# Shuttle fuel tank debris film, and other questions **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 6, 2003, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shuttle-fuel-tank-debris-film-and-other-questions/153250 "2003-02-06T17:42:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2003, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shuttle-fuel-tank-debris-film-and-other-questions/153250/1 "2003-02-06T17:42:52Z")
In the film showing the debris from the large fuel tank hitting the shuttle, whenever they show it they step through the frames. The first frame shows a bright spot, the next frame the spot is a bit _higher_, the third frame it’s at its highest, and then in subsequent frames, it drops down and hits the wing. What’s going on here with the debris going up at first, then coming down? That doesn’t seem likely, given the wind would blow any debris down. At first, I thought they were just stepping the frames backwards before going forwards, but looking more closely, I don’t think that’s what is occuring. And it seems like this on every netwrok. Can anyone explain what we’re seeing in this clip? While I’m starting a thread, I’ve asked a couple questions in other threads that didn’t get answered (maybe they were answered in still other threads, but I didn’t see them): How much additional weight would be added to stay in orbit, say, an extra two weeks? Would it simply be double that for four weeks? Can the autopilot fly the shuttle all the way to the ground? ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2003, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shuttle-fuel-tank-debris-film-and-other-questions/153250/2 "2003-02-06T18:31:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ZenBeam \* > Can the autopilot fly the shuttle all the way to the ground? I can’t help with your other questions but I think I know the answer to this one. As I recall, there was one early shuttle flight where the autopilot was used to control the shuttle all the way to touchdown. All other missions have the astronauts taking over with manual control as the shuttle approaches the runway. I assume the capablility for the autopilot to complete the landing still exists on current shuttle flights. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2003, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shuttle-fuel-tank-debris-film-and-other-questions/153250/3 "2003-02-06T20:17:32Z")
The Extended Duration Orbiter (EDO) Pallet enables them to stay up longer. It was on Columbia. [http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-87/mission-sts-87.html](http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-87/mission-sts-87.html) > [@](#): > > The Extended Duration Orbiter (EDO) Pallet is a 15 foot diameter cryo-kit wafer structure. Weighing 775 pounds, it provides support for tanks, associated control panels, and avionics equipment. The tanks store 368 pounds of liquid hydrogen at -418 degrees Fahrenheit, and 3,124 pounds of liquid oxygen at -285 degrees Fahrenheit. Total empty weight of the system is 3,571 pounds. When filled with cryogens, system weight is approximately 7,000 pounds. Oxygen and hydrogen are supplied to the orbiter’s three electrical power generating fuel cells, where they are converted into sufficient electrical energy to support the average 4 family-member house for approximately 6 months. About 3,000 pounds of pure drinking water is also produced by the fuel cells. With the EDO pallet, the orbiter can support a flight for a maximum of 18 days. Longer on-orbit missions benefit microgravity research, Life Sciences research, Earth and celestial observations, human adaptation to the zero-G environment,and support to the Space Station. I believe standard (non-edo) missions are closer to 13 days … so 775 pounds for each 5 extra days in space (assuming that addl. EDOs exist, and can be carried simultaneously–probably unlikely). ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2003, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shuttle-fuel-tank-debris-film-and-other-questions/153250/4 "2003-02-06T22:31:29Z")
Thanks **rsa** and **toadspittle**. I’m not certain I’m sorting out all the different weights correctly, but it sounds like the “system weight” of 7000 pounds per 18 days is the relevant number, since that includes the necessary Oxygen, Hydrogen and cryogens. But would they really need that much power if they were in liferaft mode, waiting for another shuttle? (That was the point of the question.) The 3000 pounds of water produced works out to about 6000 cups / 18 days / 7 people = 47 cups per person per day, which is much more than they need. It’s also not clear if the “system weight” includes Oxygen needed for breathing. ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shuttle-fuel-tank-debris-film-and-other-questions/153250/5 "2003-02-07T17:55:05Z")
No one has any ideas on the film of the debris? ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shuttle-fuel-tank-debris-film-and-other-questions/153250/6 "2003-02-07T18:54:21Z")
Well if the piece was irregular and rotated it might reflect light at differing points. Hey, no said they had to be good ideas. ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shuttle-fuel-tank-debris-film-and-other-questions/153250/7 "2003-02-07T18:59:53Z")
You might try emailing **The Bad Astronomer** at [badastro@badastronomy.com](mailto:badastro@badastronomy.com). He might have an idea why that happened. And you are not nuts, I saw the same thing. I would guess it’s a vortex type thing, but I don’t know for sure. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shuttle-fuel-tank-debris-film-and-other-questions/153250/8 "2003-02-07T19:09:24Z")
Well the Russian Buran shuttle was unmanned, and it landed just fine, so we know t’s possible. I guess the question is do the US shuttles have that specific functionality. I remember reading somewhere that the landing gear was not handled by auto pilot. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shuttle-fuel-tank-debris-film-and-other-questions/153250/9 "2003-02-07T21:53:31Z")
A total WAG: Perhaps the piece (or pieces) broke off from the bottom up. The vacuum formed by the flow around the top end of the tank may have started to pull the insulation away and then it broke upwards from there. Rapidly flowing air can suck as well as blow. Try blowing across a half rolled up piece of paper. The end lifts the rest.