TexasBEAST
Unregistered
T
Has anyone else noticed that in the video footage of the ground test where they shot a "foam" block at a simulated Shuttle wing, and the block makes a big hole, what happens to the block?
It doesn't disintegrate like the real deal up in the air. The real deal hit the wing and completely crumbled into powder. But in the test, the block makes a hole, but stays intact and bounces off the simulated wing.
The fact that the block hardly loses any powder in the test would make me question whether it's made out of the same type of foam as on the real Shuttle.
Are they using harder foam now for the public tests than what they actually used on the real Shuttle? To avoid the embarrassment of showing us just how cheap and fragile the real foam really was? Why else would the test foam block stay solid after impact, when the real foam did not?
Also, the fact that the test block stayed together and made the hole in the simulated wing makes me think that maybe it wouldn't have made a hole if it had fallen apart. The fact that the block stays intact would seem to indicate that the test block didn't absorb the impact, but instead the wing panel did. That's why the simulated wing got a hole in it.
But in the real Shuttle, the foam did not stay in a solid cube shape, but instead crumbled into thousands of chunks on impact. That would seem to indicate that the wing is not what absorbed the impact force, but rather, the foam did.
So how can we really know that the foam piece actually tore a hole in the real Shuttle wing, when the ground test clearly gives such different results than the observed results during the real launch?
Maybe the foam just bounced off of Columbia just like all the other foam just bounced off all the other Shuttles in the past, but something else caused the crash, and we're only being told that it was all the foam's fault?
It doesn't disintegrate like the real deal up in the air. The real deal hit the wing and completely crumbled into powder. But in the test, the block makes a hole, but stays intact and bounces off the simulated wing.
The fact that the block hardly loses any powder in the test would make me question whether it's made out of the same type of foam as on the real Shuttle.
Are they using harder foam now for the public tests than what they actually used on the real Shuttle? To avoid the embarrassment of showing us just how cheap and fragile the real foam really was? Why else would the test foam block stay solid after impact, when the real foam did not?
Also, the fact that the test block stayed together and made the hole in the simulated wing makes me think that maybe it wouldn't have made a hole if it had fallen apart. The fact that the block stays intact would seem to indicate that the test block didn't absorb the impact, but instead the wing panel did. That's why the simulated wing got a hole in it.
But in the real Shuttle, the foam did not stay in a solid cube shape, but instead crumbled into thousands of chunks on impact. That would seem to indicate that the wing is not what absorbed the impact force, but rather, the foam did.
So how can we really know that the foam piece actually tore a hole in the real Shuttle wing, when the ground test clearly gives such different results than the observed results during the real launch?
Maybe the foam just bounced off of Columbia just like all the other foam just bounced off all the other Shuttles in the past, but something else caused the crash, and we're only being told that it was all the foam's fault?
