I gave a cite when I posted O’Keefe’s error, you dingaling! Maybe if you read my posts more carefully, you wouldn’t be neck-deep in defending the indefensible at this point. His other error was in equating the debris to a styrofoam cooler. This is only true if the debris can be proven to have been the insulating foam. There is also ablative material on the external tank, which is somewhat denser than styrofoam, and there could have been ice, which is far denser than styrofoam. On film, the debris appears white, but the foam insulation is orange. Whether this may be due to distortions in the film is not known. O’Keefe is irresponsible to imply to Congress that the debris was known to be foam.
carnivourousplant, at the time the debris came loose, the Shuttle was traveling at about 1900 mph. Using O’Keefe’s analogy of styrofoam blowing off a truck on the highway (which is not inapt, he just got the numbers grossly incorrect), if you were in a car behind the truck, you would see the debris come towards you and hit your car, just as the foam hit the shuttle wing. One could try to calculate the speed of the debris relative to the shuttle based on aerodynamics, but the more direct and reliable approach is to observe the motion of the debris piece compared to the frame speed of the film that was taken.
The 500 mph number should carry the following explanation: It hasn’t been determined what angle the debris hit the wing at (mainly because it isn’t known whether the debris hit the leading edge or the flat part of the wing). Therefore, although the debris was moving 500 mph backwards relative to the shuttle’s flight path, it could have “grazed” the flat of the wing, which is different from striking it head-on at 500 mph.
By the way, Tuckerfan, I signed your petition. NASA TV could be so much more than it is now.
You misunderstand what is meant by “Cite?” All we have is your comment that this was done. When someone asks for a cite, they are asking you to provide a link to an independent website which backs up your claim. Say, CNN.com, some other site which a reasonable individual can expect to find confirmation of your claims.
Right now, you appear to be second guessing the folks who’re experts on this matter, and whilst you may claim to have qualifications to make comments that show O’Keefe to be in error, you’ve provided nothing to back up your claim, other than your own words.
That misperception may have also stemmed from things like the resumption of the “Teacher in Space” program; IIRC, one was due to go up later this year.
Putting civilians into space for PR purposes certainly suggests to the world that NASA no longer considers shuttle flight to carry test-pilot-style risks.
Sure, there are a lot of people who are willing to accept a 1-in-50 risk of sudden death in order to get into space. (If I weren’t married, I’d be one of them.) But that doesn’t change the implication of having a program to send into space persons who are neither pilots nor mission scientists.
The point, Mr. O’Keefe, is, don’t blame the public for being lulled. Blame your own agency - blame your ownself - for doing the lulling. And not by your caution, but by your PR.
(You have to register to get the nytimes.com story.)
Also note the comments at the top of the second page about the implications of the debris being ice instead of insulation. I haven’t checked the figures but ice is obviously much heavier and more dangerous than foam insulation.
Okay, I’ve read the linked pieces, and none of them support your contention that O’Keefe’s screwed the pooch. O’Keefe’s comparison of the foam as being equalivalent to a styrofoam cooler doesn’t seem that far fetched. After all, if you’re behind a pick up truck and an empty cooler blows out, it doesn’t matter that it impacts your vehicle at 60 MPH, it’s not going to hurt it in all likelihood. (However, if you panic, you might very well do something stupid and swerve into a telephone pole in your effort to avoid the cooler.)
In the case that it could have been ice and not foam, there is that possibility, but I’ve not read anywhere in your linked cites that O’Keefe stated that there’s absolutely no way it was ice. Indeed, O’Keefe’s own words indicate that he’s open to other factors:
If you have been a member of accident investigation boards, then you should know that all kinds of theories get tossed around in the beginning of the investigation, only to be thrown out as more facts come to light. NASA’s had less than a month to look at the evidence, and they don’t have a complete aircraft study! So to cry “Foul!” before they’ve had a chance to study everything, much less present their findings is jumping the gun, to say the least.
Tuckerfan, I am puzzled by your most recent post. I agree that a styrofoam cooler blowing off a truck onto your car at highway speeds would cause little damage. And I believe that O’Keefe was trying to use that analogy to convey that he did not believe the debris strike was responsible for the failure. But such a position is contradicted by NASA’s own analysis, firstly in that the impact speed is known to be about 10 times greater than the speeds one normally associates with highway travel, secondly in that it characterizes the debris as similar to styrofoam whereas all that can be said now is that it was likely some combination of foam, ablator and ice, and thirdly in that it characterizes the debris-strike as unlikely to explain the failure. Are you saying the links don’t contain this information or that you don’t agree with how I’m interpreting the information? I’m not doing any engineering here, just comparing NASA’s publically available analyses to O’Keefe’s testimony.
Taken as a whole, and in context, I think O’Keefe’s testimony to Congress left the impression that the debris is unlikely to be the cause of the failure. I believe he was trying to do something that engineers frequently are asked to do: to draw “mental pictures” of complex phenomena so they can be understood by the layman. This is a very tricky thing to do, especially, as you say, in the early stages of an investigation, and when one cannot resist the urge to be glib (as I feel O’Keefe was), one can do a lot of damage. I can only imagine the groans emitted from the engineering building at Marshall or wherever they did the analysis when O’Keefe said that.
I simply contend that if it had been a NASA engineer familiar with the problem testifying to Congress instead of O’Keefe, the styrofoam cooler example would never have been used. But now that that picture is lodged in Senator Bedfellow’s mind, it will be very hard to get out.
So now you’re claiming that senators are smarter than O’Keefe? That’s a stretch! IAC, his comments certainly didn’t seem to sway Sen. Hollings
(emphasis mine) So, again, I think that you’re off-base here. Indeed, an engineer testifying before Congress might have made the same analogy before Congress at their request.
So, let me ask you, have you ran the numbers to see what kind of impact a hunk of foam (and strictly foam) would have had at 500 MPH? And have you ran the numbers to see if that’d damage the tiles severely? (I haven’t, BTW.) I’m asking because that’s the only way you’ll be able to put this matter to rest. If you come up with numbers that say the foam could have caused significant damage to the tiles, then you’ve got a reason to bitch. (After all, it should be a relatively easy computation.) If the numbers indicate it wouldn’t have done significant damage, then the question becomes “Was it ice and not foam that hit the shuttle?” That’s going to be tricky to answer, since there’s no way to prove conclusively that it was ice that hit the shuttle. The best you can hope for is to eliminate other possibilities.
