NASA Finds 4-5" Crack in Shuttle Insulation 193
PresidentKang writes "Spaceflight Now is reporting that a large crack has been found in an external tank foam of Space Shuttle Discovery on the launch pad. According to the article: "Engineers inspecting the shuttle Discovery's external tank following Sunday's launch scrub found a crack in the tank's foam insulation near a bracket holding a 17-inch oxygen feed line in place. Some engineers believe the crack must be repaired but senior managers say a variety of options are on the table, from fly as is to making repairs.""
And what about the pilots? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder what those managers would say if they had to fly the shuttle.
Re:And what about the pilots? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And what about the pilots? (Score:2)
Re:And what about the pilots? (Score:2)
The space pen was developed wholely without prompting and without money from NASA, by the Fisher Pen company.
Re:And what about the pilots? Russian vehicle (Score:3, Informative)
Re:And what about the pilots? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, I don't think you'd hear the astronauts being the most conservative on this decision just because they're in the ship.
Re:And what about the pilots? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And what about the pilots? (Score:2)
Everything is still on the table: they haven't actually evaluated the problem yet. They've just gotten a report from one or two engeneers. Once they have a (hopefully good) evaluation, then they can make a decision.
Until then, they haven't actually said anything.
Patch it (Score:5, Funny)
Status Update (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry to piggyback on a joke. This is the actual status, copied from NASA's shuttle page [nasa.gov]
Crack hidden away in the insulation? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Crack hidden away in the insulation? (Score:2)
They were planning on making a few quick $$$ off the Martian druggies.
Re:Crack hidden away in the insulation? (Score:2)
DNF, Vista, or Shuttle (Score:5, Funny)
Re:DNF, Vista, or Shuttle (Score:2)
Re:DNF, Vista, or Shuttle (Score:5, Funny)
If the shuttle needs to have its heatshield repaired, Astronauts must spend longer in orbit. They require a stimulating game to stop themselves going space crazy - and NASA have decided that must be DNF.
And, of course, DNF was designed from the outset to take advantage of the new features of Vista...
Re:DNF, Vista, or Shuttle (Score:4, Funny)
BBC: Shuttle Upgraded for Time Travel (Score:4, Funny)
Look at the 'Latest' news on the right [bbc.co.uk]
Surely they should just get the thing working before they add extra features like that?
Re:BBC: Shuttle Upgraded for Time Travel (Score:2)
Re:BBC: Shuttle Upgraded for Time Travel (Score:2)
Looks like some sort of time shift thingy to me.
How can they fix this (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How can they fix this (Score:3, Interesting)
I ain't quite a rocket scientist, so maybe the answer is obvious to others, but why is that a problem?
Re:How can they fix this (Score:4, Informative)
Because of the volume of fuel that would have be transferred to the shuttle - compare filling a moped (the Atlas) and a Peterbuilt tractor unit (the Shuttle). It is not hard to fill a moped in a few minutes, filling the Peterbuilt takes quite a bit longer. Meanwhile, fuel is evaporating, leaking, and filling the launch area with a flammable mix of hydrogen and oxygen, AND water is condensing on the fuel tanks, freezing, and turning into nice hard chunks suitable for breaking things, like, say, fragile heat-resistant tiles.
Re:How can they fix this (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't be suprised if the external tank is insulated just because of how the shuttle is mounted on the assembly.
Re:How can they fix this (Score:5, Informative)
It's more complicated than that. It is needed to stop ice forming that would trash the shuttle, but it also reduces fuel boiloff, protects the tank from aerodynamic heating, and keeps the metal cold... the metal in the tank gets stronger as it cools down, and that means they've been able to cut back on the amount they use. Since the tank goes most of the way to orbit, saving a pound of mass in the tank gives you close to a pound of extra payload in the shuttle.
Re:How can they fix this (Score:2)
Re:How can they fix this (Score:2, Insightful)
By keeping the tank's metal stronger you don't need as much metal. The metal's density is much greater than that of the ice. Like the previous poster stated a pound saved on the tank almost directly relates to an extra pound of payload or less fuel required for said pool. That's part of the reason only the first shuttle's ET (external tank) was painted white. I don't remember the exact weight but they were using Titanium based
Re:How can they fix this (Score:2)
Re:How can they fix this (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How can they fix this (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How can they fix this (Score:2)
Re:How can they fix this (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How can they fix this (Score:2)
It makes sense, but it's not right (Score:3, Informative)
1. To make Liquid Oxygen at room temperature does require extremely low temperatures. But they aren't keeping it THAT cold, because it would be prohibitively difficult.
It doesn't need to be that cold, because under pressure the te
Re:How can they fix this (Score:2)
Things only get hot when these two are mixed together - in the engine. Getting them hot (and mixed) in the tank is a bad idea - think Challenger.
Re:How can they fix this (Score:2)
Re:How can they fix this (Score:3)
Nope.
Liquified gasses can exist at any temperature. The higher the pressure, the higher the boiling point of the liquid.
It works just like how water boils. In Denver, water boils at about 203 F. Increase the pressure, by moving to Boston, it now boils at 212 F.
Letting some of the gas out a tank will, however, make it cold.
Re:How can they fix this (Score:2, Interesting)
Nope. There is a maximum temperature at which gases can exist as a liquid. Check out the concept of critical temperature and critical pressure, and phase diagrams. Above a temperature of -118.4C there simply is no such thing as liquid oxygen.
http://www.scienceclarified.com/Ga-He/Gases-Liquef action-of.html [scienceclarified.com]
Re:How can they fix this (Score:2, Informative)
Re:How can they fix this (Score:2)
Shuttle is a political project (Score:2, Insightful)
This type of thing is to be expected in political endeavors. Their purpose is never to satisfy the stated goals but to advance constituencies political agendas. For a political project failure is not only an option but often the most desirable one.
Re:Shuttle is a political project (Score:2)
Perhaps we can use the Hubble, which was carried and serviced by this vehicle, to peer down with great resolution and find the part of your comment that's not a troll? Or, just point out the controlling political entity that actually has a vested interest in th
Re:Shuttle is a political project (Score:2)
In the 70's it was the democratic party. The Shuttle was a nixon administration project and they were deriving political capitol with the whole "Money should be spent here on earth" mantra. I always enjoyed the counter that there were no malls on the moon.
In the 80's you had fiscal conservatives on the republican side against it.
In the 90's you had the clinton administration which cared less about space than about being spacey. To be fair Al go
Moot point (Score:3, Insightful)
We can do far, far better [wikipedia.org]. End the Shuttle program, put the orbiters into museums, and put its operating budget into R&D for a new spacecraft.
Re:Shuttle is a political project (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Shuttle is a political project (Score:2)
The shuttle was part of Reagan's gambit to goad the Soviets into bankrupting themselves trying to keep up with our military spending in the 80s.
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
The program started in the late 1960s and has dominated NASA's manned operations since the mid-1970s.
While I don't disagree that driving the Soviets bankrupt with envy is a plausible political goal of the shuttle program, you won't win anyone over by blaming or praising (depending on your POV on the situation) Reagan for the whole thing.
Re:Shuttle is a political project (Score:2)
The problem with this theory is that shuttle studies started twenty years before Reagan took office and the Shuttle program was created nine years before he took office.
Quick Fix (Score:2, Interesting)
I hope not (Score:2)
Duct tape has problems with the adhesive melting when it's applied to ducts. The adhesive weakens under the large amounts of heat in the ducts. Because of that, California has recently banned the use of duct tape on ducts. Imagine that on the space shuttle...
Does anybody at NASA have a MEMORY? (Score:5, Insightful)
I fear we may very well get a "fourth to remember", and NOT in a good way! It is all very well for a bottlerocket to explode in flight, NOT A MANNED SHIP!
I fear that NASA is going to launch, come hell or high water, and damned be the consequences.
Re:Does anybody at NASA have a MEMORY? (Score:2)
"I fear we may very well get a "fourth to remember", and NOT in a good way! It is all very well for a bottlerocket to explode in flight, NOT A MANNED SHIP!"
Perhaps sending up a rocket on a day when Americans traditionally launch fireworks is tempting fate a little.
Oh, that and the engineer thing as well. Well said.
Re:Does anybody at NASA have a MEMORY? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now it's partly MS's fault? (Score:2)
Take a look at "What Do You Care What Other People Think" by Richard Feynman and read what he had to say about the first shuttle disaster. NASA has had problems facing reality long before PowerPoint was available.
Re:Now it's partly MS's fault? (Score:3)
Re:Now it's partly MS's fault? (Score:2)
Yes, the article claims that Feynman commented on "slideware-style presentation", but doesn't cite where.
Feynman's primary concern was NASA's inability or unwillingness to analyze risk in a scientific manner. In fact Feynman's "Appendix to the Rogers Commission Report on the Space Shuttle Challen
Re:Now it's partly MS's fault? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Does anybody at NASA have a MEMORY? (Score:2)
Honestly, senior managers don't have time to review every minor detail of every project. This kind of structure works as long as people at the lower levels are competent to know what information is relevant to pass along, how much information their superiors can handle at once, and what makes a critical bullet point. If you watch the interviews and press conferences, you'll notice Griffin and the other top NASA officials have a pretty good handle on what's g
Re:Does anybody at NASA have a MEMORY? (Score:2)
Re:Does anybody at NASA have a MEMORY? (Score:2)
Even if they do have a working memory - they won't remember that, as there was no such evidence. There was a small number of engineers who tried to say "Don't launch" at the eleventh hour - but they weren't trusted because a) this represented a near complete reversal of their previous stance and b) they could not offer a
Re:Does anybody at NASA have a MEMORY? (Score:2)
Re:Does anybody at NASA have a MEMORY? (Score:2)
No, my claim is that they elevated the level of concern from "this is not right but acceptably safe to fly" to "this is unsafe and we should not fly" until a few days before launch - without any new data that could (to managements eyes) justify the new conclusion.
Re:Does anybody at NASA have a MEMORY? (Score:3, Insightful)
Didn't Boisjoly say that the seals weren't qualified for the temperature on launch day?
"Qualified" is a specialized term related to the adage "Test what you fly, fly what you test". It means that a part has proven itself for a particular use and environment. It's kind of like "rated", but with radically more testing and traceability.
By aerospace standards, as soon as the seals were outside the conditions for which they were tested, they shou
Re:Does anybody at NASA have a MEMORY? (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean the standardly organized preflight meeting?
this represented a near complete reversal of their previous stance
The one formed before the shuttle had been cold soaking in 28 degree weather?
they could not offer a coherent case for changing their stance
Besides the clear evidence that blow-by increased at lower temperatures within the range that they were familiar, that there was one shuttle flight already that had
Re:Does anybody at NASA have a MEMORY? (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is the engineers had supported the position that "even though the primary o-ring is burning - the secondary is holding, so were are OK
Re:Does anybody at NASA have a MEMORY? (Score:2)
Okay, I see what you're saying.
The cause of the failure was joint rotation - there was
Why is changing one's mind automatically bad? (Score:4, Interesting)
Now I'm no Gandhi, but I can think of a lot of situations when learning something new made me reverse my stance on something. In fact, I consider it to be what every sane human does all the time. Only zealots have one absolute truth and stick to it for ever, no matter what. A scientist (either theoretical or engineer) should have no such things by definition. If you learn some new fact, or do another calculation, or run another simulation, or whatever, and it contradicts what you previously believed, yes, as an engineer I'd _expect_ you to be ready and willing to change your mind about it. Maybe you'll run some extra tests, do more calculations or whatever first, that's ok, but you shouldn't ever have the last week's stance as something set in stone and unchangeable for any reason.
So, well, I won't argue a your point B for lack of enough data, but point A leaves me scratching my head in disbelief. So someone decided that those engineers aren't trustworthy... because they changed their mind? Seems like a pretty weird attitude. I definitely expected that at NASA even management would be a bit more open-minded than that. They're pretty much one continuous experiment and using experimental equipment, so it's exactly the kind of thing that should be _expected_.
We're not talking stuff like designing a bike, where you can just do it all by the book and know the same today as you knew last week. We're talking crazy experimental stuff that noone else has done before, and a lot of it is tried for the first time. Someone calculated that this valve should be perfectly safe, or that foam can't break this time, but essentially it's the first time anyone actually put that valve or that new foam on a rocket and blast it into space. There's a lot of stuff that could act differently than in the simulation, or than in whatever lab tests were done.
So, yes, stuff like someone doing some new calculations and deciding, "teh oops, this thing is gonna blow up" are the kind of thing I'd _expect_.
Re:Why is changing one's mind automatically bad? (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue is more complex
Re:Why is changing one's mind automatically bad? (Score:2)
Basically I don't think that any engineer worth his salt would do something like that based on "my horoscope said 'don't launch any shuttles today'" or similar. If they did change their mind or interpretation, there must be some s
Re:Does anybody at NASA have a MEMORY? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've always felt that the shuttle crew (the astronauts that are about to go up in the thing) should have at least 50% say in go/no-go decisions based on findings like this. If engineers find a 5" crack, it's the crew that suffer the consequences of a bad go/no-go decision. One assumes the crew are already part of the data-gathering process. If the shuttle crew say "Low risk - okay to fix on the pad and launch", then that should carry a lot of weight in the final decision. If they instead say "Too risky
Re:Does anybody at NASA have a MEMORY? (Score:2)
I've heard this somewhere else, so weigh it accordingly (perhaps someone can verify or deny): the shuttle crews today do not have the engineering backgrounds of the crews of the past i.e. they are not really qualified to say whether the shuttle is safe to fly or not and NASA cannot scrap a launch just because the crew feels uneasy for
Re:Does anybody at NASA have a MEMORY? (Score:2)
You don't become an astronaut having a risk-averse personality. Risk is part of the profession. There is not a single crew that is not aware of their mission presenting a very real danger. However, they still become astronauts... compete rigorously to do so. Train hard to do so. Become focused on their mission. And presented with i
Re:Does anybody at NASA have a MEMORY? (Score:3, Insightful)
Other than their lack of specific technical knowledge, the astronauts are also somewhat biased. They live to go into space. They have to be hypercompetitive to get where they are.
It's like asking an injured athlete if he wants to play. The answer is going to be something like "Yes, but the doctor won't let me."
Take out the doctor (engineers) and what are you left with?
"Yes"
Re:Does anybody at NASA have a MEMORY? (Score:3, Interesting)
If I'm wrong here please someone correct me - but I don't think anybody's ever been forced into going into space against their will.
Re:Does anybody at NASA have a MEMORY? (Score:2)
Well, in all fairness, going into space is BY DEFINITION unsafe. I'm sure that there have been engineers on every single space launch that have said, "Don't launch! BAAAAD!", just as I'm sure that there have been engineers on every software release that have said, "Don't release! BAAAAD!".
Actually, I'm positive there are WAY more software engineers saying that than NA
Re:Does anybody at NASA have a MEMORY? (Score:2)
Okay, let's try to get a little reality check in here.
First, foam did not cause the Challenger accident. It has been nice and warm in Florida and there is no reason to believe that the SRBs will create a problem as they did with Challenger. Foam is a problem in that it can come off and damage the tiles which protect the Shuttle upon re-entry, which will occur in a couple of weeks. So there will be no "fourth to remember"
Cold? Maybe. Still needs to be said. (Score:4, Insightful)
-Q, "Q Who?"
Now what? (Score:5, Interesting)
On the one hand, shuttles flew forever shedding foam and it only became a real problem when a large enough piece tore off to actually damage the shuttle in flight significantly. Engineers accepted the risks with many reservations, because damage was never really that severe. Of course hindsight is 20-20 and this problem could have been rectified if the foam was located interior to the tank as opposed to externally. I think they were worried that if they tried that, there would be voids in the insulation that would allow heat to enter and cause problems, but that was a manufacturing issue which probably could have been resolved with a little ingenuity.
On the other hand, a 4-5 inch crack is nothing to sneeze at and with the aerodynamic forces that batter a shuttle on its way into LEO, any number of things could cause that crack to widen and eventually spilt, teraing off a really large section of foam. It has to be repaired; I don't see how NASA management can ignore this. If they do, and the shuttle is damaged or heaven forbid, destroyed, that's the end of the space program. And probably rightly so. Like to many things, NASA was created due to Cold War concerns, namely that the Russians were going to grab the "high ground" of space and show us up in technical endeavors, weakening our position on the world stage. Like other Cold War relics, it too either needs to change or be dismantled.
I'm a NASA booster (forgive the pun) -- my dream from childhood was to walk on the Moon. But I can say that I find it hard to trust the NASA I see now; it has become hamstrung by indecision, beaureaucracy, and lack of imaginative leadership (with apologies to Dan Goldin, Sean O'Keffe, and Mike Griffin). I wanted John Young to become NASA Administrator -- tough talking, smart, no-nonsense, and imaginative. He might have (and still could if he wanted the job) lit a fire under NASA and got them thinking straight. The problem is, NASA was not prepared for life after Apollo and it shows. The STS was a compromise (no engineer in the early 70's thought solid rocket boosters were a good idea) and a poor one at that.
I think a) NASA needs to be saved from itself and b) the American people have to learn what a truly great resource they have in their space program. Barring either of those, it will be up to private industry to carry the torch.
Re:Now what? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Now what? (Score:2)
Shouldn't Fuel under uncertain Weather conditions (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not saying NASA should have launched the first time, but with only a 30% chance of launch due to weather, why did they even fuel the bird up? Weather should have a least an 80% chance window I would think think to decrease the likelihood of one fueled up scrub after another leading to excessive thermal stress on tank components.
Also while many may see July 4th as a feel-good day to launch (National pride and all that) if anything goes wrong there are religious types both Christian and Muslim that will see it as a sign validating whatever their view of the world is.
Re:Shouldn't Fuel under uncertain Weather conditio (Score:5, Informative)
The only time they are right is when they say 'It's raining right now' or 'It's sunny outside.' We don't even need dark clouds for rain, lightning, or both. Sunny showers are not that uncommon.
In short, 30% is just as good as 80% here.
Oh, and btw, if the weather report says 'in 12 hours, a hurricane will hit your town' you can safely sit at home and eat popcorn. It's not going to hit you.
Re:Shouldn't Fuel under uncertain Weather conditio (Score:3, Funny)
Unless they also say "the levvies will hold", in which case, you know you're in trouble
Re:Shouldn't Fuel under uncertain Weather conditio (Score:3, Interesting)
Just last night there was a program broadcast on DayStar (a christian tv station) in which a preacher and his obviously strung-out-on-drugs assistant were showing clippings from newspapers, then reading passages from the bible, and crying with joy as they showed this proof that "the rapture" is n
Cloud tolerances and line of sight. (Score:2)
While I agree that the "cloud factor" might be a bit too constricting, I think they want the ability to keep a very close ey
Re:Cloud tolerances and line of sight. (Score:2)
Re:Shouldn't Fuel under uncertain Weather conditio (Score:2, Interesting)
7 is heavenly perfection, and July is the 7th month.
4 is earthly perfection, and it's the 4th day.
Re:Shouldn't Fuel under uncertain Weather conditio (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Shouldn't Fuel under uncertain Weather conditio (Score:2)
4 is earthly perfection, and it's the 4th day.
the significance of it wouldn't be the religious properties of the day, but the secular one.
{Clap! Clap!}
Nice. I see your point and I think it is valid (cf. the reactions of some Muslims to Hurricane "Private" Katrina and the reactions of some Christians to earthquakes in India and Pakistan). However, the original poster insinuated that there was a connection between the date - numerologically speak
Re:Shouldn't Fuel under uncertain Weather conditio (Score:2)
Re:Shouldn't Fuel under uncertain Weather conditio (Score:2)
Guilty. My fault.
If anyone is biased, it's you for not realizing that the vast majority of the world's moral/prophetic bullshit comes from these two religions.
Irrelevant. From whence "the vast majority of the world's moral/prophetic bullshit comes from" has no bearing on whether or not I am biased and no bearing on whether or not my statements regarding snubbing Christians and Muslims for their belie
Re:Shouldn't Fuel under uncertain Weather conditio (Score:2)
Why did religious nuts pick the world trade towers? Because they're symbols of america... and err, july 4th has a kinda symbolic attachment to "the american way" too, which is something many people, religious and otherwise, have a problem with. However, someone who believes that god plans/controls/whatevers everything, is a lot more likely to believe that it's a message, than someone who is more enlightened.
Re:Shouldn't Fuel under uncertain Weather conditio (Score:2)
Enlightened, huh?
I'm not defending every belief of every religion out there but...the word "enlightened" is a word so full of superiority and dripping with disdain that I am surprised you would even choose to use it in a discussion like this. It is a word completely devoid of meaning in any debate that borders on philosophical because it c
Propaganda also a Double Edged Sword (Score:2)
Re:Shouldn't Fuel under uncertain Weather conditio (Score:2)
Oooooh foam (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems like an unwise decision to let it run without repairing it even if it is unlikely that anything will happen, no?
video of talk (Score:4, Informative)
Meanwhile monitoring the astronauts... (Score:3, Funny)
Astronaut: "Mission control this is Astronaut. What is the problem. Over."
Mission control: "Astronaut we're looking at the live biosigns from your transmitter and have come across a concern. Did your mother drop you as a child? Over."
Astronaut: "I don't believe so. Why? Over."
Mission control: "Because..."
*general snickering from mission control*
Mission control: "Because there's a big crack in your butt! Over and out."
Not surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
Inverted flight (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Punctuation! (Score:5, Funny)