Posted on 02/03/2003 5:52:06 AM PST by TLBSHOW
Did environmentalism bring down Columbia? NASA probed exact same glitch of insulation striking tiles in 1997
By Joseph Farah
More than six years ago, NASA investigated extensive thermal tile damage on the space shuttle Columbia as a result of the shedding of external tank insulation on launch – now a prime suspect in the Columbia's disastrous disintegration upon re-entry yesterday.
The problems began when the space agency switched to materials and parts that were considered more "environmentally friendly," according to a NASA report obtained by WorldNetDaily.
Did concerns for environment cause shuttle disaster?
NASA investigators have quickly focused on the possibility that Columbia's thermal tiles were damaged far more seriously than the space agency realized during liftoff. Just a little over a minute into Columbia's launch Jan. 16, a chunk of insulating foam peeled away from the external fuel tank and smashed into the left wing, which like the rest of the shuttle is covered with tiles to protect the ship from the extreme heat of re-entry into the atmosphere. Yesterday, that same wing started exhibiting sensor failures and other problems 23 minutes before Columbia was scheduled to touch down. With just 16 minutes to go before landing, the shuttle disintegrated over Texas killing all seven in the crew.
In 1997, during the 87th space shuttle mission, similar tile damage was done during launch when the external tank foam crashed into them during the stress of takeoff. NASA knows that problem occurred again on this Columbia launch. However, the agency is not certain this was the cause of the disintegration of the craft upon re-entry.
"Immediately after the Columbia rolled to a stop, the inspection crews began the process of the post-flight inspection," wrote NASA's Greg Katnik in a review of the problems of that 1997 flight. "As soon as the orbiter was approached, light spots in the tiles were observed indicating that there had been significant damage to the tiles. The tiles do a fantastic job of repelling heat, however they are very fragile and susceptible to impact damage. Damage numbering up to forty tiles is considered normal on each mission due to ice dropping off of the external tank (ET) and plume re-circulation causing this debris to impact with the tiles. But the extent of damage at the conclusion of this mission was not 'normal.'"
The alarming report continued: "The pattern of hits did not follow aerodynamic expectations, and the number, size and severity of hits were abnormal. Three hundred and eight 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."
NASA investigators seven years ago noted that the damage followed changes in the methods of "foaming" the external tank – changes mandated by concerns about being "environmentally friendly."
"During the STS-87 mission, there was a change made on the external tank," said the report. "Because of NASA's goal to use environmentally friendly products, a new method of 'foaming' the external tank had been used for this mission and the STS-86 mission. It is suspected that large amounts of foam separated from the external tank and impacted the orbiter. This caused significant damage to the protective tiles of the orbiter."
NASA's report on that earlier Columbia flight concluded on a positive note, suggesting changes would be made in procedures to avoid such problems at launches in the future.
"As this investigation continues, I am very comfortable that the questions will be answered and the solutions applied," wrote Katnik. "In fact, some of the solutions are already in progress. At present the foam on the sides of the tank is being sanded down to the nominal minimum thickness. This removes the outer surface, which is tougher than the foam core, and lessens the amount of foam that can separate and hit the orbiter."
This 6-year-old problem is sure to raise new concerns about NASA's safety procedures. Already, new public concern is focusing on a former NASA engineer who pleaded last summer for a presidential order to halt all further shuttle flights until safety issues had been addressed.
In a letter to the White House, Don Nelson, who served with NASA for 36 years until he retired in 1999, wrote to President George W. Bush warning that his "intervention" was necessary to "prevent another catastrophic space shuttle accident."
During his last 11 years at NASA, Nelson served as a mission operations evaluator for proposed advanced space transportation projects. He was on the initial design team for the space shuttle. He participated in every shuttle upgrade until his retirement.
Listing a series of mishaps with shuttle missions since 1999, Nelson warned in his letter that NASA management and the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel have failed to respond to the growing warning signs of another shuttle accident, reported the London Observer. Since 1999 the vehicle had experienced a number of potentially disastrous problems:
1999 – Columbia's launch was delayed by a hydrogen leak and Discovery was grounded with damaged wiring, contaminated engine and dented fuel line;
January 2000 – Endeavor was delayed because of wiring and computer failures;
August 2000 – inspection of Columbia revealed 3,500 defects in wiring;
October 2000 – the 100th flight of the shuttle was delayed because of a misplaced safety pin and concerns with the external tank;
April 2002 – a hydrogen leak forced the cancellation of the Atlantis flight;
July 2002 – the inspector general reported that the shuttle safety programme was not properly managed;
August 2002 – the shuttle launch system was grounded after fuel line cracks were discovered. Yesterday, Nelson told the London Observer that he feared the Columbia disaster was the culmination of "disastrous mismanagement" by NASA's most senior officials and would inevitably lead to a moratorium on future flights. "I became concerned about safety issues in NASA after Challenger," he said. "I think what happened is that very slowly over the years NASA's culture of safety became eroded. But when I tried to raise my concerns with NASA's new administrator, I received two reprimands for not going through the proper channels, which discouraged other people from coming forward with their concerns. When it came to an argument between a middle-ranking engineer and the astronauts and administration, guess who won."
Can you say Judgement?
There was a better version of it on somebody's web site that showed what you are really looking at. - The squiggly line that they are calling a 'crack' is really a wire that is taped to the cargo bay threshold, leading to a sensor that is just barely visible near the left edge of the red circle. - The 'dent' in the circle to the right is just a fold in a rubberized tarp of some kind. You can see the seams in the tarp even in this bad photo, and the piece of grey duct tape that holds the wire in place.
And they call this garbage 'journalism?'
What does that tell you about Todd?
That's fake. No matter how you dress it up.
KENNEDY SPACE CENTER SPACE SHUTTLE STATUS REPORT
(UPDATED) FRIDAY, JULY 12, 1996 (7:07 PM EDT)Mission managers decided late today to not roll Atlantis back out to the pad in order to destack the vehicle from its current set of solid rocket boosters and re-stack it to another set. Atlantis has been in the Vehicle Assembly Building since Wednesday when it was taken off Pad 39A due to threats from Hurricane Bertha.
This decision will delay Atlantis' launch until mid-September.
Atlantis' boosters are being replaced because of hot gas seepage into the field joints of the Columbia STS-78 boosters, which was launched on June 20.
An investigation found that the most probable cause of the seepage was related to the use of a new adhesive and cleaning fluid.
The investigation also concluded that the risk of a field joint failure was improbable and that the STS-79 boosters were safe to fly. The decision to replace the STS-79 boosters, which utilized the new adhesive used on STS-78, was made to provide an opportunity to better understand the J-joint failure and to improve the safety margin of the field joints.
Additional information and timelines for destacking and restacking Atlantis will be available next week.
The "old" solvent was Trichloroethane. It was replaced by "PF Degreaser" manufactured by P-T Technologies, 108 4th Ave. South, Safety Harbor, FL 34695.
The Specification for this wonderful elixir is MSFC-QPL-2490 "CLEANER, ORGANIC WITH D-LIMONENE", which was issued in July 1995.
This specification establishes the requirements for an environmentally compliant hand wipe cleaner...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).
I guess everybody thought I was joking about the lemon-scented cleaner.
The "old" J-Flap adhesive was Morstik 132, which contained TCA. The "new" stuff is Morstik 227, which is water-based. (I don't have the specs. on that stuff.)
Another cleaner called out in B5303 (the booster stacking procedure) is "Reveille Cleaner Formula #02191". The specification for that is MSFC-SPEC-2489 "CLEANER, ORGANIC", issued in July 1995. It is manufactured by Diversey Dubois International, Inc., 255 E. 5th St., Cincinnati, OH 45202. This stuff is a petroleum distillate of some kind.
It should be noted that each of these specs listed only one product which met the specifications. In fact, they were both written so that only a single product could possibly meet the specifications.
Anybody want to bet that these two companies had political connections to the clinton administration?
Once again, you are reading something here on FR which you won't find anywhere else in the media. FReepers Rule!
Bump!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.