Did environmentalism bring down Columbia?

[Sergeant Bob]

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.

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.

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 probed exact same glitch of insulation striking tiles in 1997

Does safety at NASA run second to political pressure?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Environmentalism? Not hardly. It seems that most of the problems in the shuttle program have been tied to design defects, operating parameters being exceeded, or maintenance issues.

Whether using environmentally friendly materials or not, it is the job of the engineers to use materials that are up to the challenges posed by launch, ballistic flight, space flight, re-entry, gliding, and landing. If a given material is not up to the task, then it needs to be reinforced or more closely monitored than might be necessary with some other types of materials.

In the case of Challenger, engineers at Morton Thyokol (sp?) notified NASA of potential cold weather O ring failure issues more than a year before the Challenger disaster. As it turns out, the O ring was not designed or able to handle changes brought about by cold weather (shrinkage) which could open up cracks that would otherwise be sealed in warm weather. So they found a design flaw that would limit the parameters of operation and even with that information, NASA operated outside of those parameters.

If falling insullation off the liquid fuel module is found to be the eventual cause of the disaster, this problem was also previously known to exist. If NASA knew there was a potential problem, then you have to wonder why it wasn't addressed or how it was they came about with the determination that a repair or fix wasn't necessary as the problem posed no threat to missions. Hmm.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

NASA Chiefs 'Repeatedly Ignored' Safety Warnings

Someone might have already posted this. Apologies if so.

 

[labgrade]

First shuttle off the block lost whole tiles on take-off.

A guy on TeeWee this afternoon said tiles vary in thickness from 5" to a mere 1/2", depending upon where the highest thermal load is expected.

DNS, I think the o-ring issue wasn't due to cracks at colder temps, but of rigidity & not allowing the resilience to properly seal. Same result though.

Stuff's been falling off the boosters since the program started. Was deemed to be within "risk parameters," as is many other aspects of anything engineered.

To have a 100% safe anything would require we live in a Nerf World.

BTW, every bit of this space exploration stuff is experiemental & sometimes things go wrong.

Mike (Coronach) makes excellent sense in his explanations of some police work that we'd seem to think was heavy-handed at times - there are certain mission parameters, specific budgetary restraints & timelines in which to do things. That the outcome is less than desirable .... ? I can relate & 'tis a sad, but an oddly human condition.

Likely, Columbia's demise was caused by hubris.

 

[roscoe]

By all means, blame environmentalists for the shuttle disaster. They are also to blame for the dip in the stock market, the death on Marilyn Monroe, and the fact that spats went out of fashion.

 

[pittspilot]

As a pilot I get to juggle many scenarios, and manage risk as best I can.

The mind boggles at the number of variables that can go wrong on those shuttle flights.

Redundancy adds weight, which is a killer on lif-off, and on re-entry. Therefore redundancy is designed out to a degree.

Those pilots know. Those guys and gals are the best and the brightest. We are going to lose shuttles, and people as we push on into space. How many died for us to conquer the sky? How many dies for us to conquer the ocean? Have we lost all taste for the risk inherent in pushing the envelope? Yes, we must know why. But we should clearly understand that this was only a matter of time accident.

 

[Sergeant Bob]

Environmentalism? Not hardly. It seems that most of the problems in the shuttle program have been tied to design defects, operating parameters being exceeded, or maintenance issues.

Agreed Double Naught, just the fact that they switched to a more "environmentally friendly" process is not the problem. The fact that after doing so and finding that the insulation was more prone to breaking off (causing tile damage to elevate by 150% on the 1997 mission) then to continue using the same process, I believe to be negligent. They were lucky that time, maybe not this time (which remains to be seen).
When the Challenger exploded, it was due to a problem they had been warned about, yet chose to ignore. That borders on criminal.
When John Glenn went up in the shuttle, the freakin drag chute door fell off on take-off! These are not just things that happen pushing back the frontiers of space. Next time you're on a commercial flight and a door just flies off, just say hey, these things happen when you're pushing back the frontiers of commercial flight.
Now some govt. appointed commitee will look into it and recommend we throw some more money at it, which I think we should do, but maybe we should have some different people there to catch it.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

labgrade, yep, I think you are correct. The "cracks" may have been a mis-statement for improper sealing that left an unsealed crack through which gasses escaped (not that the ring was cracked). Thanks.

Nerf world? Can I get a Nerf Car? It would help me quite a bit.

Given all the things that have to happen for a space shuttle to be launched into space and then return to earth safely, I am very surprised that there have not been more problems. There are just so many areas where problems can occur that would result in a catastrophic failure of the craft. Given that NASA hasn't been surprised by these types of problems (only the results), you have to wonder if maybe they could have done a better job in preventing the bigger problems - such as the O ring.

It is one thing for a flight to fail based on a problem nobody ever found or was aware that went on. It is another thing for a flight to fail based on conditions/events/materials/ that are known to be problematic.

Some fairly simple and sound reasoning should dictate that at the time of launching, there should be no uncontrolled loss of structural materials off of the shuttle, boosters, or liquid fuel tank. This includes doors, insullation, tiles, or anything else.

Who knows, maybe this was not caused by tile damage, but maybe it was. What seems to be apparent from the video footage of the shuttle coming in over AZ is that it was having issues long before it got over Texas and had the catastrophic failure.

 

[Tamara]

It'd help if the major design criteria wasn't to include as many expensive parts from as many different congressional districts as possible. It is quite possibly one of the most pork-infested programs around.

 

[labgrade]

"Some fairly simple and sound reasoning should dictate that at the time of launching, there should be no uncontrolled loss of structural materials off of the shuttle, boosters, or liquid fuel tank. This includes doors, insullation, tiles, or anything else.
"

No argument here. Borders on the "Duh!" factor.

The implicit delicacy of some external features should at the least dictate that you wouldn't want an uncontrolled "rain of debris" on such stuctures.

Por nada re "cracks" in the O-ring, DNS - my evil FA engineering trying to exert itself.

"Next time you're on a commercial flight and a door just flies off, just say hey, these things happen when you're pushing back the frontiers of commercial flight"

But Sgt Bob, there's truly a very real difference here. "Space flight" is & always be, experimental until that happy day when we can all jump a commuter to the moon - & beyond, which equates to never. Civilian areonautics is already "safe."

I'll not disagree that "a door flying off" isn't something that could have been foreseen (and rectified beforehand), but even still, with commercial flights, we had that Hawaii 747 (?) lose square yards of its upper skin (& subsequently sucked out a couple) at altitude ..... this with proven designs, etc.

Anything we do to fix the problem regards space flight will, in its next iteration, be experimental - by definition.

Dealing with the merest basics, the nature of the beast still is "what goes up, must come down." Flying, of any sort is an unnatural act for Man.

And everything will spin, as it always does, on a cost/benifit analysis.

Stars are hot, and in reaching out to touch them, one must at times expect to be burned.

 

[labgrade]

Tamara,

'Course there's been the big piggie associated with, but in what endeavor have not our betters done that? Let's not associate design criteria with "traipsing extra big flags."

Bearing lubricants at minus-Torr en extremis & their outgassing entails properties unheard of down here. Polymers have their very properties "boiled away," becoming structurally worthless.

Design criteria is based on physical dictates & space does have its own rules. Usually isn't cheap. Just the understanding itself of what is required is incrediblly expesive. Manufacturing facilities must then be designed/fabricated to make the end product.

This entire "exploration," if you will, is extremely costly.

Likely, a required $5 widget, finally stuffed into the Shuttle, might cost $2M all told.

I'll not begrudge 'em their toys - I will rankle however at their "management" thereof. In this, I believe, we are in agreement.