Scott. For the last time, link the story from google news so we don't have to log in. I'm happy you have a login for us but it's completely unnecessary.
Last time? Don't you mean first time? The big bitch that everyone had is thet they didn't want to register. So I did it for them. No we don't wan t to log in? Sigh.
Last time? Don't you mean first time? The big bitch that everyone had is thet they didn't want to register. So I did it for them. No we don't wan t to log in? Sigh.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've been informing everyone about google news in every thread I've visited that has a link to a NYT article.
Carbon nanotubes are the way to go. Once the technology is developed enough, an elevator with one end latched to an aircraft carrier in the pacific ocean and the other end attatched to a satellite or space station in geosynchronous orbit would be possible. Then all that is needed is electricity to move objects into orbit.
I think I read about this idea in "3001." I realize that it was written a fair bit back, but I was under the impression that the tech was still a ways off. I haven't been following it though, what's the latest?
The CN tech is still not perfect, but it's getting there. <a href="http://www.highliftsystems.com/"; target="_blank">This</a> company seems to be the one on top in the private sector. Very cool stuff.
I think I read about this idea in "3001." I realize that it was written a fair bit back, but I was under the impression that the tech was still a ways off. I haven't been following it though, what's the latest?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's still a ways off. We have to learn how to make longer and thicker nanotubes first.
It's still a ways off. We have to learn how to make longer and thicker nanotubes first.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nanoviagra?
At this point, a software malfunction seems unlikely as the root cause.
Several tiles have been found *far* west of the breakup point, leading to speculation that the initial tile damage was the seed for a much larger bout of tile loss when re-entry started. That larger tile loss is what then allowed the heat in the structure to build up to fatal levels.
FWIW, the CN project could *potentially* be up and running in 15 years. This is a very big deal, and worth looking in to. If it wasn't for the cold-war space race, and Americans having to piss on the moon as it were, we would have been building the ISS first and then traversing from there. As it is now, we've got things ass-backwards, because of American ego.
Ok, from a buddy at JPL, this seems to be the leading theory:
The foam insulation impacted on the bottom of the left wing, damaging an area of at *most* 7"x30". That's only five tiles (6"x6"). The foam weighed about 2.5 pounds. Five tiles is basically nothing on an average liftoff, so it wasn't any reason for concern.
However, they now believe that it impacted on the edge of the wheel well, where the well door seals. There would be an opportunity there for buckling of the tiles, since they aren't inter-adhered on the secondary layer.
This buckling would have provided a lip for air to catch early in re-entry, providing the force needed to peel off a tile. Once one tile peels off, the next is exposed, and so on, so they come off like a zipper.
The reports of 'sparks' falling behind the shuttle as far west as CA would reflect this. They were tiles.
It appears it was sheer bad luck that the otherwise unworrisome foam hit precisely where it did. If it had been on a sheer surface (which is the vast majority of the wing surface), it shouldn't have been a problem at all.
No one could have known where the foam hit precisely, but the video supports this theory, or at least doesn't rule it out completely.
... He said on the 1997 mission the shuttle sustained a significant amount of damage to its heat tiles. In a normal mission, a shuttle will sustain damage to up to 40 tiles because of ice dropping from the external tank and hitting the tiles, Mr. Katnik reported. But on that mission, he said, "the pattern of hits did not follow aerodynamic expectations, and the number, size and severity of the hits were abnormal."
Inspectors counted 308 hits. Of those, 132 were "greater than one inch," Mr. Katnik said. Some of the hits measured up to 15 inches long with depths of up to one-and-a-half inches. The tiles were only two inches deep, so the largest hits penetrated three-quarters of the way into the tiles, he noted.
The damaged tiles were mostly around the shuttle's nose. After the mission, more than 100 tiles were taken off because "they were irreparable," Mr. Katnik said.
The report went on to speculate as to why the foam dropped off. As it turned out, to be environmentally friendly, NASA had eliminated the use of Freon in foam production, Mr. Katnik reported. The Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., later concluded that the absence of Freon led to the detachment of the foam.
While the formulation was later improved, the episode revealed potentially dangerous new ways in which tiles could be damaged.
"The tiles still had plenty of material left," Mr. Katnik said in an interview yesterday. "There was a margin of safety."
That problem was looked at and a fix implemented with a different foam insulation. I can't speculate about any of this, but I will say this, be careful about chasing wild geese. Everyone is concentrating on the foam insulation so hard that they seem to have blinders on. While it very well may be the root cause in the end - if the cause can be ascertained in the first place - this investigation will probably go through a circuitous route of possible causes before it's done.
<strong>Ooooopps <img src="embarrassed.gif" border="0"> NASucks needs to be shut down.</strong>
I partially agree with you actually. Much like my viewpoint after Sept 11 with the FBI and CIA, I think that NASA needs to be dissolved and reconstituted with better organizational rules, in particular, one that is removed from congressional and OMB policy as much as possible (they need to oversee, but cannot direct) as well as an oligarchy of top level management.
If there is an actual sustainable market for space missions, manned space missions, then I'm all for it. But the market isn't there. No NASA, no space, no manned missions. The gov't needs to support basic technological developments and research in many unprofittable things. It's like saying a private company would fund the $8G superconducting supercollider.
I'm wondering, does the Space Shuttle have one of those "blackbox" things like airplanes, or is that realtime telemetry and data link with ground control essentially the same thing?
The news media seems to be circling viciously around the foam block damaging the wing theory. I can't tell if it is good that they are being vigilent for an answer, or does it risk veiling the matters that really ended up causing the problem (if they are different)? Is it even possible to report honest, objective news at this point, or are they ineptly forcing a historic context to the situation by virtue of their rabidness? It seems almost like a witch hunt to find an answer, find the guilty party, determine if NASA has serious internal problems, is it an issue of money or incompetence or negligence?... Are the space shuttles really "old", or are they unaware of what is really considered "old" for a craft such as this? Are they relatively old when compared to B-52 or A10 standards, for example? As a casual observer, I don't know what to believe, but it seems the media (and detractors) want to take any and all directions not to find the answer to this catastrophe, but just to be media saavy (IMO).
It's entirely possible that something seedy could be going on inside NASA, however. Would that truth ever be exposed, or is it at all possible a coverup could be attempted? Maybe not something as elaborate as a "coverup", but they could just as easily give the simplest answer that the media would believe just so they move on and stop hounding them.
With the sheer number of levels that can be going on here, who knows if the real, entire fact of the matter could ever be uncovered? Maybe it is entirely unreasonable to expect such an answer, lest we simply settle for the most plausible answer that makes sense to the simple layman in the end? Can it really be pared down to something as simple as a person, an agency, a single defective part, a mishap, or the one-in-million odds collision with the wrong piece of space dust while in orbit?
I hate to step into a pissing match, and I'm not going to read seven pages of stuff to find out if anyone has considered this...
If they had determined there had been damage to the heat tiles, how would they had fixed them? I mean, they don't have all the equipment or more tiles to do it. They couldn't see the reverse to confirm if there was damage, right?
How would they have gotten everyone home safely, or would there be a special trip and we would have the first space-only vehicle in orbit?
[quote]I hate to step into a pissing match, and I'm not going to read seven pages of stuff to find out if anyone has considered this...<hr></blockquote>
You should probably just skim through the seven pages of stuff, but in brief:
1. there was no way to determine the precise extent of the damage
2. there was no way to repair any damage
3. there was no way to recover the crew without landing Columbia
You could argue that reasonable precautions should have been taken for 1, but since that wouldn't change 2 or 3, it wouldn't have changed the outcome. When you're doing something as dangerous as space travel, sometimes you're just SOL.
<strong>I hate to step into a pissing match, and I'm not going to read seven pages of stuff to find out if anyone has considered this...
If they had determined there had been damage to the heat tiles, how would they had fixed them? I mean, they don't have all the equipment or more tiles to do it. They couldn't see the reverse to confirm if there was damage, right?
How would they have gotten everyone home safely, or would there be a special trip and we would have the first space-only vehicle in orbit?
Just wondering.</strong><hr></blockquote>
the answer to yer questions is in the 7 pages you skipped...
That is a very valid point. From all accounts I've read, there isn't any repair that could have been done even if they had located a "bad" tile. Many people don't realize that the space shuttle isn't a car you can just step out of and replace a flat tire, and then be on your way. It certainly raises the pucker factor once you realize that the ship is your lifeline, and quite possibly you will go down with the ship if there is a mishap. It is also not even clear that a "damaged tile" would even be casually recognizable. For all we know, almost every tile on there may show some scuff, scratch, or minor imperfection after a launch and almost 2 weeks in duty in space. So how is someone expected to pick out/distinguish the "bad" tile(s) out of a couple hundred other ones that aren't exactly pristine looking, in the first place?
So really, the only other option is to abandon ship and wait for a pick-up. However, you better be *balls-sure* there is even a credible problem to contemplate such a recourse. This is like an n-billion dollar piece of hardware with even more billions invested in data and cargo, so you don't just abandon ship because you *think* something is wrong. It would be nice if you could for the upmost safety for the astronauts, but it just isn't a practical plan because you might be doing that for every single shuttle ever launched. To reiterate the original sentiment, how can you be *that* sure to make a decision like that? Most likely you can't, so you proceed with the original plan.
What freaks me out is that they weren't sure there was anything to be concerned about until they had already committed to re-entry. *That's* when you find out something is seriously wrong- when you got guidance correction systems going off and weird temperature readings. At that point, you are totally invested. You can't abort a "re-entry". So either the ship makes it or not. That's pretty scary for me to think about! I can only imagine the horror that came about when they (the 7 astronauts) know the ship has had a breach, and they knew that was the end.
Thanks guys... I appreciate the synopsis... I could only read so much of the "you shut up" "no, you shut up" "Liar lirar, pants on fire!" conversations without my eyes glazing over...
Hopefully new designs from the private sector will be considered now. The Space Shuttle was designed a long time ago, and while technology and updates have advanced, I can't help thinking it is going to turn into something like the Canadian Militaries Sea King helicopters over time.
Innovation can't be curtailed if there are improvements to be made. Imagine where Apple would be today if they had stopped with the iMac and first generation of towers.
Comments
<strong>
Scott. For the last time, link the story from google news so we don't have to log in. I'm happy you have a login for us but it's completely unnecessary.
Here is the easy no login link:
<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=68&ncid=68&e=2&u=/nyt/20030204/ts_nyt/engineer_s__97_report_warned_of_damage_to_tiles_by _foam" target="_blank">click here</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
Last time? Don't you mean first time? The big bitch that everyone had is thet they didn't want to register. So I did it for them. No we don't wan t to log in? Sigh.
[ 02-04-2003: Message edited by: Brad ]</p>
<strong>
Last time? Don't you mean first time? The big bitch that everyone had is thet they didn't want to register. So I did it for them. No we don't wan t to log in? Sigh.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've been informing everyone about google news in every thread I've visited that has a link to a NYT article.
<strong>
Carbon nanotubes are the way to go. Once the technology is developed enough, an elevator with one end latched to an aircraft carrier in the pacific ocean and the other end attatched to a satellite or space station in geosynchronous orbit would be possible. Then all that is needed is electricity to move objects into orbit.
[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think I read about this idea in "3001." I realize that it was written a fair bit back, but I was under the impression that the tech was still a ways off. I haven't been following it though, what's the latest?
<strong>
I think I read about this idea in "3001." I realize that it was written a fair bit back, but I was under the impression that the tech was still a ways off. I haven't been following it though, what's the latest?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's still a ways off. We have to learn how to make longer and thicker nanotubes first.
<strong>
I've been informing everyone about google news in every thread I've visited that has a link to a NYT article.</strong><hr></blockquote>
awww...how noble of you.
thanks scott and thanks especially for the login/password
very useful
<strong>
It's still a ways off. We have to learn how to make longer and thicker nanotubes first.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nanoviagra?
At this point, a software malfunction seems unlikely as the root cause.
Several tiles have been found *far* west of the breakup point, leading to speculation that the initial tile damage was the seed for a much larger bout of tile loss when re-entry started. That larger tile loss is what then allowed the heat in the structure to build up to fatal levels.
[QB]
Nanoviagra?
/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Now THAT made me laugh.
FWIW, the CN project could *potentially* be up and running in 15 years. This is a very big deal, and worth looking in to. If it wasn't for the cold-war space race, and Americans having to piss on the moon as it were, we would have been building the ISS first and then traversing from there. As it is now, we've got things ass-backwards, because of American ego.
<strong>
Nanoviagra?
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nanoviagra,
Nanodicks,
The future is sad : so small
[ 02-04-2003: Message edited by: Powerdoc ]</p>
[ 02-04-2003: Message edited by: 709 ]</p>
The foam insulation impacted on the bottom of the left wing, damaging an area of at *most* 7"x30". That's only five tiles (6"x6"). The foam weighed about 2.5 pounds. Five tiles is basically nothing on an average liftoff, so it wasn't any reason for concern.
However, they now believe that it impacted on the edge of the wheel well, where the well door seals. There would be an opportunity there for buckling of the tiles, since they aren't inter-adhered on the secondary layer.
This buckling would have provided a lip for air to catch early in re-entry, providing the force needed to peel off a tile. Once one tile peels off, the next is exposed, and so on, so they come off like a zipper.
The reports of 'sparks' falling behind the shuttle as far west as CA would reflect this. They were tiles.
It appears it was sheer bad luck that the otherwise unworrisome foam hit precisely where it did. If it had been on a sheer surface (which is the vast majority of the wing surface), it shouldn't have been a problem at all.
No one could have known where the foam hit precisely, but the video supports this theory, or at least doesn't rule it out completely.
Here's the latest from NYT
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/04/national/04WRON.html"; target="_blank">Engineer's '97 Report Warned of Damage to Tiles by Foam</a></strong>
The report isn't that conclusive:
... He said on the 1997 mission the shuttle sustained a significant amount of damage to its heat tiles. In a normal mission, a shuttle will sustain damage to up to 40 tiles because of ice dropping from the external tank and hitting the tiles, Mr. Katnik reported. But on that mission, he said, "the pattern of hits did not follow aerodynamic expectations, and the number, size and severity of the hits were abnormal."
Inspectors counted 308 hits. Of those, 132 were "greater than one inch," Mr. Katnik said. Some of the hits measured up to 15 inches long with depths of up to one-and-a-half inches. The tiles were only two inches deep, so the largest hits penetrated three-quarters of the way into the tiles, he noted.
The damaged tiles were mostly around the shuttle's nose. After the mission, more than 100 tiles were taken off because "they were irreparable," Mr. Katnik said.
The report went on to speculate as to why the foam dropped off. As it turned out, to be environmentally friendly, NASA had eliminated the use of Freon in foam production, Mr. Katnik reported. The Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., later concluded that the absence of Freon led to the detachment of the foam.
While the formulation was later improved, the episode revealed potentially dangerous new ways in which tiles could be damaged.
"The tiles still had plenty of material left," Mr. Katnik said in an interview yesterday. "There was a margin of safety."
That problem was looked at and a fix implemented with a different foam insulation. I can't speculate about any of this, but I will say this, be careful about chasing wild geese. Everyone is concentrating on the foam insulation so hard that they seem to have blinders on. While it very well may be the root cause in the end - if the cause can be ascertained in the first place - this investigation will probably go through a circuitous route of possible causes before it's done.
<strong>Ooooopps <img src="embarrassed.gif" border="0"> NASucks needs to be shut down.</strong>
I partially agree with you actually. Much like my viewpoint after Sept 11 with the FBI and CIA, I think that NASA needs to be dissolved and reconstituted with better organizational rules, in particular, one that is removed from congressional and OMB policy as much as possible (they need to oversee, but cannot direct) as well as an oligarchy of top level management.
If there is an actual sustainable market for space missions, manned space missions, then I'm all for it. But the market isn't there. No NASA, no space, no manned missions. The gov't needs to support basic technological developments and research in many unprofittable things. It's like saying a private company would fund the $8G superconducting supercollider.
[ 02-04-2003: Message edited by: 709 ]</p>
I'm wondering, does the Space Shuttle have one of those "blackbox" things like airplanes, or is that realtime telemetry and data link with ground control essentially the same thing?
The news media seems to be circling viciously around the foam block damaging the wing theory. I can't tell if it is good that they are being vigilent for an answer, or does it risk veiling the matters that really ended up causing the problem (if they are different)? Is it even possible to report honest, objective news at this point, or are they ineptly forcing a historic context to the situation by virtue of their rabidness? It seems almost like a witch hunt to find an answer, find the guilty party, determine if NASA has serious internal problems, is it an issue of money or incompetence or negligence?... Are the space shuttles really "old", or are they unaware of what is really considered "old" for a craft such as this? Are they relatively old when compared to B-52 or A10 standards, for example? As a casual observer, I don't know what to believe, but it seems the media (and detractors) want to take any and all directions not to find the answer to this catastrophe, but just to be media saavy (IMO).
It's entirely possible that something seedy could be going on inside NASA, however. Would that truth ever be exposed, or is it at all possible a coverup could be attempted? Maybe not something as elaborate as a "coverup", but they could just as easily give the simplest answer that the media would believe just so they move on and stop hounding them.
With the sheer number of levels that can be going on here, who knows if the real, entire fact of the matter could ever be uncovered? Maybe it is entirely unreasonable to expect such an answer, lest we simply settle for the most plausible answer that makes sense to the simple layman in the end? Can it really be pared down to something as simple as a person, an agency, a single defective part, a mishap, or the one-in-million odds collision with the wrong piece of space dust while in orbit?
If they had determined there had been damage to the heat tiles, how would they had fixed them? I mean, they don't have all the equipment or more tiles to do it. They couldn't see the reverse to confirm if there was damage, right?
How would they have gotten everyone home safely, or would there be a special trip and we would have the first space-only vehicle in orbit?
Just wondering.
You should probably just skim through the seven pages of stuff, but in brief:
1. there was no way to determine the precise extent of the damage
2. there was no way to repair any damage
3. there was no way to recover the crew without landing Columbia
You could argue that reasonable precautions should have been taken for 1, but since that wouldn't change 2 or 3, it wouldn't have changed the outcome. When you're doing something as dangerous as space travel, sometimes you're just SOL.
<strong>I hate to step into a pissing match, and I'm not going to read seven pages of stuff to find out if anyone has considered this...
If they had determined there had been damage to the heat tiles, how would they had fixed them? I mean, they don't have all the equipment or more tiles to do it. They couldn't see the reverse to confirm if there was damage, right?
How would they have gotten everyone home safely, or would there be a special trip and we would have the first space-only vehicle in orbit?
Just wondering.</strong><hr></blockquote>
the answer to yer questions is in the 7 pages you skipped...
So really, the only other option is to abandon ship and wait for a pick-up. However, you better be *balls-sure* there is even a credible problem to contemplate such a recourse. This is like an n-billion dollar piece of hardware with even more billions invested in data and cargo, so you don't just abandon ship because you *think* something is wrong. It would be nice if you could for the upmost safety for the astronauts, but it just isn't a practical plan because you might be doing that for every single shuttle ever launched. To reiterate the original sentiment, how can you be *that* sure to make a decision like that? Most likely you can't, so you proceed with the original plan.
What freaks me out is that they weren't sure there was anything to be concerned about until they had already committed to re-entry. *That's* when you find out something is seriously wrong- when you got guidance correction systems going off and weird temperature readings. At that point, you are totally invested. You can't abort a "re-entry". So either the ship makes it or not. That's pretty scary for me to think about! I can only imagine the horror that came about when they (the 7 astronauts) know the ship has had a breach, and they knew that was the end.
- No underside photos from space (no arm/no tele requests)
- No definitive photos from ground (wrong angles et all)
- No communication with Shuttle (about foam/wing contact)
- Only 1 precedent for foam fall-away concern (ie: minimal risk)
I love the space program, but, obviously things need to change.
Hopefully new designs from the private sector will be considered now. The Space Shuttle was designed a long time ago, and while technology and updates have advanced, I can't help thinking it is going to turn into something like the Canadian Militaries Sea King helicopters over time.
Innovation can't be curtailed if there are improvements to be made. Imagine where Apple would be today if they had stopped with the iMac and first generation of towers.