posted
It might be a good idea to invent a construction material capable of handling the strain, first.
(What about carbon nanotubes, you ask. Well, sure. Figure out how to spin them out in bulk for dirt cheap and you'll be in business.)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
This just in... NASA has grounded the remaining shuttle fleet pending an investigation of a sizable chunk of insulating foam dropping off the fuel tank during liftoff. The chunk is slightly smaller than the one that struck Columbia. Fortunately, this time around Discovery was not hit and is deemed in safe condition for the return. Had Discovery been severely damaged for a safe return, Atlantis would have been sent up for a rescue mission at her regular launch window in September.
I'm not sure if they would still send up Atlantis if Discovery is deemed unreturnable. I'm guessing if the situation ends up being a grounded shuttle fleet and Discovery unable to return, NASA would need to rely on Russia's Soyuz capsules again.
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Yeah, but if Discovery was damaged and Atlantis were sent to retreive the crew....what would happen to Discovery? Someone would get the short straw and have to pilot a repaired Discovery back...
The real trick (and part of this mission's goal) is to develop a in-orbit repair program for the heat shield. I was reading about some epoxy like paste they are supposed to be testing as a tile repair/replacment. No idea how they'd test a re-entry of the stuff though- the test was supposed to be done EVA, but not actually to the shuttle itself.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
You know, these bits of insulation probably fall off every time they launch. They just never noticed it until it caused a problem.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I had the same initial thought, but during the Challenger investigation, they never mentioned it (and they went over every millimeter of footage the way we did BOBW and FC ship battles).
Mabye the foam thing is something added since the Challenger era?
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
They should probably have got us to take a look at the footage. Granted we'd have found two Millenium Falcons, a 2001-Discovery, a McQuarrie Enterprise and Mickey Mouse on the Grassy Knoll, but we'd have been sure to find something they missed. . .
posted
In the early days of the shuttle, the ET was painted white to match the orbiter and the SRBs. The painting was stopped to save weight.
I don't recall, however, hearing anything about falling foam in those early days. Of course, what second-grader cares about such things?
Still, I wonder if there could be some kind of sealer or clearcoat or paint that could be applied to the ET that would prevent chunks from forming and falling.
Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
We've also never had this many close-in cameras on a launch before. I think this is just a knee-jerk reaction. I believe NASA would have gone on with more shuttle flights, but with that footage, someone would have eventually noticed the foam falling off and cause trouble, so they went ahead and grounded the fleet to avoid that.
So, what now? The foam has been falling off since the first launch, so how do we fix it? I'm sure it can be fixed to the engineers' satisfaction, but not to the general public's. I don't think you can get rid of the problem completely.
You know, the space shuttle will probably be the only manned vehicle in history with this particular problem. All previous designs and all future proposed designs have been shown to be mounted on top of a rocket, avoiding any falling foam altogether. Mind you, all of these designs are also significantly smaller than the space shuttle.
posted
Would the space shuttle fall off the rocket if its own engines weren't firing at the same time? I've always wondered how it is fastened onto the rocket.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Why launch the shuttle in such a way that gravity pulls falling insulation TOWARD the Orbiter?
Why not wait to perform the roll manuver until after the Shuttle separates from the ET?
Get the Orbiter out of the way of falling debris.
Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"Would the space shuttle fall off the rocket if its own engines weren't firing at the same time? I've always wondered how it is fastened onto the rocket."
It's not a rocket. The central orange cylinder is just a fuel-tank that doesn't have any engines.
As to wether the (100-ton or so when fully loaded) orbiter would fall off if its main engines failed, since roughly 70 percent of the thrust at liftoff and during first-stage ascent is provided by the two booster rockets with the rest coming from the shuttle's, the extra stress on the connecting struts between tank and shuttle would probably cause them to fail too if a forced separation wasn't executed, but don't base your application to NASA on that somewhat uneducated guess. B)
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
For great DOUBAL-POTSING.
"Why not wait to perform the roll manuver until after the Shuttle separates from the ET?"
Because it has to be done before maximum dynamic pressure is reached (which happens about a minute after launch) so as to relieve aerodynamic stress on the shuttle's airframe.
-------------------- ".mirrorS arE morE fuN thaN televisioN" - TEH PNIK FLAMIGNO
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
