Department of Energy Argonne National Laboratory Office of Science NEWTON's Homepage NEWTON's Homepage
NEWTON, Ask A Scientist!
NEWTON Home Page NEWTON Teachers Visit Our Archives Ask A Question How To Ask A Question Question of the Week Our Expert Scientists Volunteer at NEWTON! Frequently Asked Questions Referencing NEWTON About NEWTON About Ask A Scientist Education At Argonne Relative Speed and Striking Speed
Name: Myra S.
Status: Educator
Age: 50s
Location: N/A
Country: N/A
Date: June 2003


Question:
I do not understand how the foam insulation that broke off the fuel tank could strike the shuttle wing at a speed of 500 mph as reported. The debris would have essentially the same speed as the shuttle when it broke off, and I know the shuttle was accelerating, but how can the difference over such a short distance amount to a speed difference of 500 mph? What was the acceleration at the moment?



Replies:
Myra,

Very fine question. This was also my question. One can assume that the speed difference between the time at which the foam broke off and the time at which it struck the left wing is ~ 0. However, after some thought, and after watching the high speed videos (Courtesy of NASA TV), it is conceivable that the foam might accelerate to a relative speed (relative to the orbiter) of a few hundred MPH. "How", you ask? I am no NASA engineer. So I cannot tell you the exact speed of the orbiter when the suspected fatal debris hit the wing. But I will venture a guess at > 5000 MPH. The shuttle experiences most of its acceleration in the first minute or two while the SRB's are still 'catapulting' the entire vehicle into orbit. After the SRB's are spent and break away, the three main engines burn for ~ 6-7 minutes or so to do the rest of the work. My point is that just because it seemed as if the damage occurred toward the beginning of the flight does not mean that the orbiter was going relatively slow.

Furthermore, you are viewing images on your TV screen that scale down a mammoth sized space vehicle into a ~ 25 - 32" diagonal screen. So you really do lose some perspective on the true magnitude of what is going on. This type of foam insulation might conceivably have a density = a fraction that of water. This means that its air drag coefficient would be ridiculously HUGE. As the foam dislodged from the vehicle's external tank, it probably had time enough to travel ~ 100 feet or so to accelerate (actually decelerate as viewed from someone on the ground) and build up enough relative velocity due to this massive deceleration to strike the orbiter at a relatively small speed of a meager 500 MPH.

I believe in the accuracy of the relative speed figure of 500 MPH. After all, they are NASA, they put people on the Moon and got them back to Earth safely. Furthermore, it is just a believable figure.

Here is the question to ask. How is it that something so NON-DENSE as foam, could cause any damage or aid in dislodging of any heat shield tiles? The very physical property of the foam that gives rise to its massive relative speed increase, would cause that same foam to do less damage because of its lowered density ( ie less momentum / kinetic energy ).

I just wish that the orbiter got hit by micrometeorites or something beyond our control. It just sickens me to think that it is possible that we lost seven human lives, very intelligent and brave souls, just to learn a few relatively petty details of the shuttles possible failure mechanisms.

Go to link #1 for more details and a decent quality report (dated April 2003) on the shuttle investigations.

Go to link #2 for a great link to remember all astronauts/cosmonauts/space travelers. They have paid the ultimate price to help mankind gain experience and to ultimately make manned space flight a safer reality.

1.) http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A 6658-2003 Apr1¬Found=true

Quote from URL #1

"Investigators said the National Imagery and Mapping Agency has further enhanced a video that shows the left wing impact during the ascent. Tetrault said the team now believes a two-pound piece of foam approximately 24 inches by 15 inches by 5 inches, traveling about 430 mph, struck the left wing somewhere in a two-foot-wide "footprint" centered on the lower side of carbon fiber panel number 6. The footprint includes portions of two carrier panels."

2.) http://www.mahatmarandy.com/astro/Astro.htm

Best Regards,
Darin Wagner


The shuttle needs to have a certain velocity in order to escape the earth's gravitational pull, which is on the order of 25,000 miles per hour. So, if a small chunk of foam falls off, there is no longer thrust behind it to accelerate it (or maintain constant velocity) and there is now wind resistance and gravity slowing it down. I do not the exact value of the acceleration at that time, but I can imagine that the velocity estimated is pretty close when things are traveling at 5,000 mph or better.

Christopher Murphy, P.E.


I do not know how NASA arrived at the speed at impact for several reasons. I have not read what their frame of reference is. Presumably, it is either with respect to the center of mass or the space shuttle, which would be about the same. In addition, it is not clear whether the piece of foam was accelerated by a rush of gases from rockets nearer the top of the shuttle and/or the hydrodynamic speed of the air that passes over the shuttle generated by the ignition of the rocket engines. A related aspect is that is not talked about in the press reports that I have seen is the fact that a piece of foam, even "squishy" foam can act like a brick at high speeds. The impact is of such short duration that the foam has no time to deform mechanically. An analogy is diving. If you jump off a 3 meter diving board -- it is fun -- but if you jump out of a plane at 3000 meters. The water behaves essentially like a hard surface.

Vince Calder



Click here to return to the Engineering Archives

NEWTON is an electronic community for Science, Math, and Computer Science K-12 Educators, sponsored and operated by Argonne National Laboratory's Educational Programs, Andrew Skipor, Ph.D., Head of Educational Programs.

For assistance with NEWTON contact a System Operator (help@newton.dep.anl.gov), or at Argonne's Educational Programs

NEWTON AND ASK A SCIENTIST
Educational Programs
Building 360
9700 S. Cass Ave.
Argonne, Illinois
60439-4845, USA
Update: June 2012
Weclome To Newton

Argonne National Laboratory