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

[jpthomas]

I know that similar impact events had occurred on previous missions, but I would still describe such an impact as anomalous, since it's not supposed to occur. Any such event should have been given serious attention. Perhaps NASA had been lulled into a sense of complacency about these impacts, since nothing catastrophic had previously resulted from such an impact. However, such complacency would have to be considered part of the problem here, for example, why Dittemore shot down the request to the Air Force for satellite imagery of the wing leading edge.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

I didn't know they documented their first guess. I guess I missed it, but I could be guessing.

[bvw]

Look, it's clear to all, at a great sad cost, too -- that NASA "Engineering" needs desperately to be second-guessed, third-guessed, fourth-guessed. Well gee gosh -- their "engineering" work-product was in the end, all guesses! Blind and blinder guesses as time went on.

[TLBSHOW]

NASA: Foam Probably Not Cause of Shuttle Disaster ^

Posted by kattracks
On 02/05/2003 6:02 PM EST with 323 comments

Reuters ^ | 2/05/03
Wed February 5, 2003 05:45 PM ET CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (Reuters) - NASA said on Wednesday a piece of debris that broke loose from the fuel tank shortly after the launch of space shuttle Columbia was likely not the cause of the shuttle's loss and the death of its crew. The foam debris, about the size of a small suitcase, was captured on video breaking away from the shuttle's external fuel tank shortly after liftoff from Florida. The foam was seen vaporizing after it hit the underside of the orbiter. NASA shuttle program manager Ron Dittemore, casting doubt on one...


NASA Still Considering Foam Launch Damage ^

Posted by Brett66
On 02/06/2003 9:41 PM EST with 42 comments

Space.com ^ | 2/6/03 | Marcia Dunn
SPACE CENTER, Houston (AP) -- A day after all but ruling it out as a leading cause, NASA said Thursday that investigators are still considering whether a piece of insulating foam that struck Columbia's wing during liftoff was enough to bring down the shuttle. Shuttle program manager Ron Dittemore said that even though the possibility appeared remote, investigators must remain open to every option as they put together a so-called fault tree into what caused Columbia's fiery breakup just minutes from its landing Saturday. "The foam that shed off the tank and impacted the left wing is just one branch,...


FOAM HAS PLAGUED NASA FOR 5 YEARS ^

Posted by fooman
On 02/04/2003 10:36 AM EST with 307 comments

Mercury News ^
NASA has asked that tests involving freon free foam be witheld. What are they hiding? Article shows a NASA engineer noting the difficulties in creating the same characteristics.


NASA Backs Away From Foam Damage Theory ^

Posted by Indy Pendance
On 02/05/2003 8:41 PM EST with 58 comments

AP ^ | February 5, 2003 | MARCIA DUNN
SPACE CENTER, Houston (AP) -- After days of analysis, NASA backed away Wednesday from the theory that a piece of foam that struck Columbia during liftoff was the root cause of the space shuttle's disintegration over Texas. Shuttle program manager Ron Dittemore said investigators now are focusing more closely on the desperate effort of Columbia's automatic control system to hold the speed of the spacecraft stable despite an increasing level of wind resistance, or drag, on the left wing.Dittemore said that after a careful study of the damage possible from the fall of a chunk of foam insulation that was...


NASA Had Planned Changes on Shuttle Foam ^

Posted by kattracks
On 02/21/2003 2:07 AM EST with 7 comments

New York Times ^ | 2/20/03 | EDWARD WONG with WILLIAM J. BROAD
TENNIS SPACE CENTER, Miss., Feb. 20 — For three months before the Columbia lifted off, NASA had been looking at improving the way foam insulation was applied to a troublesome area of the shuttle fleet's external fuel tanks, agency officials said today. The changes were going to be introduced this year.Officials are now trying to determine whether it was the problem that they sought to repair that led debris to detach from the 15-story external tank some 80 seconds into the liftoff. The debris struck the left wing, possibly breaching the shuttle skin to let superheated gases enter on...


Shuttle Foam Theory 'Not a Favorite' - NASA Chief ^

Posted by NormsRevenge
On 02/23/2003 5:09 PM EST with 19 comments

Yahoo! News ^ | 2/23/03 | Reuters - Washington
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A theory that pieces of foam from the space shuttle Columbia's external fuel tank struck its wing shortly after launch was being investigated, but was "not a favorite" in the debate over what caused it to disintegrate on re-entry, NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said on Sunday. "Well, it's one of many theories, and it's not a favorite of anybody's at this juncture that I'm aware of," O'Keefe said on CNN's "Late Edition." "Everybody is looking at every single possible permutation of what could have caused this," he said. "That certainly is an active element of the overall...


NASA: Foam Probably Not Cause of Shuttle Disaster ^

Posted by kattracks
On 02/05/2003 6:02 PM EST with 323 comments

Reuters ^ | 2/05/03
Wed February 5, 2003 05:45 PM ET CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (Reuters) - NASA said on Wednesday a piece of debris that broke loose from the fuel tank shortly after the launch of space shuttle Columbia was likely not the cause of the shuttle's loss and the death of its crew. The foam debris, about the size of a small suitcase, was captured on video breaking away from the shuttle's external fuel tank shortly after liftoff from Florida. The foam was seen vaporizing after it hit the underside of the orbiter. NASA shuttle program manager Ron Dittemore, casting doubt on one...


'97 Report Warned of Foam Damaging Tiles-Absence of Freon Led to Detachment of Foam ^

Posted by kattracks
On 02/04/2003 2:54 AM EST with 72 comments

New York Times ^ | 2/03/03 | JAMES GLANZ and EDWARD WONG
s early as 1997, a senior NASA engineer warned that hardened foam popping off the external fuel tank on the Columbia shuttle had caused significant damage to the ceramic tiles protecting the vehicle from re-entry temperatures.The warning was sure to receive new scrutiny after NASA said yesterday that its investigation into the cause of the destruction of the space shuttle on Saturday was focusing on damage to tiles that may have been caused by foam or ice or a combination of the two. NASA officials also acknowledged that they might have underestimated the potential seriousness of damage sustained by...


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/search?SX=3ea6be6991e60a89961fe539a8bc1534b40d4e86;m=any;o=score;ok=Search;q=deep;s=NASA%20%3B%20foam;t=893645

[KellyAdmirer]

The shuttle itself should be second-guessed, imho, but we'll leave that for another day. I think there is an attitude problem at NASA these days, people there getting too complacent and assuming things will work out somehow despite the enormous stresses and strains on these craft. Since peoples' lives are at stake and the cost involved is not minimal, if the engineers can't take some second-guessing, they should find something else to do.

[bvw]

Here's what I said before we all heard about Rutan's marvelous little space vehicle:

To: Stars N Stripes
"Going into space is dangerous..."

Going into space for the sake of being the justification for one of human history's most massive jobs program is.

That is -- going into space with maximized expense is very very dangerous.

Cheaper is safer. Much cheaper -- very safe.

But then we wouldn't have the congresscritter franchised techno-socialist government-enforced massive wealth transfers and cushy lifetime high G level jobs for the pensionaire class.

And less fancy, grand and overindulgent national mourning galas for dead "heros"

21 posted on 04/18/2003 10:42 PM EDT by bvw

[RedBloodedAmerican]

"Dittemore said that after a careful study of the damage possible from the fall of a chunk of foam insulation that was"

So it does appear that they never ruled out foam, they indeed said it "probably" was a factor. I think they were wise to not jump to conclusions with a knee jerk determination. Operating a shuttle involves more than what you can see from a TV camera.

[lepton]

If it was the foam, it was the result of the (politically correct) failure to go back to the old foam after the EPA granted a waiver.

Most likely no one made the foam anymore.

[TexasCajun]

Thanks for the education.

Would it be a correct assessment that the new freon-free method of apply the foam contributed to the failure?

Or is the foam that hit the shuttle not related to the foam that insulates the Booster?

[XBob]

8 - "The Asbestos Nazis doomed the WTC." and the Challenger too.

[XBob]

22 - thanks for the bump. When Lockheed stopped cleaning with freon, they left a lot more of the ET 'dirty', unless they washed and dried the tank 16 times as long. (we did experiments proving this for cleaning other parts).

[justshe]

As one who urged a NON knee-jerk reaction, I say AMEN to your post:

So it does appear that they never ruled out foam, they indeed said it "probably" was a factor. I think they were wise to not jump to conclusions with a knee jerk determination. Operating a shuttle involves more than what you can see from a TV camera.

[Jim Noble]

Federal procurements look at engineers as a commodity, not as talent

Sounds like Medicare...

[XBob]

41 - "I know that similar impact events had occurred on previous missions, but I would still describe such an impact as anomalous, since it's not supposed to occur. Any such event should have been given serious attention. Perhaps NASA had been lulled into a sense of complacency about these impacts, since nothing catastrophic had previously resulted from such an impact. However, such complacency would have to be considered part of the problem here, "

This is exactly the same scenario which killed the Challenger - 'we know the o-rings leak, but they haven't killed anyone yet'.

[Interesting Times]

This is exactly the same scenario which killed the Challenger - 'we know the o-rings leak, but they haven't killed anyone yet'.

Evidently nobody at NASA remembered Feynman's Challenger report as they contemplated whether the insulation that was peeling off and smashing into the orbiter posed a serious problem.

The history of the certification and Flight Readiness Reviews will not be repeated here. (See other part of Commission reports.) The phenomenon of accepting for flight, seals that had shown erosion and blow-by in previous flights, is very clear. The Challenger flight is an excellent example. There are several references to flights that had gone before. The acceptance and success of these flights is taken as evidence of safety. But erosion and blow-by are not what the design expected. They are warnings that something is wrong. The equipment is not operating as expected, and therefore there is a danger that it can operate with even wider deviations in this unexpected and not thoroughly understood way. The fact that this danger did not lead to a catastrophe before is no guarantee that it will not the next time, unless it is completely understood. When playing Russian roulette the fact that the first shot got off safely is little comfort for the next. The origin and consequences of the erosion and blow-by were not understood. They did not occur equally on all flights and all joints; sometimes more, and sometimes less. Why not sometime, when whatever conditions determined it were right, still more leading to catastrophe?

In spite of these variations from case to case, officials behaved as if they understood it, giving apparently logical arguments to each other often depending on the "success" of previous flights. For example. in determining if flight 51-L was safe to fly in the face of ring erosion in flight 51-C, it was noted that the erosion depth was only one-third of the radius. It had been noted in an experiment cutting the ring that cutting it as deep as one radius was necessary before the ring failed. Instead of being very concerned that variations of poorly understood conditions might reasonably create a deeper erosion this time, it was asserted, there was "a safety factor of three." This is a strange use of the engineer's term ,"safety factor." If a bridge is built to withstand a certain load without the beams permanently deforming, cracking, or breaking, it may be designed for the materials used to actually stand up under three times the load. This "safety factor" is to allow for uncertain excesses of load, or unknown extra loads, or weaknesses in the material that might have unexpected flaws, etc. If now the expected load comes on to the new bridge and a crack appears in a beam, this is a failure of the design. There was no safety factor at all; even though the bridge did not actually collapse because the crack went only one-third of the way through the beam. The O-rings of the Solid Rocket Boosters were not designed to erode. Erosion was a clue that something was wrong. Erosion was not something from which safety can be inferred.

[Liberal Classic]

The O-rings of the Solid Rocket Boosters were not designed to erode. Erosion was a clue that something was wrong. Erosion was not something from which safety can be inferred.

Good post.

I would say that the insulation was not designed to peel off. Insulation peeling off was a clue that something was wrong. Insulation peeling off and smashing into the orbiter was not something from which safety can be inferred.

[HighWheeler]

I still remember that idiot Ron Dittemore holding a piece of foam about the size of a standard pillow (approx the size of the piece of Columbia liberated foam) and saying it was too soft to cause damage, and "made no sense" and "the experts are doubtful" about the foam.

What an idiot.

Not once did he describe the susceptability of the tiles to that much foam striking at some high rate of speed.

NASA announced that got rid of Dittemore on Easter Sunday of all days, and let him get away with "resigning" the position.

[HighWheeler]

"Administrator Sean O'Keefe derided critics who had placed blame on the foam as "foamologists."

Sean O'Keefe was another blowhard know-it-all idiot at the top of NASA.

NASA needs a good house cleaning.

[RightWhale]

it would have been perfectly possible to find a way to save the astronauts

Yes, but the head in the sand approach was used. This flight was the last flight that NASA won't have a backup ready to go every time and a complete in-flight inspection before re-entry. For the amount of money they spend they should have had all this.

[NormsRevenge]

Head of NASA shuttle program resigns