Hi, Matt.  We were talking about - -
-=> MATT MC_CARTHY wrote to JIM HOLSONBACK <=-

(condensed from SHUT.TXT))
 MM> SAN ANTONIO (July 7) - A chunk of foam insulation fired at shuttle wing
 MM> parts Monday blew open a gaping 16-inch hole, yielding what one member
 MM> of the Columbia investigation team said was the ''smoking gun'' that
 MM> proves what brought down the spaceship.
 MM> ''We have found the smoking gun,'' Columbia Accident Investigation
 MM> Board member Scott Hubbard said of the panel's seventh and final
 MM> foam-impact test. ...................
 MM> The 1.67-pound piece of fuel-tank foam insulation shot out of a 35-foot
 MM> nitrogen-pressurized gun and slammed into a carbon-reinforced panel
 MM> removed from shuttle Atlantis.
 MM> coming out at more than 530 mph...

There is a picture of the "cannon" apparatus at the website I was
telling Leonard E. about - -     www.caib.us

Looks a lot like some kind of a humongous mechanical pea-shooter.  I
know the test "projectile" is a 1.67# piece of foam, with max dimension
of 11.5".  That makes sense with what that big peashooter looks like -
the 35' long "barrel" looks for all the world like a plain old piece of
rectangular structural steel tubing, and I think I saw that the
insulation "projectile" measures 9.5 in by 11.5 in, so that would fit
just right with a piece of 12 x 10 structural tubing with wall thickness
of 1/4". 

 MM> Two weeks ago, the investigation board identified the blow from the
 MM> foam as the most probable cause of the accident that killed the
 MM> seven astronauts. Hubbard said after Monday's test: ''I think
 MM> foam hitting the wing leading edge of the orbiter at 500 mph is
 MM> the direct cause.''
 MM> .................
 MM> One month ago, another carbon shuttle wing panel - smaller and
 MM> farther inboard - cracked by the impact, along with an adjoining
 MM> seal. This time, the entire 11 1/2-inch width of the foam chunk
 MM> - rather than just
 MM> a corner during previous testing - hit the wing, putting maximum
 MM> stress on the suspect area. .................
 MM> Monday's test cost $3.4 million.
 MM> Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. -- SHUT.TXT ends

 MM> The only real 'facts' in there is that that the incident happened 82
 MM> seconds into liftoff, and that the test cost $3.4 million (damn, I know
 MM> I'm in the wrong business - there's a fortune to be made shooting holes
 MM> in NASA stuff!). NASA records of the flight at the 82 second mark
 MM> _should_ give the exact rate of acceleration at that instant, and my
 MM> guess is that's where the 530 MPH came from.

AFAICT, NASA always pays too much, due to their procurement regs
and specs and highly bureaucratic procedures, and like all govt
procurement agencies, even moreso when they are in a big hurry for
"results". This last test also used the "real"
reinforced carbon panels,
which I read cost $800K each, so that costs a lot right there.

Considering the capital and already-contracted labor associated with the
Shuttle program, NASA needs to get the answers ASAP as to what caused
the accident, and what they need to do about it. AFAICT, they can't
proceed with the program until they get the "right" answers, and
do the right things to give good measure of assurance that there will be
no repeat disaster from the same the problem(s) that Columbia had.

I'm hoping that this week's roundtable discussion and press briefing at
www.caib.us will include some more of the details about that 530mph
thing. I did some looking at earlier info available at that website, but
ran out of time before I found any significant details.

ttyl - - -  JimH.


... "Bother!" said Pooh, as he couldn't find an appropriate tagline.
--- MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.32