- Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

That devil foam again
by James Cobb 29 Jul '05

29 Jul '05

I've been waiting for some mention of the possible role the CFC, ozone hole, scare may have played in the destruction of Columbia and NASA's subsequent problems. What I've read is that NASA had an adequate foam system that used freon in its production. Though the amount of freon used by NASA had negligible environmental impact, they went to a new formulation. The first non-freon launch, STS 87, had unprecedented thermal tile damage from the foam. On the one hand, it makes no sense for NASA to have given up using freon because of the small amount. On the other hand, NASA has beat the scare drum (particularly ozone hole monitoring) as a budget boosting tool for years. Check out > http://www.insightmag.com/media/paper441/news/2003/08/19/National/ > Lost-In.Space-449260.shtml (yes, I noticed he confused hydrogen and > nitrogen) > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77832,00.html > http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sts107_foam_ft_030506.html I realize that this is by no means settled. And I realize that flights subsequent to STS 87 had better foam behavior. What surprises me is that there is so little mention of the role freon replacement may have played in killing Columbia and, it now appears, the shuttle program itself. Jim > Kim wrote: > >> Sorry to point out the obvious, but NASA has had 2 1/2 years and a >> whole lot >> of money already to "try and fix the problem." If it can't be >> done, admit it >> and throw in the towel. Now.

1 0

This could be interesting
by Patrick Wiggins 28 Jul '05

28 Jul '05

One of the other lists I'm on is for those of us who search for asteroids. Someone has just posted a note that they have found an object that's beyond Pluto and appears to be as big if not bigger than Pluto. That, however, is based on an assumed albedo so it could end up being smaller (or bigger). More when I hear more. Patrick

1 1

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Shuttles: It's that foam again
by Allen R. Grahn 28 Jul '05

28 Jul '05

Hi Guy and Michael, Yes, you would think that by now the insulation would not be falling off the Shuttle's external fuel tank. However, the problem is not that the adhesive is inadequate. In the late 1980's our company was contacted by the NASA engineer in charge of quality control at the Stennis Space Center for the shuttle fuel tank insulation. He was looking for a better method for testing the adhesive bond between the tank and the insulation (we couldn't help). He stated that the process currently used in installing the foam insulation to the tank sometimes resulted in unbonded regions and that these regions were difficult to detect. The detection method used was entirely manual, and consisted of a person using a small vacuum pump to try to suck the foam away from the tank. It's my recollection that since it wasn't practical to test the entire surface this way, only suspect regions, and those known to have been difficult to bond in the past were tested. You would think that this simple process could have been at least partially automated so that most of the tank could be inspected and those remaining bits tested by hand. Perhaps this is currently done. Incidentally, a few years later another NASA engineer contacted us about methods for nondestructively testing the bonding of the ceramic (foam?) tiles on the Shuttle. Noninvasive or nondestructive testing of bond integrity, especially over large areas can be a very difficult problem. Allen Grahn At 11:32 PM 7/27/2005 -0600, you wrote: >Just heard the news that the shuttle fleet is grounded once again. >There's a clear photo of a big chunk of foam just missing Discovery >as it falls off of the external tank. Given the fact that NASA has >spent the last two years playing with foam formulations and >adhesives, you've got to wonder how the shuttle program goes forward >after this. Hindsight being what it is (20/20), it seems that the >decision to place the main engines on the orbiter wasn't such a good >idea. Economically, it appears to make sense, but it means that any >external tank must be placed ahead of the engines. This in turn >means that physical problems on the tank (stuff falling off) pose an >immediate hazard to the orbiter. Placing only maneuvering engines >and retros on the orbiter would allow a more traditional booster >BEHIND the orbiter. Then you wouldn't care a lot if chunks of foam >or ice fell off (as long as you weren't the guy in the boat underneath). > >This may also spell doom for the ISS. I've never been a fan of ISS >(we got more done on Skylab), and an untrustworthy shuttle makes it >unlikely that it can ever carry a staff of more than 2. That's how >many can fit into the Soyuz escape vehicle. And it takes two people >just to keep that bucket together. They'll keep a stiff upper lip >for a while, but the handwriting is on the wall. More importantly, >it may mean the real end of Hubble. The new administrator at NASA >seemed to be inclined to reverse Sean O'Keefe's decision. Can't do >it without a shuttle though. > >I wasn't too worried about the sensor issue. There are small >gremlins for any launch. They always get fixed, clearing the way for >a different set of gremlins on the next launch. But the foam problem >is fundamental. It's the reason that seven astronauts died, and two >years of focused effort don't appear to have resolved it. > >Michael > > > >_______________________________________________ >Utah-Astronomy mailing list >Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com >http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com >

3 2

Re: Re: [Utah-astronomy] No more pontificating
by astrodeb＠charter.net 28 Jul '05

28 Jul '05

I need to say a few words about old fashioned star hopping vs technology. I love technology and how it applies to amateur astronomy. I think computers and DSC's are wonderful aids. But I also think one needs a basic knowledge of the sky and conditions to get the most out of the hobby. I was thinking last night while looking at the Milky Way sky how much more enjoyable the night sky is when it is familiar. I could say to people, "There is the M7 cluster or the M8 cluster/nebula or there is the North American Nebula." On the other hand, digital setting circles save me time and keep my neck from getting too sore. I can hop from object to object and see anywhere from 30-50 objects a night. But sometimes all I need is my Telrad to point the scope to M7 or M13 because I can find it faster with the Telrad. What I am saying is my knowledge of the sky helps me use my digital setting circles more effectively than just relying on technology alone. Back in March, my computer batteries died so I unplugged the computer and did some star hopping and found some interesting galaxies in the sky. The evening was still enjoyable and I reaquainted myself with the night sky. I've known some people who are die-hard starhopping people and I've known people who like GoTo technology. As long as they are having fun, that is what counts. Well, I need to go load my telescope into the car. I think I'll be more prepared for the mesquitos this time. My two cents, Debbie > > From: Chuck Hards <chuckhards(a)yahoo.com> > Date: 2005/07/28 Thu PM 01:11:44 MDT > To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] No more pontificating > > Oh, I'm not going anywhere. I'm just not going to be > contrary and only posting on the occassional lunch > period for a spell. But thanks for the kind words! > > --- Canopus56 <canopus56(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > You should stick around as time permits. > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! Mail for Mobile > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. > http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com >

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Inanity II
by Michael Carnes 28 Jul '05

28 Jul '05

>Despite that some reporter from some local media outlet proceeded to >ask: "Well, if something _does_ go wrong and you _do_ have to mount a >rescue mission how are you going to do that with all of the shuttles >grounded?" This was an opportunity missed. Once in a while, maybe at a trade show, I get incredibly stupid questions about technology. You can have great fun giving incredibly stupid answers to those questions. Sometimes I'll give replies that are so farfetched I can hardly stop from laughing. It's amazing what a real moron will believe. The NASA person should have said something like: "Don't worry, they're all wearing their life-jackets".

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Robotic program more effective?
by Michael Carnes 28 Jul '05

28 Jul '05

Hello Curious Patrick What I mean is that the robotic program has succeeded on its own terms. The state of the art has improved substantially since the days of Pioneer. Software has improved by orders of magnitude. Robots now have limited autonomy. We've learned an incredible amount about orbital dynamics, gravity boosts and other technological enablers. Robots have returned valuable data about planets, asteroids, stars and comets (the Mars mappers are my personal favorites). As I indicated in my post, each mission has improved the state of the art. By contrast, the manned side of the house has been totally stagnant for years. I don't think we've learned much from ISS that we didn't already know from MIR. The question about whether robots could do better than humans is a separate question that I didn't address in that post. But I'll take it on now. They can sure hold their breath longer. This means that they can do multi-year missions that humans are a hundred years away from. Do humans have better intuition about which rock to turn over? Sure they do. For now. By the time we can seriously consider a manned mission from Mars (let's ignore cranks like Bob Zubrin) the state of computer art will have advanced another few orders of magnitude. It may be a very different equation then. I'm certainly not opposed to human spaceflight. I agree with those who see exploration and curiosity as a core virtue of our species. I also fully understand that this comes with significant risk. But I think when we ask taxpayers to sacrifice national treasure and when we ask astronauts to risk their lives and when we ask scientists and engineers to give up their nights, weekends and family life, it ought to be for more than we're getting. Michael > This is why the robotic program has been so much more effective over the last couple of decades. I'm not sure what you mean by more "effective". Are you saying robots have done better than humans could have done the same things? Curious Patrick

1 0

Inanity II
by Patrick Wiggins 28 Jul '05

28 Jul '05

Anyone else watching the news conference on NASA TV just now? The panel has spent much of the last hour showing close up pictures of the shuttle and giving other evidence of why, as time goes by, there's less and less reason to give serious thought to a "rescue" mission. Despite that some reporter from some local media outlet proceeded to ask: "Well, if something _does_ go wrong and you _do_ have to mount a rescue mission how are you going to do that with all of the shuttles grounded?" Sometimes I think some people wont be happy unless everyone up there dies excruciating, lingering deaths (provided, of course, that they catch it all on video...). Augh!

1 0

SLAS Website
by John and Lisa Zeigler 28 Jul '05

28 Jul '05

I regularly check the SLAS website calendar to see what public star parties are happening on the weekends. It seems things have changed on the site, I cant get access. I know I should just join SLAS again and then I would know what's going on with the site, but I would be grateful for any info. Lisa Zeigler

4 4

Re: [Utah-astronomy] shuttle
by Michael Carnes 28 Jul '05

28 Jul '05

Boy Joe, you sure stirred up us peasants with this topic. Now my bit of pontification. The end of the shuttle/ISS can't come soon enough for me. They've formed some sort of unhealthy co-dependent relationship. The shuttle survives because the ISS needs it. The ISS survives because of the shuttle. Neither one serves much other purpose. Together they have derailed the manned space program by completely removing exploration and innovation from the equation. This is why the robotic program has been so much more effective over the last couple of decades. Each exploratory robot has a new set of tasks, new technology and new constraints. Engineers and scientists must solve these problems by innovating. With each robotic mission, the bar moves up. The ISS was a fixer-upper as soon as it was launched. The shuttle goes a couple of hundred miles up, goes around for a while, then comes down. What does it explore? Imagine that you rub the magic lamp and ask for a career that lets you travel. A stroke of thunder and your wish is granted. You're now a bus driver. That's the space shuttle.

2 1

RE: [Utah-astronomy] No more pontificating
by Corr, Tom 28 Jul '05

28 Jul '05

Chuck: I characteristically do not comment to the listserv, but I do read others' comments. I always read yours because I find them most helpful, insightful, and valuable. Thomas N. Corr Linn County Legal Counsel PO Box 100, Albany OR 97321 541.967.3840 Fax 541.928.5424 tcorr(a)co.linn.or.us -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Hards [mailto:chuckhards@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 12:12 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] No more pontificating Oh, I'm not going anywhere. I'm just not going to be contrary and only posting on the occassional lunch period for a spell. But thanks for the kind words! --- Canopus56 <canopus56(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > You should stick around as time permits. __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail for Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com

1 0