The Columbia tests at first could not even fracture anything, but, with the Personal Attention of the Comittee ...<br /><br /> The Problem is that ANY change is UTTERLY ruled out by the FIXED LIMIT of the Accellerometer (Page 603 G.13 or 617 PartV of the appendixes). This measured the TOTAL impact on the wing (and in reality should be reduced for the "cloud" of small pieces that hid the long steel-like rigid "Spear" they presumed was inside -- I guess they just weighed negative: see the weigth growth):<br /><br />Nonetheless, the Commission persisted in increasing parameters without decreasing the others to compensate.<br /><br />1. Upping the weight (1.5 to 1.68 pounds),<br />2. Speed (ONE of the angles rules out any speed over 725 feet/second but the Commission DETERMINED that, I guess, GOD is Wrong and, forget the one camera angle, we VOTE that the majority of the other views means .... 775) (although as the accellerometer was matched to 777, 15 and 1.5, as 777 was too much, one of the others ought to have increased so the total impact remained as the accellerometer ON COLUMBIA measured it) and above all:<br /><br />3. Angle (increased from 15 to 25.1 degrees average angle of impact).<br /><br /> Overall this doubles the impact .<br /><br />Other Wackiness: a. they can change the angle by specifying "initial" (the 25.1 angle hits a curved part of the wing so the wing is at an angle from 22 inital to 30 "clock" degrees), this they used to hit 16 at an AVERAGE of 19 degrees by calling the 16, "16 initial"... (and as far as I can see they also hope no one notices their tiny little alteration from 15 to 16 degrees), and: b. the object if it rotates ( !! against an over-1000 mph wind, without cracking in the center !! ) increases the 16 to 22 <br /><br />-- though they do NOT rotate the foam in the test -- because it would break up, of course !!<br /><br />Instead they just increased the angle of Impact.<br /><br />THE FACT IS THE FIRST TEST BOUNCED OFF<br /><br />... and that was usi
- Status
...and please note that you started substituting "Challenger" for "Columbia" in your last paragraph
<font color="yellow"> THE FACT IS THE FIRST TEST BOUNCED OFF</font><br /><br />The first test was against Enterprises fibreglass leading edge. The second test was against Discovery’s RCC leading edge. The material’s properties are entirely different. RCC is much more brittle then fibreglass so the same test will get different results.<br />
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I was wondering the same thing, but was afraid to ask.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I understand Hi-Shear filed a lawsuit against NASA, and that's probably what he's talking about. I don't know all the details, or whether the suit is moving ahead, but basically, Hi-Shear manufactured explosive bolts that used to be used to connect the various major elements together (Orbiter to ET, ET to SRBs). But they recently were underbid by a competitor. Hi-Shear is alleging that the competitor stole their design and are manufacturing substandard explosive bolts, and that the Columbia accident was a consequence. They allege that it wasn't foam but rather bits of the allegedly substandard bolts that caused the fatal RCC damage to Columbia. They are suing not for wrongful death (since they have no claim in that case) but for the money they lost when NASA went with the competitor. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em> -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
The key here is in the name I gave the Post:<br /><br />The tests DID NOT TEST WHAT HAPPENED TO COLUMBIA !<br /><br /> They kept upping the impact, which is fraudulent as the Accellerometer limits the impact, and every Increase in Impact was itself fraudulent ... until their increases got first fractures, then after adding the final bit for "rotation", they got penetration at about double the impact that Columbia suffered ACCORDING TO THE ACCELLEROMETER.<br /><br />And, they never deduct for the impact of the Cloud of Debris that they say shrouded the (obviously nonexistant) great RIGID "spear" of foam, from sight. <br /><br />The CONCLUSION -- that the foam did it -- was a fraud.<br /><br />BUT:<br />Did the bolts do it? I am unaware of other than a Possibility, that is I GUESS their logic may be: "if it wasn't the Foam then [fill in the blank with your favorite theory]"<br /><br />There is evidence of a LOT of different kinds of damage:<br /><br />1. the chin panel overheats (nose)<br />2. 7 sensors near the rear go Down in temperature, implying Cryo release (probably the Payload Bay fuel cells, as the integral H2 and Lox dewars had normal readings) -- PS when wires reach 1000 degrees, they may go up or down, BUT groups of 4 will ALWAYS have 2 oscillate, 1 up, 1 down ... when they reach 2000 degrees or the wire is cut, they go OSL: vertical line to Zero. Thus all 7, failing in strict order of where the wires were, from back to front, imply a Real fall in temperature. If LH2, it might also ignite in small oxidizer-poor explosions, sending a tongue of flame FORWARD (thus explaining #1, and the Starfire photo ?? ))<br />3. The other "medium" deposits similar to those which are a lot heavier and centered on the 8/9 juncture LEFT ... are at 8/9 RIGHT.<br /> Now STS-56 had melted patches under BOTH wings. <br />4. STS-9 had water sealed in its joints like Challenger (Columbia was launched just after a Tropical Storm), and had numerous experimnt glitches PLUS multiple, independant l
Argh!!! Another post that's all over the place. I suspect there's something good in here, but to piece it all together....
Samo. I think it's great that you have so much passion about the Shuttles, but I've tried reading your posts a couple of times and I'm not too sure what you're getting at (bar some points).<br /><br />It seems you are pointing to a cover up by the STS-107 CAIB and in the final part of your second post, the investigation into Challenger STS-51L? Or maybe a poor investigation?<br /><br />I may not agree with you, but I'd like to be able to understand you a little better - by ways of maybe a more pointed and LESS emphasised post (caps locked words don't really help reading it <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> )<br /><br />I'm sure you'll get a chance to elaborate on certain elements of your thoughts as the tread grows.
I was asking him to clarify what he's going on about, SG. I thought I was being clear and I get the WTF? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
I think he asked you WTF? because you (a) seem to have <i>some</i> idea of what the post is saying, and (b) can actually form complete sentences. Maybe you should translate the WTF into samo-speak for us and get an explaination.
>Maybe you should translate the WTF into samo-speak for us and get an explaination. <<br /><br />Ok <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Samo speak and resulting re-translation of WTF:<br /><br />"I was WISHING to know why the explanation SEEMED to be, in part, a REQUEST for clarification. But if SO why didn't someone SAY if they COULD explain this. See #10 and #11 subjection C ii to KNOW I am just babbling RIGHT now."<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Disclaimer: That was a joke, Samo...and SG can say WTF to me all day, everyday, and he'd still remain a demi-god to me due to the insight he brings from KSC land <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
samo,<br /><br />Are you implying that A
The Solid Rocket Boosters fuel got wet during tropical storm, resulting in uneven thrust, and B Explosive bolt failure(s) resulted in damage to several parts of Columbia?<br /><br />I do recall speculation that explosive bolts were the cause of damage to Columbia.<br /><br />I also understand that the O-ring seals may leak because they are designed to withstand high temperatures, and therefore are hard at low temps. However, I have not heard of any wetting of solid propellant as a result of O-ring leaks while sitting on the pad.<br /><br />You obviously have a detailed knowledge of the shuttle, and have apparently spent considerable time analyzing the accident reports from both shuttle loses.<br /><br />Your communications are garbled. Please repeat in sections. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>
The Solid Rocket Boosters fuel got wet during tropical storm, resulting in uneven thrust, and B Explosive bolt failure(s) resulted in damage to several parts of Columbia?<br /><br />I do recall speculation that explosive bolts were the cause of damage to Columbia.<br /><br />I also understand that the O-ring seals may leak because they are designed to withstand high temperatures, and therefore are hard at low temps. However, I have not heard of any wetting of solid propellant as a result of O-ring leaks while sitting on the pad.<br /><br />You obviously have a detailed knowledge of the shuttle, and have apparently spent considerable time analyzing the accident reports from both shuttle loses.<br /><br />Your communications are garbled. Please repeat in sections. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>From what I read it may be more a problem with the propellant absorbing moisture from the air rather than direct contact with water. If the distribution of propellant is changed it could cause hot spots and burn-through of the casing totally unrelated to the o-rings. I'm a little unclear if he means this is what has been referred to as windshear, the venting of hot gasses altering the trajectory.<br /><br />I beieve the claim is the SRM burned through and damaged the ET on the Challenger launch and the Shuttle left wing on Columbia. <br /><br />I don't think explosive bolt failure was implied though I think the foam testing, if done like it was outlined may have been faulty and reached the wrong conclusions. Can SG or anyone verify the electrical sensor and wiring faiures refered to during assent? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<font color="yellow">Just because the outer part of the wing broke off -- it was a section added to fulfill Air Force cross-range needs and the Vehicle is stable without it, though no doubt one would prefer Both extensions off ( or better yet: neither broken off ! ) </font><br /><br />No the Orbiter is not stable on re-entry with part of its wing missing! If it were made with smaller wings they would be smaller on both sides, and sealed over with aluminum skin and TPS.<br /><br />There is evidence to suggest that Columbia had suffered serious damage to its port side wing. There are the images of take off and re-entry. There is also the data collected from the wing that showed an increase temperature the place that the foam was believed to impact. The there is the bank to left after data from the wing was loss. I could go on.<br /><br />Personally I think Samu is a nutcase on par with Gwebber, and that guy that thought there was a civilization on Venus.<br />
><i>I'm a little unclear if he means this is what has been referred to as windshear, the venting of hot gasses altering the trajectory.</i><p>No, windshear is caused by the change in direction of wind at different altitudes. The vehicle has to react to these changing wind conditions. On STS-51L the wind shear environment was the worst ever seen with quite severe lateral movements recorded by the Orbiter's accelerometers. At first they thought that the windshear may have been the primary cause of the accident, before the concerns of the Thiokol engineers and the pre-launch telecon became well-known.<p>It may well have been a secondary cause, however. The leak in the SRM had apparently sealed by T+10s or so. It is likely that the loads imposed by the windshear cased the joint to flex and re-opened the SRB joint.</p></p>
Where I come from is: as History-trained, I knew the initial Challenger investigation was fixed.<br /><br />The Solid FUEL was unstable and the OMB head in 1969, George Schultz, LIED to Nixon, saying NASA had solved the problem.<br /><br />The result is an ongoing FEUD between OMB and State -- George Rogers, head of the Challenger Panel, had ONE qualification: he had hired Schultz into State -- for which by the way, he was FIRED by Nixon -- because he was hired for being able to Lie to Nixon, see? That's why Kissinger replaced him so fast there was no time to look for a replacement and Kissinger had to do both jobs.<br /><br />SO I KNEW THE FIX WAS IN. Reagan had Alzheimers and, as Haig so succinctly stated, until the President is Removed, Power proceeds from the Presidency, THROUGH the Cabinet, and that means the Sec'y of State -- then George Schultz -- is in charge.<br /><br />So you see he had the Power to fire NASA's investigation Head and insert an UTTERLY unqualified LIAR, who MURDERED the COLUMBIA CREW by preventing the right things from getting fixed, ordering certain pictures not to be studied (source: Yeagher's interview).<br /><br />Get it?<br /><br />So for me EVERY technical detail is the result of special study, and a "Eureka" experience. NASA's former investigator said in an interview, it might take 3 years to "characterize" the accident. Well I know I put in over 10,000 hours.<br /><br />PS don't blame Schultz THAT much -- you see, a New Scientist article had said most Scientists believed Solid Rocket Combustion Instability was at fault -- they might just as well have said: "FLETCHER SAYS SCHULTZ LIE KILLED CHALLENGER 7" and when Schultz appointed the Panel he put in friends AND, expecting a witch hunt leading to a MASSIVE court case against him -- he wanted those Appendixes, and all the other studies preserved. I know he wanted a Favorable Panel, but if he had ORDERED a LIE why would he preserve the Evidence. But like they say: in D.C. no one ever Orders a
<font color="yellow">"So for me EVERY technical detail is the result of special study, and a "Eureka" experience. NASA's former investigator said in an interview, it might take 3 years to "characterize" the accident. Well I know I put in over 10,000 hours. "</font><br /><br />You've put in over 10,000 hours studying the data? That's dedication. At 8 hours a day, seven days a week, that means you've spent 3 1/2 years on this study.
George Schultz was not head of OMB in 1969:<br />http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/organization/former_directors.html
steve82,<br /><br />Not to mention, what do Nixon and Kissenger have to do with the Challenger loss?<br /><br />I certainly do believe that there was a coverup regarding the Challenger, though. Somebody in the White House (George H. Bush, perhaps?) was putting a great deal of pressure on NASA to fly that fateful day, no matter what the conditions were on the pad that night. The way that I heard it, Ronald Reagan was supposed to talk to Christa McAuliffe live during the State of the Union Address that day. Big media blitz promoting Average Citizen in space, and all that. State of the Union address had to be postponed one week to re-write the whole program.<br /><br />And I do recall Chuck Yeagar walking out of the investigation hearings, and commenting something like, "If you don't fly it when you are not supposed to, it won't blow up!" That was alluding to reccomendations that the vehicle should not be flown if the temperature of the O-ring seal areas was below 45 degrees F. (The temp on the pad had dropped to about 28 F overnight, and was only up to about 36 in the shade at launch, if I remember correctly.)<br /><br />NASA knew that the O-rings were suffering burn-through, but every incidence had occurred near the end of the burn, when the pressure inside the Solid Rocket Boosters had decreased from the peaks experienced earlier in the burn. The decision to launch was made with the knowledge that the O-rings were likely to have local failures due to the material being too cold to flex properly, which is neccessary if they are to seat securely.<br /><br />Imagine how different things would have been if the top officials at NASA had come forward and said, "We goofed. We should not have flown the vehicle that day. There is nothing wrong with the design, we were trying to operate it outside of safe parameters."<br /><br />Of course, we must remember that the engineers had specified a third O-ring seal in the original design of the SRB's, but Congress cut the funding (again <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>
><i>That was alluding to reccomendations that the vehicle should not be flown if the temperature of the O-ring seal areas was below 45 degrees F.</i><p>Shuttle_guy has said that such a recommendation - if it existed - was never passed on to the prime contractor. There was no low-temperature lauch commit criterion at the time of STS-51L. The contractors wouldn't have allowed a launch in conditions which they believed to be hazardous.<p>><i>I also believe that the entire Return To Flight circus following the loss of Columbia is a smoke screen to cover up the fact that mangement KNEW that the Thermal Protection System was being damaged, severely, in some cases, by foam strikes,</i><p>Again it doesn't matter what management knew or did not know. The contractors run the program at the operational level. If the vechicle was suffering 'severe' damage on a regular basis, the contractors would have kicked up a stink - there is a <b>lot</b> of money involved in these contracts and safe flight is a condition of them getting it. The TPS was taking minor hits on every flight, but had never suffered major damage - other than a few lost tiles on the first few flights.</p></p></p>
Shuttle Guy is NASa yeah? figures that his only post on here is WTF??????????. Chilling to know if I was an astronaunt.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 179
-
-
Thought experiment synthesis of CCC(Penrose), Holographic theory (Gerard 't Hooft) & Klein bottle form (Alan Watts)- Started by Ricmac
- Replies: 11
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram