Shuttle tank shed foam again

A very early look at launch video indicates that some pieces of foam insulation and ice came off the space shuttle Atlantis's external tank about four minutes after launch

source

Considering all of the millions they have spent trying to cure this problem and the fact that it obviously hasn't worked is it time this spacecraft was grounded once and for all? after all the exact same thing caused a previous craft to break up.

God, I hope the damage isnt too great that it cannot be fixed.

We dont need another shuttle accident. i do hope they are working hard on a newer, better vehicle to keep up manned space exploration!

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
God, I hope the damage isnt too great that it cannot be fixed.

Debris released after 2 minutes 15 seconds into a shuttle launch does not pose a significant threat to the orbiter

With capsules you wouldn't have this problem...

I would have to echo sentiments of a permenant grounding for the shuttle. If NASA cant fix it after pouring money and man-hours into the problem then it shouldnt be permittied to fly. These continued screw-ups and problems aren't doing NASA any image favors so perhaps they need to back away from the shuttle and come up with a real replacement rather than their apparant duct-tape-and-bondo solutions that only shady mechanics can get away with.

Considering all of the millions they have spent trying to cure this problem and the fact that it obviously hasn't worked is it time this spacecraft was grounded once and for all? after all the exact same thing caused a previous craft to break up.

It would be a damm shame to see the end of the Space Shuttle Programme. Now they seem to be going back in time rather than, trying to build a better space shuttle. They will check for anyproblems once they are docked to the I.N.S.S. right?



[edit on 10-9-2006 by spencerjohnstone]

A shame maybe, a necessity almost certainly. They simply can't get it right, so why continue pumping money into it? Every time that thing tries to lift off something goes wrong, and eventually if they keep it up they are going to cost some poor crew their lives because they can't get their act together. What I'd really like to hear is the oppinion of current astronauts on the shuttle program and what (if any) faith they have in it at this point.

No shuttle means no ISS. There aren't any rockets that can carry the components up to build it. That's why they're still flying it. They have to get the major components up there before they retire it.

How is going to Capsules "going back in time"? Do you realize that the weight of the wings limits the amount of stuff you can haul into orbit? The Safety of the Shuttle is seriously in doubt by many. When we go back to capsules we wouldn't be using 60s technology either, we'd be using near future and contemporary technology to do it, including things that could make the trip much safer then it is currently.

Orion Moon Mission Pros and Cons IMO
Pros: Semi-Re-usable(each one can be used 10 times maximum, afterwhich it must be decomissioned and replaced potentially creating an assembly line mentality in the space sector ), modular, protected re-entry capsule, higher payload of unmanned cargo launches and ISS launches, early-stage escape capsule increases safety dramatically, etc.

Cons: Cannot "Land Like an Airplane", Looks Ugly, ummm, what else is there?


Shuttle-like Moon Mission pros and cons
Pros: It can land like an airplane.

Cons: Lower cargo capacity, higher costs, increased danger from "too many moving parts", low modularity compared to Orion, IT'S A FRICKEN AIRPLANE IN SPACE FOR GAWDZ SAKE!?!

As for the shuttle, we should use it to deliver all outstanding equipment to the ISS, afterwhich, the Shuttle should be decommissioned and work outsourced to other corps and countires until Orion ISS modules with Aries I/V's are available.

[edit on 10-9-2006 by sardion2000]

I do hope the consider a complete redesign on the craft, its obviously a persisting problem with its current design and they haven't been able to fix it, I just hope if a redesign could solve the problem there not to proud to admit theres a design flaw.

Originally posted by solidshot
Considering all of the millions they have spent trying to cure this problem and the fact that it obviously hasn't worked is it time this spacecraft was grounded once and for all? after all the exact same thing caused a previous craft to break up.

Foam has been falling off the fuel tank since day one. It was never a serious problem until Columbia. I don't think you can ever completely eliminate the problem of foam and ice coming off, only minimize it and this launch was very successful.

I predict....... a safe landing and a successful mission.

Good luck to
STS mission 115
Commander Brent W. Jett Jr.,
Pilot Christopher J. Ferguson,
Mission Specialists Heidemarie M.Stefanyshyn-Piper,
Joseph R. Tanner,
Daniel C. Burbank
and Steven G. MacLean, who represents the Canadian Space Agency.

With all due respect, Edn, there's no way that NASA is going to re-design the shuttle, not with the STS being retired in 2010. Nor do I believe that there should be. Foam loss on shuttle lift-off is a long-known quantity of the External tank. Prior to Columbia's launch in February of 2003 NASA had identified four separate instances wherein foam was shed from the bipod area alone - this is the area, along with the PAL ramp, that caused so much concern in the wake of Columbia's break-up.

And, if you think about it, you'd expect there to be foam loss. Everyone involved with the shuttle at NASA knew that there was foam loss - rockets have been insulated with some sort of foam since the Space agency began using heavily cryogenic fuels like LH2, and ever since then rockets have been shedding foam insulation. They'd have to - they're insulating something that's sitting at all of 20 Kelvins (LH2) from an ambient air temperature of, say 70 degree Fahrenheit. Add to that the stress of lift-off and something has to give; in this case it is the foam. Look at footage of any of the Apollo launches and you'll see a little flurry of white flakes falling off the side of the rocket - some of that is paint, but much of it is foam.

The problem prior to Columbia was that there was little concern over the loss of foam. Some people raised questions, and it is a tragedy that they were ignored, but the fact of the matter is that NASA only lost 1 shuttle out of 116 launches due to foam-related problems. And as much as I empathize with the families who lost loved ones on Challenger and Columbia, I'm alright with those statistics.

Richard Feynman, in his Appendix to the Rogers Comission Report (the official investigation into the loss of the Challenger) concluded that, all things considered, a 2% rate of failure was to be expected given long-term continuation of the Space Shuttle program. I like those odds. If someone from NASA called right now and told me to pack my stuff because they had an opening on the next shuttle flight, I'd be up and out the door. I wouldn't even wait to pack my stuff.

Space travel is hard. It is dangerous. It DOES need to be safer, and I am all for working to make it safer. But that doesn't mean that, until we make it 99.999999% safe, we stop going at all. If we wait until it is entirely safe we will be waiting forever.