Article

2006-06-28 Science & Technology

Veteran NASA Engineer Quits Five Days Before Launch

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by FOTSGreg 2006-06-28 02:40|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Specifically, some believed that even more foam needed to be removed from the shuttle's exterior to lessen the risk that falling foam would damage the shuttle during launch.

In 2003, falling foam from Columbia's external fuel tank damaged the shuttle, which eventually disintegrated, causing the deaths of seven crew members.

All because the entire rotten NASA organization won't admit it made a fatal error in reformulating the composition of the foam to make the Green/Reds happy. They refuse to go back to the original formula.

Posted by Glomble Ulinetch8608 2006-06-28 07:58|| 2006-06-28 07:58|| Front Page Top

#2 NASA is finished as a leading edge agency. They have fallen victim to the DC bureocracy mindset. Time to let the private companies take over and it seems congress agrees by forcing NASA to pay companies that meet certain milestones in space vehicle development.
Talk about an ego deflater.

Posted by DarthVader 2006-06-28 09:45|| 2006-06-28 09:45|| Front Page Top

#3 I admire this engineer's honesty in actually resigning in protest.

I've had it with the disgruntled whingers in FBI and CIA who content themselves with undermining the nation by peddling their secrets to the NYT.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2006-06-28 09:57|| 2006-06-28 09:57|| Front Page Top

#4 This really makes NASA look bad. That the leadership allowed the dispute to become public by his firing shows how foolish and full of themselves the current leaders are.

Posted by 2b 2006-06-28 10:51|| 2006-06-28 10:51|| Front Page Top

#5 Can someone explain to the Physics impaired (me) how a block of foam, traveling in the same system, fall off and damage carbon-carbon? Does the foam deaccelerate that quickly? Or more like I don't have a grasp of the speed-mass thing?

Posted by 6 2006-06-28 11:22|| 2006-06-28 11:22|| Front Page Top

#6 From his memo to his co-workers:

I cannot accept the methods I believe are being used by this Center to select future leaders. I have always based my decisions on facts, data and good solid analysis. I cannot be a party to rumor, inuendo, gossip and/or manipulation to make or break someone's career and/or good name.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-28 11:27|| 2006-06-28 11:27|| Front Page Top

#7 Can someone explain to the Physics impaired (me) how a block of foam, traveling in the same system, fall off and damage carbon-carbon? Does the foam deaccelerate that quickly? Or more like I don't have a grasp of the speed-mass thing?

F=ma

or Force equals mass times acceleration.

A small mass with sufficient acceleration can generate significant force on impact (think of bullets, for example).

On liftoff the shuttle is accelerating very rapidly (a million pounds of liquid hydrogen going off underneath it gives it a lot of acceleration. If a small piece of foam breaks off and impacts on the tiles (which are actually very brittle), it can punch holes in the heat shield.

On re-entry, holes in the heat shield, if they're deep enough, can allow the heat to bleed through to vital areas of the spacecraft. If they're in the right place they can destabilize the craft's aerodynamics, punch through to vulnerable areas (like the onboard liquid hydrogen and oxygen tanks, landing wheels, and crew compartment, etc.) which can explode or cause destabilizing damage which causes the craft to break up in flight (this is essentially what happened to Columbia - Challenger exploded on launch when a jet from the solid-fuel booster rockets punched a hole into the liquid hydrogen external fuel tank due to faulty O-rings and construction of the solid-fuel rocket boosters).

Hope this helps.

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg 2006-06-28 11:32|| 2006-06-28 11:32|| Front Page Top

#8 cannot accept the methods I believe are being used by this Center to select future leadersl

limited knowledge is a dangerous thing - but from the little I do know (apply salt liberally) - he's on to something that is a serious problem in NASA.

Posted by 2b 2006-06-28 11:35|| 2006-06-28 11:35|| Front Page Top

#9 Oh, and BTW, once the foam breaks off it has essentially left the system and while it is still accelerating upwards, it is also decelerating rapidly back towards the craft itself.

It gets complicated after that.

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg 2006-06-28 11:40|| 2006-06-28 11:40|| Front Page Top

#10 20+lbs moving at several hundred miles per hour striking a very brittle surface = much surface damage.

Posted by DarthVader 2006-06-28 11:44|| 2006-06-28 11:44|| Front Page Top

#11 Sadly, NASA has degenerated into yet another political beauracracy, not the special science organization it started as. This Griffin is especially disappointing since he originated on the science side. But he knows the game and has been a real Bush lapdog. He seems willing to risk another crew, just to stay on the published schedule. The way to remedy this is to give him a seat and let him belt his cushy butt onboard. If he's willing to go, so be it.

Posted by SOP35/Rat 2006-06-28 12:18|| 2006-06-28 12:18|| Front Page Top

#12
"Does the foam deaccelerate that quickly?"

Ahem...objects either accelerate, or they decelerate! They do NOT deaccelerate! Understanding even that would help you answer the question yourself.

Posted by Shomotle Cromong3364 2006-06-28 13:01|| 2006-06-28 13:01|| Front Page Top

#13 Some corrections. The shuttle does not accellerate really fast. It accellerates very slow because there is a lot of weight to get off the ground. The foam tends to be foam+Ice as the liquid hydrogen makes it very cold and the humid Florida air tends to create ice. Ice covered foam is heavy.

The carbon-carbon on the leading surfaces would be fairly safe from the ice covered foam. The tiles themselves are more vunerable but even they could probably take a glancing blow. When the Columbia was hit the ice-foam hit a spot where the tiles come together which torqued one out of place enough that the heat on reentry was able to tear it lose which caused a cascading effect that stripped a bunch of other tiles lose very quickly.

Personally I think the veteran is planning to retire anyway, planning to write a book, and realizes that if the shuttle goes he can be the man that stood against the storm of government anti-safety folks and thus sell more copies. If he stays and the shuttle blows nobody will care about his book. Yeah cynical but there you have it.

Posted by rjschwarz 2006-06-28 14:13|| 2006-06-28 14:13|| Front Page Top

#14 Two words: Burt Rutan

Posted by Zenster 2006-06-28 16:08|| 2006-06-28 16:08|| Front Page Top

#15 Yawl ain't telling me. I'ma got F=MA and d=.5At^2 what I'm trying to figure out is can foam change its deltaV in 12=18 ft enough to damage the carbon-carbon leading edge, evidently yes. I didn't realize it was brittle.

Posted by 6 2006-06-28 17:23|| 2006-06-28 17:23|| Front Page Top

#16 carbon-carbon was not damaged by foam. It was the regular tiles on the underside of the wing that were damaged.

Posted by rjschwarz 2006-06-28 17:54|| 2006-06-28 17:54|| Front Page Top

23:52 Kristine Kid
23:52 Redneck Jim
23:48 Kristine Kid
23:43 Redneck Jim
23:43 gromgoru
23:41 gromgoru
23:38 Frank G
23:27 bigjim-ky
23:27 Anginens Threreng8133
23:26 Sherry
23:25 plainslow
23:25 bigjim-ky
23:24 Gen. John Murtha
23:22 bigjim-ky
23:22 Seafarious
23:19 bigjim-ky
23:18 Cyber Sarge
23:16 Cyber Sarge
23:15 Sherry
23:09 Broadhead6
23:07 Anonymoose
23:06 anymouse
23:02 Anonymoose
23:00 anymouse