Does someone have images of the Endeavour damage?

Page 5 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JonClarke

Guest
Mind you, the X-20 was a dinosaur rather than a dynasoar. It swallowed 1.5 times the amount of money spent on the Mercury program and did not even get to glide testing, et alone manned missions. It's development capability was extremely limited. Killing it was the right decision. It did generate useful experience for other missions, notably the shuttle, as docm notes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
Space ref posted this before and after image of the gouge. It may be fragile, but the shuttle TPS is still extraordinary stuff.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
Grrr! Let's try attaching it shall we? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
Thanks to discussion on the BAUT board, thus puts it into context, here is a photo of STS 27 landing. All those white flecks are gouges.<br /><br />The full image can be seen at http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/STS/Large/EC88-0247-1.jpg . Be warned, it's huge! A 3000 X 1500 pixel jpg.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
B

bobw

Guest
Thanks for both pictures, Jon.<br /><br />I tried to make my own side-by-side today and came up way short of yours. I wish they would have included a bit more of the joint on the right because the post-landing one seemed like the tile to the right was sort-of melted looking by the corner. During a hasty search I couldn't find a clear shot from on orbit but will renew my effort. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
A

abq_farside

Guest
<font color="yellow"><i>All those white flecks are gouges. </i></font>/i><br /><br />When did the gouges occur?<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em><font size="1" color="#000080">Don't let who you are keep you from becoming who you want to be!</font></em></p> </div>
 
A

abq_farside

Guest
Some of them look like pretty big chunks of missing tiles. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em><font size="1" color="#000080">Don't let who you are keep you from becoming who you want to be!</font></em></p> </div>
 
T

Testing

Guest
Your assesment is probably on the money. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

shuttle_freak

Guest
Some of those gouges on Atlantis sure are close to the RCC panels. I am surprised by looking at that picture more issues didnt arise prior to Columbia.
 
L

larper

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Some of those gouges on Atlantis sure are close to the RCC panels. I am surprised by looking at that picture more issues didnt arise prior to Columbia. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />This shows several things:<br /><br />1) NASA did not recognize the threat, or refused to accept the threat. The CULTURE of NASA was the problem here.<br /><br />2) The TPS of the shuttle had been hit many times before Columbia, and performed despite those hits. It turned out to be fairly robust. The Columbia hit, while obviously not 1 in a million, was a fairly rare random event. They just got unlucky.<br /><br />3) Risk-averse America refused to accept 2) and placed the whole blame on 1), leading to the current situation, where nearly everyone is afraid of launching a shuttle at all. They have become nearly paralysed by fear. The flights did not need to be halted after Columbia, and CERTAINLY did not need to be halted after the first return to flight revealed more fly debris.<br /><br />They need to create a new vehicle, certainly, but should not put a hard End of Flight date on shuttle until that replacement is ready to fly. And that replacement should be robust, where the launch vehicle is scaled to lift the crew module, not vice-versa. Get rid of the stick and do it right, and fly shuttles until its ready. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>
 
U

usn_skwerl

Guest
is (or was there- when it was worthwhile to research it) there some way to incorporate aerogel into the TPS, even possibly eliminating the current tiles? i know they used it for the stardust mission, and i understand they used it on spacesuits at some point. what is or was the issue with not using it as some part of the TPS? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
U

usn_skwerl

Guest
im aware of that, but being as light as it is, and as strong as it is WRT compression, could more thickness be added on to compliment maybe in a honeycomb construction to absorb debris impact as well as provide a barrier between a thin TPS tile and the airframe? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

docm

Guest
<font color="yellow">It does not have structural properties that lend it to being used as a heat shield. </font><br /><br />Dunno about hypersonic airflows, but there was a news article this week where it was stated a new aerogel could withstand a bomb blast. Apparently they're now making them out of exotic materials.<br /><br />Link....<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Aerogel is also being tested for future bombproof housing and armour for military vehicles. In the laboratory, a metal plate coated in 6mm of aerogel was left almost unscathed by a direct dynamite blast.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
L

Leovinus

Guest
It still amazes me that they didn't want to patch that gaping hole. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

bobblebob

Guest
They didnt need to, it got them down safely. Dont forget that is zoomed in alot too
 
H

haywood

Guest
Why would it amaze you that they didn't fix it?<br />They did the right analysis and got the expected results.<br />Amazing how all the doomsayers on here suddenly went silent at "wheels stop".<br />
 
U

usn_skwerl

Guest
"Why would it amaze you that they didn't fix it? "<br /><br />in my case, it amazed me because of the fact that A: they went through so much effort to learn the repair techniques, B: the damage went to the heat resistant foam, and C: its in what everyone who knows anything about the shuttle considers a vital area; an area where the reentry heat would seem to be more intense as far as the TPS tiles (not the RCC panels) go. the shuttle is nearly doing a belly flop (~30-40 degrees) into the atmosphere, many people would assume that the fuselage belly , being slightly convex would have some heat build-up towards the centerline.<br /><br />sure, many of you folks on this forum have degrees in aerospace sciences and the like, but looking at it as a big picture from a joe-shmoe perspective, it makes sense that there would be more heat along the leading edges and the center of a slightly convex area exposed to the heat.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
A.)<br /><br />The likelyhood of causing more damage in a repair attempt was higher than the risk of not attempting a repair.<br /><br />B.) Not sure what you mean by "the damage went to the heat resistant foam"<br /><br />C.) It was not a vital area. All the tests showed that there was no risk to the crew, and only a small risk of causing any risk of damage to the vehicle, which turned out to be correct (so far)<br /><br />D.) Fortunately, Joe Shmoes do not make these decisions, but rather engineers who have tested the situation, and weighed the cost/benefit ratio of attempting a repair.<br /><br />Even if the goop was squeezed in, there would not have been enough time to analyze the configuration of air and heat flow after the repair, so if it made it worse, landing would have occurred before the analysis was complete.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the pre repair analysis showed clearly there was no danger at all to the crew, and only a minimal risk of any damage at all to the orbiter.<br /><br />Under such circumstances, why would you attempt a repair that could make things worse, possibly endangering the crew or the vehicle?? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
U

usn_skwerl

Guest
I meant damage going down to the heat resistant felt, sorry...<br /><br />Go back a few years...Columbia was hit with foam, no one made it a point to look, almost literally out the window (read: using the camera on the canadarm) to peek over the side of the cargo door, and yet there was an actual, physical hole in the RCC panel. Damage has happened in the past. We were used to seeing shedding (plus NASA wasn't too keen on anyone speaking up about safety at the time, according to CAIB). Anything, including a 1 in a million chance, can happen. What may appear to be harmless (like the foam hit on Columbia) could be catastrophic. Even if the Endeavour gouge wasnt filled in completely, it would had some sort of barrier from the innards to the heat. Tests showed a 10 degree variation between what the felt could handle, and the temp of reentry....10 degrees!!?? For something the size of a hockey puck, it doesnt take much to heat 10 degrees. I'm willing to bet the folks on board the shuttle had some off camera talks amongst each other, perhaps even some last-good byes, just in case. I know I would have been a little nervous on the way in. Hell, I was nervous sitting here watching nasa tv.<br /><br />Sure the media might have blown it out of proportion, but if the repair had been done, and endeavour was destroyed, at least that effort was there. Granted, the STS would be doomed, and the crew would be lost, but at least the knowledge was there. <br /><br />Nothing was done, and had part of Endeavour's internal structure failed, what then? "Oh well, back to the drawing board"? Even if it weren't lost, but did suffer the interior structural (spar?) damage, (as someone else said elsewhere on this board) that means she's on the disabled list, possibly to the end of the STS. we're down to 2 shuttles...the ISS more than likely may not get finished, and certainly not by 2010.<br /><br />Exploring is about trials and errors, but accidents do happen. Good training and a good safety team make <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

drwayne

Guest
"no one made it a point to look, almost literally out the window (read: using the camera on the canadarm) to peek over the side of the cargo door"<br /><br />The arm did *not* fly on Columbia's mission. There was not a trivial method, as you seem to be implying, to see the damage site.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
U

usn_skwerl

Guest
my point was that it was dismissed as a harmless strike that no one bothered to further look into, even after analysts reviewed the video. <br /><br />i thought the arm was carried for a large majority of shuttle missions. i stand corrected on this one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY