3rd From Sol

~ Learn from before. Live now. Look ahead.

3rd From Sol

Tag Archives: Solid Rocket Boosters

The Day Business Killed The NASA Space Program

28 Sunday Jan 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Government, History, NASA, Politicians, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Space, Technology, US History, US Space Program

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

aerodynamic forces, astronauts, Challenger, Disaster, Ethics, International Space Station, Kennedy Space Center, launch delays, manned space program, manned spacecraft, Morton Thiokol, NASA, Solid Rocket Boosters, space exploration, space flight, Space Program, Space Shuttle, SRB, STS-51-L, Vintage Space

Thirty-two years ago today, the first in-flight deaths of NASA astronauts tragically occurred after a launch that wasn’t supposed to happen. Some have proposed that the accident was a result of NASA and their contractors being pressured for public relations reasons. The truth is that their deaths were caused by trying to make space a business venture.

Seven astronauts killed in the Challenger accident

STS-51-L crew: (front row) Michael J. Smith, Dick Scobee, Ronald McNair; (back row) Ellison Onizuka, Christa McAuliffe, Gregory Jarvis, Judith Resnik.

 Death By Impact

On 28 January 1986, seven astronauts in the Space Shuttle Challenger (STS-51-L) died as their crew compartment slammed into the Atlantic Ocean after falling 12 miles in two and a half minutes. They were not killed in the breakup of the Shuttle, nor did they become unconscious from the depressurization of the crew compartment, as suggested by NASA. Some, if not all astronauts, were aware that they were about to die and knew there was nothing they could do to avoid it.

Trail of Causes

The technical primary cause of the accident was weather-related. The Space Shuttle was not to be launched at temperatures below 4° C (39° F) and had never been launch at temperatures below 12° C (54° F.) A few hours before the launch the temperature had fallen to -8° C (18° F.)

The technical fault caused by the weather were rubber O-rings at each of the joints of the solid rocket boosters (SRB.) The O-rings needed to be warm enough to expand to seal the joint to avoid burning gases from blowing out between the sections of the solid rocket booster. The concern was that the power of the burning fuel would rupture the joint at launch and cause an uncontrolled blast of hot gases to escape causing an explosion on the launch pad.

Known Problem to NASA

After previous Space Shuttle launches some of the recovered solid rocket boosters had shown ‘blow-by’ of the O-rings. That meant that the O-rings had not completely sealed the SRB joint and could have potentially compromised the safety of the crew had the blow-by breached to the exterior of the joint.

Engineers at Morton Thiokol, the Utah contractor that designed and built the solid rocket booster, had felt that NASA was ignoring their concerns about the issues regarding the SRB joints. In an emergency teleconference meeting held the night before the launch, the engineers made it clear that the temperatures were unacceptable.

NASA decision-makers did not like the ‘no-launch’ answer and suggested that if they didn’t launch the next day, the company would be blamed for the delay. Morton Thiokol managers caved into NASA and overruled their own engineers. They gave a go for launch. Just prior to the reversal of the recommendation the general manager of Morton Thiokol said to the Vice President of Engineering, “…take off your engineering hat and put on your management hat…” It was the moment that sealed the fate of the seven Challenger astronauts.

Run NASA Like a Business

Previous space projects at NASA had been focused on spaceflight. The goal of NASA and its contractors were to safely put humans in space.

That changed after we reached the Moon. We had done the impossible and now space was less interesting and too expensive. The deflation of post-Moon public support forced NASA to find a justifiable reason to move forward. The decision was that NASA must end the exploration of space and build the ‘business’ of space. The Space Shuttle was intended to make the United States leaders in space commerce.

The Space Shuttle was built to be a reusable, frequent-launch spacecraft that would make traditional, single-use rockets too expensive and unreliable for commercial customers to use. The idea of running NASA like a business became the core value of the organization.

Delays, Delays, Delays

By January of 1986, NASA far behind its business goals. It was not launching the Shuttle frequently enough, nor was the reusability function creating the desired savings. STS-51-L was a critical point in making NASA run like a business. Delays in the launch of previous Shuttle (STS-61-C) had pushed back the STS-51-L flight twice. The launch had been pushed back four more times because of weather and equipment malfunctions.

On the Business Stage

Business is like theatre. It doesn’t matter what is going on backstage because the only thing that counts is what the audience can see. Backstage, NASA was in crisis, but if they could launch STS-51-L, they could maintain the perception that they had everything under control.

There were several public image opportunities if the launch occurred on the 28th that would be lost if it was delayed again. For Challenger and NASA, the teleconference on January 27th had only one possible business outcome. It must be launched. The engineers at Morton Thiokol didn’t know that they were up against a business mentality when they met on that night. Nor did the managers at Morton Thiokol or NASA know that they were about to kill seven astronauts. To them, it was just business-as-usual.

Events in Motion

Once the decision was made to launch events were set in motion.

  1. The cold temperatures caused the O-rings to become rigid. After the SRB’s were ignited a puff of hot gases blew through the O-rings at a point near the large external fuel tank.
  2. The joint temporarily sealed itself off from the debris of the exhaust of the burning fuel.
  3. As the Shuttle rose after launch it hit the worst wind shear ever experienced by a Shuttle and the debris sealing the O-ring broke free allowing the hot gases to burn through the joint.
  4. The flame from the joint acted as a blowtorch cutting into the external fuel tank and finally igniting the hydrogen fuel.
  5. The resulting hydrogen fuel explosion ripped the External Tank into pieces, pushing the Shuttle away.
  6. The Shuttle rolled out of its nose-forward position and was blown apart by aerodynamic forces.
  7. The crew compartment broke free of the Shuttle and continued to ascend until it lost momentum and began to fall down toward the ocean. It did not suddenly depressurize, but likely, depressurized slowly. The astronauts were jolted by the breakup, but not severely injured.
  8. At least three of the astronauts turned on personal oxygen after as the crew compartment fell. One did not, and the equipment for the other three astronauts was not found.
  9. The crew compartment fell and eventually hit the ocean, killing the seven astronauts on contact.
  10. NASA created a story that the astronauts were killed instantly, even after they knew that the events during the accident did not support the story. 

End of the NASA Manned Space Program

The Space Shuttle didn’t fly again for almost three years. It would resume flight for an additional 13 years, but it failed to meet the objectives of making space a business venture. The accident exposed the inherent issues of running a space program like a business and political pressure undermined the concept of a manned space program.

In 2011, NASA ended the United States manned space program with the last launch of the Space Shuttle. Since the last Shuttle launch, NASA has worked hard at pretending to have a manned space program by paying Russia to send U.S. astronauts to the International Space Station and producing videos of the development of the next generation of manned spacecraft. The reality is that NASA no longer can put a human in space, at won’t at any time in the near future.

Below is Vintage Space’s take on the cause of the Challenger disaster.

Challenger STS-51L: What Happened – 12 Hours + 73 Seconds + 207 Seconds

28 Saturday Jan 2012

Posted by Paul Kiser in Government, History, Science, Space, US History

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

1986, Challenger, Disaster, ET, External Tank, January 28, NASA, Solid Rocket Boosters, Space Shuttle, SRB, STS-51L

Many experts have discussed what happened in the moments up to and after the breakup of the Challenger Space Shuttle on January 28, 1986. NASA thoroughly investigated the events the led to the loss of the vehicle and the seven astronauts on board. This information was released over the months (and years) following the disaster, but here is a synopsis of what has been learned and discussed.

The four basic parts of the Space Shuttle

What Didn’t Happen

Not An Explosion
The Challenger and the External Tank (ET) did not ‘explode’ in the sense of a violent, pressure wave of energy. The fireball that engulfed the Space Shuttle was triggered when the bottom of the External Tank broke away releasing all the hydrogen fuel. This fuel ignited and gave the ET a sudden acceleration or upward push, which then caused the rupture of the oxygen tank in the upper portion of the External Tank that tore off the top of the ET¹. The result of the escaping fuel from the top of the ET created an oxygen-rich environment around the vehicle. The fuel in the Orbiter for the thrusters also ignited which may have been released when the nose of the Challenger sheared off due to aerodynamic forces.

STS-51L at 59 seconds after launch – black smoke reappears

(¹There is also evidence that the nose of the starboard Solid Rocket Booster swung into the ET and contributed to the rupture at the top of the tank.)

The failure at both the bottom and top of the External Tank ultimately led to its breakup because it no longer had an aerodynamic structure to force the air around it. In the last images of the Space Shuttle before breakup, the entire vehicle is masked by a translucent white and gold curtain of smoke and burning fuel. The fireball that surrounded the Space Shuttle was a combination of all the liquid fuel being released and igniting.

STS-51L at 73 seconds – The both the bottom and top of the ET have ruptured

Similarly, the breakup of the Orbiter was not caused by explosive forces from the fireball. As the ET accelerated and broke apart Challenger began pivot, nose down, so that the upper portion of the Orbiter turned into the oncoming rush of air. Since it was not aerodynamically designed to fly into that position (the Shuttle was traveling at 1,450 mph) the nose portion, including the crew compartment sheared away from the rest of the vehicle. As the crew compartment separated from the rest of the Orbiter, air rushed in to the Payload Bay and other cavities literally blowing Challenger apart from the inside.

Joint Section of SRB and the seal is inspected after STS-51L disaster

Cold Weather and O-ring Failure Not the Entire Cause of Disaster
The joint on the starboard Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) failed and allowed extremely hot gases to be directed at the External Tank; however, the infamous O-rings (a primary and secondary for each joint) and the cold weather were probably NOT the only factors leading to the disaster.

STS-51L liftoff – Black smoke at lower right joint on SRB

Both Solid Rocket Boosters were subjected to subfreezing temperatures overnight (it was only 36°F at launch.) If temperature was the only factor, then other joint breaches should have occurred in the multiple joints of both SRBs. There was only one breach on one SRB and at one point in the 360° circumference around the joints. 

Photographic evidence shows that a breach of the joint occurred as Challenger lifted off, but it seemed to re-seal (probably with soot and debris) as the vehicle cleared the tower. However, Challenger hit the strongest wind shear conditions of any Shuttle in twenty-five missions soon after launch. Whatever was sealing the earlier breach in the O-ring probably broke free as the SRB joints flexed in the wind shear. That started the hot gases to burn an ever-increasing hole through the joint, which was aimed at the strut that attached the External Tank to the Solid Rocket Booster.

Joint design, wind shear, O-rings, weather, and possibly an unknown factor (undetected pre-launch damage or weakness at one point of the joint) all seem to create a set of extraordinary circumstances that doomed Challenger. 

What Happened

T Minus 12:00:00.000 Hours
In the twelve hours before the launch, Launch Pad 39B experienced colder temperatures than had occurred prior to any Shuttle launch. This likely caused the O-rings in the joint of the SRBs to contract slightly.

00:00:00.000 Launch
At launch, possibly due to the cold weather or other causes, the joint was not completely sealed and hot gases burned through one point on a joint on the starboard Solid Rocket Booster. As Challenger lifted off puffs of black smoke appeared near the joint area 3 times per second. 

+00:00:02.733 Joint Re-Seals
The black puffs of smoke are no longer visible. It is believed that debris from the O-rings temporarily re-sealed the joint.

+00:00:19.000 Wind Comment
Pilot Michael Smith says, “Looks like we’ve got a lot of wind here today.”

+00:00:36.990 Shuttle Responds to Wind Shear
Challenger automatically responds to heavy wind shear. This causes stress and flexing of the joints in the SRBs. The belief is that at some point the temporary seal formed soon after launch breaks free and hot gases begin to blow through the gap. The hole in the joint grows as the gases melt the structure around it.

At 59 seconds a flame is clearly escaping from the SRB above the rocket nozzle

+00:00:58.788 Heat Plume 
Cameras record an abnormal plume of flame and smoke coming from the starboard Solid Rocket Booster. The plume grows in size over the next several seconds. The plume is aimed at the strut on the External Tank which connects it to the Solid Rocket Booster.

+00:00:60.004 Pressure Drop in SRB
Computer data shows a pressure drop in the starboard Solid Rocket Booster. While Mission Control and the crew are not fully aware of this, there is no doubt that the leak in the joint is effecting the power output of the Solid Rocket Booster. Had the flame been pointed away from the Shuttle and the External Tank, the Solid Rocket Booster would have eventually caused an abort due to lack of thrust to make orbit.

+00:00:64.660 ET Burn Through
The plume between the Solid Rocket Booster and the External Tank suddenly changes shape. This indicates that the External Tank has burned through and hydrogen fuel is leaking and increasing the flame.

+00:00:66.764 Pressure Drop in ET
Pressure in the External Tank begins to drop indicating a massive leak; however, even if the astronauts had noted the drop in pressure there was no action they could have taken. In seven seconds the entire vehicle will be engulfed in flame and the External Tank and Orbiter will be breaking up.

+00:00:70.000 “Go at throttle up.”
Commander Scobee calmly responds to Mission Controls authorization to increase speed by saying, “Roger, go at throttle up.” While events around the Solid Rocket Booster and External Tank are beginning to impact the vehicles flight path, no one on the ground or in the air has any forewarning of what is about to happen.

+00:00:72.204 Wild Nozzle Movements
At this point the engines on the Solid Rocket Boosters are shifting positions to compensate for flight path variations caused by the cascading failures of the ET and SRB. These movements of the engines on the SRB and then by the Main Engines on the Orbiter become wilder over the next second. The computer is desperately attempting to keep the vehicle on the flight path.

+00:00:73.124 Beginning of the End
Challenger is traveling at almost twice the speed of sound. Seventy-three (73) seconds into the flight the lower strut on the External Tank, which has been the target of the blow torch of hot gases leaking from the SRB, gives way and the lower end of the starboard Solid Rocket Booster flies free. It begins to pivot around the upper support. At about the same time the bottom of the External Tank comes off allowing all the hydrogen to escape and ignite. This causes a rapid acceleration of the External Tank. The upward pressure on the interior of the ET then causes the a rupture at the top of the tank, which then releases the oxygen around the Shuttle. In rapid succession, the External Tank breaks up, the Solid Rocket Boosters completely separate from the vehicle, and the Shuttle is pushed into a pivot that causes the nose to shear off at the point just in front of the Shuttle bay.

STS-51L post breakup with crew cabin arching over ocean

The Next 207 Seconds
The crew compartment is violently thrown around, but the G-forces most likely are not severe enough to seriously injure the crew. Ultimately, the crew cabin continues to move up from approximately 46,000 feet to over 60,000 feet, until its forward momentum is lost and it begins to arc down to the ocean below. At one point the crew probably experience weightlessness as the cabin begins to fall. The crew compartment begins a rotation that will continue until about 100 seconds before impact when it seems to stabilize with the black tiles on the bottom of Challenger’s nose facing the shore.

There is little doubt that most, if not all, of the seven astronauts survived the breakup. Personal Egress Air Packs (PEAP) were activated by the crew and switches at the pilot’s station were changed from launch position. In both cases, the break up of the vehicle, nor the impact on the ocean could have caused these actions. It is believed that all astronauts were strapped into their seats at the time of impact, which would be expected regardless of their state of consciousness.

The oxygen supply for the crew was behind them and lost in the break up. It is likely that the crew knew they lost their oxygen supply, possibly due to a loss in cabin pressure and were seeking to reestablish oxygen flow via the PEAPs. Three of four air packs were activated, unfortunately, if cabin pressure was lost the air packs would not have offered pressurized flow and therefore the crew would have lost consciousness. How quickly that would have happened would have depended on the speed of the possible decompression of the crew compartment.

Regardless of their condition during free fall, the crew would have been killed instantly upon impact in the Atlantic Ocean at 207 seconds after the break up of Challenger. The upper left section of the compartment was likely the point of first impact. It would be over six weeks before the remains were found and recovered.

15 Days in January – Day 15

28 Saturday Jan 2012

Posted by Paul Kiser in Fiction, Government, History, Science, Space, Technology, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

1986, Challenger, Disaster, ET, External Tank, January 28, Kennedy Space Center, KSC, NASA, Orbiter, Solid Rocket Boosters, Space Shuttle, SRB, STS-51L

(NOTE: The following is a fictionalized account of the 15 days in January 1986 leading up to the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster on the 28th of that month; however, the details of weather and NASA events are based on known historical data.)

Titusville, Florida
Tuesday, January 28, 1986
High Temp: 46° F Low Temp: 32° F

Challenger and crew clear the tower

Where do I start? Seven amazing, wonderful, smart people lost their lives today. None of us can come to terms with the reality of what happened.

The morning was cold. We opened the water valves on Launch Pad 39B overnight to keep the lines from freezing and ice was all over the pad. Still, that should have not been a problem, nor caused a disaster. We had a delay of two hours because of an equipment failure on the pad, but the fuel and crew were loaded normally and Challenger launched at 11:38 AM.

Ice on Launch Pad 39B after water release to protect pipes

There were no warnings, no alarms, no indication of a problem. At 73 seconds after liftoff a massive cloud surrounded the vehicle and we lost sight of it. Then the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) emerged at the top of the cloud and continued on followed by pieces of debris. We knew that something had happened but it was over a minute before it became apparent that the Orbiter had not survived.

The impact on everyone was a wall of emotions. The feeling of loss because the seven astronauts were our family. The feeling of empathy for the astronaut’s families for their loss. The feeling of anxiety as to if there was something we did that caused this tragedy and the need to find answers as quickly as possible. The loss was made even harder as we all watched helplessly seeing the remains of STS-51L fall into the ocean. Many of us held out hope of the miracle until it became apparent there would not be one.

Much of what happened does not make sense. Any rocket-based vehicle is a flying explosion waiting to happen, but everything possible is done to keep the volatile chemicals from interacting until they reach the nozzle. The cloud was apparently the result of a sudden burn of fuel from the External Tank, which doesn’t necessarily mean it was a violent explosion. If there was an explosion, why did the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) escape, seemingly untouched. Challenger has been cursed with Main Engine problems, so some wonder if one of them failed causing the External Tank (ET) to breach and the fuel to burn, but again, why didn’t the SRBs also explode? 

There has been discussion that the cold might have caused a problem with the seal around the joint of a SRB, but why would that destroy the External Tank (ET) and Orbiter, but have seemingly little or no impact on the SRBs? It is apparent that the ET is key to explaining what happened. A joint could fail and hot gas escape that is aimed directly at the ET, which could cause an explosion, but a joint is 360°around and less than 25% of a joint faces at or near the ET. Odds of a first time failure of a joint facing the ET after 25 missions are ridiculously low.

STS-51L Christa McAuliffe, Gregory Jarvis, Judy Resnik, Mission Commander Dick Scobee, Ronald McNair, Pilot Michael Smith, Ellison Onizuka in White Room on 8 JAN 1986

The biggest question on everyone’s mind is the one no one wants to discuss. What happened to the crew? The Orbiter and ET emerged from the cloud in fragments and some were large enough to be the area where the crew sat during launch. Most of us believe that they were killed instantly, but no one will rest peacefully until we know what happened to them. 

The scope and breadth of this tragedy is far beyond what I could have imagined. Somehow we all have to move forward, but we’re all trying to deal with what happened. Moving forward doesn’t seem possible, right now. The first step in moving forward will be to understand what happened.

TOMORROW: What Happened to STS-51L

15 Days in January – Day 8

21 Saturday Jan 2012

Posted by Paul Kiser in Fiction, Government, History, Science, Space, Technology, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Challenger, hot gases, joint leakage, NASA, O-rings, Solid Rocket Boosters, SRB, STS-51-L, STS-51B, STS-51L, STS-6, STS-7, STS-8

(NOTE: The following is a fictionalized account of the 15 days in January 1986 leading up to the Challenger Space Shuttle Disaster. The character’s account is fictional; however, the details of weather and Space Shuttle events are based on known historical facts.)

Titusville, Florida
Tuesday, January 21, 1986
High Temp: 64° F Low Temp: 45° F

Challenger rolls out to Launch Pad 39A

Today we are having another day of cool, but clear weather with the wind out of the north. Challenger (OV-099) is still being prepped for a Friday launch and I’m just grateful that the original launch date was pushed back because of Columbia’s flight delays. Hopefully, it will be warmer on Friday, which will make the launch more comfortable for everyone watching. 

Challenger STS-6, her maiden voyage

As I said yesterday, Challenger has given us many ‘challenges.’ The fact that OV-099 was not originally intended to fly may be part of the reason she has been sometimes reluctant to leave Earth. That said, despite her temperament, Challenger  has broken new ground for the program.

After her problematic maiden voyage the second flight was relatively trouble-free. Launched on June 18, 1983, Challenger STS-7 was the first mission with a planned landing at KSC, but that had to be waved off because of weather.

Challenger in lightning storm just prior to liftoff

Challenger’s third mission (STS-8) was supposed to be in July, but because a payload issue the launch was pushed back to August 30, 1983. After a spectacular lightning show just before launch, Challenger lifted off almost on time making history as the first nighttime launch of a Space Shuttle. This feat was complimented by the first nighttime landing when Challenger returned on September 5, 1983.

1984 was a great year for Challenger. OV-099’s fourth, fifth, and sixth missions gave us the first untethered ‘space walk,’ the first Orbiter landing at KSC, the successful recovery, repair, and redeployment of an orbiting satellite, the first time seven people were launched into space, and the first time two women were in space at the same time.

Bruce McCandless II became first human satellite on STS-41B

The seventh mission for Challenger, and her first of 1985, was unusual because it was the only mission where the Shuttle had been delivered to the launch pad and then had to be pulled back to the Vertical Assembly Building (VAB.) Concerns about the reliability of a satellite in the payload bay of Challenger forced NASA to cancel the mission.

After a two month delay Challenger’s new STS-51B mission was finally launched on April 29, 1985, with the European Space Lab – 3 in its payload bay. The mission was a success with the only issue with the flight occurring after the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB) were recovered. The left SRB had evidence that it leaked hot gases through a joint area and two rubber o-rings that were designed to sealed the joint were damaged. One ring had 4mm of erosion and the other had 8mm of erosion.

This leakage presents two issues. The first is the potential loss of pressure if the leak is too major and the second is the danger of hot gases that might be directed toward the External Tank (ET), the Orbiter, or the other SRB, which might damage them. Fortunately, this was not an issue during this flight.

Despite the SRB hot gases leakage issue on her seventh mission, the biggest scare Challenger would give us was on her eighth mission. I’ll talk about that tomorrow. 

Other Pages of This Blog

  • About Paul Kiser
  • Common Core: Are You a Good Switch or a Bad Switch?
  • Familius Interruptus: Lessons of a DNA Shocker
  • Moffat County, Colorado: The Story of Two Families
  • Rules on Comments
  • Six Things The United States Must Do
  • Why We Are Here: A 65-Year Historical Perspective of the United States

Paul’s Recent Blogs

  • Dysfunctional Social Identity & Its Impact on Society
  • Road Less Traveled: How Craig, CO Was Orphaned
  • GOP Political Syndicate Seizes CO School District
  • DNA Shock +5 Years: What I Know & Lessons Learned
  • Solstices and Sunshine In North America
  • Blindsided: End of U.S. Solar Observation Capabilities?
  • Inspiration4: A Waste of Space Exploration

Paul Kiser’s Tweets

Tweets by PaulKiser

What’s Up

February 2026
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
« Jun    

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 688 other subscribers

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

 

Loading Comments...