 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / June 2005Ice impact risk acceptable
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4622243.stm  SignatureGareth Slee > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4622243.stm Is it the right understanding that ice impact risk was created by removing the foam from the bipod area to mitigate the foam impact risk? Géza Meszéna Dept. Biological Physics Eötvös University, Budapest >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4622243.stm >> > Is it the right understanding that ice impact risk was created by > removing the foam from the bipod area to mitigate the foam impact risk? No, ice has always been a risk associated with the cryogenic fuels and oxidizers. The bipod area was a potential source of ice before and after the changes were made to it. The ice risk changed when the bipod was changed. Probably increase. Columbia was rained on while on the launch pad. If water had found a path to a void in the foam, it could have collected and turned to ice when the tank was loaded. The mass of the foam was enough to punch a hole in the RCC and any additional mass due to ice was irrelevant. SignatureCraig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBeGood@GMail.Com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.