Re: Foam Failure Causes?

On 1 Aug 2005 14:38:21 -0700, "hop" <hellsownpuppy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Cardman wrote:
>>
>> Kind of interesting how NASA has been all doom and gloom and full of
>> self blame. Passed through all that lower atmosphere with no loss at
>> all. That is the Columbia problem fixed.
>
>They planned and expected to fix all significant foam shedding, and
>clearly didn't. This shows they didn't fully understand the problem,
>which is obviously a cause for serious concern.

Maybe their belief simply exceeded reality. It seems quite an
interesting notion to stick foam to a thin piece of metal that
vibrates like water during this trip.

>It isn't a given the Columbia problem is fixed. They need to determine
>if they just got lucky that the shedding being at high altitude on this
>flight, or if there was something specific about that environment which
>caused it. All kinds of curves can fit a one sample data set.

Well my advice would be that you cannot do sampling on one. So they
simply cannot ever tell that until they launch again.

>Even if they determined that it could only happen around SRB sep, their
>current flight rules don't allow that much foam loss in any part of
>flight. Further analysis might show loss above a certain altitude is
>safe, but its not a given.

Following Columbia this is not unexpected. That does not mean that the
risk is not negligible either.

>> I have been looking closely at this. I do strongly believe that this
>> foam loss is directly to do with the SRB separation.
>
>Based on what ? Sure, it is a fair guess, but until the actual analysis
>is done, it's just a guess. This kind of a guesstimate is a big part of
>what doomed both Columbia and Challenger.

And they can do all the analysis all they want. The simply fact is
that the SRB separated and shortly following this foam came off. These
two events seem very much related.

Only further launches will highlight if this happens again.

Since I expect NASA's analysis to reach no other conclusion, then they
will simply patch up that section to stop it doing it again. Maybe one
reason why they don't understand this foam loss is simply because this
is the first real data return.

>> So NASA running
>> around fearful over what could happen if this happened earlier into
>> this trip seems very misplaced.
>
>I don't see this at all. It has largely been the media that has been
>spreading the FUD. NASA has learned that their understanding of the
>foam was incomplete, and know they need to fix that before they fly
>again.

Even if oddly enough only flying again can close those holes in their
knowledge. Still, this launch provided a lot of data, where this may
tell them what they need.

>The exact outcome will depend on a lot of hard work involving
>data that isn't available to most of us on this NG.

Yes, well. NASA should keep in mind that their ISS is not being built
and Hubble is not being serviced all the time that they concern
themselves over this minor matter.

Should you own a scanner, then it is worth checking out the
frequencies used by commercial aircraft. What is interesting is that
you can hear pilots discussing all kinds of aircraft faults, including
engine failure. And for anything much too spicy for public knowledge
they switch to a secure channel.

My point being is that they patch up their planes. Fix the faults and
failures. Give it a quick strong test to see if it works, then to
launch back into the sky only an hour or two later.

Most travelers would not wish to know that their aircraft was
seriously malfunctioning not too long ago. And well the history of air
travel proves that this system works to both do the job and to keep
everyone alive.

NASA likes to make a mountain out of a mole hill. And sure enough
whatever they do this killer shuttle is bound to one day catch them
out in other ways. We can hope not of course.

Anyway, I hope that they keep in mind that their human spaceflight
section is not currently doing much human spaceflight. I seem to
recall the time when they did 17 shuttle launches in one year. Then
Challenger blew and things have gone downhill ever since.

Cardman.
.

Quantcast