Conference 7.286::space

================================================================================
 VAXWRK::HELSEL                Space Shuttle News             30-JAN-1986 16:49 
 Note 128.0               -< Rockwell vs. Lockheed >-              No responses 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[text removed]

>I think eventually we will find that the explosion
>was through a faulty refurbished (cost saving) booster.  

[more text removed]

        I just heard on NBC Nightly News (7:00PM) that NASA was 
        currently concentrating on a possible failure in a joint in the 
        assembly of the right hand booster (the one NOT visible in the 
        TV views of the explosion)! It seems that these are shipped to 
        the Cape in 4 pieces and final assembly is done there. (Kinda 
        like fitting pipes together, I guess.)
        
        I'm not sure that I like such a quick (if true) culprit to be 
        found, and yet, I definitely want the space program to continue 
        as soon as possible. A problem like this should be reasonably 
        easy to fix so that we could get on with things.
        
        {with mixed technical feelings along with some very sad ones}
        
        /s/     Bob

Re: .2

The "culprit" may have been apparent from other camera shots the public
does not have access to at this time.   NASA should not yield to public
(or should I say, the media's) pressure for a quick answer.

Wishing I would wake up from this nightmare...  doesn't seem to be happening..

- dave

RE: .2

You mention other pictures  being available.  I was wondering about that
myself.  Watching television coverage of the disaster the other day I was
surprised that all the pictures were the same.  Do the networks "pool"
coverage, or are the pictures provided by NASA, or is some other procedure
used?  Also, if other pictures are available, why can't the networks get
them for broadcast.  I sure would like to see something new -- I am
wearing out the tape that I have looking for something I missed on
previous viewings.  All in vain, more than likely.

	Mike

I believe the long-range camera coverage is a service NASA supplies to
whoever wants it.  It is a single feed, and NASA does the camera switching.
Heck, the networks were so "ho hum" about the launch they didn't even
carry it live, so why bother setting up extra cameras, etc. when NASA 
hands them nice spots for the evening news for free?

The videotapes from each camera would have been impounded by NASA and
therefore not made public.

I'm sure they have other film cameras which runs at higher speeds than
30f/s, but whether they use them for every launch?

Also, there might be chase planes with cameras we don't know about.

- dave

I believe the networks all use "NASA Select" a video feed from NASA, simply
because the pictures are much better than they could get themselves.  I
don't know how the close-up pictures are generated and whether there is more
than one camera location.  I think I have seen pictures from the chase planes
for other launches.

Burns

[Beat ya..]

By the way, higher speed film cameras would be a great benefit to
the analysis, as they would allow a more detailed examination of the
progression of the fire.

I haven't watched the news over the past few days, but my wife thinks
that camera shots from the starboard side are more revealing (based on
news scraps she has heard).

- dave

Hmmmmmm........

I try to get a discussion going about contractors, which after all is the
real bulk of the problem, and we get off on film speed and camera angles.

Surely somone out there wants to put in a "I told ya so" for Rockwell or
stand up for the Lockheed people who are in the pressure cooker.  Maybe that
won't happen here.  But, I sure am glad that I am not one of the Techs or
Engineers that stacks the boosters; they're really gonna take it on their
knees on this one.  You just know those guys aren't sleeping knowing that
they made a mistake that cost 7 lives, billions of dollars worth of equipment
and may have impacted the entire program, although for better or for worse
we don't know yet.

However, look at it this way.  I can almost guarantee that this is not a
design defect, as our pink press would love to flash in big pink letters.
But a human error.  Therefore, the right thing to do is get Discovery out
of the OPF, mate it up and get it out on PAD-A and get it up by the end of
February.  Let's stack the boosters right this time, adjust our attitudes
and show the world that we know what the heck we're doing instead of letting
the press make a "Clorox-selling spectacle" of the whole program's failures.

I hate to bring up the proverbial "Get back on the horse" thing, but this
country hasn't come this far by having a bunch of pansies stop our top efforts
everytime something goes wrong.  I agree that this is a serious situation,
but learn from it!!!  Does anyone think Commander Scobee would disagree.

So let's go out there and launch one for the Gipper.  Forget about Brokaw
and
those sensationalists.  They LIVE for this and those vultures make me sick.

Brett.

Okay, Okay....I know I'm guilty of changing the subject too, but I could
only hold that in for so long.  As long as I changed it to a shot at the
press, let me say that I think Wednesday's McNeil Lehrer report was the best
covearge.  They didn't sit there with the model rocket and pretend to be
experts.  Instead of having no-minds, they got real people that were involved
in the program and gave a FAIR report without all the hype.  

I'll admit they had a psychologist of some sort on there, whom I thought
I would hate, but I liked all his views, so that was a good move, too.  By
the way, he was for the "Get back on the horse thing" too to prove to children
how to show determination instead of being a liberal pansie.  Oddly enough,
he was from Boston.

Brett.

One final (?) comment on the pictures:  I did see one brief shot from a weather
satellite the other day; not too detailed but the explosion was clearly visible.
 Given this, and the knowledge of some of the extrodinary close ups they
CAN get from orbit, I wonder what else they DO have?

Also, remember that one shot (ground based) 
they (apparently inadvertantly) let slip onto
the network feed from the first landing, where, with excellent stability,
you could see the shuttle comming in HUNDREDS of miles still over the ocean?

Jeff

re.; .7

I think it might be just a bit premature to "guarentee that it was a design 
defect" and/or point fingers at either Rockwell or Locheed (although it does 
make for interesting speculation).  But that is all it is: SPECULATION.

The comment "having a bunch of pansies stop our efforts every time something 
goes wrong..." sort of suprises me from an engineering standpoint.  One would 
think that a detailed, complete investigation of all possible causes, should 
not be described as pansies stopping our efforts, no matter how long the
investigation takes.

I think that the crew of the Challenger, while wanting the program to go on as 
strong as ever, would not want it to restart without finding out and 
correcting the causes of that tragedy.

Sure, I agree with the sentiment to "get back on the horse".  But to that I 
would add:   

             Don't get back on before the leg fracture has healed...

							- Mike

re .10
At least you have a point of view.  However, I think you'll find my speculation
is quite accurate.

Brett.

Comments, opinions, and speculations aside.  NASA has always been known for
it's attention to detail and it's dedication to making the program and missions
as safe as possible.  With all the attention focused on this event and the
outpouring of support shown by the American people over the last few days, I
don't believe that anyone but NASA itself will determine when the next launch
takes place.  NASA won't send ANYONE up in another shuttle until they are
comfortable with the results of the investigation.  There is too much invested
in the program to let a shuttle sit there when all of the questions have been
answered, and too much to lose to send one up BEFORE they are all answered.

RE:  "getting back on the horse" and the subsequent comment.

Anyone who has actually been it that predicament will tell you that;

	A.  You DO have to get back on the horse.
	B.  One usually waits until the horse has calmed down a little
		before making the attempt unless you like getting thrown.

Only a fool tries to get back on the horse while it's still bucking...


								Rick

re: .12 If you suspect the horse has trouble with his legs you might
        check that out first, too.

re: psychologist on Macneil/Lehrer: It wasn't odd at all that he was from
    Boston. He's part of a consulting firm that Concord hired to help them
    deal with the grief of the schoolchildren.

re: pictures. I understand that NASA did not release the chase plane
    footage to the press as they have on all previous flights. But than
    again if you had seen the ridiculous conjectures the networks came up
    with on the film they already had, would you have given them more?

							-Brian

INTERESTING COMMENTS.  I AGREE WITH ALL OF YOU WHO STATE THAT THE PROGRAM MUST
GO ON.  IT DOES MAKE SENSE TO COMPLETE THE FAILURE ANALYSIS HOWEVER BEFORE ANY
MORE FLIGHTS ARE ATTEMPTED.  WE ARE DEALING WITH SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN THE
APOLLO 204 INCIDENT, WHERE THE SHUTTLE IS A "MATURE" AND TESTED SYSTEM.

QUITE FRANKLY, FROM THE POINT OF THE PROGRAM, I AM RELIEVED THAT THE FAULT WAS
NOT IN THE ORBITER, ITSELF.  IF THAT WAS THE CASE, THE INVESTIGATION WOULD BE
FAR MORE COMPLEX AND DIFFICULT.  

SPECULATION ABOUNDS.  THOSE OF YOU DISCUSSING CAMERA ANGLES ARE MOST CORRECT.
I'M SURE THAT NASA HAS PHOTOS OF THE STARBOARD SIDE THE VEHILCLE.  THE LATEST
WORD IS THAT THERE WAS A FAULT IN THE JOINT OF A SRB SEGMENT THAT BLEW OUT
AND CAUSED A STRUCTURAL FAILURE OF THE ET.  NASA PROBABLY HAS PICTURES
CONFIRMING THIS.  WHAT THE AGENCY IS NOW DOING IS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND NOT
WHAT HAPPED, BUT WHY IT HAPPENED.  DURING STS 8 (NIGHT LAUNCH, YET) AN SRB
WAS APPROXIMATELY 2 SECONDS FROM BURNING THROUGH ITS CASING.  THIS FAULT
WAS TESTED IN STATIC FIRINGS OF2 SRBS AT HUNTSVILLE AND NEW MEXICO, I BELIEVE.
NO  DOUBT, IF THIS IS THE BELIEVED FAULT HERE, THERE WILL BE MORE STATIC
FIRINGS.  WE CAN ONLY WAIT AND SEE.

AS FAR AS THE LOCKHEED VS ROCKWELL QUESTION THAT STARTED THIS FILE.  I DO NOT
EXPECT TO SEE ANY FINGER POINTING FROM EITHER ORGANIZATION (AT LEAST IN 
PUBLIC).  ALTHOUGH THE COMPETITION FOR THE SUPPORT CONTRACT WAS SPIRITED 
AND INTENSE, BOTH FIRMS KNOW THAT IT WOULD NOT SERVE THEM IN ANY WAY TO 
BUT TOCONDUCT THEMSELVES IN A VERY RESTRAINED MANNER AT THIS POINT.  THE
AEROSPACE INDUSTRY IS A LOT SMALLER GROUP THAN MOST PEOPLE BELIEVE.  WITH
LIMITED FUNDING FOR NEW PROJECTS, THE FIRMS ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR
IMAGES IN WASHINGTON.

ONE LAST NOTE:  ALTHOUGH I'M NOT A REGAN FAN, I BELIEVE THAT HE HAS HANDLED
 THIS SITUATION MASTERFULLY.  I AM IMPRESSED.

Re: .0 and several others:

The current 'press leak' stuff at the moment is right were you thought it
would be and that is on the SRB (the right one at the joint as mentioned
above).

NASA does, indeed, have many angles but they are being very careful about
what they say or show at this point.  I'm pretty sure that they always have
the oncoming shot from above on all shuttle launches and that one should
be very enlightening.

As to the subject of this note:

My recollection is that Rockwell received a lot of blame on the Apollo deaths
19 years ago so there may be yet another irony here.

Clearly, no one associated with the assembly of the vechicle (especially
the right SRB) is going to be sleeping or eating well for a long time.

Don

As far as pictures go, NASA has released footage shot from the starboard
side of the vehicle, which clearly show a tongue of flame shooting from the
starboard SRB up along the ET.  Sure seems like a blowtorch effect to me...

Dan

re: .-several The previous SRB problem was, by my recollection, not with the
    casing but the nozzle.

re: SRB failure in photos: as I mentioned elsewhere, a leaked report has it
    that the right SRB showed reduced exhaust pressure in the seconds prior
    to the explosion.
							-Brian

re various points previous...

The earlier SRB problems were with the nozzle linings, which are replaced
as part of the refurbishment process. The fault occured during STS-8, the
first flight with uprated SRBs. STS-9 was delayed three months while its
SRB stack was disassembled and examined. The fault was in a manufacturing
process. I don't think any static tests resulted.

The Sunday NYT talked about the starboard SRB pressure drop, and the resulting
drop in thrust. They claim (via informed leak) that the flight computers
vectored the nozzles over to compensate. It discusses some of the operation
of the flight programming as well. The loss in thrust caused by a 'slight'
leak through a seam could possibly be balanced by revectoring the nozzles
in which case the program would assume that operation was still close enough
to nominal that there was no reason to raise an alarm.

Chase planes? Does anyone KNOW that there are chase planes? I know they
fly something to check conditions for RTLS abort prior to launch but I thoght
they liked the skies clear at launch time. The only advantage a plane would
have over ground based high speed tracking cameras would be the view from
above.

gary                                             

re various stuff

The pictures of the starboard SRB were most interesting (I wish
they would run the flight clock in the corner so the interested
viewer can determine if we are seeing "real-time" film (or
slow-motion, etc.). 

If what we were seeing was real-time, then there was a problem in
the SRB for a good 5 seconds (I'm working off memory here).
Alarms would go off if an SRB's nominal thrust deviated by
100,000 pounds - this apparently didn't happen. 

As always, I hope people don't act like the idiots in the media
(see below) and quickly assume cause and effect.  We see a burst
of flame where there shouldn't be one.  To state that this was
the CAUSE of the explosion is a simple thing to say - less simple
to prove. 


- dave                    [Somebody please wake me up from this nightmare!]

[I haven't been following the TV on this - practically every
report makes me want to throw rocks at my set.  The latest
fist-maker was a comment from a CBS goon after viewing the
starboard film - his words were something like: "Why NASA has not
released this revealing film until now was not explained.." in
serious tones.  I think this guy (and his editor) have watched
too many monday night movie trial lawyer flicks...  as if NASA
isn't too busy already, CBS is trying to turn this into a
consipiracy. Grrrrrr.  A local Channel 5 report was so
disgusting, I won't even explain it here.] 

I am very much in support of the Shuttle program and NASA, but I, too, have a 
problem with NASA restricting access to pictures and information about debris
that they are collecting from the ocean. The fact that the media may distort 
this information is not a reason at all for being close-mouthed about the 
investigation. This is not typical of NASA...they have quite a bit of support 
out there. I think that keeping everyone in suspense will only hurt the 
public's view of that organization. I also don't buy the "they have better 
things to do" excuse. There are people that are paid to interface with the
public and since NASA has done a very good job of informing the public in the 
past, they obviously have mechanisms in place to make it happen efficiently.

I have a whole wall of shuttle photos in my office, and each day I come in 
here and look at them and want to know more of why this tragic accident 
occurred.

jim

SUSPENSE!?!!!!  I'm sorry, but I don't consider the flow of information
that has been provided by NASA to be constricted 3-4 days after 7 exceptional
people lost their lives, and a 1.5 billion dollar ship is destroyed.

Put yourself in their shoes - your on a team of engineers who have been
assigned to determine the cause of the accident.  At your disposal are
all the IMPOUNDED tapes and films of the "event".  You are viewing what
may PROBABLY be some of the most important clues to solving this mystery.
Tell me that the first thing on your mind is to let the press have this
and try to make some sense out of it.  If a P.R. person walked in the room
asking for something, I'd hand him yesterdays McDonalds wrappers and tell
him to leave us alone for 24 hours!

NASA has an obligation to disclose all information about this terrible
incident.  I don't believe that they have a obligation to throw raw data
into the ignorant eyes of the press and public.  Wrong conclusions, hype,
and general stupidity can only make a bigger PR mess than they have now.

There will be papers, books, and probably a 2-hour television show on
what happened 6 months from now.  When those substantive documents appear,
I will sit down, read them thoroughly, find out finally what went wrong
and why - and then cry.  I'm content with random tidbits until then.

- dave

p.s.  Can someone let me know if NTSB investigations are generally considered
      "closed" till the final report?   I think that they are.

Well said, Dave.  Don't know for a fact, but I believe (from the lack of info
that has come from them in the past until the "final reports" have been issued
that they are indeed "closed" investigations.

								Rick

RE: .19 And local reporters:

	<FLAME ON>
	On Tuesday Night I made the mistake of watching "Chronicle", and
	witnessing the sleaziest piece of sensationalist crap I've seen
	in ages. There was a segment entitled "The problem plagued history
	of the space shuttle program". They went back and repeated every
	bit of media whining from the last ten years. Just once I'd like
	to see them interview some engineers in other disciplines about
	whether the space shuttle program is problem plagued. Let's send
	50,000 workers from DEC off for 10 years to build a new computer
	and O.S. which they can't test as a unit until they boot it on
	national T.V. for the first time.

	In my estimation, the space shuttle program has been plagued by
	one simple problem throughout it's history. That problem is the
	first amendment to the constitution.
	<FLAME OFF>

Re: NASA withholding information: As was pointed out, it ain't the P.R.
    people who are too busy. The investigation board would have to find
    a good piece of film or data out of tons, and they ARE too busy. Nobody
    wants to explain to the public what went wrong more than NASA does.
    I don't know how many times I've spoken with DEC customers in conversations
    like:
		What's wrong with my software?
		I don't know yet what's wrong.
		What do you think is wrong?
		I have no idea, or I could tell you what IS wrong.
		When will you know?
		If I knew that, I'd no what was wrong.
		...
   I don't like it done to me, so I'm willing to extend the benefit of the
   doubt to others in the same position. Much as it pains us to know what
   went wrong, we have to wait. Rest assured that the people not telling us
   are people who have devoted their lives to the program, are devastated by
   the accident, and want nothing more than to share with us the assurance
   that the problem is fixed.

						-Brian

The NTSB does withold most if not all information, and definitely 
witholds their preliminary conclusions until they are satisfied that 
what they are going to say is as correct as it can be. Part of the 
reasoning is the legal aspects of any incident (their term for an
accident).

        /s/     Bob
        
p.s. I think we have gotten a tremendous amount out of NASA so far, 
considering the circumstances!

p.p.s. The stuff on the NTSB comes from my knowledge of discussions with 
my uncle who is a retired NTSB aircraft investigator.

re somewhere around .14

Someone asked if there are chase planes, and mentioned the landing tests
going on before the launch.

The landing tests are flown by the shuttle landing simulator, a Gulfstream
specially modified to handle like the shuttle (i.e. a ton of bricks).  These
tests are used to determine whether there is sufficient visibility, low
enough winds, etc etc for a shuttle disabled after launch to land (called
a Return-to-launch-site abort).

In addition, there are chase planes aloft.  Their purpose is not to chase
the shuttle as it takes off (quite hard!), but to escort it if it makes
an RTLS abort.  They serve the same purpose as they do during a normal
landing, relaying altitude etc information to the shuttle, and TV to the
ground.

I don't know whether these chase planes are in position so they can get
good pictures of the launch or not.  Persumably they are timing their
loops to be in position to rendezvous with a returning shuttle.  In addition,
I don't know whether they would be at 50000+feet so as to be above the
shuttle when the explosion occurred.


Burns

Well, so much for the assertions in .0, .7, etc.  A very extensive
investigation into any contractor would no doubt uncover some real dirt,
but the SRB joint problem seems to have originated and persisted without
any help at all from slipshod assemblers.
				/AHM