Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ten years ago today, on Feb. 1, 2003, the space shuttle Columbia broke up over Texas while re-entering the Earth's atmosphere after a 16-day mission in space. All seven crew members were killed.
After an investigation, NASA determined that the breakup had occurred because a chunk of insulating foam from the shuttle's large external fuel tank, had broken off during launch as the shuttle exceeded the speed of sound, and had hit the shuttle's wing, causing damage that later allowed superheated air during re-entry to get into the internal wing structure, damaging and destroying structural members.
After the investigation, NASA stated that a change in the original formula of the tank's insulating foam, made for environmental purposes to eliminate the chemical freon, had nothing to do with the accident.
Not sure what the controversy is. Putting the heat shield where it can be hit by debris from the cryogenic tanks is a questionable engineering decision?
The piece that fell off and damaged the wing (the left bipod ramp) was made with the old foam formulation, complete with freon - so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. (The old foam shredded like hell anyway.)
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 02-01-2013 at 12:36 PM..
After the investigation, NASA stated that a change in the original formula of the tank's insulating foam, made for environmental purposes to eliminate the chemical freon, had nothing to do with the accident.
No, wrong wrong wrong. The insulating foam that broke off was from the bipod region that connected the ET to the orbiter. The foam used was BX-250 and was excluded from the EPA mandate banning freon CFC-11... again the foam that struck the RCC of the wing leading edge was made with the freon.
Not sure what the controversy is. Putting the heat shield where it can be hit from debris from the cryogenic tanks is a questionable engineering decision?
The piece that fell off and damaged the wing (the left bipod ramp) was made with the old foam formulation, complete with freon - so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. (The old foam shredded like hell anyway.)
I'm sure if we did more videos of the ship blowing up, and more videos of people reacting to the event. . .and a few arm chair shuttle engineers. . .we could invent a conspiracy for this one too.
I'm sure if we did more videos of the ship blowing up, and more videos of people reacting to the event. . .and a few arm chair shuttle engineers. . .we could invent a conspiracy for this one too.
its all in the effort.
Hey! - I'm an arm chair shuttle engineer. OK, I feel bad about being flippant, but - that was a dangerous machine. I am quite happy we're going the capsule route again.
Hey! - I'm an arm chair shuttle engineer. OK, I feel bad about being flippant, but - that was a dangerous machine. I am quite happy we're going the capsule route again.
THANK YOU. The shuttle's design was ridiculous and IMHO dangerous. You don't put the crew downrange of ANYTHING.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
