NASA blames disaster on foam

USA Today ^ | Posted 4/22/2003 5:02 PM Updated 4/23/2003 1:00 AM | Alan Levin and Traci Watson

[DaGman]

"The real question is why so many at NASA dismissed the foam concept so quickly. Seemed too obvious?"

Yes it did. That meant the bureaucracy had to deal with a problem and not follow its routine during the flight. It was more than the bureaucracy wanted to deal with at the time. Dealing with the foam problem meant acknowledging a problem. In a bureaucracy as large as NASA you don't bring up problems.

[spunkets]

BuMp

[KellyAdmirer]

I'm not second-guessing the NASA engineers, they are second-guessing themselves.

[jpthomas]

Of course, all the previous US manned space systems used a heat shield to survive reentry. Those shields would gradually melt away in the plasma via a process called ablation. Those were "one-time use" systems, and as such, contrary to the reusable philosophy of the space shuttle. Something like what you suggest, applied for example as a "coating" or "cover" on the wing leading edges, might bring with it problems of its own, such as the effect of the splatter of the molten material on other parts of the shuttle.

[TLBSHOW]

Request for Executive Order Limiting Space Shuttle Operations

August 25, 2002

Office of the President of the United States

Mr. George W. Bush

Subject: Executive Order for a Moratorium on Space Shuttle Flight

Mr. President,

I am a recently retired NASA aerospace engineer and it is my duty to inform you that our space shuttle astronauts are in imminent danger. Your intervention is required to prevent another catastrophic space shuttle accident. NASA management and the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel have failed to respond to the growing warning signs of another shuttle accident. Since 1999 the launch system has experienced the following potential disastrous occurrences:

July 1999 - Space Shuttle Columbia delayed by hydrogen leak.

December 1999 - Space Shuttle Discovery was grounded with damaged wiring, contaminated engine, dented fuel line, and paper work errors.

January 2000 - Space Shuttle Endeavor is delayed because of wiring and computer failures.

March 2000 - Space Shuttle Atlantis main engine must be replaced because of paperwork errors.

August 2000 - Inspection of Space Shuttle Columbia reveals 3,500 defects in wiring. Wiring defects plague entire fleet.

October 2000 - The 100th flight of the space shuttle was delayed because of a misplaced safety pin and concerns with the external tank.

April 2001 - NASA failed to keep adequate watch on safety operations of a major contractor.

July 2002 - The inspector general reports that space shuttle safety program not properly managed.

April 2002 - Hydrogen leak forces scrub of the Atlantis flight.

August 2002 - Shuttle launch system grounded after fuel line cracks are discovered in all the fleet!

Mr. President, as you are painfully aware NASA management has been lacking for a number of years. Unfortunately, your new NASA Administrator has failed to recognize the imminent space shuttle danger and has accepted the consul of the pre-existing NASA shuttle management.

These managers still pursue a management philosophy that has stagnated the safety upgrades efforts and perpetuates the staggering launch costs.

The space shuttle or any space transportation vehicle without crew escape modules will never be safe to transport humans. To incorporate crew escape modules in the space shuttle requires that the piloting function be removed from the vehicle. Unfortunately, the background of the shuttle management is that of former flight controllers and astronauts. They have been trained to never trust automated flight control systems. Therefore, they are adamantly opposed to automation of the space shuttle.

Efforts by NASA engineers and contractors to automate the shuttles are met with stern rebukes and reprimands in some cases.

Mr. President, to prevent another shuttle disaster it is requested that an Executive Order be issued that places a moratorium on space shuttle operations. This moratorium must limit shuttle missions to flight crews that do not exceed four members. The moratorium must remain in effect until crew escape modules can be incorporated.

This moratorium will serve as a catalyst to kick-start the resisting NASA management into action.

The lives of our astronauts and the future of our space program must not be ignored. The warning from the Thiokol engineer was ignored and the Challenger exploded.

The terrorist training warning from FBI agents was ignored and we had the 9-11 disaster.

When the next shuttle explodes...and Murphy’s Law says it will, we can exclaim with pride a loud "YES!" as the crew escape module carries our astronauts to safety... or if this moratorium is ignored...we can watch in horror and shame as the astronauts face certain death.

Don A. Nelson
Retired NASA Aerospace Engineer

Reply from the President's Office of Science and Technology Policy: "I do not think that it is appropriate for the President to issue a moratorium on Space Shuttle launches at this time" Dec. 4 2002.

Comments:
Dec. 12, 2002 another Shuttle propellant leak found! Sent another letter to President's OSTP.

February 1,2003 - Space Shuttle Columbia lost... the day we all cried.

http://www.nasaproblems.com/

[isthisnickcool]

There may have been other contributing factors, but an anomalous event like that has to be given serious consideration from the get-go.

The even was not so "anomalous" since material had sloughed off the external fuel tank in previous flights and hit the vehicle. Two flights back material coming off the tank had wacked one of the SRB's so hard it had a pretty good dent in it after recovery.

There was a rumor going around NASA shortly after the accident that the crew could see the damage from inside the shuttle. That the damage was on the leading edge of the wing. And that one of the crew emailed his wife about it. Who asked NASA about this afterwards and NASA sent an "inspection team" over to look at the wing area from different angles from within one of the trainers. And that the "team" concluded that there was no way to see the area. Supposedly, some people that saw this got into heated "discussions" with the "team".

Lot's of rumors shortly after the accident. One was that Dittmore was toast. Looks like that one was true.

[tubebender]

PING...

[So Cal Rocket]

If the analysis showed a high probability of an unsafe re-entry, the Shuttle could have gone into a resource conservation mode... My guess is that had enough resources, if only life support and orbital stability was their goal, to last 4-5 weeks in orbit. It is possible that Discovery could have launched with a crew of 2 on a rescue mission in that time frame. Granted, some shortcuts would have had to have been taken, and the probability of total mission success somewhere in the 60-80% range, but I bet with all the resources that NASA has, that some type of rescue mission could have been deployed.

[ez]

Unintended Consequences of Voodoo Extremist Environmentalism. Even if we eliminated almost all Freon use in the US, couldn't one execption be made to keep the Shuttle more safe? Surely the amount of Freon used in the Shuttle Program would not "punch a hole" in the ozone layer...

[TLBSHOW]

Reply from the President's Office of Science and Technology Policy: "I do not think that it is appropriate for the President to issue a moratorium on Space Shuttle launches at this time" Dec. 4 2002.


,,,,,,,,

oh look another warning and what will the President's Office of Science and Technology Policy do this time......

nasaproblems.com
April 7, 2003

Space Shuttle Columbia is gone... but has the countdown already started for a third shuttle disaster? There were two reasons for the Columbia disaster: a system failure and a management failure. We may never know the exact cause for the system failure, but the reasons for the management failures are there for all to see.


Unless the Office of the President and Congress address the following management failures... then indeed, the countdown has already started for the third shuttle disaster!

****NASA Memo: "support a launch opportunity as early as Fall of 2003."****

[aristeides]

The EPA gave NASA that precise exception in 2001.

[battlecry]

You are so right, Rocket. Federal procurements look at engineers as a commodity, not as talent. Bid by the rate and by the hour. I've seen so much talent lost over the years, I'm surprised anything gets done anymore. The warning signs were there in all the probes we bounced off Mars.

I wouldn't blame just O'Keefe or NASA, since the federal acqusition regulations put a straightjacket on them all hurt all services equally bad. I still have to wonder how Boeing got the space station contract on a noncompetitive basis. Wasn't it just taken away from N-G and awarded to Boeing just like that?

[Flyer]

might bring with it problems of its own

True. I was trying to think beyond fixing the insulation problem and considering in orbit damage, too. Whatever the solution I detest that we have to depend on the Russians for now to service our space station.

[stimpyone]

It wasn't a freon coolant system. Freon was used as in an aerosol form to apply the "old" foam insulation onto the Booster. When "ozone depleting substances" (ODS's) were outlawed a few years back, a different method was developed that did not use freon - this new method was not as efficient as the freon method and often led to debonding of the insulation from the skin of the booster.

I've heard this theory as well, however this is something NASA has been dealing with for a number of years now, and they've had problems with foam separating off external tanks in several missions over the last few years. It may be "easy" to blame the problem on environmentalists, but it doesn't excuse whatever negligence on NASA's part that may have led to this disaster.

[tuna_battle_slight_return]

This is for the poetry branch of FR as well. Enjoy.

"foam"

hesitate for the last time
for the end of the time you've been around here
a signature in a foam coast
a waive to other witnesses and their counsel
just a waive goodbye
goodbye to every interested outfitter
interests all have their time

is it late for the content
for the final particular sign of farewell
embarking from a foam coast
a flag to other possible uncitizens
just a rag but good for the task
the task of signing off a pirated broadcast

foam has divine useful functions
foam saves lives
saves them from their own weight
carving in the coast your name for one last time
in the fine swollen gloam
the titanic twilight of evolving design
evolving too has its time

gladiate to the ocean
to the melting phalange we immensely float on
leaving islands of styrene
such precious and convenient communities
well observed from high above
outlast and legitimise pioneer broadcasts

foam as it lasts divine use has
foam saves lives
saves them from their own weight
carving in the coast your name for one last time
in the fine swollen gloam
the titanic twilight of evolving design

foaming high
high on a wave
a foamy wave

- Dean Wilson, NYC, 1999

[TLBSHOW]

OH WHERE IS THE SO CALLED KNOW IT ALL NOW THAT NASA HAS SPOKEN?


NASA investigators have concluded that a piece of foam that hit Columbia during its launch is what caused a hole to open in the front edge of the shuttle's left wing and



allowed superheated air to burn it apart on re-entry.

[dark_lord]

it only makes sense if you look at engineers as a "commodity" and that one engineer is equally capable as another.

But of course it is true that engineers are just commodities. Same for any other technical profession. One person is just the same as another. Every manager knows this to be true. Why, we have been practicing this belief in the IT world for at least 20 years and our project success rate now runs about 30%! Now if we can only get other professions like medicine to treat doctors like commodities, why we can sharply reduce medical costs and approach a 30% success rate for surgeries as well!

[Arkinsaw]

Were they shot down because of an unwillingness to have NASA pay the other agency for the costs of the examination?

I think I heard that the other agency didn't like doing it and finding nothing wrong on previous instances. This lead the NASA people in charge to be twitchy about asking unless they were pretty sure there was a problem.

[KC_for_Freedom]

It may be "easy" to blame the problem on environmentalists, but it doesn't excuse whatever negligence on NASA's part that may have led to this disaster.

The reason some of us blame the environmental movement, is because when it is coupled with another movement, Multiculturalism, the climate of dissent in a company goes into the crapper. Lockheed Martin engineers have a long history of not questioning environmental junk science. In fact, it is company policy to adopt new compounds after the environmentalists label the old ones as containing Volitile Organic Coumpounds or Ozone depleting compounds. there is a process for petitioning the environmental movement for exceptions, but ther is a company policy not to use this process. Lockheed Marting has won awards for its support of the environmental movement.

Because the engineers would rather accept poor performance than contest this policy, it is proper to blame both environmentalist and upper management. These firms all are using less than efficient chemicals because of the environmentalists single focus on "saving the air and the ozone layer. Well, the ozone layer is repairing itself, but not because of our changing use of chemicals, (most of the rest of the world has not switched over), the real savior of the ozone layer seems to be a reduction in solar activity as the sun goes into a ebb cycle of energy output.