Flawed NASA Culture Blamed for Columbia Disaster

[The_Victor]

Foam or no foam, maybe they should have considered retiring a space craft that was over 20 years old. NASA should have been actively developing a replacement for the shuttle after Challenger.

NASA cannot build what Congress won't fund.

[Orangedog]

I believe already I tarred and fearthered the polititians in one of my other posts on this thread, but that's a good point.

[Light Speed]

A few months back..a [Groomed] video on the loss of Columbia aired..big push on CNN too.

Well...I'm looking for something apart from the 'Plasma eat the wing out from the inside' thingy...and behold it appeared.

It appear in comment for less than 10 seconds..and at the last minute of the video...interesting.

What was this **important point..that NASA included..yet seem to slide it in sideways with some smoke so the viewer would not notice before final credits started rolling.

The 10 second comment...."Columbias RCS packs failed...Columbia tumbled..and came apart"

On several Columbia threads on FR..myself posted history problems with the RCS packs..and possible failure of **This aspect..being more the reason Columbia disintergrated..over the wing burn.

On several previous STS missions..significant RCS thruster failures occured ..bypasses were effected from cockpit...in one case..a failure occured in an STS mission 2002 During final status check prior to de orbit burn cycle.

Article:

The earliest know "off nominal" external event during Columbia's reentry occurred at 13:51:19 GMT. After this the reentry flight was plagued by ever increasing off nominal yaw and roll aero-moments. The shuttle attempted to correct these errors using the RCS. The basic operation of the OMS and RCS are described in figures A7 thru A12. Fig. A5 Fig. A5 details the off nominal roll and yaw trend from the first event to LOS. Fig. A6 lists all of the RCS jet firings for the same time period. Fig. A5 indicates that there was a significant increase in both the roll and yaw moment after the 13:56:00 point. The roll moment appears to go positive causing the shuttle to roll to the right while the yaw moment goes negative causing the shuttle to turn towards the left. Fig. A6 also shows a tremendous increase in RCS jet firings after the 13:56:00 point as well. However, the increase in RCS jet firings does not appear to be in an effort to correct the yaw and roll moments that were happening. Only the left and right RCS yaw jets were firing and only in an alternating sequence for about the same duration. The only real attempt to correct the negative yaw moment was at the end when the right hand RCS jets began firing continuously until it appears the RCS engines failed. Event Time (GMT) Duration (Sec.) RCS Thruster Remarks 1 13:51:45.38 0.24 L2L Earliest known off nominal external events detected by remote sensors 2 13:51:45.36 0.24 L3L Earliest known off nominal external events detected by remote sensors 3 13:52:08 - R2R Jet firing occurs during data loss (See Fig. A3 Event 6) 4 13:52:08 - R3R Jet firing occurs during data loss (See Fig. A3 Event 6) 5 13:52:24 - R2R Jet firing occurs during data loss (See Fig. A3 Events 7, 8 and 9) 6 13:52:32 - R3R Jet firing occurs during data loss (See Fig. A3 Events 7, 8 and 9) 7 13:54:33 0.24 R3R Orbiter envelope brightens for approximately 0.3 sec. 8 13:54:33 0.24 R2R Orbiter envelope brightens for approximately 0.3 sec. 9 13:56:17.28 0.24 R3R Left main gear brake line temperature rise. 10 13:56:17.30 0.24 R2R Left main gear brake line temperature rise. 11 13:56:17.52 0.24 R3R Left main gear brake line temperature rise. 12 13:56:17.54 0.24 R2R Left main gear brake line temperature rise. 13 13:56:54.71 - L2L Jet firing occurs during data loss (See Fig. A3 Events 13 and 14) 14 13:57:01.12 - L2L Jet firing occurs during data loss (See Fig. A3 Events 13 and 14) 15 13:57:46.35 - L2L Jet firing occurs during data loss (See Fig. A3 Events 13 and 14) 16 13:57:53.12 - L2L Jet firing occurs during data loss (See Fig. A3 Events 13 and 14) 17 13:56:54.66 - L3L Jet firing occurs during data loss (See Fig. A3 Events 13 and 14) 18 13:57:01.07 - L3L Jet firing occurs during data loss (See Fig. A3 Events 13 and 14) 19 13:57:46.33 - L3L Jet firing occurs during data loss (See Fig. A3 Events 13 and 14) 20 13:57:53.10 - L3L Jet firing occurs during data loss (See Fig. A3 Events 13 and 14) 21 13:57::43.94 0.48 R2R Left upper wing skin temperature OSL (Off Scale Low) 22 13:57:44.42 0.48 R2R Left upper wing skin temperature OSL (Off Scale Low) 23 13:57:43.92 0.48 R2R Left upper wing skin temperature OSL (Off Scale Low) 24 13:57:44.40 0.48 R2R Left upper wing skin temperature OSL (Off Scale Low) 25 13:59:30.68 7.40 R2R Start of R2R yaw firing 26 13:59:30.68 7.40 R3R Start of R3R yaw firing 13:59:32 LOS (Followed by 32 seconds of additional flight data from the OEX data recorder) 27 13:59:36.80 0.60 R4R Additional jet required to counteract increasing aerodynamic moments 28 13:59:37.30 0.10 R1R Additional jet required to counteract increasing aerodynamic moments 29 13:59:52.114 - - PASS Fault Message L RCS LEAK 30 14:00:01.540 - - PASS Fault Message L RCS LEAK 31 14:00:01.900 - - PASS Fault Message L RCS LEAK 32 14:00:02.654 - - PASS Fault Message L RCS LEAK 33 14:00:03.637 - - PASS Fault Message L RCS PVT Data taken from STS-107-Timeline-Rev15.xls Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS): The shuttles OMS (Orbital Maneuvering System) is used to boost the shuttle into orbit after the ET falls away during launch and ascent and adjust the shuttles inclination in orbit, if necessary. The OMS is also used for braking and maneuvering the shuttle during the deorbit burn procedure. A detailed description of the OMS is contained in, "Shuttle Systems OMS.pdf", from the Kennedy Space Center web site. Fig A7 shows the locations of the left and right OMS engines and the OMS pods. Fig. A8 shows the inner workings of the left OMS pod. The OMS pod also holds the components for the aft portion of the RCS and is then referred to as the OMS / RCS pod. In addition to housing the RCS, if one or both of the OMS engines were to fail, the RCS can make up for the missing OMS thrusters. Reaction Control System (RCS): Upon reentry the shuttle adjusts its attitude, (yaw angle, roll angle and pitch angle), using the RCS (Reaction Control System). From Entry Interface (EI) at 400,000 feet the shuttle controls the yaw, roll and pitch using the RCS thrusters only. The gradual switchover to controlling the air craft using the aerodynamic surfaces is as follows. When the dynamic pressure reaches 10 PSF the ailerons become active and the RCS roll thrusters are deactivated. When the the dynamic pressure becomes 20 PSF the elevons are activated and RCS Pitch thrusters are deactivated. The rudder is activated at Mach 1 and the RCS yaw thrusters are then deactivated. This final step occurs at Mach 1 and 45,000 feet. Yaw Angle, Yaw Rate and Side Slip

Roll Angle Pitch Angle and Angle of Attack

deciphers the OMS / RCS jet firing terminology. The NASA reentry timeline gives the time and duration of OMS / RCS jet firings. When the shuttle is traveling in atmosphere it is difficult to determine how much motion the maneuvering jets provide. In space the jets are good for about 3° of rotation per second of jet firing.

General Purpose Computer (GPC) Failures

Nothing is mentioned in either the STS-107 Timeline or STS-107 Ground Track documents about failures of the General Purpose Computers (GPC's) on board the Columbia. However, based on the intervals of communication interruptions closely related to the events of RCS jet firings during reentry, it can be deduced that the GPC's were failing rapidly. The space shuttle has five general purpose computers that are all identical. Four of the computers are loaded with the same software for guidance, navigation and control. The fifth computer is loaded with software produced by a different company referred to as Backup Flight Software (BFS). This software is only used in the event of loss of control of the orbiter and can be initiated either by another GPC or manually by the pilot. At 13:58:40 GMT the STS-107 Timeline Rev. 15 makes a reference to BFS. This means that by that point, within 14 minutes of Entry Interface (EI), all four of the other GPC's had taken themselves off line due to faulty data readings or other errors. There are no reports of the BFS being used in any previous shuttle mission. When the timeline indicates a communication interruption / data loss, followed closely by a short duration firing of the RCS jets, that is more than likely a computer going offline and another one resetting itself to take over the operations. The following web page from the Kennedy Space Center web site gives a detailed description of the operation of the space shuttles avionics systems, Shuttle Avionics. All five GPC's are located in the forward fuselage and therefore should not have been affected by any damage to the left wing. See page, Overview of the Space Shuttle Orbiter, for locations of GPC's and other critical components.

Events just prior to LOS

*** Article body in whole with diagrams at:

http://www.columbiassacrifice.com/reentry.htm

*** Nasa is still not comming clean ...are they.

[snopercod]

...lets take what we've learned move on to the next level."

I'm sorry, but you just don't get it. There IS no next level with today's technology.

Don't you remember the X-33 welfare program for aerospace engineers? They never could make that SSTO concept work, as Werner von Braun could have told them before they pissed away billions of dollars.

If the Shuttle goes, that's the end of the US manned space program - probably forever. We, as a country, don't have the money, we don't have the committment, and more seriously, we don't have the expertise any more. Is the "Beavis and Butthead" generation going to design and build the next generation spacecraft? I don't think so...

[snopercod]

I'm sorry, it's like the old cliche when a soldier calls an NCO "sir", and is chastised, "Don't call me sir, I WORK for a living".

The space workers - e.g. contractors - work for a living. NASA is like the officer corps, more worried about promotions and retirement than getting the job done.

I always laughed at the press when I was at KSC. The local press always called us "NASA engineers" when we did something good. But when we screwed up, it was "United Space Alliance engineers".

The media are a bunch of miserable whores. Your best bet is to read the CAIB report yourself and draw your own conclusions. (What I have read so far indicates that it's pretty much a whitewash.)

[snopercod]

I'm looking for a link to the actual report to see if the "environmentally friendly" reformulation of the insulating foam is mentioned.

I'm sorry to report that the following small paragraph in Chapter 3 (1.6Mb .pdf) is the only mention of the change in the foam. (I hope some FReeper can prove me wrong on this, but I can't find any other mention at all).

Throughout the history of the External Tank, factors unrelated to the insulation process have caused foam chemistry changes (Environmental Protection Agency regulations and material availability, for example). The most recent changes resulted from modifications to governmental regulations of chlorofluorocarbons.

...The foam types changed on External Tanks built after External Tank 93, which was used on STS-107, but these changes are beyond the scope of this section.

That's it? Or is there another "section"?

[RightWhale]

NASA cannot build what Congress won't fund.

Exactly. Congress wanted the race to the moon. It wasn't JFK's idea, he ran the PR for it. Private space development has been aced out. The White House has never favored manned space development, and until Congress decides to do it, it won't happen. We are, in other words, stuck on this backwater mudball forever.

[BigBobber]

There is an informative chart on Page 127 of the report that shows "the number of dings greater than one inch in diameter on the lower surface of the Orbiter after each mission". An eyball review of this chart shows the number of dings rising dramatcally starting with flight 86, which was in 1997.

From page 129:

"The foam loss problem on STS-87 was described as “pop-corning” because of the numerous popcorn-size foam par-ticles that came off the thrust panels. Popcorning has always occurred, but it began earlier than usual in the launch of STS-87. The cause of the earlier-than-normal popcorning (but not the fundamental cause of popcorning) was traced back to a change in foam-blowing agents that caused pres-sure buildups and stress concentrations within the foam. In an effort to reduce its use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), NASA had switched from a CFC-11 (chlorofluorocarbon) blowing agent to an HCFC-141b blowing agent beginning with External Tank-85, which was assigned to STS-84. (The change in blowing agent affected only mechanically applied foam. Foam that is hand sprayed, such as on the bipod ramp, is still applied using CFC-11.)"

[Orangedog]

There IS no next level with today's technology.

Of course there isn't. That's because when the shuttle was finished NASA management and the congress-critters made the fatal mistake of saying "Alright, this is good enough."

Don't you remember the X-33 welfare program for aerospace engineers?

I imagine it kinda like the effect on space craft developement that Blondie had when they recorded "Rapture" which is credited with killing disco (should have happened years earlier). Single stage to orbit isn't going to happen with the energy density of current fuels. The best we're going to get is something akin to the X-15 thats strapped under the wing of a B-52.

We, as a country, don't have the money, we don't have the committment, and more seriously, we don't have the expertise any more.

Hell, we never had the expertise. Our space program was imported via Operation Paperclip. Just for laughs, I'd like to see them try to build another Saturn 5. They could even try to reverse engineer it from pieces of ones that were built and never used. I'd bet it couldn't be done in 10 years even if they had a "waste anything but time" budget.

I hinted at this in an earlier post, but if this country is going to have a "space program" that amounts to anything more than sending Tonka Trucks to Mars, on thing has to go....NASA. Incredible things can be done while you are building a monster like NASA, but once it's built, it's a liability.

If our manned space program ends with the shuttle, we may as well mothball them all now and see if we can find a country with money thats sucker enough to buy them. As for the X-33, maybe the Chinese will be able to work the bugs out of the aero spike engine and use them for something.

[Light Speed]

Magnetic rail launch
Ion Drive [Plasma drive] for space

Magnetic levitation tracks may someday replace the traditional vertical launch pad

A full-scale track proposed by Marshall to be built and operated at Kennedy Space Center would be about 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometers) long. It would accelerate a spacecraft to about 2 Gs for 9.3 seconds and reach speeds of 400 to 600 m.p.h. (640 to 960 kilometers per hour).
Researchers at Marshall are already testing 50-foot (15-meter) and 400-foot (120-meter) tracks at the center.

Plasma drive allready exists

Boeing builds Zenon [gas] Ion thrusters currently used on satillites. Pulsed Plasma drive is another configuration.

Aero spike mated to magnetic rail launch...not to farfetched.

[bonesmccoy]

I was unable to download the document until now. This morning the internet server must have been jammed with traffic.

page 11 and 12 state that:
"the direct, physical action that initiated the chain of events leading to the loss of Columbia and her crew was the foam strike during ascent."

The debris strike is discussed on page 34. CAIB apparently noted THREE pieces of debris. We had extensively conjectured about the other impacts since CAIB was not publicly commenting upon the other pieces. The CAIB report states that "one large piece and at least two smaller pieces of insulating foam separated from teh ET left bipod ramp area..."

In post 225, I estimated size at 50 cm by 5 cm going 340 mph.

NASA CAIB estimated 21-27 inches (53 - 68 cm) in length, 12-18 inches (30 to 45 cm) in width, moving at 416-573 mph.

So, it looks like I wasn't too far off the mark in my FR estimate.

[bonesmccoy]

we're looking for the smoking gun in the report and can't find it!

AUUUGGHGHHGHH!!!

[bonesmccoy]

FINALLY!

I've been scanning the report for this stuff too.

Thanks for pointing to it.

CLINTON-GORE killed the shuttle program with their pro-environmental malarky.

[Cold Heat]

Watching the repeat of the conference now.

Seems they have really picked NASA apart.

Also mentioned that foam fell from the ramp area seven times before and it did not raise a flag.

Mentioned that the research budget did not allow for any further investigation to fix the foam.

Lot's of related stuff. They also said some of the same problems were still observed since being singled out in the Challenger report.

[norraad]

It's likely just that simple, just as an earlier post mentioned;

There is no next level!

r12 was the best freon, period!

By changing to an older formula for dubious reasons the foam & its adhesive failed. There was no good reason to have done that.

They might have skated if they just didn't fly during Jan~Feb(which I'd advise anyway, like, what's your hurry dude?).

In fact if they had inacted the no fly when it's cold rule long ago, their money wasting party would have never been interrupted, go figure.

[windchime]

"Aren't you glad that Hillary wasn't able to impose this kind of bureaucracy on the US health care system?"

YES! And I don't want HRC ever again to be in a position to impose ANYTHING on us!

[Jeff Gordon]

O'Riley on Fox said, "That little coward, Dan Golden, is home hiding under his bed. He would not answer our phone calls."

The must be something Golden can be indicted for.

[snopercod]

Thanks for finding that. I wasn't aware that the CFC-11 was still used locally at KSC. I'm not sure I believe it.

Regardless, the critical factor in adhering any kind of substance to aluminum (or anything else) is surface preparation. in the mid 90's when all the freon became taboo, NASA also changed the solvents used to clean things before bonding. They went from trichloroethane to "organic" solvents. If the CAIB didn't investigate this factor, then they were derelict in their duty.

This seems as good a time as any to add this to the record:

---

When we had to destack the Atlantis back in 1995 (pretty sure of the date) over the change in solvents, I got pissed and decided to do some checking.

First, I pulled B-5503, the SRB stacking procedure. Then, I pulled the specifications which it referenced. The first one of interest is MSFC-SPEC-2489 dated July 1995.

Only one products met the new spec., "REVILLE CLEANER, FORUMLA #02191", made by Diversey Dubois Intl., Inc. 255 E. 5th St., Cincinnati, OH 45202.

The spec. was obviously written so that only one product would meet it. It contains very specific flash points, initial boiling points, etc.

The new "Reville" cleaner was used to clean the SRB surfaces prior to the application of the J-Flap adhesive (per B5303 08-0161).

The second "green" cleaner was "CLEANER, ORGANIC WITH D-LIMONINE" per "MSFC-SPEC-2490" also July 1995. Same thing here. The spec was written so that only one product would comply. This was the "lemon-scented" PF DEGREASER made by P-T Technologies, 108 4th Ave., Safety Harbor, FL 34695.

I don't know exactly where this one was used, but I was told that it was a generic replacement for Trichloroehane, so this was probably the one used to prep the STS-107 ET prior to foam application.

"The cleaner shall be a clear liquid, free of foreign material and have a faint citrus odor as determined by visual inspection with the unaided eye (corrective lenses permitted)."

ROFL! The spec really says that.

I was also told that the original J-flap adhesive was "Morstik 132" which contained Trichlorethane, and that it was replaced with "Morstik 227", which was water-based. I don't have the specs on those.

Hope this helps.

[bonesmccoy]

From google search on P-T Technologies
see: www.pttech.net
"PT Technologies, a Division of LPS Laboratories Worldwide and located to the Northeast of Atlanta, GA, began its operations in 1984 with the introduction of the #1 selling safe alternative solvent to Trichlor 1,1,1 our d'Gel Cable & Tool Cleaner and was merged into LPS Laboratories in mid-2000."

searched for LPS Laboratories- found "about" link that states that LPS is a division of Illinois Tool Works
http://www.lpslabs.com/Products/ProductLine.asp

ITW says, "Illinois Tool Works Inc. (NYSE:ITW) designs and produces an array of highly engineered fasteners and components, equipment and consumable systems, and specialty products and equipment for customers around the world. A Fortune 200 diversified manufacturing company with more than 90 years of history, ITW's approximately 600 decentralized business units in 44 countries employ nearly 49,000 men and women who are focused on creating value-added products and innovative customer solutions."

We need to know who is on the Board of Directors and who is the CEO of each company. In addition, we need to know the relationship between each company and the Clinton donor roll.

Please post more info on the companies.

[Mamzelle]

re: "Waiter, there's a flaw in my culture!"

Good one. The chief flaw in the culture, going back to the seventies, was a dependence on a quasi-celebrity culture rather than a solid, specific scientific emphasis on exploration for knowledge.

IOW--it was about "rides for brides."