I hope this does not result in the world's worst case of plumber's crack.

GoDeep: I hope this does not result in the world's worst case of plumber's crack.

They are going to need that to fix the Russian made toilet.

eh, at 3 and change minutes into flight, they are high enough that there isn't the air resistance sufficient to really give the styrofoam much drag, so I'd imagine it's probably just like any other minor space debris that just bounces away.

FTA: Kelly's brother, Scott, didn't need an invitation to the launch -- he's also a space shuttle commander. They're identical twins.

Genetics, do you understand it, mother farker?

You know, after the first time or 3.....You would think they would make the shuttle out of something besides foam.

\ I know.
\\ Maybe Floam?

Sigh...Our space shuttle fleet is now coming up on 30 years. All that advancement from the 1960s to the 1980s, and we've sat in neutral ever since.

Seriously, how does something which is designed to survive re-entry sustain potentially catastrophic damage from foam?

/Hope everything turns out alright

Occam's Chainsaw: Seriously, how does something which is designed to survive re-entry sustain potentially catastrophic damage from foam?

The heat-resistant tiles are quite brittle. They can resist intense heat, but are fragile and can be damaged from impacts. Even foam can damage it.

Shaggy_C: Sigh...Our space shuttle fleet is now coming up on 30 years. All that advancement from the 1960s to the 1980s, and we've sat in neutral ever since.

Yeah, if only they were phasing out the shuttle and replacing it with something else. Oh wait, they are.

Foam, again?

It just doesn't seem dignified. Giant chunks of unsecured foam bombarding fragile ceramic mission-critical heat shields every single liftoff.

Don't get me wrong, I don't blame NASA for continuing the liftoffs with what we have. I think managing the risk right now is fine, since there is no other way to deliver parts to the I.S.S.

But this just screams that it is a huge problem. It shows how poor/old the engineering is on the shuttles, and how satisfying it could be to design a better solution that isn't there yet. Not a giant, expensive, single use rocket, but a lighter/better shuttle.

Lets hope it doesn't come back to earth at 18 times the speed of light.

firefly212: eh, at 3 and change minutes into flight, they are high enough that there isn't the air resistance sufficient to really give the styrofoam much drag, so I'd imagine it's probably just like any other minor space debris that just bounces away.

Pretty much. Foam has been coming off of the shuttles for years; it only became newsworthy after the Columbia tragedy.

WebbMonkey: But this just screams that it is a huge problem. It shows how poor/old the engineering is on the shuttles, and how satisfying it could be to design a better solution that isn't there yet. Not a giant, expensive, single use rocket, but a lighter/better shuttle.

Provided the budget cuts stop (not likely, unfortunately), we should have a replacement in a few years.

Phelyx: Lets hope it doesn't come back to earth at 18 times the speed of light.

That picture makes me sad.

MIguy: Yeah, if only they were phasing out the shuttle and replacing it with something else. Oh wait, they are.

I think Orion is a step backwards if you ask me. Too little, too late. When's the first test flight? 2015? There isn't even a prototype yet.

Shaggy_C: Sigh...Our space shuttle fleet is now coming up on 30 years. All that advancement from the 1960s to the 1980s, and we've sat in neutral ever since.

Well the Shuttle have been upgraded since then and probably mostly rebuilt piece by piece over time. The overall design is probably not that outdated or rather our technology is still not good enough to make a significantly improved design.

MIguy: Yeah, if only they were phasing out the shuttle and replacing it with something else. Oh wait, they are.

Aren't they replacing it with a pre-shuttle capsule design?

Really...with the tech they have, you would think they would set aside a few tiles and some high tech glue for an eva repair if they needed to.

/just sayin.

I have a piece of foam from the Soviet program, its both hard and brittle at the same time. So I can see how it could do some damage to RCC on Columbia

Rakishi: Well the Shuttle have been upgraded since then and probably mostly rebuilt piece by piece over time. The overall design is probably not that outdated or rather our technology is still not good enough to make a significantly improved design.

Endeavour was the last shuttle, right? I think it was built in 2003. That means we're looking at almost 2 decades without a new orbiter. That's terrible considering we went from Mercury to Gemini to Apollo and put a man on the moon within that same amount of time.

If the foam pieces keep breaking off, why don't they have some sort of protection for the heat shield? It doesn't have to be really strong, just enough to protect the fragile tiles from incidental damage until after the release of the auxiliary fuel tank.

Occam's Chainsaw: Seriously, how does something which is designed to survive re-entry sustain potentially catastrophic damage from foam?

Was designed to sustain severe heat and a distributed wind load, not impact. It's brittle.

In the case of Columbia, the foam hit it really, really fast. Most of the way to Mach 1 actually.

Shaggy_C: Sigh...Our space shuttle fleet is now coming up on 30 years. All that advancement from the 1960s to the 1980s, and we've sat in neutral ever since.

At least we are stopping our schools from trying to teach this Darwin and "science" nonsense. Praise Be!

Those damn announcers jinxed it - mentioning the camera there to observe just such action and not even ten seconds later whap.

Shaggy_C: I think Orion is a step backwards if you ask me.

The shuttle was a bad idea to begin with or at least it became one as soon as they modified it to get air force funding (ie: making it from a small people mover into a flying cargo truck). It's horrendously complex and inefficient (in terms of cost and effort and having to drag worthless mass into space) without providing that much benefit.

Rakishi: Shaggy_C: I think Orion is a step backwards if you ask me.

The shuttle was a bad idea to begin with or at least it became one as soon as they modified it to get air force funding (ie: making it from a small people mover into a flying cargo truck). It's horrendously complex and inefficient (in terms of cost and effort and having to drag worthless mass into space) without providing that much benefit.

They should have developed an X-Wing fighter instead. Or a flying saucer. THat would have been much cooler.

Shaggy_C: as built in 2003.
\
Fark! I meant 1993. Well, now I'm a dumbass.

Rakishi: Shaggy_C: I think Orion is a step backwards if you ask me.

The shuttle was a bad idea to begin with or at least it became one as soon as they modified it to get air force funding (ie: making it from a small people mover into a flying cargo truck). It's horrendously complex and inefficient (in terms of cost and effort and having to drag worthless mass into space) without providing that much benefit.

the shuttle cargo hold was specifically built large enough to accomodate the hubble space telescope. its biggest problem is the stupid ceramic tile system which consists of thermal ceramic blocks attached to the orbiter by special adhesive. very tricky to apply.

Occam's Chainsaw: Seriously, how does something which is designed to survive re-entry sustain potentially catastrophic damage from foam?

heypete: Even foam can damage it.

The foam absorbs water, which freezes. So you essentially have a hard chunk of ice and foam.

Also, HRSI tiles aren't really ceramic in the sense that you're thinking.

for the love of FSM
nasa ... once you were great
now
just a bunch of tards ...
seriously ...
you are gonna say NO WORRIES ....
just like the last time

is there anything they can do right?
oh wait ... there was that mars landing ...
sigh ....

Shaggy_C: That's terrible considering we went from Mercury to Gemini to Apollo and put a man on the moon within that same amount of time.

you think that is bad?
have you seen the estimates of time and cost to go to the moon again?
it would cost 10 times as much (adjusted for inflation)
and take twice as long (adjusted for too many farktard managers instead of workers)

/nasa - "we have a dream. jobs for life"

lordargent: Occam's Chainsaw: Seriously, how does something which is designed to survive re-entry sustain potentially catastrophic damage from foam?

heypete: Even foam can damage it.

The foam absorbs water, which freezes. So you essentially have a hard chunk of ice and foam.

Also, HRSI tiles aren't really ceramic in the sense that you're thinking.

Thx all.

Now, I'm no engineer, but couldn't they put another layer above the critical heat tiles that's good and impact resistant but ablated by the heat of re-entry?

my dad has been working with nasa on a project and has frankly nothing good to say about them. A bunch of managers who wouldn't know science if it hit them in the ass about sums it up.

Let's hope this isn't a dangerous development.

Occam's Chainsaw: Now, I'm no engineer, but couldn't they put another layer above the critical heat tiles that's good and impact resistant but ablated by the heat of re-entry?

I've often wondered why they don't put some sort of retractable or removable shield over the leading edge of the tiles that are in danger. I'm no engineer, but something like steel, fiberglass, carbon fiber, or something that can take a good whack without failing.

Then once the shuttle is in orbit, retract or remove the shields and get on with business.

But like I said, I'm no engineer - I have too much common sense.

I'll be glad when this is over and we can get on with doing actual science rather than taxiing back and forth to the ISS, that only exist so we have a place to go. Of course if we never went to war...

Shaggy_C
Our space shuttle fleet is now coming up on 30 years. All that advancement from the 1960s to the 1980s, and we've sat in neutral ever since.

Uhm, Herr Ignoramus, about the only thing that has remained "in neutral" since the '60s-'80s is the aerodynamic profile and, well, the better part of physics. If you feel superior for thinking redesigning a farking KITE would be a substantial improvement, all power to you.

aspAddict: But like I said, I'm no engineer

Obviously.

namatad
nasa - "we have a dream. jobs for life"

Actually, it's more like "we have many dreams for which no one will now accept the loss of life."

People are killed far more often delivering your farking crab cakes, but space exploration? Hell no. That's gotta be due to gross incompetence.

WebbMonkey: Foam, again?


Don't get me wrong, I don't blame NASA for continuing the liftoffs with what we have. I think managing the risk right now is fine, since there is no other way to deliver parts to the I.S.S.

Evacuate the ISS and set the controls for the heart of the sun... well a controlled burn up anyway. The ISS/shuttle don't have a lot of scientific value.

jeblis: aspAddict: But like I said, I'm no engineer

Obviously.

Well, oh guru of putting shiat into space, what do you propose for fixing the problem of every farking shuttle launch turning into a nailbiter due to falling foam?

aspAddict: I have too much common sense.

Common sense is not that useful in situations that aren't common.

Occam's Chainsaw
what do you propose for fixing the problem of every farking shuttle launch turning into a nailbiter due to falling foam?

An educated populace that realizes this has happened on damn near every shuttle launch since 1981.

Occam's Chainsaw: jeblis: aspAddict: But like I said, I'm no engineer

Obviously.

Well, oh guru of putting shiat into space, what do you propose for fixing the problem of every farking shuttle launch turning into a nailbiter due to falling foam?

Cancel it. It's an unsafe design. Move back to putting the crew on top.

Your whole "engineers don't have common sense" smacks of anti-intellectualism and ignorance.

At least we are stopping our schools from trying to teach this Darwin and "science" nonsense. Praise Be!
---

Liberalism, diversity, and multiculturalism are destroying our public schools. Trying comparing public and private school attendance and graduation rates once.

Occam's Chainsaw: Well, oh guru of putting shiat into space, what do you propose for fixing the problem of every farking shuttle launch turning into a nailbiter due to falling foam?

The generally agreed upon solution is to add some band aids onto the problem, setup contingency plans, make as few shuttle flights as possible and hope nothing goes wrong before the shuttle are decommissioned. The shuttle is being retired soon and there is a ISS based rescue plan in place in case something goes wrong (in addition to other things).

The heat tiles weren't considered a problem before and even now they've failed only once out of a 100 flights. It's only a nailbiter now because the media loves to play it up as such since then people keep looking at their stories. The Soyuz for example has apparently failed to reenter properly on it's last two landing (I think it re-enetered the wrong way at least one of those times) and no one seems to talk about that much. The first shuttle flight apparently had so much damage by the time it got into orbit they wouldn't have even tried landing it had they known about it while in orbit.

Occam's Chainsaw: Now, I'm no engineer, but couldn't they put another layer above the critical heat tiles that's good and impact resistant but ablated by the heat of re-entry?

Probably a weight issue. Plus, whatever material you put on top of the tiles could break off and hit other tiles.

According to wikipedia, you could crush one of those tiles by hand.

aspAddict: I'm no engineer, but something like steel, fiberglass, carbon fiber, or something that can take a good whack without failing.

They already use reinforced carbon fiber on the bottom of the nose cone and leading edges of the wings :P

/I'm no engineer, but I know how to use google.

equusdc: An educated populace that realizes this has happened on damn near every shuttle launch since 1981.

Interesting design corrections.

jeblis: Cancel it. It's an unsafe design. Move back to putting the crew on top.

Agreed. Good luck convincing the money men to axe the baby they've already paid for, though.

jeblis: Your whole "engineers don't have common sense" smacks of anti-intellectualism and ignorance.

You're attributing the original quote to the wrong person. See above.

Occam's Chainsaw:
You're attributing the original quote to the wrong person. See above.


Sorry.

equusdc: Uhm, Herr Ignoramus, about the only thing that has remained "in neutral" since the '60s-'80s is the aerodynamic profile and, well, the better part of physics. If you feel superior for thinking redesigning a farking KITE would be a substantial improvement, all power to you.

There have been attempts to make an improved shuttle although needless to say they didn't work but that doesn't mean improvements aren't theoretically possible. The VentureStar was, for example, an attempt to make a single stage vehicle with roughly the shuttle's payload capacity. A vastly different design despite being a kite in the end as well.

Occam's Chainsaw: Agreed. Good luck convincing the money men to axe the baby they've already paid for, though.

Uhhhm, they are axing it. They'd have probably done so sooner if they didn't need it to finish building the ISS.

I don't want to see nasa's budget cut. I'd like it increased actually. The ISS/Shuttle just doesn't seem like a good investment.


There are lots of other more interesting things to do in space.