To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: New Shuttle More Vulnerable Than Suspected
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > PhysOrg WebLog > PhysOrg WebLog

ap2
Impact tests and analysis performed as part of the return-to-flight effort show that pieces of insulating foam that weigh less than half an ounce can cause small cracks and damage to the surface coating on the heat-resistant panels on the leading edge of the wing, NASA officials said in interviews this week.

The new testing showed that a piece of insulating foam just 2.3-hundredths of a pound, or 37-hundredths of an ounce, falling off the top of the external tank and striking a sensitive area of the wing could cause enough damage to bring down a space shuttle.

A much larger piece of insulating foam doomed the Columbia; the 1.67-pound chunk fell off a ramp and slammed into the wing at more than 500 miles per hour.

In fact, NASA has not been able to conduct impact tests on pieces of foam lighter than 0.06 pounds because the cannon destroys the foam, so the potential damage caused by the lighter, smaller pieces has been extrapolated from computer models.
professor andy
Sure a shuttle isn't going 500mph when it leaves the pad. And anyway, the shuttle was struck by lightning when it was coming in. Its got nothing to do with foam.
the1physicist
Struck by lightning? I didn't know that. I guess that explains a few things.
professor andy
I seen a documentary about it on BBC4. Twice acctually (you know how they repeat things..) A fella in.. San Fransisco i do belive, was photographing the incoming shuttle. He had exposer time high so it would show the line across the sky. About half way there was a purple streak joining the tail. After that the image shows it disintergrating.

The guy sent a copy to nasa. They replied and told him it was camera movement. Not a chance considering the rest of the picture was in perfect focus.

Its all to do with "mega lightning". Theres apparently more lightning above the clouds than below. Ironically one of the shuttles missions was to film mega lightning happening. Anyway, the idea is that Nasa made up the foam thing because if news got out that theres a 1:100 chance of an aeroplane getting struck in the same way as the shuttle, it would hurt the airline buisness.

Hmm, strange, i cant find it on BBC4 website, heres a different link;

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-0...tmosphere_x.htm

No pics there.. I can't find a pic of it anywhere!
cougar1701
we would have lost a lot of airplanes by now if it was only 1 in 100. Maybe 1 in 10,000 or higher
objectivity
The foam strike was confirmed through video analysis. I myself saw the foam chunk break off the external tank and strike the leading edge of the left leading edge RCC on the wing. If you actually read the Columbia Accident Investigation Board's report, the evidence for the foam strike causing the hole which destroyed the shuttle on re-entry... the evidence is absolutely overwhelming.
professor andy
Well maybe it was 1:100 shuttle re-entrys? Again I bring up the speed of the foam block! And anyway, there's evidence for the lightning if i can only source it! I know its out there..

A frickin foam block hits a wing and bursts.. what else would it do?! FOAM BLOCK! FOAM! Do you not have FOAM where you live?!
professor andy
I belive its to do with "sprites" and i recall another fellow recorded the sound of a sprite and then the shuttle breaking up..
professor andy
link to photo;

http://www.greatdreams.com/Columbia-Sep14_08b.jpg

http://www.greatdreams.com/Columbia-Sep14_09b.jpg

still cant find the entire photo with the nice skyline in it..
Ixion
QUOTE (objectivity+Jan 21 2005, 05:16 PM)
The foam strike was confirmed through video analysis. I myself saw the foam chunk break off the external tank and strike the leading edge of the left leading edge RCC on the wing. If you actually read the Columbia Accident Investigation Board's report, the evidence for the foam strike causing the hole which destroyed the shuttle on re-entry... the evidence is absolutely overwhelming.

Yes, I've seen the same video too. You see a piece of foam come off the tank and clearly strike the wing. There is also footage of nasa doing tests on a wing section with dramatic damage done to the wing. When I saw the video of the launch I noticed something about the impact. The foam chunk seemed to turn to powder after striking the wing.

This suggests that the blow was not a direct one. But, was in fact offset above center of the wing. Also the fact that it was deflected and reduced to powder suggests that a great deal of the energy was diffused in the reaction.

The fact is that something bad happened during re-entry and the problem obviously started in the left wing. I think that the damage to the tiles was not as severe as previously thought but was enough to doom the craft.

As we know the tiles are made of a material similar to glass, and provides a great insulator to heat, and would in fact prove a great insulator to electrical discharge.

I think it's perfectly feesible to think that the damage damaged the insulation enough to allow the plasma to get to the internal members but not been comprimised to the point of total failure. Evidence during re-entry shows increasing temperatures in the left wing region of the craft. But it wasnt rapid.

I think this suggests that the "leak" wasnt very large at the beginning of the incident. Though the closing of the circuit between the plasma and internal members as well as the ion trail was enough to induce a discharge.

The damage would have been massive. The temperature of the strike would have far excessed the 3000 degrees of normal re-entry and the evident spark erosion on tiles found would have worsened the already damaged tiles. As well as the sudden cut-out of communications and of the documentry video on board, shows power failure.

It maybe that the craft would have been lost anyway, but i think explaining it as outright tile failure, and something we have control of and can fix, is far more soothing to the American public then atmospheric phenomina we know little to nothing about.
krreagan
QUOTE (Ixion+Jan 9 2006, 05:48 AM)
QUOTE (objectivity+Jan 21 2005, 05:16 PM)
The foam strike was confirmed through video analysis.  I myself saw the foam chunk break off the external tank and strike the leading edge of the left leading edge RCC on the wing.  If you actually read the Columbia Accident Investigation Board's report, the evidence for the foam strike causing the hole which destroyed the shuttle on re-entry... the evidence is absolutely overwhelming.

Yes, I've seen the same video too. You see a piece of foam come off the tank and clearly strike the wing. There is also footage of nasa doing tests on a wing section with dramatic damage done to the wing. When I saw the video of the launch I noticed something about the impact. The foam chunk seemed to turn to powder after striking the wing.

This suggests that the blow was not a direct one. But, was in fact offset above center of the wing. Also the fact that it was deflected and reduced to powder suggests that a great deal of the energy was diffused in the reaction.

The fact is that something bad happened during re-entry and the problem obviously started in the left wing. I think that the damage to the tiles was not as severe as previously thought but was enough to doom the craft.

As we know the tiles are made of a material similar to glass, and provides a great insulator to heat, and would in fact prove a great insulator to electrical discharge.

I think it's perfectly feesible to think that the damage damaged the insulation enough to allow the plasma to get to the internal members but not been comprimised to the point of total failure. Evidence during re-entry shows increasing temperatures in the left wing region of the craft. But it wasnt rapid.

I think this suggests that the "leak" wasnt very large at the beginning of the incident. Though the closing of the circuit between the plasma and internal members as well as the ion trail was enough to induce a discharge.

The damage would have been massive. The temperature of the strike would have far excessed the 3000 degrees of normal re-entry and the evident spark erosion on tiles found would have worsened the already damaged tiles. As well as the sudden cut-out of communications and of the documentry video on board, shows power failure.

It maybe that the craft would have been lost anyway, but i think explaining it as outright tile failure, and something we have control of and can fix, is far more soothing to the American public then atmospheric phenomina we know little to nothing about.

The leading edge of the wings on the shuttle are not made from the silicon glass tiles, they are made from a carbon-carbon composit material, which is more brittle but can take a higher temperature then the tiles. That is what was damaged by the foam strike not tiles. Airplanes are struck by lightning all the time. Most of the time the damage is minimal (holes burned in the skin, electrical components burned out). Sometimes the damage can be catastrophic, but that is very rare.

Krreagan
infohound
NASA's testing showed that a foam strike CAN cause damage severe enough to compromise shuttle integrity, but this IS NOT hard evidence that foam strike(s) caused the destruction of Columbia.

In the National Geographic video documentary titled MEGA LIGHTNING, in which the purple streak photo is featured, Dr Umran Inan, of Stanford University, heading NASA's "lightning hunters" states that there was NO ELECTRICAL ACTIVITY in the area of Columbia's descent.

Re the "purple streak": there is no substitute for seeing the photo; perhaps that's why the the documentary is so mysteriously unavaliable. The streak emerges from black sky far above Columbia, corksrcews 3 revolutions then makes a straight track toward Columbia, passes behind it and makes an instant RIGHT-ANGLE course correction, again corkscrews 3 revoluions and again streaks straight toward Columbia, making contact at the exact time that NASA's telemetry showed a big spike in temperature readings and contact with Columbia was lost; 6 minutes before Columbia broke up.

Is this the behavior of a natural phenomenon?

It IS the behavior of a self-guided weapon. As I said, there's no substitute for seeing the photo, but the above description of it is accurate. And no, I'm not implying that it was some kind of alien attack. Draw your own conclusions.
Ixion
Thank you for the correction on the material composition.

Mega-lightning isnt the same kind of lightning that you see coming out of clouds and striking the ground. It's positively charged and at much greater voltage as well as much hotter. Unlike negative cloud lightning which discharges multiple times, mega-lightning disharges all at once. As I said it would have been much like a cutting torch... burning a path to the nearest metallic internal member. My guess would be inward since the plasma jet seemed to be directed at the wheel well. Where temperature readings began spiking.

Vast majority of lower atmosphere lightning is negative. The catastrophic damage could be attributed to the much rarer mega-lightning strikes.

They are two different beasts.

Unfortunatly whatever the case may be the crew was probably doomed. Space travel is dangerous.

However, the possibility alone demands study. There is a whole electrical system in our atmosphere we know little about, and with talk of space elevators there are many questions that still need to be answered.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.