backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 45 comment(s) - last by stromgald.. on Aug 15 at 8:03 PM


The gouge on the shuttle Endeavour  (Source: NASA)
NASA officials have no easy decision when it comes to the gouge located on shuttle Endeavour

Even after discovering a 3-inch-by-3-inch gouge located on the underside of the space shuttle Endeavour, NASA believes it does not pose a safety risk to the shuttle's crew.  Officials are now conducting a number of simulations in an attempt to determine if the shuttle can make it back to Earth with no repairs.

Assuming NASA decides to fly the shuttle back to Earth in its current state -- without repairing the gouge -- it could worsen during the violent re-entry into Earth's atmosphere.  Although the shuttle should be able to safely land in Florida, Endeavour would need expensive, time-consuming repairs that may throw NASA's manned launches for 2007 out of sync.

However if NASA decides to attempt to fix the gouge while in space, it's possible the astronauts who conduct the spacewalk could instead further damage the volatile underside of the shuttle.  The current generation of space suit is a large 300-pound suit that is hard to maneuver in -- not to mention the 150 pounds of tools that the astronaut will have with him.

If a decision is made to attempt to repair the gouge, three potential methods can be utilized by spacewalking astronauts.  Heat-reflecting paint could be applied around the gouge, a metal plate can be installed to help create a makeshift cover for the gouge, or some type of thermal heat-resistant paste could be used to fill the gap.

The U.S. space agency will decide sometime tomorrow whether or not they will attempt to repair the gouge.

Until NASA officials on Earth decide what the astronauts aboard the ISS should do, business will likely continue as scheduled in space.  Spacewalks and general construction of the ISS will continue.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Hmm
By JackBeQuick on 8/14/2007 4:32:11 PM , Rating: 2
Don't they replace the tiles after each launch anyway? How would that delay future launches?




RE: Hmm
By ajfink on 8/14/2007 4:58:41 PM , Rating: 1
I thought they did, but perhaps in the case of damaged tiles they examine the underlying structure in detail and that would push back the schedule. It seems to me that filling it up with thermal-resistant paste of some sort would be the most logical and simple route.


RE: Hmm
By gibbsk on 8/14/2007 5:05:03 PM , Rating: 3
I agree that using the "goo" would be likely the best option. The only concern with that if it were used to fill the entire gouge, then it would need to be smooth so as not to cause extra friction upon reentry.

If this is not addressed in some way, they will have to do a lot of repairs to the belly of the shuttle, which really would stink considering the extremely tight schedule they are running on.


RE: Hmm
By kkwst2 on 8/14/2007 5:12:22 PM , Rating: 5
Well don't tell us, call NASA. They're wasting their time with costly simulations when you've clearly deduced the correct solution with almost no data or information. Bravo.


RE: Hmm
By PrinceGaz on 8/14/2007 6:37:51 PM , Rating: 2
Hehe, that's superb. I don't know why you've been downrated, as that is sarcasm at its best. It made me giggle anyway.


RE: Hmm
By ryedizzel on 8/14/2007 6:52:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Well don't tell us, call NASA. They're wasting their time with costly simulations when you've clearly deduced the correct solution with almost no data or information. Bravo.

LMAO


RE: Hmm
By devolutionist on 8/14/2007 8:09:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Well don't tell us, call NASA. They're wasting their time with costly simulations when you've clearly deduced the correct solution with almost no data or information. Bravo.


pwned


RE: Hmm
By GrJohnso on 8/14/2007 4:59:01 PM , Rating: 2
The thought is that by not fixing it now somehow, it will get worse under the forces of reentry, causing additional damage beyond a few broken tiles... Those are heat shields.. If they don't do their job, things inside start to melt/warp/break...

The theory was that a more severe version of this is what caused the last shuttle to disintegrate on reentry... I'd put money on at least some kind of minor repair...

Space Bondo? ;)


RE: Hmm
By timmiser on 8/14/2007 5:12:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The theory was that a more severe version of this is what caused the last shuttle to disintegrate on reentry...


I believe NASA came to the conclusion that the Columbia problem was actually a hole in the leading edge of the wing. I would think there is a big difference between a hole and a damage tile.


RE: Hmm
By Michael Hoffman on 8/14/2007 5:20:28 PM , Rating: 3
Regarding shuttle Columbia:

"The independent investigation team has all be arrived at a firm conclusion. A seal on the left wing was struck by foam during liftoff and fell off the next day, they believe, creating a gap that let hot gas enter the ship during re-entry."

Taken from Space.com - http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sts107_caib_0...

NASA just wants to be as sure as possible that the shuttle will be able to land safely on Earth. Money shouldn't (and likely isn't) an issue here.


RE: Hmm
By Hakuryu on 8/14/2007 5:33:36 PM , Rating: 2
I read that same explanation, but I cannot fathom how a piece of foam could damage a shuttle.

You hear about airplanes being struck by lightning with minor damage and they land safely, yet a billion dollar shuttle can't withstand some foam.


RE: Hmm
By ebakke on 8/14/2007 6:05:14 PM , Rating: 2
You make it sound like someone chucked a 3M Scotch Pad at the thing and that's what caused the damage

I wish NASA would describe it as something other than foam, because the general public has a very different image in than the actual product.


RE: Hmm
By PlasmaBomb on 8/14/2007 6:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
The heat tiles are incredibly brittle and quite easy to damage (hence the concern with the astronauts breaking more). It was a rather heavy lump of ice too (several kilos travelling downward whilst the shuttle was accelerating upward so big rate of closure).


RE: Hmm
By timmiser on 8/14/2007 6:21:10 PM , Rating: 3
How about if I shoot "some foam" out of a cannon and coming at you at 1000 mph while you stand there and take it OK?

Hey, stop moving and hold still... why are you cowering like a little girl? It's just "some foam".


RE: Hmm
By SiliconAddict on 8/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Hmm
By soydios on 8/15/2007 12:46:27 AM , Rating: 2
it comes off at the same velocity, but if it comes off early in the flight, the air decelerates it relative to the shuttle, so the delta-v at impact is greater, not to mention that the shuttle is also accelerating at about 2 gees.


RE: Hmm
By timmiser on 8/15/2007 1:55:39 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, my estimate of 1000 mph took into account this. As soon as the foam or ice detaches it violently starts to decelerate. Imagine throwing a pc of foam out your car window on the freeway. It stops its forward momentum in a matter of feet. The shuttle is moving over 17,000 MPH when it hits orbit so I think my foam hitting at 1000 MPH was more than a fair estimate.

(Other factors to a lesser extent that the air drag provides is that the foam is no longer being pushed upward by the thrust of the vehicle and gravity immediately starts pulling it down.)

By the way, the foam on the ET is definately NOT thick and heavy but once again we get back into that whole velocity issue.


RE: Hmm
By stromgald on 8/15/2007 8:03:37 PM , Rating: 2
I think most of the ice shakes off early from vibration and initial acceleration. The foam that comes off and damages the shuttle happens a lot later in the flight when they fire the pyros that hold the SRBs and main tank.


RE: Hmm
By Zurtex on 8/14/2007 8:08:59 PM , Rating: 2
It's not the same thing at all. It's also pretty easy to consider why a peice of foam can cause so much damage:

F = 1/2 * m * v^2 (Force equals half mass times velocity squared)

That is to say, 10 times the mass and you get 10 times the force,10 times the velocity and you get 100 times the force.


RE: Hmm
By nineball9 on 8/15/2007 12:05:25 AM , Rating: 2
I suspect you mean E = (1/2)MV^2. [Kinetic] energy, instead of force.