To: PCav8or

The foam is an insulation material applied to the main propellant tank. The tank is comprised of two sections. The lower section contains liquid Oxygen and the upper section contains liquid Hydrogen. The insulation minimizes boil-off while on the pad and also due to aerodynamic heating during lift-off and high-speed flight while in the atmosphere.

:cool:

Tricky Woo hits the mark with his remarks about what the shuttle is not: (reusable, routine, safe, casual, or a free-roaming space ship).

The reason for most of that is practicality - it is actually still rather difficult - given our grasp of the technology and the 1960's tools in use - to launch things into space so they can return gently on demand. A lot harder than ICBM's. Some days it is impossible.

Kennedy's plan to reach the moon in the 60's was a brilliant amalgam of political, military, economic, & private goals sold to the ever-optimistic American public with plenty of flag-waving and Hollywood-style manipulation. It worked just fine for most of the near-term purposes, but the larger consequence is that NASA has had to mix in equal parts of myth and performance ever since in return for its annual billions. And it has had to rain money every year on politically well-positioned states for contracts, facilities, "Labs", and "Space Centers", especially ones in the Bush family franchise zone, including Florida and Texas, established courtesy of Kennedy's VP and successor from Texas, LBJ.

The NASA-inspired barrage of press materials, calculated leaks, fanstatic new scientific discoveries and environmental problems soluble only through spaceflight tends to closely follow the annual progress of U.S. Federal budget negotiations in Washington. If the funding calculations bog down without enough zeros in the right places for NASA and the numerous off-the books projects that feed into it and draw out of it, then reserve PR troops come in with fresh slants on Global Warming and recently discovered (or not yet discovered) asteroids that may hit the earth at any moment to wipe out all forms of life. Holywood flicks reinforcing the thought are quickly released. For many Washington-watchers, the NASA budget cycle has replaced a certain circus as "The greatest Show on Earth."

One can note with respectful awe how the current cock-up was converted within a matter of hours into a very organized campaign by NASA spokespeople and hangers-on to plead "underfunding" as the root cause and thus negotiate larger budgets for more of the same.

The real problem that plagues NASA the most is not underfunding, but arteriosclerosis. Too many NASA people have the "job for life" mentality that Government employment fosters, so they make choices to ensure continuation of programs which preserve their pension plans, rather than allowing more efficient uses of the available resources. In cases recently coming to light, some practices more resemble corruption than bureaucracy.

All that said, NASA as an institution has done a difficult job quite skillfully under an uncomfortable degree of public scrutiny.

But, at times like this, the organization tends to regress under the protective cover of institutional myths inherited from the 60's, distracting many from the underlying problems by focussing attention on a sea of marginally-relevant details.

Concerning heat-resistent tiles, I just remembered something I read a couple of years ago. The Russian shuttle-program "Buran" was apparently using some other carbon-based material that was more heat-resistant and stronger. I checked, and the web-site still exists: http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya5.htm
The website is a bit slow, but it seems the russians had a few ideas about how to make a "better" shuttle. Maybe some of their ideas could be incorporated to make the american shuttles safer? Would love to see Buran fly alongside the shuttle in the future, but I guess it's a bit unrealistic...

The show must go on.

PS............Any chance of BAE Systems dusting off plans for the HOTOL?

Can I thank those of you who know so much more about the Shuttle than I do for some very informative postings.

Its a pity that the media does'nt have the same knowledge base available.

Obviously the majority of contributors to PPRUNE are from general/commercial aviation. So perhaps we struggle ( a little) to come to terms with what may well turn out to be a small failure causing such an accident.

I can still remember the Apollo 13 crew being able, on their departure from the command module being able to swing round in their re-entry vehicle to actually see the damage that had caused the problem. To have the Shuttle crew not being able to inspect (via cameras or a space walk) any possible damage surprised me.

After all (as someone suggested) if there was a problem with tiles (if that ends ut being the cause) there could have during a space walk been the chance to effect a "CAT Q I landing" repair.

Although this accident is very sad I still remember a slip in Tampa when we drove across Florida to watch a midnight launch (of the same shuttle). Quite an occasion, but what amazed me was the link via the car radio to the mission control RT feed.

As we watched the launch we listened to the exchanges ( in the first minute after lift-off) between the crew and launch control as numerous AC and DC electric busbars failed with finally the main rocket nozzle directional control reverting to the standby (alternate) signalling.

Throughout the exchanges I should think the EICAS (Engine Indicating, Crew Alerting System for non-Boeing drivers) and the systems panel must have been lit up like a christmas tree!

The exchanges were as if they were in a fixed base (not even full flight) simulator!

The memories of these cool and calm exchanges over the radio were as impressive as the visual spectacle.

They, together with their collegues sadly lost over Texas, are truly special people. I salute them all.

There is an interesting story in today's New York Times about tile damage on a previous Columbia mission. I think Danny discourages full text pasting of copyrighted text, so the link is here. (Registration required, but it is free.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/04/national/04WRON.html

The story relates a report on tile damage to Columbia in 1997, in which the number of tile hits greatly exceeded the norm. The tile damage was caused by foam falling off the external tank.

"Inspectors counted 308 hits. Of those, 132 were "greater than one inch." Some of the hits measured up to 15 inches long with depths of up to one-and-a-half inches. The tiles [presumably the ones hit] were only two inches deep, [some tiles are five inches thick] so the largest hits penetrated three-quarters of the way into the tiles." [Comment, if these tiles were only two inches thick, these were not located in an area of high aerodynamic heating.]

The damaged tiles were mostly around the shuttle's nose. After the mission, more than 100 tiles were taken off because "they were irreparable."

NASA also changed the formulation of the foam after the 1997 incident. The Times article states that "... to be environmentally friendly, NASA had eliminated the use of Freon in foam production. The Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., later concluded that the absence of Freon led to the detachment of the foam. ...the formulation was later improved."

Finally, the Times article includes opinions from several aerdynamicists involved in shuttle aerdoynamic testing, who said 'that even slightly damaged tiles — perhaps only roughened or cracked — could generate turbulence near the tiles during the tremendous speeds of re-entry, creating potentially dangerous heating of Columbia's aluminum skin.'"
_____________________________________
Over 30 years ago when the shuttle was first proposed, the scheme (and corresponding launch rate) was for it to be mainly used as a logistics vehicle to transport hydrogen for off-loading to in-orbit NERVA rockets that would be used for manned lunar bases and manned Mars flights. NERVA rockets used a nuclear reactor to heat hydrogen as the means of propulsion; ultimately, work stopped on these engines just prior to final flight test.

Initial shuttle designs called for two air-breathing engines so it would not be a glider on return (the USAF was most interested in having an ability to land at points some distance away from the orbital track) and for the booster rocket to also be manned and return from a sub-orbital flight to a landing site.

The lunar base and manned Mars exploration missions were much like what Arthur Clarke had whirling around in space in "2001, a Space Odyssey". The basic hardware for these missions would be launched into earth orbit by the bottom stages of a Saturn V type rocket, there to be assembled by astronauts. Use of a Satrun V meant you were not constrained by the weight-to-orbit capabilitiy of a shuttle, nor by its payload bay dimensions.

But in the words of the refrain written by Kurt Vonnegut (who was a prisoner of war in Dresden when it was fire-bombed) in his novel "Slaughterhouse 5": "And so it goes."

Lots of good points & discussion here chaps. (circumstances excluded of course)

arcniz
As much as I'd love to believe that what you have written was a conspiracy theorists gibberish, I sadly believe that you may be right on the money here. It was one of the first things El Presidente did after the event, get mo' money from Congress. Perhaps throwing money at NASA isn't the only solution & the real problems are inherent, as you stated. (Again, I don't wish to diminish what's happened, but I'm assuming the problems at NASA were there all along)

SaturnV
How sadly ironic that in an effort to be environmentally friendly, they may have inadvertantly doomed this mission. Especially considering how much emphasis they are putting on the toxicity of the debris! (I imagine there are other motives here though)


Lots of suggested solutions are just not technologically possible at the moment. It's just like riding a giant trampoline, once at the top of the arc, there's not much else the orbiter can do(manouverability wise) prior to it's descent. Lets hope their sacrifice provides the stimulus to take the next step.

Forgot to put this in...
Did anyone else see the footage of what was purported to be the left wing in orbit during this mission? It looked like the wing root area, but I'd have thought the angles were all wrong. Regardless of that, it showed a definate dent in one section & a crack in another. Does anyone know if NASA has made a statement on this?

Two points that apply,

The Gen Accounting Office in the US last week completed an audit on NASA. One auditor stated that he has never been so afraid of the safety of space fligh than at the moment (prior to the accident)

Also, retired NASA administrator Dan Goldin once stated that the space shuttle is waste of money as it achies very little.

"but I'd have thought the angles were all wrong. Regardless of that, it showed a definate dent in one section & a crack in another. Does anyone know if NASA has made a statement on this"

I too could not figure out the 'angles' either, but the 'crack' was discussed on British TV last night and said to be a piece of wire taped to the inside of the window.

In the time of Mir the Russians frequently said that in their view, long-term space flight would regularly involve trouble-shooting by the crews - which everyone west of the Vistula took to be an excuse for building a dodgy space station. I wonder if their design philosophy might be worth looking at?

Anyone know what pressures the shuttle mainwheel tyres are inflated to?

I can't help thinking about those tyres overheating and perhaps exploding in the wheel bay. Would they be capable of causing structural damage to the left wing?

Nominal pressure is around 310psi at 75 degrees. Maximum 340psi. Minimum red-line 275psi.

As with aircraft tyres I expect the Shuttle tyres would have plugs that melt and allow the gas/air mixture to escape before it can explode.

In connection with the New York Times article linked to by SaturnV: “Engineer's '97 Report Warned of Damage to Tiles by Foam”
-------- Start quote --------
… The newly released NASA video shows a whitish object soaring backward, striking the Columbia's left wing and bursting into a cloud of dust. …
-------- End quote --------

Couldn't it be just as likely that the cloud is largely powdered tile?
http://home.infi.net/~blueblue/_uimages/pi.gif

FACTS PLEASE
 

FLIGHT PROFILE.....

Was the Shuttle flying straght and level at 200,000 feet, mach 18 at a pitch up angle of between 28 and 38 degrees when the disaster happened ?

Was it flying under computer (ie non-manual) control ?

At what stage in the flight profile are the high angles of bank (50 + degrees) normally iinitiated ( Altitude/speed/ distance from touchdown /computer or manual ?).

Are slowing down s-bends optional or obligatory in the standard flight plan.?

Yes I know that this will all be covred in the final Report but in my sadness I am battering my brains for an explanation of this heroic disaster and I don;t want to believe it was just happenchance !!!!!!!

Any info much appreciated

Buster writes:

I'm not sure what you mean about 'conspiracy' theory, but since 'conspiracy' is a serious legal accusation, I must take exception to your comment.

I do not claim to be aware of any 'conspiracy' at NASA in regard to this particular matter, nor do I contest the integrity of any specific individual. My contention was and is that NASA has become ever more lethargic due to bureaucracy and the unique problems of reinventing its financial raison d'etre each year.

The politics of it are about money and power, much like ancient Rome, but with different hats. Politics is a sanctioned form of conspiracy that always involves some degree of intrigue and rapacity. Certain military programs, NASA, and the 'Federal Labs' are great patronage honeypots that each Presidential administration inherits to manipulate for political purposes - both in terms of the money they can spend directly and for the potential that focussed scientific research has to boost some industries at the expense of others. The elected representatives in Congress are not oblivious to this process and actively maneuver to benefit their constituents from it during the push and pull of legislative negotiations.

PeterJ, and others,

The "sane participants" of the sci.space.shuttle newsgroup have put together the following FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Shuttle re-entries are normally under computer control until just before landing. There's an extensive sss thread on the subject here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...109%26rnum%3D5

The following info on flight profile is taken from the FAQ. I hope this isn't considered an excessively long post:

===================================
* Where and when did Columbia break up? (Altitude, speed, time, etc.)
===================================

Ground controllers lost communications with Columbia at 7:59:22am
CST, at a mission elapsed time of 15 days, 22:20:22. At the time,
the shuttle was at an altitude of 207,000 feet (63,000 m), traveling
at Mach 18.3, approximately 37 miles (60 km) above the Dallas-Fort
Worth Metroplex region of Texas.

===================================
* What was Columbia's status prior to breakup?
===================================

First, let's look at Columbia's reentry profile. The Shuttle has 3
distinct phases to the standard reentry profile:

1) Thermal Control Phase. This lasts from Entry Interface, when the
first aerodynamic effects occur, until a speed of approximately
19,000 ft/sec (12,900 MPH, 11,200 kts, 20,900 km/hr) has been reached.

2) Equilibrium Glide Phase. This is flight at a constant attitude as
the deceleration due to drag builds up to approximately 1G.

3) Constant Drag Phase. The 1G deceleration is held until the orbiter
enters the Terminal Area Energy Management interface, after which it
is flying as a conventional, but very heavy and fast, glider. This
is usually 52 NM (59 SM, 94 km) from the landing site, at an altitude
of 83,000', and a speed of Mach 2.5 (2500 ft/sec, 760 m/sec) The
orbiter slows to below Mach 1 at about 49,000', 22 NM (25 SM, 40 km)
from the runway.

Columbia was either at the end of the first phase, or the beginning
of the second phase when she broke up.
The first phase begins when the orbiter is oriented tail-first,
and the OMS engines fire to reduce its speed by about 300 ft/second
(90 m/sec). The reaction control system then orients the orbiter nose
first to prepare for reentry. At roughly 400,000 ft altitude (122
km), Entry Interface is considered to occur. This normally takes
place 4,400 NM (5063 statute miles/3160 km) from the landing site.
The speed at this point is about 25,000 ft/second (7600 m/sec).
At this point the orbiter is maneuvered to 0 degrees roll and yaw,
and a 40 degree angle of attack. The flight control system at this
point uses the Reaction Control System to keep things aligned. The
forward RCS engines are turned off at the entry interface, and the
aft RCS system is used to maneuver the spacecraft.

The spacecraft must dissipate the tremendous amount of kinetic
energy it has. It does this by varying the amount of aerodynamic
drag that it presents on the way down. This generates a lot of
heat because of the speed of the shuttle. This heating is controlled
by changing the speed of the shuttle in small amounts. This is done
by varying the aerodynamic drag of the shuttle. Most aircraft do
this by changing the Angle of Attack. When you pull up the nose,
an airplane tends to slow down, unless an engine is used to counteract
the drag. For a re-entering shuttle, the angle of attack must be
held constant to prevent the structure from overheating.
The shuttle controls drag by rolling into a series of 'S' turns along the
flight path. Increasing the roll angle of the orbiter moves the
direction of its lift (perpendicular to its wings) away from the
vertical, causing it to descend faster. These S-turns are used to
fine tune the energy level (A fancy way of saying altitude and
airspeed) of the orbiter, something like skiers turning while going
downhill to control their speed. When a dynamic pressure of 10
psf is reached (EAS of 62 MPH (100 km/hr)), when the orbiter's
ailerons become effective for roll control. At that point, the roll
RCS engines are deactivated. At a dynamic pressure of 20 psf (EAS of
85 MPH(138 km/hr), roughly), the elevators on the orbiter become
active, and the RCS pitch engines are deactivated.

In the Equilibrium Glide Phase of the reentry, the spacecraft is
flown to maintain a constant drag level, where the flight path angle
remains constant. This is maintained until the deceleration of the
orbiter due to drag is about 1G.

In the last phase of the reentry, the 1G deceleration level is held,
reducing the angle of attack as necessary, until the Terminal Area
Energy Management interface. The RCS system continues to control
Yaw until the rudder become effective at around Mach 3.5.

Columbia was lost either at the tail end of the Thermal Control
Phase, or the early stages of the Equilibrium Glide Phase. The
ailerons and elevators were providing control, (the Q at that point
was around 75-80 psf, or an EAS of about 170 mph (275 km/hr)), and
yaw was being controlled by the RCS thrusters in the tail.

Late reports before this writing this indicate that the Flight Control
System reported that it was correcting a left yaw/roll just before
breakup.

The latest I'm hearing is that nasa knew there was trouble, they denied that using CIA spy satellites would have been able to see the tile damage, despite the CIA statements to the contrary, and they could have rescued them if they told them to start conserving from the day they saw the damage ie day two. They've also found debris in Califiornia and New York.

25F
"2) Equilibrium Glide Phase. This is flight at a constant attitude as
the deceleration due to drag builds up to approximately 1G.

3) Constant Drag Phase. The 1G deceleration is held until the orbiter
enters the Terminal Area Energy Management interface, after which it
is flying as a conventional, but very heavy and fast, glider. This
is usually 52 NM (59 SM, 94 km) from the landing site, at an altitude
of 83,000', and a speed of Mach 2.5 (2500 ft/sec, 760 m/sec) The
orbiter slows to below Mach 1 at about 49,000', 22 NM (25 SM, 40 km)
from the runway. "

The decceleration has to be greater than one. Otherwise it is actually accelerating due to gravity and drag forces not being canceled out.

Interesting to see that the deputy chief of the astronaut office is an Australian. Dr Thomas

Question for 25F
--------------------
Don't some of the numbers in your very infomative post need some medical attention? e.g.

"orbiter slows to below Mach 1 at about 49,000', 22 NM (25 SM, 40 km)"

"place 4,400 NM (5063 statute miles/3160 km) from the landing site"

Cheers, http://home.infi.net/~blueblue/_uimages/pi.gif

Picky, just to make it clear to all, everything after "excessively long post" is taken from the sci.space.shuttle newsgroup. The info was put together in something of a hurry, while trying to fend off hundreds of newbies asking why the Shuttle didn't just go back to the ISS...
Your first quote is altitude in feet followed by distance from landing. The second one does need fixing.

Aardvark, I'm afraid I don't quite get your point. I think we can take it that acceleration here is measured with respect to the inertial frame of reference of the shuttle itself. It starts at zero, in orbit, and increases during re-entry. My reading of the text is that it is held to about one G. Typical maximum G is 1.6. (For Soyuz craft it is 4-5G, if not more).

In his post, steamchicken suggested that Russian design philosophy might be worth looking at. I have to agree. They try to keep things simple. In the days of the cold war, when the space race was in full swing, the Americans spent millions designing a pen that would work in zero G (the "space pens" that can now be bought for five quid from mail order catalogues).
The Russians had a far better idea. They used pencils.

Just did a search for previous report of damage which might be relevant and found two.

STS-27 Mission report:

Initial post-flight inspections of the exterior surface of the Orbiter revealed significant tile damage with 298 damage sites greater than 1 inch in area, and a total of 707 damage sites on the lower surface of the vehicle. The area of major damage was concentrated outboard of a line from the bi-pod attachment to the external tank (ET) liquid oxygen umbilical. One tile was missing on the right side slightly forward of the L-band antenna. Also, there were many damage sites consisting of long narrow streaks with deep gouges.

NASA Reference Publication 1390:

(STS-45) The Atlantis suffered 2 gouges on the upper portion of the right wing leading edge. The most probable was a low-velocity (relative to the spacecraft) debris impact on orbit or during re-entry. However, Johnson Space Centre engineering has not ruled out prelaunch or ascent debris as the cause of the damage. This particular event raised concern about the consequences of a higher energy impact to the integrity of the spacecraft.

I think Nasa knew, or had the ability to know, by using satellites used for spy missions, the extent of the damage, and the consequences for a return to earth. No one at NASA had the balls to speak up.

Yesterday, one of the AM talk shows interviewed a former shuttle astronaut who had been on a team trying to develop a tile repair kit for the shuttle. He said that no matter what they tried, the adhesives that worked just great in standard conditions did not work in a vacuum. Their conclusion was that 1) any repairs attempted in space would not work and 2) attempting to repair in space would likely damage other tiles in the process, making the situation worse, rather than better.

Only possible solution would have been a rushed rescue mission.

CAT1, the space pen story is a nice story, but it is just that:
http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.htm
For early flights both "teams" used pencils. The Fisher pen company developed the space pen at their own expense. It has been used on all manned space flights since Apollo 7, according to all the references I can find.

Bubbette, could you provide references for your claims, please? Debris in New York, unless that's the New York, Texas, Cheesecake Co., seems somewhat unlikely. Similarly I have yet to see a credible rescue scenario anywhere. Lastly have you a reference for the CIA stating that they could have inspected the shuttle from their satellites?

It seems that the NASA line is that even if they had been aware of the problem there was nothing to be done. One question I have is that whether reducing the weight of the shuttle could have improved the odds.

Could a reduced weight have helped by:-
- Changing the heat 'map' on the tiles due to an altered angle of attack?
- Reducing the maximum temperatures to be encountered?
- Increase manouverabilty (vary pitch to vary heating, counter/mitigate left yaw/roll ) of the vehicle?
- Less stress as on ailerons/elevators etc?
- Reducing the speed at which (no gear?) that the astronauts would have had to bail out?

Maybe the answer is that thay had no means to do this. Could they have:-

- Dumped the module in the cargo bay?
- Dumped at much as possible through an (fitted?) airlock?
- Dumped air, used (below safe min) fuel

CAT 1: Pencils are not the best thing to have in a closed electronics-filled space with little or no gravity because graphite dust conducts electricity. Tiny particles of conductive floating residue would have some potential ability to bolix onboard sensors and electronics.

25F I heard the debris in New York late last night on the local radio--maybe I misheard or they misspoke because it's not on the website (www.1010wins.com). Re the spy satellite, my friend told me that; I will check with him for a source. And now, on the late night radio conspiracy show (http://www.coasttocoastam.com), they're saying it was terrorism; or sabotage. He's citing the report after the Challenger stating that the tile-layers were not using the glue correctly. . . (hey--I'm just reporting what they're saying--this I don't know if I believe).

High altitude lightning? I don't know if such a thing is possible, but this story I just ran across raises some interesting questions.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../05/CAMERA.TMP
"Top investigators of the Columbia space shuttle disaster are analyzing a startling photograph -- snapped by an amateur astronomer from a San Francisco hillside -- that appears to show a purplish electrical bolt striking the craft as it streaked across the California sky. "

The problem with Bubbete's view that they could have conserved supplies and been rescued is that you run the high risk of loosing another shuttle and another crew.

If this problem with the tiles was an inherent design flaw then I would salute the commander willing to take another shuttle up within a 2 week prep period; but he would be making a very large risk indeed. Technically, there would be a 1 in 107 chance of endng up in the same position as Columbia, although with twice the crew dead and an abandoned shuttle doomed to burn up in the atmosphere.

Just seen this on ceefax:

NASA REJECTS U.S. SHUTTLE DAMAGE THEORY

A piece of insulating foam is no longer thought to have caused the break-up of the Columbia space shuttle, Nasa says

The probe had focused on damage to tiles under the left wing, which it was thought could have caused by a chunk of foam insulation on take-off.

But Nasa said the foam debris was neither heavy enough nor traveling fast enough to cause the damage.

The probe will now focus on the automatic control system.

BBC News / In depth, shuttle disaster

ionspheric plasma jet?
 

Electrodynamics is far from my field, but I was struck by the great interest NASA took in a series of photographs taken in San Francisco as Columbia was flying overhead, and which MAY show a purple streak striking the spacecraft.

Excerpts from the story in today's San Francisco Chronicle:

Scientists at the University of Alabama at Huntsville published a paper on plasma jets is space. See:
http://bex.nsstc.uah.edu/RbS/UGRANT/ugrant.html

A paragraph from the paper says thus in discussing ionospheric jets:

The weblink containing the full paper includes a photograph of a plasma jet that was created in a laboratory chamber. Care to guess what color the plasma jet was?

I also came across a reference in a paper on space weather to temporal changes in ion density depending on the season and time of day. At northern mid-latitudes, the ion density is most negative in mid-winter and just before dawn. Columbia transited the San Francisco Bay area in the hour before dawn (PST).
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eosbuon.html

I did come across several papers by Russian scientists on kinetic forces associated with plasma jets, but didn't grasp a good sense of how weak or powerful such jets might be.

Here is an interesting view from the Nexrad Loop

All these discussions bring up a question. I understand that a speed limit is likely to be caused by the rising temperature during re-entry, but apart from that does the shuttle have a Mmo?

7 7 7 7

National Public news just reported that, according to AW & ST, the USAF has given NASA photographs of the shuttle. The photographs reveal major structural damage at the root of the left wing/fuselage join.

----------------------------------------------------------

KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, Florida (CNN) -- Photographs taken by an Air Force tracking camera shortly before the space shuttle Columbia disintegrated show serious structural damage to the shuttle's left wing, an aviation magazine reported Friday.

The images, captured about a minute before the shuttle broke apart, show a jagged edge on the left wing structure near where the wing begins to intersect with the fuselage, according to a report in Aviation Week & Space Technology. Columbia's right wing and fuselage appear normal in the photos, the magazine said.

The damage to the left wing indicates either a small structural breach, such as a crack, or that a small piece of the wing's leading edge fell off, according to the magazine. It said NASA investigators at Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, are analyzing the pictures.....................

USAF Imagery Confirms Columbia Wing Damaged
 

From the STS-107 SECOND DAILY REPORT on the NASA site (I think that’s where I got it from):

-------- Start quote ---------
STS-107 SECOND DAILY REPORT …….. At approximately 81 seconds mission elapsed time (MET), a large light-colored piece of debris was seen to originate from an area near the ET/Orbiter forward attach bipod. The debris appeared to move outboard and then fall aft along the left side of the Orbiter fuselage, striking the leading edge of the left wing. The strike appears to have occurred on or relatively close to the wing glove near the Orbiter fuselage. After striking the left wing the debris broke into a spray of white-colored particles that fell aft along the underside of the Orbiter left wing. ………..
-------- End quote ---------

However, in all the news conferences the debris was said to have struck the underside of the wing. http://home.infi.net/~blueblue/_uimages/pi.gif

Interesting reading

http://www.msnbc.com/news/867336.asp?cp1=1

The figure below is from a paper “Risk Management for the Tiles of the Space Shuttle” by Elizabeth M Pate-Cornell and Paul S Fischbeck, written Jan-Feb, 1994.

The darkest areas in this figure are concluded to be the highest risk areas, and are located on the fuselage near the wing glove.

The report noted that the highest risk areas were not the hottest areas.

The estimated risk was made up of a combination of many factors including the chances of debris from the main tank hitting the Shuttle, where they would hit, the chances they would damage a tile, and the consequences of a burn through to equipment underneath. The study seems to have been limited to tiled areas (i.e. it didn’t cover the carbon leading edges).

http://home.infi.net/~blueblue/_uimages/Risk.gif

I do not understand why this figure is not symmetrical in either its outline or in the shading representing risk. I assume the diagram represents the bottom surface only. If so, the left fuselage/glove area is actually somewhat less vulnerable than the right.

I don't what other people think, but in the vidio I have seen the debris does NOT seem to hit the fuselage at all. http://home.infi.net/~blueblue/_uimages/pi.gif