YA(Space Shuttle Debris During Launch)T

[DisgruntledVirus]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technolo...tory?id=8095618&page=1

The astronauts of space shuttle Endeavour will spend today searching for damage on their ship after pieces of ice -- or perhaps insulating foam -- came off the shuttle's orange fuel tank during Wednesday's launch. and struck the shuttle. NASA says some of the debris hit the all-important heat-shield tiles on the shuttle's belly, leaving small white gouge marks.

Endeavor takes to the skies on its journey to the International Space Station. It will be a slow, tedious process.

Debris is not unusual during a launch -- usually one or two pieces are spotted -- but sources said the amount of debris seen during this launch was remarkable. Video from a camera on the fuel tank showed at least a dozen instances of debris falling toward the shuttle as Endeavour rocketed away from the launch pad.

Kind of makes me happy they are down to only a handful of launches. These things really are beginning to fall apart (granted they are old, and are also stressed heavily during launch/re-entry).

 

[sao123]

the bad thing is, the thing they are designing will be no safer than the shuttle.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: sao123
the bad thing is, the thing they are designing will be no safer than the shuttle.

And you know this because you are on the design team?

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: sao123
the bad thing is, the thing they are designing will be no safer than the shuttle.

And you know this because you are on the design team?

Compare the Aries I/V with direct 3.0 and read for yourself.
Aries I in some ways is even less safe than the shuttle.

 

[Inferno0032]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: sao123
the bad thing is, the thing they are designing will be no safer than the shuttle.

And you know this because you are on the design team?

Compare the Aries I/V with direct 3.0 and read for yourself.
Aries I in some ways is even less safe than the shuttle.

Are these assumptions based off specs alone? What are you referencing? I'm sorry, but I'm sure the money going into the new designs have every intention of being safer before the shuttle is replaced, but then again, maybe I should just take your word that it won't.

 

[LTC8K6]

Insulation coming off the external tank has nothing to do with the shuttle "falling apart" and is no reason to make such a claim.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Insulation coming off the external tank has nothing to do with the shuttle "falling apart" and is no reason to make such a claim.

Even if it is *just insulation*, the fact remains. Shit falls off, and has been known to damage the shuttle. The damage that can be done can cause it to burnup during re-entry.

Also, it's not uncommon for some debris to fall off during launch. The past few launches have had more than the normal amounts. This doesn't mean that the entire thing is about to fall apart, but it does mean that lately the shuttle has become less safe than previously.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Inferno0032

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: sao123
the bad thing is, the thing they are designing will be no safer than the shuttle.

And you know this because you are on the design team?

Compare the Aries I/V with direct 3.0 and read for yourself.
Aries I in some ways is even less safe than the shuttle.

Are these assumptions based off specs alone? What are you referencing? I'm sorry, but I'm sure the money going into the new designs have every intention of being safer before the shuttle is replaced, but then again, maybe I should just take your word that it won't.

since neither is currently built, of course its all based on specs.

using twin SRB's with the current tank structure will eliminate the vibrational concern that a single solid rocket booster endangers the Aries I design


the direct approach has all main engines ground lit (like the space shuttle) prior to booster ignition, if anything doesnt check out, SRBs doesnt ignite. Aries I has upper stage delayed ignition, which means that the boosters are already lit and the rocket is in mid flight before these failures would be detected. the direct has multiple main engines, the aries I with a single upper stage booster, would mean an engine failure would mean LOV.


direct's greater lift capacity allows the direct vehicle to carry more safety systems per flight than the Aries I. one example is a protective shield between the tank and crew vehicle, thus protecting the crew from an exploded vehicle.


Neither Aries I or V proposals meets the recommended LOC (loss of crew) risk factor of 1:1000 (only meets 1:850) while an evaluation of the direct proposal is rated at 1:1150 exceeding recommended saftey standards.



and there is plenty more.

 

[scott916]

Isn't this the same scenario that lead to the last shuttle disaster?

 

[manlymatt83]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
http://abcnews.go.com/Technolo...tory?id=8095618&page=1

The astronauts of space shuttle Endeavour will spend today searching for damage on their ship after pieces of ice -- or perhaps insulating foam -- came off the shuttle's orange fuel tank during Wednesday's launch. and struck the shuttle. NASA says some of the debris hit the all-important heat-shield tiles on the shuttle's belly, leaving small white gouge marks.

Endeavor takes to the skies on its journey to the International Space Station. It will be a slow, tedious process.

Debris is not unusual during a launch -- usually one or two pieces are spotted -- but sources said the amount of debris seen during this launch was remarkable. Video from a camera on the fuel tank showed at least a dozen instances of debris falling toward the shuttle as Endeavour rocketed away from the launch pad.

Kind of makes me happy they are down to only a handful of launches. These things really are beginning to fall apart (granted they are old, and are also stressed heavily during launch/re-entry).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the shuttle itself built well, but its the fuel tank that has the debree?

 

[TheTony]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Insulation coming off the external tank has nothing to do with the shuttle "falling apart" and is no reason to make such a claim.

Even if it is *just insulation*, the fact remains. Shit falls off, and has been known to damage the shuttle. The damage that can be done can cause it to burnup during re-entry.

Also, it's not uncommon for some debris to fall off during launch. The past few launches have had more than the normal amounts. This doesn't mean that the entire thing is about to fall apart, but it does mean that lately the shuttle has become less safe than previously.

You're missing the point - this is not an age issue - it's a design issue. It's not a new issue and is indrectly related to the shuttle itself.

Even if age were an issue, (which it isn't in this case) with proper maintenance, many aging craft can still fly safely.

 

[techs]

Needs a bumper sticker:
The parts falling off this space vehicle were manufactured in the finest American tradition.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: TheTony

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Insulation coming off the external tank has nothing to do with the shuttle "falling apart" and is no reason to make such a claim.

Even if it is *just insulation*, the fact remains. Shit falls off, and has been known to damage the shuttle. The damage that can be done can cause it to burnup during re-entry.

Also, it's not uncommon for some debris to fall off during launch. The past few launches have had more than the normal amounts. This doesn't mean that the entire thing is about to fall apart, but it does mean that lately the shuttle has become less safe than previously.

You're missing the point - this is not an age issue - it's a design issue. It's not a new issue and is indrectly related to the shuttle itself.

Even if age were an issue, (which it isn't in this case) with proper maintenance, many aging craft can still fly safely.

I'm not saying that it's due to a lack of maintenance or anything like that. The orbiter itself (provided nothing damages it during lift off) is in good condition, but the entire shuttle system is showing it's age (be it due to a design flaw, or lack of maintenance, or lack of repair). The age of the system is allowing design flaws to become more apparent. The shuttle itself is fine, but the entire system has issues.

 

[TheTony]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: TheTony

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Insulation coming off the external tank has nothing to do with the shuttle "falling apart" and is no reason to make such a claim.

Even if it is *just insulation*, the fact remains. Shit falls off, and has been known to damage the shuttle. The damage that can be done can cause it to burnup during re-entry.

Also, it's not uncommon for some debris to fall off during launch. The past few launches have had more than the normal amounts. This doesn't mean that the entire thing is about to fall apart, but it does mean that lately the shuttle has become less safe than previously.

You're missing the point - this is not an age issue - it's a design issue. It's not a new issue and is indrectly related to the shuttle itself.

Even if age were an issue, (which it isn't in this case) with proper maintenance, many aging craft can still fly safely.

I'm not saying that it's due to a lack of maintenance or anything like that. The orbiter itself (provided nothing damages it during lift off) is in good condition, but the entire shuttle system is showing it's age (be it due to a design flaw, or lack of maintenance, or lack of repair). The age of the system is allowing design flaws to become more apparent. The shuttle itself is fine, but the entire system has issues.

This isn't a design flaw that was exposed by age. Besides, even those can be mitigated by proper maintenance, as I noted. This is purely a result of the way the craft was designed. Note:

?All you hear about in the press is that the shuttle didn?t fly, you hear that it?s an aging hardware problem. But it wasn?t aging hardware, but a design problem, that was there from the beginning of the program. We were exposed to the same risk all along. We had seen this a couple times in other failures but didn?t pursue it to this level, and when we finally did pursue it, we understand it, and know where we are.?

-William H. Gerstenmaier (30+ year NASA employee)

 

[So]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: TheTony

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Insulation coming off the external tank has nothing to do with the shuttle "falling apart" and is no reason to make such a claim.

Even if it is *just insulation*, the fact remains. Shit falls off, and has been known to damage the shuttle. The damage that can be done can cause it to burnup during re-entry.

Also, it's not uncommon for some debris to fall off during launch. The past few launches have had more than the normal amounts. This doesn't mean that the entire thing is about to fall apart, but it does mean that lately the shuttle has become less safe than previously.

You're missing the point - this is not an age issue - it's a design issue. It's not a new issue and is indrectly related to the shuttle itself.

Even if age were an issue, (which it isn't in this case) with proper maintenance, many aging craft can still fly safely.

I'm not saying that it's due to a lack of maintenance or anything like that. The orbiter itself (provided nothing damages it during lift off) is in good condition, but the entire shuttle system is showing it's age (be it due to a design flaw, or lack of maintenance, or lack of repair). The age of the system is allowing design flaws to become more apparent. The shuttle itself is fine, but the entire system has issues.

You seem to not get it. More stuff *ISNT* falling off the shuttle than usual / before, it's just that people are looking now because of paranoia after the Columbia accident.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: TheTony

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Insulation coming off the external tank has nothing to do with the shuttle "falling apart" and is no reason to make such a claim.

Even if it is *just insulation*, the fact remains. Shit falls off, and has been known to damage the shuttle. The damage that can be done can cause it to burnup during re-entry.

Also, it's not uncommon for some debris to fall off during launch. The past few launches have had more than the normal amounts. This doesn't mean that the entire thing is about to fall apart, but it does mean that lately the shuttle has become less safe than previously.

You're missing the point - this is not an age issue - it's a design issue. It's not a new issue and is indrectly related to the shuttle itself.

Even if age were an issue, (which it isn't in this case) with proper maintenance, many aging craft can still fly safely.

I'm not saying that it's due to a lack of maintenance or anything like that. The orbiter itself (provided nothing damages it during lift off) is in good condition, but the entire shuttle system is showing it's age (be it due to a design flaw, or lack of maintenance, or lack of repair). The age of the system is allowing design flaws to become more apparent. The shuttle itself is fine, but the entire system has issues.

You seem to not get it. More stuff *ISNT* falling off the shuttle than usual / before, it's just that people are looking now because of paranoia after the Columbia accident.

This. They knew this was happening but it wasn't until the Columbia accident that they realized it could be catastrophic. IIRC they tried everything possible to figure out how to stop it when they did the long stand down after that accident but realized there was no way to eliminate it completely with the current design which is why they are now scrutinizing it so closely.