Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: some history on the shuttle Columbia...

This is topic some history on the shuttle Columbia... in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001725

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-02-2003, 01:27 PM:

I decided to make this a seperate thread from the current one. We can use that one to post condolences and this one to post anything about the shuttle or events related to the accident....

NASA weighed retiring Columbia in 2001
Richard Stenger CNN

The space shuttle Columbia, lost with its seven-person crew in a catastrophic re-entry accident on Saturday, was considered for retirement in 2001.

The oldest orbiter in the fleet, it had experienced engineering problems before during a long career that begin with the first shuttle mission more than 20 years ago.

Yet none of the previous glitches on Columbia, which underwent a $90 million, 17-month overhaul that began in September 1999, were thought to have contributed to the fatal mishap.

The 90-ton shuttle, heavier than other spacecraft in the fleet, was the only one not outfitted to dock with the international space station.

NASA had considered mothballing it in 2001 because of budget constraints, but decided to keep it in service, in part to ensure flying several scheduled missions.

They included the one known as STS-107, which, after years of delays, went into space in mid-January for a rare mission devoted solely to science.

The $2 billion craft has been part of numerous NASA milestones since becoming the first shuttle to go into orbit in 1981.

In 1999, it deployed the powerful Chandra X-ray space telescope, with the first female commander at the helm, Eileen Collins.

But that mission began with major problems. The shuttle had leaked thousands of pounds of fuel during liftoff, leaving it in a lopsided but functional orbit.

And seconds after launch, a short circuit knocked out computers that controlled two of three shuttle engines.

A backup computer system kicked in, narrowly avoiding the need for an emergency landing.

NASA grounded the fleet for months to inspect and repair exposed wiring on the four orbiters. Each has 100 miles of electrical wiring.

On the most recent, fatal flight, NASA technicians reviewing video noticed that a number of heat insulation tiles seemed to have fallen off from one of the wings during the shuttle's eight-minute race to orbit.

The tiles protect the shuttle from the intense friction heat of atmospheric re-entry. Similar instances have happened in the past but whether their loss this time played a role in the disaster remains unknown.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-02-2003, 01:36 PM:

Columbia's 16-day mission featured more than 80 experiments ranging from the effects of space travel on astronauts to the possibility of creating a new perfume.

``The folks on the ground were just ecstatic with the amount of science that they were reaping,'' said Ron Dittemore, space shuttle program manager. ``Some of it was - will be - their legacy.''

Some research results were lost forever when the shuttle disintegrated over Texas, others were downloaded to Earth earlier.

Spiders, flowers, cancer cells, ants, carpenter bees, fish embryos, silkworms and rats were all on board.

``I hope they can salvage something,'' said Hideaki Moriyama, a University of Nebraska biochemist who supplied vials of proteins to the flight in hopes of finding clues to diseases like HIV-AIDS, Huntington's and Alzheimer's.

``It took more than four years to prepare those experiments,'' Moriyama said.

Mohamed Abid, aerospace engineer from the University of Southern California, had a combustion experiment on board. He saw video of his tiny fireballs ping-ponging around the shuttle's laboratory, a safely isolated area.

But Abid said the data - designed to help researchers model combustion in car, airplane and rocket engines - was lost.

In another experiment, shuttle crew members collected samples of their own blood, urine and saliva to detect possible bone loss, kidney stones, muscle loss or weakening of immune systems.

Students from Fowler High School in Syracuse, N.Y., also had a hand in the science. They worked with Syracuse University researchers for three years on an experiment to find out whether ants tunnel at a slower rate in microgravity.

Columbia was the first shuttle in three years not headed to the international space station or the Hubble Space Telescope.

The Israel Space Agency and Tel Aviv University sponsored a $2 million experiment on board. It involved aiming a pair of cameras at the Mediterranean and Atlantic in search of huge dust plumes from the Sahara Desert that might affect Earth's climate.

Soon after the cameras were positioned, NASA reported receiving remarkable details of the clouds.

Perhaps the most commercially viable experiment on board was sponsored by International Flavors & Fragrances Inc., which sent a miniature red rose plant with six buds and an Asian rice flower with a jasmine scent. Astronauts extracted and preserved essential oils from the flowers so fragrance experts back home could recreate the smell.

A 1998 space shuttle experiment yielded a new scent incorporated in the perfume Zen, and a body spray called Impulse.

Northeastern University contributed another kind of experiment to Columbia's last flight. They sent zeolites, a kind of crystal, into the weightless environment. The center is working on ways to improve zeolite materials for more efficient storage of hydrogen fuels.

A project by two Arizona State University researchers was to help turn crew member urine and wastewater into clean water for drinking, cooking and bathing.

David Warmflash, a scientific investigator with the Johnson Space Center, had been expecting to study bacteria cultures brought back to space Saturday afternoon. Instead, he was mourning the fate of the shuttle.

``It's just one more experiment for us,'' Warmflash said. ``It's not in the same category as losing a crew.''

One of the experiments Warmflash worked on, examining how well bacteria grew on rocks in space, was put together by an Israeli graduate student and a Palestinian undergraduate studying in the United States.

``In space, you find your similarities outweigh any differences,'' Warmflash said.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-02-2003, 05:49 PM:

At this time there is no evidence that any heat shield tiles came off during the boost phase. What is known is that a bit of external fuel tank foam insulation came off and may have hit the left wing. This was discovered during analysis of the films of the launch and in the discussions they felt it might have damaged some tiles but, to paraphrase their words, that it would be an issue for the turnaround (prepping for another launch) not a safety issue. Given what happened they now consider this event to be "interesting." As it was, they say, there was nothing they could do during orbit.

---

Now let me go into speculation mode here. What if the films would have shown a big bunch of tiles missing? A few here and there could cause damage during reentry but not, they say, loss of the vehicle. But what if they knew that the orbiter was fatally damaged? I don't think you could ready a Soyuz or other craft fast enough to effect a rescue. Would they announce this fact to the public? Or would they just let the mission come to an inevitable tragic end since nothing could be done anyway?

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-02-2003, 06:23 PM:

I have thought the same thing. Would they have told anyone if there were known problems that they knew were going to put the shuttle into a catostrophic situation.

Interestingly though had they known this, there may have been an ability to do a rescue mission because they had a shuttle ready in the preperation hanger. It was in it's prep stages for a march 1st launch. How fast they could speed up this prep stage and get it to the launch pad is a good question. Would it actually be possable to get a shuttle into orbit on the same trajectory and close proxemity to the other shuttle to complete a rescue without destroying both shuttles in the process. Something you could make possable in a movie but in reality may not be possable. Now we know you can dock with the space station but it's orbit may be slower than the orbit of a space shuttle in flight.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-02-2003, 06:33 PM:

Apparently the crew not only had no way of seeing the part of the wing that was hit by foam, but they also were not equipped to do a "spacewalk" external inspection. And as Steve noted, there was nothing that could be done about missing tiles -- you can't just super-glue a replacement in place.

One has to wonder if there's a contingency plan for a situation where a mission is crippled, cannot return to earth, and a rescue cannot be mounted in time. I'm sure there must be such a plan. As for whether they would tell the public that a crew is doomed, I believe they would. But I also believe they would go to extraordinary lengths to mount a rescue.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-02-2003, 06:54 PM:

THose tile weigh next to nothing so maybe they should be able to store spares on the space station and then just manover the shuttle around it to view the ones on it and then do a space walk to silicone them on

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-02-2003, 07:11 PM:

Yah except I believe that they are all slightly different from each other for different places on the bottom of the wings and fuselage etc. They'd have to take a complete set of spares!

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-02-2003, 07:20 PM:

Some shuttle expert being interviewed on TV said there's no way for the crew to replace tiles while in orbit. I'm paraphrasing him but basically he said you don't just slap on some glue and stick them in place.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-02-2003, 07:35 PM:

Even if they could replace them while in orbit each tile is different from the next. They used to have a silicon like gun to fill any viod left by a vacant tile but NASA researched it and found that the difficulty of performing that in outer space would actually jepordize other tiles while the spacewalker tried to manuver him/herself into ptoper position to fill in the spot. The arm doesn't reach toevery point on the underside of the shuttle either.
Don't they film each launch in Imax....? They sure ought to be able to see exactly what happened in the boost phase in that format....
News said they have recovered remains of all seven astronauts, and some remains are already at the AFB in Louisiansa. Few remnants have been removed from the ground as of yet. The EPA will be doing that due to the toxicity on and around them. close to 30 people have checked into the local emergency room for treatment from exposure to harmful chemical vapors. One area coordinator in TX said they also had an inversion hanging around there making the chemical exposure problem more severe than it might otherwise be.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-02-2003, 10:18 PM:

AFAIK, every launch is covered by numerous instrumentation cameras, including high speed, high resolution film cameras. I believe these were instrumental in pinpointing the cause of the Challenger disaster, and may help in seeing any damage that might have happened to Columbia during launch.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-02-2003, 11:14 PM:

Info about the heat shield tiles

Seems to me that carrying a few spares and some means to custom shape and mount them might be prudent.

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 02-03-2003, 06:40 PM:

Several topics to cover here.....

As an Aircraft Mechanic and Machinist, I can offer the following:

First, those tiles are amazing. One of my college instructers, who is a Metalurgist specializing in Failure Analysis at the University of AZ brought one of the tiles into class. He proceeded to put the tile in our heat treat oven at a few thousand degrees F for a couple of hours. A few minutes before the end of class, he removed the tile and was immediatly able to hold it in his hand and pass it around! These tiles are a VERY light-weight material and are sure something to behold.

What is now being said is that budget cuts and politics are jeopardizing safety at N.A.S.A. As an Aircraft Mechanic, college trained with both civilian and military experience on both heavy and light aircraft, I can definately relate to this! One of the things that was instilled into me by my teachers was to beware of being pressured into preforming jury-rigged maintenance by politically motivated supervisors and private aircraft owners. God, how they were right! I lost track of how many times in both the civilian sector and military I was pressured into doing just that! My conscious is clear because I was able to resist that pressure...but in doing so I did get myself into political trouble! In fact, last year, at a major Tucson maintenance facility, a mechanic was pressured into preforming jury-rigged maintenance. He resisted, and this resulted in his employment being jeopardized. Luclily, he was able to document what happened and won a $1.5 million settlement in court! And by the way, did not politics and jury-rigged maintenance surrounding the O-Ring lead to the previous Shuttle disaster in 1986?

There is also talk regarding the Shuttles' age. Keep in mind that in the aerospace industry component and system lifespan is measured in hrs of operation (service) or cycles, example being that each time an airframe is pressurized and depressurized this is considered to be a cycle. After so many cycles, the airframe structure will begin to weaken. However, there are intense F.A.A. instuted airframe overhaul procedures by which an airframe can be returned to 0 hrs. Also keep in mind that many of the C-141s and C-5 A/B aircraft in the USAF have exceeded their "rated" lives by literally thousands of hours. So, considering the Shuttles' age, I do not know what does or does not apply...or how a thourough overhaul would affect the airframe.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-03-2003, 07:32 PM:

According to NASA engineers the shuttles are designed to fly 100 missions. Columbia was only on it's 28th mission I think. NASA also said that the external fuel tank was a phased out design much heavier. But you must understand that they do not reuse these fuel tanks after a launch. The just drop into the ocean. They used to paint them white but then stopped doing it because it was just adding weight and unneeded cost to something that was only being used once. They reuse the booster rockets. The problem in the Challenger desaster was that each section of the booster rocket only used two O-rings. Experts were telling them that these rings could fail in extreme cold weather. The day before the Challenger launch the temperature had dipt way down below freezing at the altitude of the rocket sitting on the pad. Ice was formed everywhere. The O-ring design was changed and a third one was added to each section of the booster rockets.

I still believe that the initial cause of this accident happend on the launch pad. That piece of foam or whatever it was hit the wing at great force. Enough to either tear or loosen some tiles.

I think some thought by the engineers may be put torwards designing some type of shield that could be placed between the fuel tank and the shuttle for protection.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-03-2003, 08:10 PM:

quote:
The problem in the Challenger desaster was that each section of the booster rocket only used two O-rings. Experts were telling them that these rings could fail in extreme cold weather.

And weren`t there also indications of problems with this (Columbia) space shuttle before as told in the first post? It appears that those incidents are much less "tragic" than caused by sheer negligence...

A few years ago in Germany, a high-speed train derailed and hit a bridge. The waggons were folded together like an accordion. Hundreds of people died horibly.
It turned out that an iron ring around one of the wheels had come loose. It was a known problem and structural weakness of the part had been diagnosed just before the "accident". But it hadn`t been defined who was responsible for this problem and who was to be notified. Several rail managers and engineers went on trial.

Will someone be held responsible for the shuttle crash?

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-03-2003, 08:32 PM:

Will someone be held responsible for the shuttle crash?

That's a very good question. What type of launch pad inspections that are done to look for any visable problems needs to be determined. Was someone responsable for inspection the insulation prior to launch for any problems. Why did they have to use the phased out fuel tank. Many questions will need to be asked before someone can be blamed. This is not the first time something has fallen off the tanks. That's why I say they need to design somekind of shield protection for the shuttle durring launches. If that is even possable only the engineers can determin that. Had they gotten closer looks at the shuttles wings using high powered telescopes and could determin that there was a major problem nothing could have really been done to save them. They did not have enough fuel to get them to the orbit of the space station and if they did they could not dock it. They would have to float over to it.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-03-2003, 08:34 PM:

Interesting Washington Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16650-2003Feb2.html

I agree with one of this article's major points--from an economic point of view, the shuttle program was a failure. The transition from expendable rockets to a reusable shuttle vehicle hasn't saved money and has consumed resources which could have been better utilized in other aspects of manned spaceflight.

This isn't to say that the shuttle isn't an impressive work of engineering (it is), but rather that it hasn't proven to be the cheap, efficient space transport vehicle that it was intended to be.

And I say this as a very strong supporter of NASA and manned space exploration in general.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-03-2003, 08:43 PM:

I guess you could say the everything looks good on paper until you put it into action. I remember going to the Kennedy Space Center in 1975 and there was this model set up it was the future of space. It had a shuttle on a launch pad and you pushed a button to launch it and I was like COOL! Then I remember the first shuttle. ENTERPRISE....It's first and only flight was lauched off the back of a 747 jet. Then the big one the first lauch into space of the shuttle Columbia. then watching it reenter and make it's landing at Edwards airforce base.

The Canadian band Rush wrote a song about that first launch. It's called Countdown and can be heard on their Signls CD. Cool song and in Concert for that tour they played it with the shuttle launching on the big screen behind them.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-03-2003, 10:21 PM:

Scott,
I know what they are implying in the article, but you have to stop and think what if the shuttle was not re-usable and NASA had to use a new one for every space voyage as in the Saturn/ Apollo days......In that respect its quite sucessful...lets see 100 plus launches at 2 billion per orbiter.....
If you look at it in that respect it actually did save money, plus alot of the technological spinoffs have actually made money. I don't quite agree with their assessment, although it sure has cost far more per launch then originally expected. Its been worth it though.
Mark

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-03-2003, 10:24 PM:

Mark, I think the point is that with expendable spacecraft they wouldn't cost 2 billion or whatever each. No one is talking about an expendable shuttle!

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-03-2003, 10:56 PM:

Of all the launches we have had over the past umpteen years, it appears NASA does not have a contingency plan to activate in event of a potential disaster where the crew is still "safe." I would think that NASA should have learned that in the Apollo 13 Era.

I read in the paper that a vehicle launch to pick up the crew in event their shuttle was damaged to the point where it could not safely re-enter the atmosphere was not possible. There were none that were ready for such a mission, and the crew didn't have enough oxygen on board the Challenger to keep them alive in the interim. The earliest NASA could have one "ready to go" would have been 1 March 2003.

What a hell of a way to run a railroad....

As far as the damage that might have been inflicted to the shuttle's wing, I think it was a "bad call" by the NASA engineers. I guess NASA's computer simulations indicated there was no safety issue to be concerned about. Maybe NASA should realize the computers cannot duplicate actual real life situations.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-03-2003, 11:11 PM:

Well, Saturn 5's were not exactly cheap either.....I think you'd find that some sort of expendable craft that could duplicate the lifting ability of the shuttle would be VERY expensive. Not perhaps as much, but over time very much more. Without the shuttle its doubtful there would there be an International Space Station as it is today, or any venture of that sort. What ever station there might be would very likely be on a much smaller scale. Technological spin offs are also very important to consider. One important recent spin off was the development of the new hydrogen fuled motor for the latest Delta rocket. Due to space shuttle spin offs it was far easier, and far less costly to develope that motor. But this is only one of thoudands of examples of this sort of spin off. Ya have to look at em all.
Mark

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-03-2003, 11:21 PM:

Paul,
A NASA engineer said tonight that even at the altitude they were at in 80 seconds when the piece broke loose that they could not have landed safely. Had the tiles been damaged or missing that even at that altitude they would still have had a burn through followed by eventual craft disentegration. Its unfortunately part of the risks these people take, and one reason why they get the highest respect from almost everyone out there. Don't know if I would want to strap myself to a rocket to go to work.....

I do think NASA does need to come up with some sort of rescue scheme for a stranded craft, or a plan to get them to the International Space station one way or another. Also, the flight crew needs to be able to do an inspection of the crafts more important vulnerable areas before re-entering. A method of tile repair satisfactory enough to return safely also needs to be developed.
Mark

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-03-2003, 11:33 PM:

Mark, on your last paragraph, I will say [thumbsup]

That's basically the whole point I was trying to make. Thank you for doing that for me.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-04-2003, 12:52 AM:

Problem is once again it can look good on paper but trying to come up with a rescue scheme or have the abillity to repair the shuttle in space would be greatly difficult and maybe even more dangerous. The one thing we have to remember is that there is a lot of space junk flying around in orbit up there. From large dead satlelites to tiny pieces of junk. When the astronauts do a spacewalk they are at risk of being hit buy the small particles. The windshields of past shuttle flights have had to be replaced because of damage caused by these small particles. The space station had to be placed in a higher orbit not only to maintain an orbit without it decaying but to also be away from most of this junk.

I am not saying that something couldn't be developed for these situations but in order to do so they will need another large preperation hanger since they can only prep one shuttle at a time.

The idea of them makeing something to fix tiles in space may not be feasably possable. This is something for the engineers to decide. The tiles are individually numbered and none of them fit the same so having spares would not be possable. The weight alone would be restrictive.

Posted by William Leland III (Member # 1400) on 02-04-2003, 02:22 AM:

Mark Gulbrandsen said :

" A NASA engineer said tonight that even at the altitude they were at in 80 seconds when the piece broke loose that they could not have landed safely. "

So this means when the Columbia left earth, NASA knew they wouldn't be able to return. If this is true why didn't NASA tell the American public after the shuttle blew-up? Why keep us in the dark. The truth will always prevail.

First I don't believe the shuttle left earth without space suits or space walking suits. If I was an astronaut I would demand a space suit.

Second the shuttle could get close enough to the ISS and space walk (using space suits) to a hatch or something. Then wait until another shuttle picks them up.

Why are we Americans so suprised that this happens? We know space travel is not safe. Look at all the Soviet problems. They have lost many people in space. We know that there are risks involved, hence the long training and skill that is needed to obtain these task involved with space flight.

NASA needs to have some sort of "back-up-plan". If they can't find money in the budget to create a "back-up-plan" then maybe we need to rethink of a safer way to explore the stars.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-04-2003, 03:32 AM:

Yea,
I don't know how many miles they're up in 80 seconds, but its too far if there is tile damage. Probably too high up to do an abort to emergency landing location. They are already going well into the mach numbers by then. There would still be alot of friction and probable burn through, etc. You still have to disipate all that stored energy (many mach numbers of speed) in order to land again.
I believe we have no choice but to keep flying the shuttles for quite a long time, as they say a new space plane system is at least 10 to 15 years away. I doubt that the space plane will have the heavy lift capacity either as the Shuttle can lift many, many tons into orbit. So that also means a new heavy lift system as well as the space plane system will have to be in place! For now though some sort of inspection system needs to be put into place for an orbiter just entering space, as well as several contingency plans. From orbit, I think the most practical would be to get them to the ISS. If the first, and last thing they did was a "walk around" that might help to at l;east alert them to some problem.
Many do not realize it but the X-15 was pretty close to being able to make it into space. It actually did touch the lower limits of outer space a number of times. It just lacked the heat shield system and the ability to re-enter properly from the farther reaches of being in orbit, it also did not have any type of manuvering system once it might get to orbit. However the X-15 was even more dangerous to fly... almost every flight had different problems of its own. The shuttle, as compared to what these guys were doing, is about 10,000 times safer! Read some books on the X-15 project if you want to be really amazed!! Much of the data from the X-15 program went into designing parts of the shuttle system.
Mark

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-04-2003, 09:54 AM:

wasn't it one of the X models that was in the real crash footage they used at the beggining of the Six Million Dollar Man.

The problem with getting to the space station for columbia was that they did not have enough fuel to get them close enough to the station to do a safe space walk. The station is in a higher orbit than the shuttle was and has a more stationary orbit around earth where as the shuttle has a fast orbit around the earth. The sun rises in the shuttle window every 90 minutes.

Since they had no plans to do anything involving opening the cargo bay doors they did not have the large robotic arm on board or the needed control packs for a space walk.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-04-2003, 10:31 AM:

The most appropriate movies with similar events and decision-making processes treated realistically are "The Right Stuff" and "Apollo 13". I suspect the potential damage to the left wing was not discovered until the instrumentation camera images were analyzed after the fact, and the Columbia already in orbit:

A NASA memo written 12 days after launch, and reported by CNN reads:

quote:
The STS-107 mission is progressing nominally and all Orbiter subsystems are performing satisfactorily. No Orbiter issues have been reported in the previous 24 hours. The Orbiter consumables remaining are above the levels required for completion of the planned mission.

Regarding the debris hit on the left wing last discussed in the Fourth Daily Report; systems integration personnel performed a debris trajectory analysis to estimate the debris impact conditions and locations. This analysis was performed utilizing the reported observations from the ascent video and film. It was assumed that the debris was foam from the external tank. Based on the results of the trajectory analysis, an impact analysis was performed to assess the potential damage to the tile and radial carbon carbon (RCC). The impact analysis indicates the potential for a large damage area to the tile. Damage to the RCC should be limited to coating only and have no mission impact. Additionally, thermal analyses were performed for different locations and damage conditions. The damage conditions included one tile missing down to the densified layer of the tile and multiple tiles missing over an area of about 7 in by 30 in. These thermal analyses indicate possible localized structural damage but no burn-through, and no safety of flight issue.

Don L. McCormack Jr.

STS-107 Lead MER Manager

[ 02-04-2003, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: John Pytlak ]

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-04-2003, 07:00 PM:

That is correct John. They did not see the problem until viewing the footage the next day. But, the problem extends further than that. All the way back to 1997 when a piece of foam fell off and struck part of the same shuttle. They found damaged tiles but no burn thru on inspection after the shuttle returned. So here we go again. We have a problem it is causing damage but not severe in their eyes to fix or look into fixing the problem. Now that we have loss of life and equipment the problem needs to be fixed. Something that could have been done 5 years ago.

there is the possability that other damage occured that did not fit into the computer analysis. One thing I read today was that the piece of hardened foam was larger than they initially thought.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 02-04-2003, 10:46 PM:

I don't remember which shuttle it was (may have even been the 'test' shuttle Enterprise) but I remember NASA got some flak years ago because they had hired all kinds of untrained people to glue tiles on. They had janitors, high school kids, anyone avaiable gluing them on in an effort to maintain a deadline.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-04-2003, 11:27 PM:

I have never heard that one before. Of course the Enterprise was never intended to go into space. When Columbia was launched for the first time it lost a lot of tiles on the tail section but they were low heat tiles that did not bare the brunt of reentry.

Some pieces of the shuttle have possably been found here in parts of Kentucky. We had a low pass thruogh over the past few days that could have carried some light debrit up this way. NASA has not confirmed that they are pieces but has requested that they be sent to Houston or maybe Florida.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-07-2003, 06:38 PM:

Excert from a story on the Chicago Sun Times web site...

Space junk to blame?

Space shuttles have been returning to Earth with a larger-than-expected number of dings from space junk, prompting NASA to make changes to better avoid potentially catastrophic collisions, space agency documents show.

NASA's own documents detail replacements of nicked windshields and dents caused by space debris collisions that have become more frequent than NASA's computer models had predicted.

A NASA report disclosed last May that the computer modeling the space agency was using to assess the dangers ''was underpredicting'' the number of collisions and urged a revision to the way NASA calculated the risks.

NASA made the changes after a decade of seeing shuttles return to Earth far more banged up than expected.

The number of dings and dents ''was in the hundreds for about 20 shuttle missions,'' said NASA consultant Donald Kessler, who kept track of space debris for the agency during a three-decade career.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 03-13-2003, 03:13 PM:

NASA now has a new flash entry on their website that is pretty neat (has sound too).