Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Foam Shot Causes Damage to Shuttle Mockup 43

Posted by michael from the deploy-foam-cannons-for-homeland-security dept.
DoraLives writes "The New York Times is running a story describing the effects caused by a piece of foam fired at a fiberglass mock up of the Space Shuttle's wing. Although fiberglass is stronger than the RCC material on Columbia's wing, "The impact produced a 22-inch-long gap." Not good."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Foam Shot Causes Damage to Shuttle Mockup More

Foam Shot Causes Damage to Shuttle Mockup

Comments Filter:

  • Summary (Score:5, Informative)

    by ArmorFiend ( 151674 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @10:42AM (#6076662) Homepage Journal
    To summarise the article: nobody really thinks this is news until they test it on the actual substance (carbon-carbon) that the wing is made out of.

  • Terrorists next tool: (Score:4, Funny)

    by qqtortqq ( 521284 ) <mark@@@doodeman...org> on Friday May 30, 2003 @10:46AM (#6076695)
    Nerf guns
    • In related news, foam detectors have now be installed at all state and federal facilities.
    • I mean, I've seen some cool nerf guns, but check this out (from the article):

      "Researchers shot a 1.67-pound chunk of foam from a gas cannon ... at about 530 miles per hour"
      • at about 530 miles per hour

        You got karma for being funny, but the truth is that this figure is extremely telling - they had to shoot the foam at a completely unrealistic number to get the results they "forced". The foam wasn't falling from very high, and as foam would have an extremely low terminal velocity even if it did. The rocket was just taking off and so wasn't moving very fast, and the foam was moving up at the same speed until it fell.

        So why do an experiment with such an insanely high speed for t

        • they had to shoot the foam at a completely unrealistic number to get the results they "forced". The foam wasn't falling from very high, and as foam would have an extremely low terminal velocity even if it did. The rocket was just taking off and so wasn't moving very fast, and the foam was moving up at the same speed until it fell.

          Huh?

          Am I missing something here?

          Foam broke loose and hit left wing eighty some odd seconds into the mission.
          Shuttle going like a bat out of hell by that time.
          Foam in slipstream

        • Okay, take a piece of foam with lots of air-catching pockets and dimples. Toss it into a hypermach slipstream. Watch it accelerate at dozens of Gs to be going 530 miles an hour after travelling about the length of a space shuttle.

          Sure, this test with the mockup isn't 100% true to reality, but it's not at all an unreasonable simulation to get a rough idea of what could happen.

  • "Not Good"? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by damiangerous ( 218679 )
    How is this "not good" exactly? The shuttle was destroyed, that fact cannot be changed. How could finding the cause of that destruction possibly be considered "not good"?

    • Re:"Not Good"? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by iuyterw ( 255460 )
      Finding the cause isn't "not good".

      If this discovery means there is a risk of destruction of the remaining shuttles that cannot be mitigated, then that is very very "not good"

  • Why does everyone give links to NYT? (Score:5, Informative)

    by stienman ( 51024 ) <adavis@@@ubasics...com> on Friday May 30, 2003 @11:04AM (#6076893) Homepage Journal
    Let's all say this together - "We don't need no stinkin' registration for the majority of news!"

    Use Google News [google.com] to find it elsewhere, and reported better as often as not.

    Shuttle Wing Foam Collision Tests [google.com]

    And a direct Reuters link [reuters.com] which is pretty much what all the other articles say for those who are too lazy to click twice.

    -Adam
  • Why did NASA choose the shuttle design anyway? They took a perfectly good spaceship and added wings, control surfaces, tail, landing gear, etc... just so it could fly home like a plane. Lot's of heavy stuff just to switch from an inherently-safe re-entry method (ballistic with heat shield&chute) to a much more risky one (landing like a plane). I don't see how the "plane" part of the design is worth it... Just cuz it's sexy?

    • Re:Related: Why a Space Plane? (Score:5, Informative)

      by FirstManOnMoon ( 613282 ) * on Friday May 30, 2003 @11:26AM (#6077161)
      A plane design is the only way to carry heavy loads from space. The ballistic method severely limits the amount of material you could bring back. This isn't as big of an issue now, but originally the shuttle was designed to capture and return satellites for maintenance.

      • Re:Related: Why a Space Plane? (Score:5, Informative)

        by KillerBob ( 217953 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @04:36PM (#6080266)
        You also forget the single most important reason they chose the shuttle design: Reusability. The shuttles are Reusable launch vehicles. Sure, they cost a lot more than a capsule, they're more complicated, more can go wrong, but they can be reused. Had they been flying capsules instead of the shuttles, the cost to date would have been much higher than it was. Considering the shoestring that NASA gets to work with these days, that's important.

        Apollo 6 is sitting in a museum I pass every day on my way to work. I'm not aware of any shuttles that are sitting in a museum.
        • Erm, it's Apollo 7. Sorry about the confusion...

          Interesting reading: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollol oc.html
        • Enterprise is sitting at the Smithsonian.

          It is a prototype however, a test bed for the technology that went into the "production" shuttles, and as far as I know not capable of being re-fitted for space. So you are correct in that sense.

          Then again, I could be wrong. Perhaps the Smithsonian will donate it back to NASA to be used. I just doubt that will happen.

          -Rusty
          • > Enterprise is sitting at the Smithsonian.

            Which really makes you wonder.

            The damn test data they did have was a 3-cubic-inch chunk of foam, which was nowhere near the size of the chunk they knew had fallen off.

            Hindisght's 20/20, but surely someone at NASA could have said "Boeing's test data is wholly inadequate for the regime we're worried about this weekend. Can't we at least ask the Smithsonian janitor's kid to fire his biggest spud gun at the Enterprise so we're at least a couple of miles close

            • Apparently there is a known rule in place that says "nothing touches the Shuttle".
              • Q.: Did something just touch the shuttle?
              • A.: Yes
                • Conclusion/response 1...we have a problem that needs to be dealt with accordingly.
                • Conclusion/response 2...yes, but we don't that it's an issue. We'll get back to you after we run some tests.
                • Conclusion/response 3...we're not sure. Anyone have additional data?

              #2 & #3? How did they get in there?

              Foreign object impact testing (beyond acknowledgement of that 'rule'),

        • There's no reason a ballistic reentry vehicles couldn't be made reusable. The souyez (sp?) is. And I have a hard time beliving that NASA couldn't get cost per launch far below what it with the shuttle. ($500,000,000!!)

          The ballistic model has many advantages. The sphereical shape can contain more equipment, it doesn't need a pilot, and it's much more stable during reentry.

        • No. you can have a big humungous capsule with the ability to carry as much cargo FROM space as the shuttle. There is nothing in the concept of capsules that makes them inferior to a plane for reentry. And they can be made reusable too.

          Even if spaceplanes were an inherently better way to retrieve items from space, the space shittle is not able to reach the vast majority of objects that one might be interested in retrieving. Not only is it limited to Low Earth Orbit, but it is also limited to an eastward

  • Shuttle Astronauts killed by the EPA (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Picass0 ( 147474 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @11:26AM (#6077166) Homepage Journal
    Dryden Flight Research Center:

    DRYDEN F-15B SUPPORTS SHUTTLE EXTERNAL TANK INSULATION TESTS
    http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewsReleases/199 9/99-01.html [nasa.gov]
    Published in 1999

    fourth paragraph:

    "The experiment was part of an effort to determine why small particles of spray-on foam insulation flaked off of the inter-tank section of the external fuel tank on Space Shuttle mission STS-87 as the Shuttle ascended. The new lightweight insulation material was developed to comply with an EPA mandate to reduce ozone-depleting chemicals released into the atmosphere. Although such flaking or erosion of the insulation off the external tank posed no safety hazard to the Shuttle or its crew, engineers wanted to determine its cause to prevent future maintenance and operational problems. The flights aboard Dryden's F-15B were just one of many tests to which the new insulation material is being subjected. "

    The EPA required Nasa to continue using a foam that was not as safe as the older tank foam. The EPA has a direct responsiblity for this disaster.

    • Re:Shuttle Astronauts killed by the EPA (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      total bullshit. The epa didn't design the new lightweight insulation material, nor did they test the new material and judge that it posed no safety hazard to the Shuttle or its crew, nor did they require nasa to stay with the flaky material...

      so its really no more epa's fault than yours or mine

      go back home, troll.
    • The EPA has a direct responsiblity for this disaster.

      Yeah. And they eat babies too.

      Nice try at a "EPA Kills Astronauts" causality, but no.
      1. The EPA required NASA to use materials that will prevent Ozone depletion.
      2. NASA chose a foam. The chosen foam had some problems on STS-87. NASA tested it.
      3. NASA continued to use the same foam.

      If you want to play the blame game (and I have to say that IMHO, it's a particularly nonproductive game in this case unless you can point at a single individual who personally

      • By your logic, JFK is directly responsible for the death of the Columbia astronauts because he encouraged the rapid development of the space program.

        Actually by that logic JFK is responsible for saving the lives of 84 astronauts.

        If it hadn't been for the over-rapid developement of the space program we never would have essentially abandoned the space program after the initial lunar landing. The slower and sustainable development would have lead to the establishment of a permanent lunar base in 1998, just
    • Interesting...

      Most Cessna-type airplanes still use leaded fuel. Leaded, as in the element Pb, the nerve-damaging metal that they phased out of gasoline in the late 70's? The reason the EPA allows this is that lead's lubrication properties produce a more reliable engine -- something that's of value when you've only got one engine.

      You'd think that these small airplanes would pose more of an environmental threat than the rocket tanks.
    • One of the previous posters of this idea even pointed out that NASA was not required to find a non-freon solution at all, apparently because it was a government project and thus avoided EPA regulations. They volutarily did it. Also a quick look for shuttle+freon on google will reveal that tons of freon is used on the shuttle anyway, in the engines and cooling systems, probably where they did not think they could get rid of it.
  • There has to be a good reason for this design choice, but I cannot see it. Why not have the foam sandwiched between two coaxial metal cylinders, rather than being sprayed onto one? Then the problem with the falling pieces would vanish.

    What about other rockets that use cryo-fuel? Do they have thermo insulator as an outer layer? I can't be positive, I've never touched a rocket, but they seem to have metal skins...

    • Re:the design of the external tank (Score:5, Informative)

      by foistboinder ( 99286 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @01:16PM (#6078286) Homepage Journal
      There has to be a good reason for this design choice, but I cannot see it. Why not have the foam sandwiched between two coaxial metal cylinders, rather than being sprayed onto one? Then the problem with the falling pieces would vanish.

      Money and weight (really the same thing for spacecraft).

      What about other rockets that use cryo-fuel? Do they have thermo insulator as an outer layer? I can't be positive, I've never touched a rocket, but they seem to have metal skins...

      You can often see large chunks of ice falling away from rockets during lauch (check out old footage of Saturn V's).

  • I remember a British-produced show once where they had a special machine that lauched dead chickens at airplanes to test the impact of in-flight birds on the planes. I wonder if they used the chicken launchers for the shuttle tests?

    One anecdote given was that one morning during a standard chicken test the chicken went several feet into the plane body and created a unnervingly loud explosion. It turned out that the operator forgot to unthaw the chicken before launching it.

Slashdot Top Deals

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Close