Michoud External Tanks May Hold Clue About Columbia Accident

Nasa, Michoud ^ | 2/4/2003 | Joseph Ranos

[#3Fan]

Imagine this scenario, uh crew, the shuttle is severely damaged and will not make it back on reentry, you only have a week of life support left, there's no way we can get to you, you can either die from lack of life support or die reentering. A horrendous situation. It was the right call, because in this situation it was definitely better to not know.

You are correct. No one would want a 1 week death sentence.

[Sonar5]

Please reread the links to fully understand this.
I Apologize as this issue is complicated.

You Said:
"Uh, Dude
SLWT is used for ISS missions, the LWT is used for non-ISS misions. The difference in weight is a big deal for final orbit. Non-ISS mission = use old tank from stock.
This was covered in some depth in a press conference BTW.
Sorry you had to waste your morning.
Have fun.

---

First off, I am not having fun, and I do not feel I have wasted two entire days on this thus far. Your implication of that is not very nice.

Second:

Please go look up these missions.

STS-109 ET-112 NON-ISS SLWT Columbia 3/1/2002
STS-99 ET-92 NON-ISS LWT Endeavour 2/11/2000
STS-93 ET-99 (SLWT #4) Columbia 7/23/99

So I am afraid that is not the case. The SLWT has been used on Non-ISS Misions.

And there are a total of 3 different tanks.

Tank #1 Used 6 times.
Tank #2 LWT 10,000 Lbs, Lighter than #1
Tank #3 SLWT 7,500 Lbs Lighter than LWT. (First Flown in 1998)

Please read a bit more. And ask for a clarification, and I will be happy to provide it.

And as to the press conferences, I would not hold all my weight as to what they are saying, as they have made quite a few mistakes already, and they just made another one 30 minutes ago when they incorrectly stated there were only 3 instances of debris. There have been at least 5 Confirmed by their own websites.

Regards,
Joe

[GovernmentShrinker]

Do you know what tank number was the last one of the LWTs? (I'm assuming no LWTs were produced after the production of SWLTs began -- anyone know if that's a safe assumption?)

[GovernmentShrinker]

I don't think Sonar5 is being critical -- just analytical.

[ContemptofCourt]

I did not see the press conference, so I do not know the context of the question asked, but they may be stating the truth....STS-27 also suffered severe tile damage, which they postulated occured on liftoff...however, they could not confirm this.

So it depends on whether the question was if something hit the tiles on liftoff or if there have been instances of foam coming off the ET.

[Sonar5]

I Just saw this:

You Said:
"Imagine this scenario, uh crew, the shuttle is severely damaged and will not make it back on reentry, you only have a week of life support left, there's no way we can get to you, you can either die from lack of life support or die reentering. A horrendous situation. It was the right call, because in this situation it was definitely better to not know."

---

Ok,

That is not what shoudl have happened. NASA'a own Abort procedures spelled out in the Shutttle Press Kit's linked above stipulate that it is the flight crew that chooses which abort procedure is used once the Shuttle is launched. That is official NASA Procedure.

That flight crew had a right to know. It is unclear if they did or not. I have not heard, but I may have missed that.

Someone asked what me being a Pilot matters.

This is why. When I fly, I am known as Pilot-In-Command by FAA Regulations. Commander Husband was also the PIC as Shuttle Commander on this mission. Anything that happens to that ship after Launch is ultimately his decision to make.

If it turns out that the crew did not know or was not informed. That is another breakdown at NASA that would need to be remedied.

Every interview I have seen with an Atronaut has said they would have wanted to know. (Of those that were asked)

The other thing is this.

The Shuttle Press Kits are incorrect. Maybe that is the only error, maybe not.

When I fly my aircraft acts differently when I am flying alone or when I am flying with my wife and two kids.

The Combination of Columbia, being the heaviest shuttle, in combination with a LWT, being 7,500 lbs. heavier than a SLWT, means there are potentially higher forces on the Shuttle causing higher vibration and maybe loss of Insulation.

That Tank was unsafe for use, IMHO, and they should have used an SLWT at the least. But those may also have problems. But all these problems relate back to Michoud and their external tanks.

Regards,
Joe

[Sonar5]

Good find. Thank You.

I have not looked at all the missions, since I have been responding here and on a couple other places.

STS-27 ET-23 Atlantis 12/2/1988 LWT

Michoud states:
Atlantis Sustained Extensive Tile Damage on Liftoff Primarily due to debris from the solid rocket boosters.

Unsure if that inludes ET, since an ET is not a booster. But that is another one where they mentioned debris.

That is Now SIX Missions.

I'll be back, I'm going to read all of them.

Regards,
Joe

[GovernmentShrinker]

I think you'll need to add gap time from delivery to on dock to that table you're working on.

[Cold Heat]

I was trying not to be critical of his analisis, however I stayed up all night and yesterday arguing and going over these very same points and data.

Sorry if I appear a pompous butt.

[Sonar5]

Ok, Complete list of Tile damage on lift-off according to Michouds website and NASA Disclosure, at least for now, unless something else is released by NASA or Michoud.


STS-1 ET-1 Columbia 4/12/81 ET
All or part of 16 orbiter tiles were lost and
148 others damaged during the mission.

STS-3 ET-3 Columbia 3/22/82 ET
Thirty-six orbiter tiles and portions
of 19 others were lost during the mission.


STS-27 ET-23 Atlantis 12/2/1988 LWT
Atlantis sustained extensive tile damage
on liftoff primarily due to debris from the
solid rocket boosters.

STS-86
The STS-86 mission revealed a similar damage pattern
but to a much lesser degree than STS-87. The STS-86
tile damage was accepted ruled as an unexplained
anomaly because it was a night launch and did not
provide the opportunity for the photographic evidence the
STS-87 mission did. A review of the records of the
STS-86 records revealed that a change to the type of
foam was used on the external tank.
From: http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/space/updates/sto32.html
NOT DISCLOSED BY Michoud


STS-87
Columbia sustained extensive tile
damage during launch.
ALSO:
The pattern of hits did not follow aerodynamic expectations, and the
number, size and severity of hits were abnormal. Three hundred
and eight (308) hits were counted during the inspection, one hundred
and thirty two (132) were greater than one inch. Some of the hits
measured fifteen (15) inches long with depths measuring up to
one and one-half (1 1/2) inches. Considering that the depth of the
tile is two (2) inches, a 75% penetration depth had been reached.
Over one hundred (100) tiles have been removed from the
Columbia because they were irreparable. The inspection revealed
the damage, now the "detective process" began.
From: http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/space/updates/sto32.html

STS-112
Disclosed by NASA at Press Conference- Not disclosed by Michoud on website.


STS-107
Self-Explanatory

Hope This Helps,
Joe

[GovernmentShrinker]

STS-27: ET-23 delivered 9/24/84, on dock (Kennedy) 3/30/88, launch 12/2/88 -- over four years between delivery and launch (delay due to Challenger, which affected many other ETs as well). This was the first ET with more than a year between delivery and on dock (I don't have flight dates).

[Sonar5]

ET DELIVERIES

1st Date Delivered on
2nd Date On-Dock Date
Mission date will be different from On-Dock date

ET-1 6/29/79 7/6/79
ET-2 2/27/81 4/22/81
ET-3 9/28/81 10/4/81
ET-4 1/17/82 1/22/82
ET-5 5/26/82 6/2/82
ET-6 7/26/82 8/2/82
ET-8 9/8/82 9/15/82
ET-9 1/12/83 1/17/83
ET-10 3/1/83 3/7/83
ET-11 5/6/83 5/12/83
ET-12 7/22/83 8/1/83
ET-13 9/13/83 9/19/83
ET-14 11/3/83 11/9/83
ET-15 12/15/83 1/11/84
ET-16 1/27/84 3/5/84
ET-17 3/16/84 4/10/84
ET-18 4/24/84 6/27/84
ET-19 5/24/84 9/7/84
ET-20 7/5/84 12/5/84
ET-21 7/25/84 1/10/85
ET-22 8/24/84 4/4/85
ET-23 9/24/84 10/21/84 (V)
3/30/88 (K)
ET-24 11/16/84 5/8/85
ET-25 12/20/84 6/10/85
ET-26 3/15/85 8/26/85
ET-27 1/29/85 2/28/85 (V)
5/18/89 (K)
ET-28 4/16/85 11/4/85
ET-29 5/15/85 12/12/85
ET-30 6/18/85 7/8/85
ET-31 7/16/85 11/25/85
ET-32 8/14/85 7/31/89
ET-33 10/15/85 3/24/86 (V)
8/10/89 (K)
ET-34 9/23/85 10/18/85 (V)
10/30/89 (K)
ET-35 11/8/85 12/14/89
ET-36 12/10/85 1/15/86
ET-37 1/15/86 2/20/90
ET-38 4/15/86 3/6/89
ET-39 4/15/86 3/26/90
ET-40 6/20/86 5/9/90
ET-41 7/25/86 6/20/90
ET-42 9/19/86 2/26/91
ET-43 11/10/86 11/14/91
ET-44 3/11/87 7/29/91
ET-45 6/8/87 4/22/92
ET-46 9/9/87 9/26/90
ET-47 12/18/87 2/19/91
ET-48 4/22/88 3/12/92
ET-49 8/8/88 7/7/92
ET-50 10/31/88 1/27/92
ET-51 2/3/89 8/19/92
ET-52 5/3/89 5/8/91
ET-53 7/31/89 6/5/91
ET-54 10/30/89 11/3/92
ET-55 2/1/90 6/2/92
ET-56 5/10/90 9/29/92
ET-57 7/26/90 3/26/93
ET-58 10/16/90 11/30/92
ET-59 3/27/91 2/3/92
ET-60 6/27/91 6/22/93
ET-61 10/15/91 7/28/93
ET-62 1/21/92 10/6/93
ET-63 4/21/92 11/16/93
ET-64 7/20/92 1/13/94
ET-65 11/2/92 3/4/94
ET-66 1/26/93 5/15/94
ET-67 5/17/93 6/13/94
ET-68 8/6/93 7/26/94
ET-69 11/3/93 9/20/94
ET-70 2/17/94 11/18/94
ET-71 5/4/94 12/14/94
ET-72 7/1/94 3/15/95
ET-73 10/4/94 4/11/95
ET-74 11/17/94 6/6/95
ET-75 2/3/95 7/11/95
ET-76 3/29/95 8/15/95
ET-77 5/24/95 10/24/95
ET-78 7/17/95 12/12/95
ET-79 9/13/95 1/16/96
ET-80 11/17/95 3/26/96
ET-81 1/19/96 4/16/96
ET-82 3/12/96 5/2/96
ET-83 4/25/96 9/23/96
ET-84 6/17/96 11/12/96
ET-85 8/7/96 10/8/96
ET-86 10/8/96 1/14/97
ET-87 11/22/96 4/1/97
ET-88 1/17/97 4/30/97
ET-89 6/26/97 7/15/97
ET-90 8/8/97 8/25/97
ET-91 11/14/97 12/9/97
ET-96 1/12/98 3/26/98
ET-97 3/30/98 4/8/98
ET-98 6/4/98 6/17/98
ET-99 7/27/98 8/12/98
ET-100 11/25/98 12/18/98
ET-101 11/25/98 1/20/99
ET-102 2/1/99 4/7/99
ET-92 4/19/99 4/28/99
ET-104 6/1/99 6/16/99
ET-103 6/22/99 9/28/99
ET-105 7/16/99 8/5/99
ET-106 12/17/99 3/1/00
ET-107 10/12/00 5/17/00
ET-108 2/10/00 6/28/00
ET-109 5/3/00 10/26/00
ET-110 7/26/00 11/8/00
ET-111 9/22/00 3/22/01
ET-93 11/2/00 12/20/00
ET-94 1/11/01 TBD
ET-112 3/8/01 5/10/01
ET-113 4/30/01 5/23/01
ET-114 6/18/01 9/5/01
ET-115 9/26/01 12/19/01
ET-116 11/28/01 2/6/02
ET-117 2/4/02 4/24/02
ET-118 4/5/02 7/3/02
ET-119 5/28/02 10/31/02
ET-120 7/22/02
ET-121 9/24/02
ET-122 11/21/02
ET-123


Et 117-123 have not flown yet. This list does not match up Missions. That would take a while to compile and the PDF is 43 pages Long. Tons of Cut and Paste.

Keep in mind that the mission date may be a lot later than the on-dock date.

For example STS-107 ET-93 had an on-dock date of 12/20/2000, but didn't fly until now.

Hope This Helps,
Joe

[snopercod]

Nice work. As a former KSC Tank & Booster Test Conductor [TBC] I have two "off the cuff" comments.

1. It probably was a LWT. The SLWTs are needed to reduce weight so the Shuttle can reach the high-inclination Russian orbit. There would have been no reason to "waste" a SLWT on this flight.

2. The assignment of which boosters, ETs, payloads, etc. go on which flight are made literally years in advance. The STS-107 mission got jacked around (e.g. delayed) due to the Russian failure to produce their ISS hardware on time. The postponement of STS-107 probably explains the "old" number tank which seems out of sequence.

Once again, nice work and thanks for taking time to post it.

[tubebender]

What was the temperature at launch and what was the temp aloft. What was the speed of the package at 80 seconds of launch and the altitude. The photos of the strike show the object pulverizing like a snowball hitting a windshield at speed. If I hit a block of insulation in my car at 100 mph it may break my windshield and kill me but it is not going to disintregrate on impact is it. It looked more like ice to me than than something solid but I'm willing to admit I have the IQ of a burger flipper.

[honway]

Thanks for the ping.
Excellent work here, IMO.

[Cold Heat]

The aforementioned insulation will break and powder from simply dropping it on the floor. It is very fragile when un mounted or protected.

It would probaby not have broken your windshield, but might have cracked it and would have blown into thousands of fragments and dust.IMHO

[Sonar5]

It was definately a LWT on STS-107. This was confirmed to me by email from Michoud.

You are absolutely correct about loads being determined years in advance.

The Sequence actually fluctuates from time to time because of delays, etc...

Thanks for reading it. :-)

regards,
Joe

[SirAllen]

The point is this: if the crew were faced with the choice of remaining in space until they die from lack of life support, or give reentry a try, they would have given reentry a try. Because no matter how many resources NASA used to determine wing damage, there probably would still have remained in the accessment that there was a possiblity of a successful reentry. The bottom line, the same result would have happened except with weeks(days?) of heart-wrenching drama if they had known beforehand, thus being better FOR ALL that it happened the way it did.

[Sonar5]

You are entitled to your opinion but I disagree.

You Said:
"The point is this: if the crew were faced with the choice of remaining in space until they die from lack of life support, or give reentry a try, they would have given reentry a try."

You cannot make that statement, IMHO. None of us can know what Shuttle Commander Husband would have done.

It is not outside the realm of possibility that they could have pushed to a higher orbit and been rescued by another shuttle or even a soyuz. Who Knows. We never will, nor will we know what you are inferring, that of a decision that was never made.

Under your assumption, do you think the families would have liked one more opportunity to say their goodbyes?

You are making an assumption of an event that never occured.

The only ones that know what decision would have been made, and the ones who should have been given the option to make that decision perished in the Columbia.

And by NASA protocal, the fact remains tha all aborts after launch are decided by the flight crew, not the ground crew.

And that decision belongs to Shuttle Commander Husband.

Regards,
Joe

[tubebender]

I found it very interesting that in yesterdays

press briefing Dittemore went into great detail about the engineering annalists of the strike of the "insulation" on the wing. The report used the term "white" but Dittemore wanted a review asking, Was it white or light colored.

what was the speed of the package at 80 seconds into launch? And what was the temperature at launch? Was it colder than normal?