NASA: Shuttle Temperature Rose Suddenly

Yahoo News ^ | 2/2/03 | Paul Recer - AP

[NormsRevenge]

NASA: Shuttle Temperature Rose Suddenly

By PAUL RECER, AP Science Writer

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -

NASA (news - web sites) officials said Sunday that space shuttle Columbia experienced a sudden and extreme rise in temperature on the fuselage moments before the craft broke apart.

AP Photo

NASA space shuttle program manager Ron Dittemore said the temperature rise — 60 degrees over five minutes in the mid-fuselage — was followed by an increased sign of drag that caused the shuttle's computerized flight control system to try to make an adjustment to the flight pattern.

Dittemore cautioned that the evidence was still preliminary, but that one of the possibilities was that there been damage or a loss of thermal tiles that protect the shuttle from burning up during re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere.

"We are making progress," Dittemore said, adding that the combination of new engineering data and an observer who reported seeing debris from the shuttle while it was still passing over California may create "a path that may lead us to the cause."

The shuttle broke up shortly before landing Saturday, killing all seven astronauts. Most of its debris landed in eastern Texas and Louisiana.

Earlier Sunday, NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe named a former Navy admiral to oversee an independent review of the accident, and said investigators initially would focus on whether a broken-off piece of insulation from the big external fuel tank caused damage to the shuttle during liftoff Jan. 16 that ultimately doomed the flight 16 days later.

"It's one of the areas we're looking at first, early, to make sure that the investigative team is concentrating on that theory," O'Keefe said.

The insulation is believed to have struck a section of the shuttle's left side.

Dittemore said the engineering data showed a temperature rise in the left wheel well of the shuttle about seven minutes before communication was lost with the spacecraft. One minute later, there was an even more significant temperature rise in the middle to left side of the fuselage.

The drag on the left wing began a short while later, causing the shuttle's automated flight system to start to make adjustments.

"There may be some significance to the wheel well. We've got some more detective work," Dittemore said.

The manufacturer of the fuel tank disclosed Sunday that NASA used an older version of the tank, which the space agency began phasing out in 2000. NASA's preflight press information stated the shuttle was using one of the newer super-lightweight fuel tanks.

Harry Wadsworth, a spokesman for Lockheed, the tank maker, said most shuttle launches use the "super-lightweight" tank and the older version is no longer made. Wadsworth said he did not know if there was a difference in how insulation was installed on the two types of tanks.

Wadsworth said the tank used aboard the Columbia mission was manufactured in November 2000 and delivered to NASA the next month. Only one more of the older tanks is left, he said.

O'Keefe emphasized that the space agency was being careful not to lock onto any one theory too soon. He vowed to "leave absolutely no stone unturned."

For a second day, searchers scoured forests and rural areas over 500 square miles of East Texas and western Louisiana for bits of metal, ceramic tile, computer chips and insulation from the shattered spacecraft.

State and federal officials, treating the investigation like a multi-county crime scene, were protecting the debris until it can be catalogued, carefully collected and then trucked to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.

The effort to reconstruct what is left of Columbia into a rough outline of the shuttle will be tedious and painstaking.

When a shuttle piece was located this weekend, searchers left it in place until a precise global position satellite reading could be taken. Each shuttle part is numbered; NASA officials say experts hope to trace the falling path of each recovered piece.

The goal is to establish a sequence of how parts were ripped off Columbia as it endured the intense heat and pressure of the high-speed re-entry into the atmosphere.

At least 20 engineers from United Space Alliance, a key NASA contractor for the shuttle program, were dispatched to Barksdale for what is expected to be a round-the-clock investigation.

Other experts, including metallurgists and forensic medicine specialists, are expected to join the investigation. Their focus will be on a microscopic examination of debris and remains that could elicit clues such as how hot the metal became, how it twisted and which parts flew off first.

In addition to NASA's investigation, O'Keefe named an independent panel to be headed by retired Navy admiral Harold W. Gehman Jr., who previously helped investigate the 2000 terrorist attack on the USS Cole (news - web sites).

Gehman's panel will also examine the Columbia wreckage, and come to its own conclusions about what happened. O'Keefe described Gehman as "well-versed in understanding exactly how to look about the forensics in these cases and coming up with the causal effects of what could occur."

Joining Gehman on the commission are four other military officers and two federal aviation safety officials.

Officials used horses and four-wheel-drive vehicles to find and recover the shuttle pieces. Divers were being called in to search the floor of Toledo Bend Reservoir, on the Texas-Louisiana line, for a car-sized piece seen slamming into the water.

Some body parts from the seven-member astronaut crew have been recovered and are being sent to a military morgue in Dover Air Force Base in Delaware.

Columbia came apart 200,000 feet over Texas while it was streaking at more than 12,000 miles an hour toward the Kennedy Space Center (news - web sites). A long vapor trail across the sky marked the rain of debris.

[chaosagent]

Yeah, I remember hearing Bob Crippen talking about this in the early days saying RTLS gave him nightmares. Said that neither he nor any other pilots could consistently land safely after RTLS in the sim.

Too many variables in the flight dynamics.

[The Iguana]

That's why 'casual observers' are just that. They don't know all the facts.

Maybe so.

If so it points to a larger flaw in the design.

But then I think we all knew this was a flawed design to begin with - a slapdash compromise, as Feynman pointed out.

[Jhensy]

Yeah, thanks for giving me that link...hard to believe, but I haven't been watching that much coverage of the tragedy, and I just happened to catch that 'sideways' video for the first time an hour ago. It struck me as intruiging, as many others found it, but reading the thread convinced me it's just lens distortion. Carry on.

[Arthalion]

You are incorrect. I'm an avid reader, and a spaceflight fanatic, and I remember reading several years ago that some NASA engineers in the early days of the shuttle program had worked out an "alternate landing mode" and proposed it to the higher-ups.

The plan, if I remember correctly, basically involved using a much shallower rate of descent. The shuttles would have spent an extended period of time at the atmospheric interface (where atmospheric density is at its lowest) bleeding off most of its velocity before dropping into the atmosphere. The result for the shuttle was far less stress on re-entry, and a much lower amount of heating on the tiles. The administrators at NASA ended up rejecting the procedure, however, because it would have increased the length of the landing sequence fivefold (IIRC). The proposition was that this procedure be adopted as the standard landing sequence, and from that perspective I can understand why it was rejected, but there is NO reason something like this couldn't have been attempted in an emergency where tile damage was a possibility. Even reducing the outside temperature by a few hundred degrees might have made the difference and saved those men and women. Of course, maybe it wouldn't have...but at least THEN they could have claimed to have tried everything.

I've spent a bit of time today digging and calling around trying to find the original source of that article, but I do recall that it was written by one of the original shuttle designers in 1979. What it reveals, though, is that there WERE things that could have been done if NASA had been aware of tile damage. This "we didn't check because we couldn't have done anything" nonsense is counterintuitive and goes against every engineering rule NASA has ever espoused. The result of all of this, I'm sure we'll discover later, is that someone didn't want to be bothered, and seven people lost their lives because of it.

[Blood of Tyrants]

In other words, if too many tiles or the wrong tiles come off on the way up, you are screwed? Somehow, that doesn't reassure me that the space shuttles are all that safe.

[_Jim]

Because of the concern about the incident at the launch involving the material that fell off of the structure between the shuttle and the main booster, had there been a great deal of damage I think the camera's around the launch pad would have picked up extensive damage on the surface beneath the wings. You would have to lose alot of tiles to increase the drag that is being talked about during the press conference.

Comment: Damage, although not evident, could still be present. Damage could also have been inflicted to the doors covering the wheeel wells. This looks to be a more likely scenario given the sequence of temp sensors losses and/or elevated temps followed by their loss too.

Do you understand that *some* of what they were indicating was the *loss* of the wiring to various temp sensors?

This last point is VERY important. It means something was buring through or something was being ripped away. Ripped away!

To instigate the amount of force needed to counter rotate the shuttle to the degree that had to occur to bring the inertial controls significantly online as they were

Comment: Attitude control. And they are online during this portion of flight continuously.

The attitude controls were correcting for an apparent roll to the left. As time went on - more correction, more Elevon deflection, was required.

reporting today would take more then a few tiles falling off. So if I am right that the tiles are a red herring, I

Comment: At mach 18 - I don't know the numbers ... depending on where the tiles were lost - or perhaps it was a corner of the wheel-well doors ...

have to envision a situation where there is a gradual loss of control. If the shuttle slowly began dipping the left

Comment: At no point (yet) did they lose control - more 'trim' was being required as TIME went on - indicating, perhaps that tiles were being stripped off slowly ...

wing toward the earth with the inertial control system trying to counter it, I envision a slow see-sawing of the

Comment: Attitude control. More and more input to the Elevons to 'correct' for a tendency of the shuttle to 'roll' left - due to drag on the left side.

left wing dipping down and then partially, but not completely, correcting the attitude, with the resulting heat measurements over the left wing surface and upper left

Comment: Here's where you're wrong. The corrections from the Elevons appear to work here (later - who knows).

Also - you can't account for the gradual loss of the temp sensors during this time.

The only thing that makes sense is - there was a hole on the wing - leading edge, underneath at the wheel well or top - somewhere.

side of the fuselage rising as it is exposed more and more to the atmosphere. I don't know where the telemetry

Comment: Nope. Roll is indicated to be corrected for (so far).

electronics and antenna are located, but it wouldn't

Comment: On top. surprise me if if was housed somewhere near the top of the fuselage and maybe even on the left hand side.

I believe the rise in temperatures after the loss of the telemetry dramatically increased, with the explosion that has been seen in the video all day long being the result.

Comment: This sentence doesn't make sense to me!

We don't have *any* data after the loss of telemetry (data transmitted from the shuttle).

I don't know how the elevon control structure works but a slow degredation of the attitude is consistent with the

Comment: BUT - the attitude was corrected .. but something was dragging - what was it?

Wheel well door? Tiles? Elevon damage? Internal hydraulics?

increasing temperature, before they it became critical, which occurred after the telemetry was lost.

Comment: At some point - the continued inputs for attitude adjustment made by the flight could no longer correct for more 'drag' on the left. At that point - they were in mortal danger!

Burn-up would follow ... as they shuttle was no longer in a nose-up position with it's best heat shields (on the bottom basically) doing their job ...

[hopespringseternal]

The Challenger commission turned up many examples of single point of failure vulnerabilities in the shuttle.

That is largely due to the politics surrounding its design. NASA's first approach probably would have been much more resiliant, but congress deemed it too expensive. As it exists today, the shuttle is not what anyone would wish for, it is what could be built given the political climate.

While it may have been possible to avert this disaster (but probably not), it would have required a certain amount of paranoia that would otherwise be paralyzing.

It is important to remember that shuttles aren't the only things that go down in flames. This sort of thing is just going to happen. In this case, NASA does not appear to have been negligent as they were preceding the Challenger incident.

[_Jim]

This is the first time I have read mentioned of "open source" contribution to space shuttle flight software, i

I'm KIDDING!!

[No Truce With Kings]

"Anyone know how fast the shuttle was going 80 seconds after launch? Some folks are having a problem believing it could have damaged anything, I mean it was foam , right?"

Pretty fast. Supersonic at least. Once upon a time I could have rattled that off without checking the book, but now I have trouble remembering my new telephone number.

MaxQ -- the maximum aerodynamic pressure point for launch occurs at T+73 (Go for Throttle-up) This is seven seconds after that. Probably about 2-3K MPH.

It was foam, but I was told it was a big honkin' piece, bigger than any that had come off before. One thing that worries me, although (unlike *some* others on this thread) I have to concede that I am speaking through my posterior oriface on this one -- could there have been ice on the foam?

If damp had seeped through the foam the cryos in the tank could have frozen the moisture. In March through November the Cape is warm enough that the ambient air would quickly melt any ice, but if the temp had been in the 40s or 50s maybe it would not have been hot enough to melt ice between the foam and the surface of the tank. Then, when the insulation ripped off you would have iced foam hitting the wing -- the difference between getting hit with a snowball and an iceball. Again, though, I have no facts, just a feeling. That and a buck will buy you a coke.

[VRWC For Truth]

Dittemore is in the arena.

Dittemore is out of his league.

[No Truce With Kings]

"But what if you also add the delta-vee available to the ISS? I know there were other obstacles, but what if they started preparing a rescue the day after launch?"

The orbits were in different inclinations. ISS could not have made the plane change.

[_Jim]

There is always a possibility of some type of heretofore unknown sabotage.

Maybe in the movies ... there are just too damn many technicians running around watching, observing, who *know* each other projects like this ...

Quality inspectors known as QA (Quality Assurance) or QRA (Quality Reliability Assurance) personnel check and double check and quite literally 'buy off' (stamp paperwork) for all work performed ...

I would rate this likelyhood as zero.

[chimera]

There have to be solutions to save the crew that do not require repair of the vehicle.

In this particular mission, there isn't much they could have done other than stay in orbit. They don't have in-flight tile repair/replacement capability. The orbital mechanics were such that they couldn't reach the ISS and even if they could they didn't have the docking adaptor or EVA suits to make an open crossing.

So you have to have someone go get them. And in the meantime try to hold out with the consumables you have and hopefully not have to jettison someone out the hatch to keep the others alive. Now, who would go get them? Shuttles take a minimum of weeks to get ready for launch. How many of the Columbia crew would have to be put out through the hatch to keep the others alive waiting for rescue? NASA doesn't like to think about those kind of contingencies. The Russians? I heard they had put Buran into mothballs or maybe were trying to sell it on e-bay? Soyuz? Do they have one ready to fire? Even if they did, well, you have a problem with overcrowding. Assuming one pilot to bring up the Soyuz, would there be room for seven others? If not, who goes and who stays behind to die?

Point is, we just don't have the infrastructure or financial commitment at this stage of our spaceflight development to keep these kinds of contingencies available. Like everything, you have to do the best you can with the resources you have, doing as much with it as possible within limits. That sometimes means taking risks, which, if things go wrong, always leaves you open to Monday morning quarterbacking.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Bummer. So if the wrong tile or too many tiles come off, you are basically dead.

[Othniel]

Or, as in Red Dwarf, build the ship out of those little plastic dolls that seem to survive every major disaster known to man: plane crashes, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc.

[No Truce With Kings]

"Dittemore is out of his league."

Please share your basis for that statement. Be specific. If you cannot justify it, you should withdraw it. At least an adult would.

[NormsRevenge]

Thanks.

This is not a minor event in my mind.

To all those of you picking on the software and sabotage angle or someone was tampering with controls remotely thru telemetry channels, I'm not buying it.

But, as I am all too often prone to say, Time will tell.

[Moonman62]

The orbits were in different inclinations. ISS could not have made the plane change.

I know, but inclination changes can be made with thrust.

[Will_Zurmacht]

I enjoy reading these threads because there are people here at FR who obviously know what they are talking about. I am not one of them. That being said, from my amateurish take on the situation, couldn't this vehicle have been designed better?

Using thousands of extremely fragile tiles to dissipate heat and protect an extremely fragile aluminium body seems very odd to me, but I am surely no scientist. I figure it all has to do with weight and cost, but it strikes me like we built a balsa wood car with pillows for bumpers. Granted, it's a stupid analogy, but riding a rocket is dangerous enough, why increase the risk to save a few bucks?

Prayers for the crew and folks on the ground....

[No Truce With Kings]

"Bummer. So if the wrong tile or too many tiles come off, you are basically dead."

It's not the answer I like, but it's the answer we have to live with.