Engineers raised concerns about Columbia wing burning

Associated Press ^ | 2-26-03 | TED BRIDIS

[Oldeconomybuyer]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- One day before the Columbia disaster, senior NASA engineers raised concerns the shuttle's left wing might burn off and cause the deaths of the crew, describing a scenario much like the one investigators believe happened. They never sent their warnings to NASA's brass.

[dead]

They never sent their warnings to NASA's brass.

Too busy.

[blam]

Just mentioned on Fox News.

[CyberAnt]

If they weren't discussing it BEFORE launch, it was already tooooooo late to be discussing it.

Once the shuttle was in space, there was no way for it to get down without burning up - absolutely no way.

Their suspicions should have taken form LONG before the shuttle went up!

[Blood of Tyrants]

As I suspected. It was a case of cross your fingers and hope nothing bad happens.

[dep]

no, at nasa the rule among engineers has long been that if you wave a red flag, your career is over. ask bill mcinnis. or, on the contractor level, ask roger boisjoly.

dep

[Oldeconomybuyer]

(02-26) 13:14 PST (AP) -- Jeffrey V. Kling, a flight controller at Johnson Space Center's mission control, foresaw with haunting accuracy what might happen to Columbia during its fiery descent if superheated air penetrated the wheel compartment.

Kling wrote just 23 hours before the disaster that his engineering team's recommendation in such an event "is going to be to set up for a bailout (assuming the wing doesn't burn off before we can get the crew out)." Kling the following day was among the first in mission control to report a sudden, unexplained loss of data from the shuttle's sensors in the left wing.

The e-mails released Wednesday describe a far broader discussion about the risks to Columbia than the concerns first raised three days earlier by Robert Daugherty, a NASA senior research engineer at Langley. He was mostly concerned about the safety of the shuttle landing with flat tires or wheels damaged from extreme heat.

Among the messages was one from Daugherty's boss at Langley, Mark J. Shuart, to another Langley supervisor, Doug Dwoyer, describing Daugherty as "the kind of conservative, thorough engineer that NASA needs."

"I can only hope the folks at (Johnson Space Center) are listening," Shuart wrote.

[NormsRevenge]

Thanks for the post.

All I can say is, Ouch!

[Carry_Okie]

Pong

[xzins]

Does it say WHY they were talking about it?

[Oldeconomybuyer]

(02-26) 13:23 PST (AP) -- One e-mail, from R.K. "Kevin" McCluney, a shuttle mechanical engineer at Johnson Space Center, described the risks that could lead to "LOCV" -- NASA shorthand for the loss of the crew and vehicle. But McCluney ultimately recommended to do nothing unless there was a "wholesale loss of data" from sensors in the left wing, in which case controllers would need to decide between a risky landing and bailout attempt.

"Beats me what the breakpoint would be between the two decisions," McCluney wrote.

Investigators have reported such a wholesale loss of sensor readings in Columbia's left wing, but it occurred too late to do anything -- after the shuttle was already racing through Earth's upper atmosphere and moments before its breakup.

[NormsRevenge]

Wed Feb 26, 1:09 PM ET

Newly arrived wreckage of the space shuttle Columbia is taken into the hangar, right, at the Kennedy Space Center (news - web sites) in Cape Canaveral, Fla. Tuesday Feb. 25, 2003.(AP Photo/NASA, Kim Shiflett)

[Lokibob]

Read the e-mails your self. Some of the things said were shocking. This web site is the freedom of information web site established for the Columbia accident. Unfortunately, the docs are in PDF format and I can't post PDF's. There are 10 pages of e-mails.

http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/COL_debris_email.pdf

[You Dirty Rats]

Bailout?

At that height and speed?

[Oldeconomybuyer]

PDF bump

[Lokibob]

No, bailout if the wheels were damaged and a landing could not be done. The e-mails discuss flat tires on one side (left) and a belly landing or a bail out.

They assumed the shuttle would survive the entry, but with damage to the wheels.

[Trust but Verify]

I'm growing weary of these stories which imply that people knew the shuttle was doomed. These engineers perform many, many risk assessments and then try to come up with some kind of consensus as to the probability of any of the scenarios occurring.

[eno_]

Bingo, you win. "Why are we talking about this on the day before landing and not the day after launch?" Because NASA already knew they were in deep doo doo, and didn't want to hear anything further about it.

[dep]

people have known the shuttle was doomed since before the april 13, 1989, launch of columbia. it's the only time we've ever flown a vehicle that we knew had potentially catastrophic problems.

dep

[eno_]

Knew? Didn't want to know? Who knows?

Maybe the calculation was that a high probability of losing the shuttle was "better" than failure at some desperate attempt to save the crew.

If that is the case, then they have a more cynical measure of "better" than I do.