MSFC confirm PAL Ramp Liberation was a repair area

[shuttle_rtf]

I don't think that's a fair analogy given the context - of which one could create many. I don't even think it's accurate. <br /><br />If it was purported that we're still in Iraq to honour the troops that died, it would be unpalatable.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">If it was purported that we're still in Iraq to honour the troops that died, it would be unpalatable.</font>/i><br /><br />That is pretty much what <i>is</i> being said. The best way to honor the troops that have died is to stay there and finish the job they went there to do. Otherwise, they would have died in vain and of course, no one wants to say that.</i>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Which is different to how it was said - or how I read it - on the previous post. To "finish the job" is an honour bestowed of the troops that have died. That's right, I agree with it 1000 per cent.<br /><br />To "stay in Iraq" because we want to honour the troops that have died is different. The "primary reason" for staying is to finish the job which is in turn an honouring of the troops that have died. And is a different way of saying exactly the same thing I said to SG about continuing to fly to honour the crews of Columbia and Challenger.<br /><br />It's very easy to slightly re-word it into something unacceptable, which is why I've responded to this. <br /><br />Hey, did someone mention PAL Ramps? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[nasa4now]

->Hey did someone mention PAL Ramps?<-<br /><br />Why don't you just seal it all with 600lbs of paint like STS 1 & 2?<br />

 

[drwayne]

The paint on the first flight did not "seal" anything.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[nasa4now]

So then, how much foam loss damage was sustained during those first TWO launches of Columbia?

 

[drwayne]

There were quite a number of dinged tiles. There also were some tiles that were missing on the first flight, but I do not believe that was foam related.<br /><br />There have been numerous discussions on this question over the last couple of weeks - bottom liine is that the paint was there to make the tank look good.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[nasa4now]

-->the paint was there to make the tank look good<--<br /><br />Pure cosmetics? That's hard to believe. While back on the drawing board in the 70's there must have been some engineering reason behind painting over the ET insulating foam. What was it?

 

[georgeniebling]

"-->the paint was there to make the tank look good<-- <br /><br />Pure cosmetics? That's hard to believe. While back on the drawing board in the 70's there must have been some engineering reason behind painting over the ET insulating foam. What was it? "<br /><br />The engineering reason for painting the foam was as follows:<br /><br />the white tank looked better which helped the STS get funded which gave the engineers a paycheck.<br /><br />I hate to be dramatic about it but seriously ... near as anyone here has been able to determine there was *no* technical reason to paint the foam on the initial flights.

 

[drwayne]

"Pure cosmetics? That's hard to believe."<br /><br />Hard to believe? Maybe. True? Yes.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[steve82]

I got no problem with good looking paint jobs on shuttles. I wish the Navy could come up with a decent color scheme for their fighters. Those matte pale gray planes with pale dark-gray insignia look like crap. Could probably get a better budget if they painted them up like the Koreans did with their new trainer.

 

[drwayne]

Thank you for sharing that sir!<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[igorsboss]

Paraphrased, from a Nova special regarding the stealth fighters:<br /><br />"Black really isn't the most stealthy color, but real fighter pilots don't fly in pastel blue planes".

 

[shuttle_man]

Wayne Hale to the associated press. This would explain why it was a repair area.<br /><br />http://money.iwon.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_rt_top.jsp?cat=TOPBIZ&&%$#@!=704&feed=dji&section=news&news_id=dji-00075620051004&date=20051004&alias=/alias/money/cm/nw<br /><br />"To NASA's horror, a 1-pound, 3-foot-long chunk of insulating foam peeled away from Discovery's external fuel tank during liftoff in late July. It was the same kind of problem that doomed Columbia in 2003, and it occurred despite 2 1/2 years of improvements and assurances that this was the safest tank ever built.<br /><br />What probably happened is that during modifications to the tank at Michoud, technicians inadvertently damaged the section that ended up coming off, while working on nearby areas, Hale said. "This foam, which normally is not touched after it's applied, clearly was touched," he said.<br /><br />Workers using plastic knives to remove nearby foam may have made small cuts in the section that tore away, allowing air to condense in the crevices against the tank, full of super-cold fuel, Hale said. Another possibility, he said, is that workers leaned against the piece of foam that broke off, and fractured it. Yet another theory is that the foam cracked because of normal thermal stresses."

 

[shuttle_man]

The picture of the ET in question at Michoud and the area highlighted show the suspect area.<br /><br />http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=220&start=1<br /><br />I'm no ET tech or TPS tech, but I'm wondering if the Hale quotes also give an explanation to the other areas of foam shedding on STS 114.

 

[rvastro]

Is there a chance that 121 could go up in March instead of May if the repairs to those area on the ET are not too extensive?

 

[nacnud]

Pink was used more recently than that, below Jaguars being repainted for GWI RAF Coltishall (1990)

 

[shuttle_rtf]

SG, from your experience, do you think cryo pumping can still be ruled out (if it ever was) on the reason for the actual event of foam liberation on the PAL Ramp? (specifically the PAL Ramp).<br /><br />I ask as cryo pumping was the first thing I heard back from an ET guy as a reason for the PAL Ramp (I noted it on a thread here somewhere)....before the MAF info that work (repair) had being carried out on the specific area of shedding. Just seeing if there is a relation to the two that can be drawn from this.<br /><br />Also, if I can ask, also in your opinion, would the divoting alone on ET-121 during STS-114's launch (exclusive from the PAL Ramp issue) been concern enough for the subsiquent "grounding" (hate that word) that followed?<br /><br />Thanks.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Thanks, that's important given the media attention specifically given to the PAL Ramp.<br /><br />I hope the info being noted this week comes up with what the solution will be as everyone is pretty tight lipped at the moment.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">NASA management has been meeting for 2 days. We expect launch targets for the manifest to be releases based on those meetings.</font>/i><br /><br />Is this part of the other 60-day study: Shuttle/Station Configuration Options Team (SSCOT)?<br />http://www.nasa.gov/offices/pae/home/special_studies.html</i>