|
Author
|
Topic: Shuttle inflight crew compartment fire
|
dabolton
Member Posts: 419
From: Seneca, IL, US
Registered: Jan 2009
|
posted 02-08-2011 12:13 PM
  
I recall reading somewhere about early on in the shuttle program there was a small electrical fire in a cabin panel that was extinguished inflight. Anyone know any details about this?
|
Rusty B
Member Posts: 239
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Oct 2004
|
posted 02-08-2011 04:07 PM
A teleprinter sparked and smoked on STS-28 (Spartanburg, SC Herald-Journal Oct 13, 1989).
STS-9 had a fire aft, caused by leaking APU fuel during landing (Ocala Star-Banner Dec 14, 1983) |
dabolton
Member Posts: 419
From: Seneca, IL, US
Registered: Jan 2009
|
posted 02-08-2011 05:27 PM
Thanks for the Info. I was aware of the STS-9 fire but had only heard of the internal fire in passing once. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 02-09-2011 01:03 PM
The APU fire wasn't the only bullet dodged on STS-9. They also had a burn through on the left side OMS pod that penetrated down to the graphite structure. If it had breached the structure, one of the OMS tanks was sitting behind the structure and it likely would have breached as well. It wasn't generally known, but I heard it from two NASA employees and confirmed it with a post flight inspection report at Edwards AFB.The reason for the burn through was apparently disturbed plasma flow around the lower nose side region (such as near the water discharge chutes, ala the urine sickle from Discovery's first flight) would cause a hot spot localized to the front of the OMS pods. The solution was to add a patch of black tile to the front of each pod in that localized area. That is why you see black tiles on the fronts of the OMS pods today. |
jasonelam
Member Posts: 691
From: Monticello, KY USA
Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 02-09-2011 01:20 PM
Does all of this damage explain why Columbia didn't fly for two years? |
kr4mula
Member Posts: 642
From: Cinci, OH
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 02-09-2011 01:45 PM
Regarding the OMS pod heating, I heard from some of the engineers at the Air Force Flight Dynamics Lab (at Wright-Patterson AFB) that one of their guys actually discovered the cause of the problem, which was a vortex from the nose impinging on the OMS pod at that spot. According to these guys, NASA did not discover the problem early on because the instrumented wind tunnel model had a rivet in the exact spot where the vortex impinged and thus was not instrumented. I'm not sure what was particular about that flight that caused damage not seen on the earlier ones. I was never able to go back and confirm this story, but I heard it a couple of times. |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3445
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 02-09-2011 04:06 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jasonelam:
Does all of this damage explain why Columbia didn't fly for two years?
Columbia needed removal of the ejection seats and related components, as well as installation of a heads-up display, among other changes following STS-9. However, I'm curious if Columbia was really originally anticipated as flying STS-11 (which became 41B), as per the original copy on lithos, and how firm was Columbia flying 41G "Before Lift-Off: The Making Of A Space Shuttle Crew" mentions that Crippen and crew were originally training with Columbia loads, then switched to Challenger.) |
Skylon
Member Posts: 274
From:
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted 02-09-2011 05:02 PM
I always got the impression that, as with most other things with handling a shuttle, NASA grossly underestimated how long Columbia's modifications would take to complete. |
advertisement