Thunderbolt.

Pat

[Pat Flannery]

Dale wrote:

>
>
>
>>More likely a C-17, now that I think about it...
>>
>>
>
>Errr, I was confusing civilian and military designations
>there. I meant a Beech Staggerwing (UC-43), not a
>Globemaster :)
>
>

Yeah, I was wondering- but that would have thrown them a real curve ball
over Normandy, wouldn't it? :-)

Pat

[OM]

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 23:56:48 -0700, Dale > wrote:

>My dad flew those. Never had a bad thing to say about them. But if
>he'd been able to take a plane home after the war the way some guys
>took home their service revolvers, I think it would have been a P-38.

....I've heard that from more WWII pilot veterans than any other plane,
and I've heard less bitching about the P-38 than any other plane from
that era as well.

Me, I'd rather take home a Habu...:-)

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

[Dale]

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 02:55:56 -0500, Pat Flannery > wrote:

>Dale wrote:
>
>>>Hell, even an _Airacobra_ might be able to take that bunch on. :-D
>>
>>My dad flew those. Never had a bad thing to say about them.
>
>What theater of the war was he in, and what altitude was he flying it at?
>It was supposed to be a pretty good ground attack aircraft (the Soviets
>loved it in that role, and wanted all of them we could supply), but had
>real problems when flown at anything above about 10,000-15,000 feet due
>to its lack of a supercharger.

Oh, he didn't shoot anybody, he flew them to the Russians. They then used
them to shoot people in a ground attack role, as you suggest. I have quite a
few pictures he took of other P-39s while in flight. Doesn't look like they
were too high up- maybe under 10,000 feet over the Yukon and Alaska.

He once flew one back to the factory which had suffered wing damage and
had a really makeshift patch job. He volunteered, as the other pilots said
they were too touchy to fly with any wing damage at all. It flew fine.

Dale

[Pat Flannery]

Dale wrote:

>
>Oh, he didn't shoot anybody, he flew them to the Russians. They then used
>them to shoot people in a ground attack role, as you suggest. I have quite a
>few pictures he took of other P-39s while in flight. Doesn't look like they
>were too high up- maybe under 10,000 feet over the Yukon and Alaska.
>
>He once flew one back to the factory which had suffered wing damage and
>had a really makeshift patch job. He volunteered, as the other pilots said
>they were too touchy to fly with any wing damage at all. It flew fine.
>

It was supposed to have been a pretty tough aircraft, which is why the
Soviets liked it- of the 9,589 Airacobras made 4,779 went to the
Soviets, and Bell followed it up with the improved P-63 Kingcobra, of
which it built 3,362 and sent 2,456 to the Soviets.
It wasn't unknown for a Soviet Airacobra to suffer landing gear failure
and belly-land in the snow after a mission, get hoisted up and have its
landing gear fixed and a new propellor stuck on the front, and be back
in combat the next day. That's tough.

Pat