User Panel
Posted: 7/31/2005 10:18:33 AM EDT
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050731/ap_on_sc/space_shuttle_1;_ylt=AtwlFCxbVsh5iEeCvDvPUIYYAjMB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl NASA Looks Into Possible Shuttle Problem By MARCIA DUNN, AP Aerospace Writer 1 hour, 26 minutes ago SPACE CENTER, Houston - A couple of short strips of filler material dangling from Discovery's belly had NASA scrambling Sunday to determine whether the protrusions might endanger the space shuttle during re-entry and whether the astronauts might need to attempt a repair. The potential trouble has nothing to do with launch debris — for a change — but rather material used to fill the spaces between thermal tiles, a common problem in the past although not necessarily to this extent. Flight director Paul Hill said engineers will spend the next day analyzing the situation and decide Monday whether to have the crew's two spacewalkers cut, pull out or shove back in the hanging material. It could be that it's perfectly safe for Discovery and its crew of seven to fly back with the two drooping pieces, Hill stressed, as shuttles have done on many previous flights. One is sticking out an inch between thermal tiles, the other six-tenths of an inch. The longest protruding gap filler seen on a returning shuttle before was a quarter-inch, but Hill cautioned that measurement was taken following re-entry, and the intense heat could have burned some of it off. The extremely thin gap fillers are made of a feltlike material and ceramic, and are held in place with glue and by the tight fit. Any repair, if deemed necessary, could be performed during the third spacewalk of the mission, now set for Wednesday or a fourth unplanned spacewalk might be required, Hill said. The astronaut would have to stand on a long robotic arm in order to reach the two areas, located on the shuttle's belly near the nose. One extreme option under consideration is to put an astronaut on the end of the brand new 100-foot inspection crane, but it could be a bouncy ride and that makes lots of experts "understandably nervous," Hill said. He said there are strong arguments for and against most of the options. Anything dangling from the bottom of the shuttle during re-entry will overheat the area, as well as downstream locations. The ongoing analysis is to decide whether that overheating will be within safety limits. A hole in Columbia's left wing, left there by a large chunk of flyaway fuel-tank foam, led to the spacecraft's destruction during re-entry on Feb. 1, 2003. All seven astronauts were killed. NASA has cleared all of Discovery's thermal tiles for landing on Aug. 8. The only remaining issues, before the final go-ahead can be given for descent, are the reinforced carbon panels that line the wings and nose cap, and the two hanging gap fillers. |
|
You would think a NASA official had more sense than to say something like this after everything that's happened. |
|
|
|
Chances are things like this were happening the enitre time, but it is only now being noticed due to the increased inspections after Columbia. |
|
|
+ the new cameras |
||
|
No, no they weren't. Much of the problem with the foam is that Freon is no longer allowed to be used as a propellant to apply the foam. Environmentalist are what kill our space program and they should be charged with murder. Sgat1r5 |
||
|
Yeah, but the problem they're talking about now doesn't have anything to do with the tank insulation foam. This has to do with the seals between the tiles. You're right about the foam though. |
|||
|
Yes they have happened before. We're talking about gap fillers now. OV-102's (Columbia) last successful flight, STS-109, had a gap filler debond and protrude from the tiles surfac quite a bit, and burn marks were seen trailing a few feet aft of it..this was towards the aft of the orbiter, near either the body flap or left hand elevon, I don't recall exactly which. It's generally not a good thing to have a gap filler debond--but missing tile have the potential to be catastrophic (the zipper effect). |
|||
|
I don't even understand why they are still using tiles...there was GOT to be a better way. Apollo didn't have problems like this!
Is NASA stupid now? Sgat1r5 |
|
RIF. The problem they are talking about is the material used to fill the spaces between the thermal tiles. The filler material is sticking out, and it HAS been noticed before. They noticed it AFTER the shuttle had already landed. One segment is sticking out 1" another 6/10". The most sticking out that has been noticed before was 1/4", but that was AFTER the shuttle had landed and was probably burned down to that length during re-entry. |
|||
|
It seems to me that an ablative heat shield which could be replaced after each flight would be an option, but hell, I'm no rocket scientist. Too heavy? Cost too much? too hard to replace?
|
|
Apollo didn't care if they reused the capsule. Also it was quite a bit smaller. So the re-entry shield did not have as much surface area. As I understand it, if you built a re-entry shield like Apollos large enough for the shuttle the weight would make it impracticle, if not impossible, to launch. |
|
|
Bottom line is this. We have the Space Shuttle because a bunch of Star Trex nerds wanted something that looked like a plane regardless of how well it preformed.
The design is FLAWWED! Sgat1r5 |
|
Let me expain something to you guys, they are not going to make any major revisions to the shuttle because it aint gonna fly but a dozen or so times untill it is replaced.
See this: Future lunar program takes shape: www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/space/orl-asec-moon073105,0,3136666.htmlstory?coll=orl-home-promo And this diagram: www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/space/orl-asec-moongraphic073105,0,3650694.graphic?coll=orl-home-promo And I suspect they are noticing minor things like this gap filler because they never really looked before. I predict that after the shuttle lands, it will show some of the least if not the least tile damage in program history. |
|
Many pundits have said NASA should just have churned out the simple and reliable Saturn 1B's like sausages! |
|
|
|
|
|
No we have a space shuttle that looks like a plane because the USAF specified a ridiculous cross-range landing ability for the orbiter. Also, because of USAF dictates on vehicle size and weight , we had to use fragile tiles instead of a metallic heat shield. |
|
|
Fixed it--and I concur with everything else in the post. |
|
|
Have they even started designing the CEV? Anyway… 34 years after Apollo 17 landed on the Moon the best NASA can come up with is this? Back to the Future! |
|
|
If it works and is mostly proven, why change it? To change it only invites delays and cost increases. There will be enough of them on its own. |
||
|
Great info! Thanks! I was wondering why the hell we use tiles instead of a shield. Sgat1r5 |
|
|
I'd think it would HAVE to "look like a plane" if we plan to land it in the fashion that we do. How else are you going to glide down to ground? Or are you saying we need to start landing them in the ocean again? It does seem like we should have a better way to insulate against the heat. I don't know how else they would do it though with the current technology. I think part of the reason they wanted to use tiles, was to replace a damaged section easily.. |
|
|
I think your missing my point… they are going to design a new vehicle which is basically little, if any, advance over the old and very proven Saturn 1B and LEM. Why not just dust off the old designs? They were designed to a standard of virtual perfection (Von Braun knew his stuff and was obsessed with success!) and are flight proven. What I am trying to say is, after the 34 year detour down the shuttle route, NASA seems to be walking away and picking up were it left off in 1972. I remember reading the NASA press stuff back then talking about nuclear rockets and stuff by the 90's! ANdy |
|||
|
Scrap the damn program. We have 3 out of 5 built left. Not a great attrition rate by any standard.
The whole system be design is flawed. It is STILL cheaper to but payload into orbit with conventional, disposable rockets. Its simple economics. It is also cheaper to put people into and out of orbit with the same system. The shuttle is a crappy people mover because it has all the structure dedicated to payload bay. IF the system had been completely reusable and had a responsive turn around time, and if the shuttle could actually break low orbit then it might be worth keeping. We can design a LOW RISK replacement for the shuttle. It should consist of multiple systems. 1. Payload Lift System for putting big payloads into orbit. Modern Saturn V type only scalable. Doesn't have to be single stage to orbit but I think some of the stages could be made to be reusable, like the boosters on the Shuttle are now. For chucking up anything from a TV sat to huge pieces of the space station. 2. Personnel Lift System that is SSTO and has a high turn around time. Payload doesn't need to be all that much (1 to 2 500-1000lb space JDAMs is all). Used for personnel transfers and possibly to cruise around out of orbit if it can some how be refueled once up there; or if it lifted using the payload lift system, so it would retain fuel it would have used on lift off. 3. Some sort of modular space craft that could be easily assembled in orbit for out of orbit missions. Shouldn't need to take more than a few (4-5) lifts from the Heavy Lift System. Should be able to going to the moon and back. Get some real space flight expirence back under out belts for longer range exploration missions. |
|
Because the old designs use such new innovations as transistors. Who says they aren't using the old designs as a basis for the new designs? Technology has advanced, might as well take advantage of the new tech and the proven principles and designs. NASA is picking up where it left off in the 70s because the politics are leading them back there. After the last moon landing, hell before the last moon landing, there was no longer the political will to explore space. NASA had to sell the shuttle as a cheap reusable design with which they could conduct experiments in space and build space stations and orbit satellites. It never lived up to that billing for whatever reason-we could be here all day listing contributing factors. Now the climate has shifted a bit. The President has outlined a vision of space exploration vice spac experimentation. Well, if you're going to go back into the business of manned exploration why not start out where you left off? Why not use the designs that worked for the current engineers fathers and grandfathers? It's low-risk and relatively low cost. As for nuke powered space vehicles, they promised me flying cars by the year 2000, I'm still waiting. |
||||
|
NASA should just outsource the whole space program to China or India.
That way, if it blows up or falls apart, at least it'll be cheap. |
|
The Lander is 4 person + cargo and much, much larger than the original LEM. Look at the pic, it dwarfs the CEV and the CEV is larger than the original Apollo CM. Damn thing must be the size of the old ESA spacelab module, a mini space station. |
||
|
Essentially, that is pretty what NASA+industry such as SpaceX and Bigelow are doing. |
|
|
The SS ET foam issues have been around since the earliest Shuttle launches. It is still not clear what the root cause of the problem is or how to fix it. NASA engineers have spent the last two years working on the problem. The problem(s) are more complicated then just the use of EPA approved foam propellants.
In typical ARFCOM 20-20 hindsight Monday morning quarterbacking fashion some of you seem to have completely overlooked the many accomplishments of the SS program. I think you are also forgetting that it's only been a hundred years since the first powered flight of 120 feet. The SS was designed with 1970's technology and design methods with severe budget restrictions. For the most part it has done what has been asked of it very well. |
|
|
And it's 33 years since I watched the last man walk on the moon! ANdy |
|
|
The problem with nuclear rockets aren't technical, they are political as in they scare the eco-sheeple.
|
|
+1 I am not a big proponent of space exploration.....I think its a waste of tax money that could be put to better use here on earth, in our country, helping Americans...not tooling around in space trying to figure out how to colonize another planet. That being said, Im not one to criticize the engineering staff of NASA....these are some of the best minds on the planet. The best of the best get to work on the space program. Mistakes have been made, true....but I think there are some folks that presume an awful lot, thinking that they have enough information to speculate as to the underlying causes of catastrophic failures with the ill-fated SS missions. Its easy to point the finger after the fact, but just how many post doctoral physicists, electrical engineers, and chemists are here posting in GD? Guys, if you arent a professional scientist, try to accept that maybe, just maybe, there is more to the design that the sound bites in the news. |
|
|
2006 Budget Defense: $419B DHS: $32B NASA: $16B NSF: $5B This means that totality of our nation's government sponsored science spending is just 0.175% of our GDP. That is a pissant sum that we should increase, not attempt to eliminate. |
|
|
Why? What is out there that we need to know? Im not saying that we shouldn't attempt to advance as a society, but I fail to see how exploring space is prudent while the human race is extincting itself in the name of political correctness back hear on Earth. I have to say, yeah...I am facinated with space, always have been. Putting communication satelites in orbit has changed the way we live. If it were'nt for spy satelites, our military would be blind.... But water on mars? A tenth planet? A trip back to the moon? My President wants to put men on Mars....how about putting them at the border, and stopping the illegals and terrorists from wandering in. I support the privatization of the space program...let it become a 'for profit' business. There is enough money in the private sector to sustain it, and it would probably be run better than it is today. I guess at this point in history, I percieve other tasks to be priorities. |
|
|
Why sacrifice space exploration on the altar of shit that will never happen anyway? Cutting the space program does not equal magically secure borders. |
||
|
Total B.S. Nasa isn't the only science spending by the U.S. Gov. And even if it was, so what, Gov. isn't the way to advancment, people like Burt Rutan are. Great minds, on a shoestring budget, creating brilliant designs. |
||
|
Now that everyone's watching, small things that happen all the time are making people nervous.
It happened all the time before! We just didn't know about it! Calm down! |
|
How much of the $16B is being spent for enviromental B.S. that is used against the U.S. by the left. Ozone hole study B.S... For Christ sakes... Everytime we have a hot day around here the weatherman complains about ozone in the air. The left complains about the depletion of ozone layer at high altitude. Why don't we take the ozone at the lower levels and fan it up to the higher levels if its such a problem. All we need to do is use all the fricken liberals to suck up all the ozone and blow it up a tall stack to a higher altitude. We all know that liberals are are bunch of blow hard gas bags, It should be a sinch for them. |
||
|
Between the NSF and NASA, you've got the majority of the pure science spending. The DoD makes advancements for military applications and the NIH pays for biological science. I'm sure that other departments contribute some, but I'll bet that most of that goes through NSF grants.
Unfortunately, most science advancement does not immediately equate to commerical applications. Therefore, you have to include some governmental monies or else you get only commerical advancement. |
|||
|
Bottomline is there isn't much NASA can do but let them come down.
All we are seeing is the results of governmental refusal to realize an aging space program has seen its day and a refusal to fund a new program. As usual, history won't paint a bleak picture of NASA but of the politicians that voted against the program over the years. I can't even begin to list the technological advances made by this program that during its height helped make us the technological and manufacturing leaders of the world. No single peaceful endeavor has progressed man more technologically in history yet in our wisdon we elected to kill the progress for status quo . During this entire time, my taxes didn't lower and even defense spending has reduced however social program spending increased. No our shame isn't our aging space program. Our shame is the next generation isn't on the launching pad. If companies were ran like NASA, we'd still have dial telephones and black and white TVs. Continuing as is one day our children will be living in a third world country and looking up at the sky saying "Boy how innovated those Chinese are?" How far the mighty has fallen and not by the sword but by the pen, not by the hands of soldiers but by politicians. No this isn't a world government yet and NATO is not the world government and you can take one guess at who's economy is being targeted. If history records anything it will be how the United States once led the world in mans noblist endeavor that fed its economy through technology and how the United States let it become the worlds biggest FUBAR by abandoning what it started to its world rivals. I wouldn't care to see that. Tj |
|
The "ridiculous" cross-range landing capabilities (and launch capabilities from the WTR) were dictated not by the USAF but by your friendly congresscritters that specified the shuttle as being the nation's sole heavy launch vehicle. The AF just translated that requirement into the range capabilities requirement that was necessary to provide service to the many satellites that needed launch support, including abort scenarios. Get your facts right before you post. CW |
||
|
Wow. I probably can stop the discussion now if this is the direction we are going to go. I'll trudge on: the answer to your question is 'everything.' There is only so much we can learn from earth.
This will always be the case. Human advancement cannot stop because of some barbarous animals. Scientific isolationism is just as harmful and dangerous as national isolationism.
A single manned mission to Mars would generate more scientific understanding than we could ever hope to accomplish stuck here on Earth. Geology, physics, engineering, biology, etc would all benefit from such an endevor.
The DHS has twice the budget of NASA. This is not an "either or" situation.
I agree for the heavy lifting aspect. Industry can do it better. But leave the science alone.
Yeah and those other priorities are being funded to the tune of 30x the NASA budget. |
|||||||
|
I'd rather take a trip on the Soyuz than the Shuttle.
Been going strong for close to 50 years. |
|
Well its not really a tenth planet or is it.. Lets waste more NASA funding and over the shuttle program.. If it screws over the rest of our space edge it will please the libs.. They dont want the US to be the leaders in space..
Its not right for the 3rd world nations you know. |
|
|
Yep, the Chinese cloned the most reliable space booster/capsule. Can't say I blame them. But , I'll go with the Russian version- their track record is more impressive. |
||
|
And you can thank the Congress critters, out-of-control political process and special interest groups that are using every means possible to destroy what this great nation has accomplished over the past 229 years. We pick leaders not for their vision, leadership or what they stand for and have accomplished but what they can give you so you don't have to actually work for it yourself. The after they are elected we do everything possible to make their administration as impotent as possible. We have met the enemy and he is us. - Walt Kelly |
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.