Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
05/13/09
05/13/09
problem solved.
05/13/09
05/13/09
05/13/09
05/13/09
Fuel Tank: Do you really think we need to get ourt insurance companies involved? It's minor, should buff right out.
Shuttle: I'd just feel more comfortable if we could trade information.
Fuel Tank: Well, do you really want your rates going up over a minor scratch? I know a guy who can handle this.
Shuttle: Just give me your damn information, alright!?
05/13/09
05/13/09
05/13/09
The better question is why they apply foam to the _outside_ of the external tank. If it was encapsulated by a second layer of metal (at the very least on the side the Shuttle is attached to), you'd still get the insulating effects that would help prevent ice from forming prior to launch, but now you wouldn't have to worry about any pieces breaking free.
05/13/09
The reason is weight. That extra layer of metal would weigh tons, even if extremely thin. This is the same reason the external tank is no longer painted white as it was on the first couple missions back in the early 80s.
05/14/09
Hadn't thought of that, but I guess it would be a factor given that there's at least one point during takeoff when the shuttle doesn't have enough thrust to counter the effects of gravity until it burns off enough fuel from the external tank. There has to be some solution to that problem, though at this point it's running a bit too late, both in terms of the final Columbia mission, and in terms of how much time the STS has left before being retired. And while a lot of people are in love with the idea of a Shuttle-like successor, safety and other concerns do make a more traditional top-mounted crew capsule seem like a better idea.
05/13/09
05/13/09
It's not that the foam can't be kept from falling off (though the foam they use really can't). It's that they can't keep foam from the top of the tank from striking the lower portions of the Shuttle when it does fall off. And it's that unlike the Apollo capsules, the STS does not include a system that will allow the crew to eject during launch. They never used the Apollo ejection system (and I don't know if they ever even had a chance to test it), but the basic idea was that they mounted a tiny rocket to a long stem that was fitted over the command capsule. If there was a problem, and they had sufficient warning, they could activate that stem-rocket, which would pull the command capsule free and send it on a different trajectory from the rest of the main rocket. Then, it would release the capsule to fall back to ground, and the parachute system would be activated as during a normal reentry. There's no guarantee that this system would work properly in an emergency situation, but there's a 100% guarantee that there's no such option available to an STS crew. It's an all-or-nothing mission for them, and the most important part of the launch system is left in a vulnerable position during launch.
05/13/09
Problem is the most dangerous part of a shuttle mission is re-entry, and there's no ejection system that'll save you when screaming through the atmosphere at Mach 21.
05/13/09
Considering 2 out of 5 shuttles built for space have already catastrophically failed (imagine if 40% of all airplanes failed, killing all passengers), saying one mission is any more dangerous than another is kind of academic.
05/13/09
05/13/09
The space shuttle is the most complicated machine ever built. What is "safe" is not entirely known. After Challenger, the O-rings were redesigned.
05/13/09
05/13/09
05/13/09
Also, technically, the Shuttle (STS) is comprised of the external propulsion system and orbiter. A lot of people say "shuttle" when they mean "orbiter," but everyone knows what they mean, just like they know 2 shuttles blew up, not 1.
According to NASA, rockets still fail at a rate of approximately 2-5%, regardless of who builds them or what they are: Atlas, Delta, Soyuz, etc.
05/13/09
I just watched a NOVA episode on the two Space Shuttle disasters, and it was a pretty sobering hour of TV. With the Challenger, engineers had warned that it was too cold for a launch, and they were ignored. Everyone pretty much knows the result of that. With the Columbia, they knew a major piece of foam had broken free and struck the wing, but they didn't know where it hit. They asked federal defense and intelligence agencies if they could task satellites or ground-based telescopes to take a peek at the shuttle's wing to see what sort of damage had been incurred, but all requests were refused. Of course, noone at NASA suggested doing a spacewalk to get an up-close peek (probably because that would require letting the astronauts know that there was cause to be concerned, a matter which they pointedly lied to them about in a last-minute e-mail), and the concensus was that it had happened during pretty much every STS launch, there had never been sufficient damage to be a problem, and there would never be sufficient damage to be a problem.
Clearly, they were wrong.
So, after the wreckage was recovered (as much as they could find), they decided to do a test based on evidence that the internal structure of the wing melted under extreme temperatures. They built a life-size mock-up of the wing edge, got a chunk of the foam insulation prepped to fire at it, and organized a rather varied group of observers. All the NASA engineers were saying that the foam would simply bounce off the edge without doing significant damage. It punched a hole the size of a large dinner plate clean through the wing edge, as if the wing itself was made of foam. The episode included launch footage that shows the foam strike from slightly above the wing-plane (all you see is a big white puff of material falling away), the test-strike on the wing edge mockup, and the final recorded moments of cockpit video (the tape was melted away at a point that was a few minutes before the explosion, so you don't actually see the disaster happening).
05/13/09
05/13/09
THERE'S A MAN ON THE WING OF THE SHUTTLE!
05/13/09
05/13/09
Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth
And danced the skies on leather wings;
Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
Of space telescopes, - and done a hundred things
Up, up the long, delirious burning blue
I've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace
Where never lark, or ever eagle flew -
And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
Put out my wing, and touched the face of God.
05/13/09
William Shatner was right all along...
05/13/09
05/13/09
05/13/09
05/13/09
Early versions of the tiles used on the shuttle were so malleable, you could actually mush your hand into them and leave a fingerprint. Only after engineers were tasked with "uh... could you make these things strong too?" did they get hardened up.
@Hello Mister Walrus: Tiles are routinely damaged on shuttle missions, and can tolerate a certain amount of degradation. The keys to catastrophe are where the damage is and how extensive. But I doubt there's ever been a shuttle mission that hasn't had some damage to some tiles.
05/13/09
05/13/09
05/13/09
05/13/09
05/13/09
05/13/09
Simoniz Fix It! w/Billy Mays.
05/13/09
05/13/09
05/13/09
05/13/09
Wow, I never thought a piece of duct tape would ever save a marriage.