No Shuttle Missions Until Debris Issue Understood

I guess This does not bode well for any hope of hubble getting an extended lifespan

I came across the following post on a yahoo LX200gps post, it makes for interesting reading regarding the falling foam etc...!!!


Yep; more NASA incompetence. The problem with the foam was discovered
a decade ago, a solution found (which worked), then NASA abandoned the
solution and, hence, the Columbia disaster and now a potential problem
with Discovery.

The problem? Woodpeckers.

Friends who work at KSC clued me in within hours of Columbia's burnup.
I did a lot of research and verfied their statements, and wrote a large
article in SAA circa Feb/March 2003. To my astonishment, the Columbia
Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) report ignored everything (and I
have the complete report, CDs, etc.)

A quick summary of the foam problem specifically as it pertained to
Columbia:

As was discovered with many prior Shuttle missions (references below),
birds rest and nest on the struts holding the Shuttle to the external
fuel tank; it's basically just a set of girders with horizontal (when
on the pad) struts connecting the tank to the Shuttle.

The birds, specifically woodpeckers, poke holes in the foam looking
for food (bugs, insects, etc.); some of these holes have been found
to be 3 or more inches deep -- all the way to the tank's metal casing.

Columbia sat on the pad 5 weeks before launch, and it was rained upon
very frequently, and rain entered the bird-poked holes.

Now for the "fun" part. The tank is filled with super-cooled fuel.
The tank has NO inside insulation; the outside foam is "it".

So, the fuel tank temperature is w-a-y below zero, and water is in
the bird-poked holes and in contact with the tank.

What happens to water when it freezes?

It expands.

In this case, it expands and breaks the foam away from the tank, and
when the shuttle is launched chunks of foam break off and hit the
Shuttle. FOr most launches there were no serious impacts, but for
Columbia the leading edge of the left wing was whacked breaking the
tiles and later leading to a flaming reentry and the death of its
crew.

NASA *KNEW* of this problem long ago. Previously they employed many
noisemakers to scare away the birds, and even mounted plastic owls to
scare them away, and they did this for many launches until they for
some unknown reason stopped.

Hmmm, trying to find my article in SAA and Google Groups' search is
not working, but this does: do a Google search with the (only) two
search terms "shuttle woodpecker" and you'll find many of the same
references I cited in my original article. The CAIB was negligent
not examining NASA's own records; dummies (and a waste of money).

In summary, NASA is negligent and irresponsible in this regards. It's
no longer the "good" NASA (Apollo era) where a craft had to be proven
safe before it could fly -- now a craft must be proven unsafe before
it's grounded (as the shuttles now are (and permanently should be)).

ANd I don't want to hear any comments about me being anti-space. I've
been a proponent since literally "Day 1"; my Dad brought the von Braun
team to the US after WW-II, I grew up with rockets, my Dad's efforts
launched the first US satellite (Explorer I on Jan. 31, 1958), and a
number of my own designs are/were in orbit. We should have humans on
Mars by now. Sigh.