PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - STS-107, Chronicle Of A Disaster Foretold?
Old 2nd Feb 2003, 15:05
  #13 (permalink)  
SaturnV
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Luke, the NIH budget for 2003 is $27 billion. In 2003, NASA intended to spend $113 million on bioastronautics, and $56 million on fundamental space biology. There have been numerous complaints, from organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences, that the NIH cannot demonstrate what scientific and medical results it is getting from spending these large sums of money. Certainly, there is not $27 billion worth of science annually being published in the peer review journals, both great and minor.

Regarding your suggestion that Hubble should have been returned to earth, repaired, and relaunched, it is impossible without the shuttle to do that. Very very few unmanned spacecraft are designed to withstand atmospheric re-entry, and none of these are intended to be re-used.

Airship, regarding the first question on your new thread, which NOD rightfully suggested that you first look at the google group FAQ link listed in a post above:

1) Why did NASA discount the incident at launch?
NASA did not discount it. NASA did an assessment based on the estimated size, weight, and velocity of the foam insulation that struck the left wing, and concluded that it was unlikely to have caused significant damage. In October 2002, a piece of insulation from the same general area of the external fuel tank pulled away and struck a cowling on one of the solid rocket motors (SRMs). NASA recovers and reuses the SRMs, and thus was presumably able to examine the amount of damage from that strike. The damage to the cowling was considered superficial.

That said, having a sizeable piece of insulation tear away from the external tank and strike either the shuttle or an SRM in two of the last three launches suggests there was:
1.) a recent change in the composition of the insulation or how the insulation was manufactured; or,
2.) a recent change in the process for bonding the insulation to the tank; or,
3.) a quality control problem in the manufacturing or installation of the insulation.

As the previous strike was in October, temperatures during pre-launch checkout and launch would not seem to be a factor.
SaturnV is offline