Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space United States

Foam Gluing Flaw Killed Columbia Astronauts 271

Posted by michael from the didn't-use-krazy-glue dept.
Freshly Exhumed writes "Now it can be told: NASA's Columbia Accident Investigation Board has blamed the faulty application of insulating foam for the loss of the Columbia orbiter. From the chief engineer for the external tanks project: '...NASA concluded after extensive testing that the process of applying some sections of foam by hand with spray guns was at fault.' And further: 'It was not the fault of the guys on the floor; they were just doing the process we gave them'."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Foam Gluing Flaw Killed Columbia Astronauts More

Foam Gluing Flaw Killed Columbia Astronauts

Comments Filter:

  • 60%? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Koushiro ( 612241 ) <koushball@gm a i l . c om> on Saturday August 14, 2004 @08:09AM (#9966559) Homepage
    Gaps, or voids, were often left, and tests done since the Columbia accident have shown liquid hydrogen could seep into those voids. After launch, the gas inside the voids starts to heat up and expand, causing large pieces of insulation to pop off.


    NASA said this happens on about 60 percent of its shuttle launches.

    Sixty percent of the time? I don't pretend to be an expert, but that number seems a bit high, especially when this can cause such damage. Can anyone shed some more light on the situation here?

    • Re:60%? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 14, 2004 @08:13AM (#9966572)
      Sixty percent of the time? I don't pretend to be an expert, but that number seems a bit high, especially when this can cause such damage. Can anyone shed some more light on the situation here?

      Luck basically. 60% of launches lost foam, and the foam has a miniscule chance of causing damage

      It might hit at an acute angle and bounce off easily. the foam might not hit the orbiter at all. The foam might be tiny tiny pieces.

      It's because of this experience of the foam falling off so often and not causing damage that the idea foam could be to blame was originally discounted. It was just too outrageous - but when foam was actually tested on the most dangerous possibly spot, the leading edge of a wing or right into the flat of the nose, then the damage became obvious.

      It's like the experience of riding a bicycle, and saying being hit by bugs isn't dangerous - and 99% of the time it's not, until you happen to get a rather sharp angry beetle right in your eye. Blinded and in pain riding along at 30kph and you're suddenly on the pavement.
    • A couple of things to remmeber include the fact that since this is 'foam' there are a lot of people out there thinking impacts would cause very little to no damage, and even with a 60% event rate (foam poping off) half of that is going to happen on the 'far' side of the tank from the shuttle, meaning that about 30% of the launches would result in some foam poping off on the shuttle side of the tank, and a significant percentage of those events will have no impact with the shuttle as well.

      Lastly as has alre

    • It seems to me (Score:3, Informative)

      by barakn ( 641218 )
      that ABC has messed up the story. What is really getting into the voids is water vapor or nitrogen [space.com]. Either that or the tank is so poorly constructed that dangerously flammable liquid hydrogen is leaking out, in which case it is a wonder that the shuttle hasn't exploded right on the launch pad.

  • Heroes (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mfh ( 56 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @08:11AM (#9966566) Homepage Journal
    Let's remember the heroes who died that day. I think it's very sad something like a little glue can cost lives in the blink of an eye. What a horrible mistake. There is an interesting article [newscientist.com] on the safety upgrades for the spring 2005 launch.

    • Re:Heroes (Score:3, Insightful)

      by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 )
      I personally feel better knowing that it was a flawed human process that caused the fatal accident.

      Had it been a random unknown event, then we could not learn from our mistakes, and potentially leave other things to cause problems later.

      This will have refocused every member of the team, and there is the potential for this mishap to make Nasa even stronger, and make space travel safer for us all, and if that occurs, then those 7 heroes will not have died in vein.

    • Not Heroes (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 14, 2004 @08:52AM (#9966671)
      It is a terrible tragedy, yes. They're not heroes. Enough of calling anyone who dies in a well publicized disaster a hero.

      • Re:Not Heroes (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Mmm coffee ( 679570 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @10:09AM (#9966940) Journal
        I agree the term "Hero" is tossed around all too often. However, these men and women put themselves into some very extreme and dangerous conditions in order to advance the human race as a whole in countless different areas, and paid the ultimate price. These modern explorers definately earned the title "Hero" in my books.
        • I guess by intention, they were heroes, but I'd dispute the idea that these shuttle flights have done anything to advance the human race and I don't believe we have done any manned space exploration since the moon missions.
      • They're heroes because they were astronauts, not because they died.
        • Not every astronaut is a "hero" -- but it does take a lot of guts to do something that you know might kill you and willingly do it anyway, and those of us who do things for the love of it believe that if we die doing them, we'll be going out doing something we love and not quietly in our sleep at the age of 101.

          Jimmy Buffett once said that "Most are fine as oysters, while some become pearls." He spoke of Charles Lindbergh and Elvis Presley; two people who had a dream and went out and changed the world wit
          • Not every astronaut is a "hero" -- but it does take a lot of guts to do something that you know might kill you and willingly do it anyway

            You can say the same about anyone who drives a car. Not a day goes by without a fatal accident. Today, for example, a truck driver didn't notice [cbs5.com] that the cars in front started slowing down... In other places it may take some real bravery just to be in the street [cbs5.com] at night.

            All in all, we may even declare a typical construction site to be more dangerous than a Shuttle fl

      • Re:Not Heroes (Score:3, Insightful)

        by lobsterGun ( 415085 )
        Bold words from an anomymous coward.

        They aren't heroes because they died. They're heroes because, like all astronauts, they put their lives on the line for the betterment of mankind.

        That makes them heroes.

      • But these people actually were heroes, like all early explorers who venture out into the great and deadly unknown (be it land, ocean, or space, depending on era and context) in the interest of making a better life for their fellow beings. Every astronaut takes his/her life into her hands as a matter of course just to better lives for everyone else, just like firefighters or police officers. Not just that, but astronauts do something fantastic and inspiring and educational that kids can really look up to wit
        • The individuals on board Flight 93 who counter-attacked to try and regain control of the plane are heros. They knew they were going to die regardless, yet they had the self control and motivation to act.

          Dan East
          • Knowing you are going to die anyway gives you a certain level of freedom. If your life is forfeit, what have you got to lose? Not to discount the actions of these brave individuals, but I don't think that knowing you're going to die anyway is much of an inhibitor to such an action.
          • They knew they were going to die regardless

            Not necessarily. They could have succeeded in taking over the controls in time. After that all it takes is to engage the autopilot, and then the airplane will be back on the preset course and altitude.

            Since the airplane had plenty of fuel, the passengers would have enough time to contact the ground and decide what to do next. A relatively safe crash-landing would be always an option, onto a foam-covered runway and into the safety net; with most of the fuel use

      • Heroes or villians?
        Heroes is better.
        It's not for the dead, it's for the living.
        If they did not die in vain, they are heroes.

  • So many minds... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dmayle ( 200765 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @08:13AM (#9966570) Homepage Journal

    I'm of so many minds about this. Yes, we needed to know in order to fix this process. I'm glad no one tried to pass the buck. I'm disappointed that it took so long to figure this out.

    I hope that we can use this as evidence the next time someone says, "Oh please, somebody thinkg of the children.. ehrm.. astronauts!" We know know what caused the problem, and we can avoid it in the future.

    On the other hand, I'm already looking forward to the privatization os space, because I think the days of NASA are declining. For as great an agency as it is, it's got a terrible public opinionation...

    • > I'm of so many minds about this. Yes, we needed to know in order to fix this process. I'm glad no one tried to pass the buck. I'm disappointed that it took so long to figure this out. [...] We know know what caused the problem, and we can avoid it in the future.

      Sadly, there is (and probably always will be) a lot of learn-from-accidents in the field of engineering. When a bridge falls down or an airplane falls out of the sky we investigate and update our standards accordingly (if the bean counters do

      • Re: So many minds... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Pharmboy ( 216950 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @08:37AM (#9966640) Journal
        I think part of the problem is the expectation of people that space travel is more science than art, when this is not true. It requires more than crunching numbers, it requires a lot of guess work and estimation, as well as intuitive individuals to impliment the science in the safest way they know how.

        Yes, the science makes it possible but there is no way to fully test theories until you put them into practice, thus there will always be significant risks with space travel. I think most people know this, and the crews that actually take the risks certainly do.

        Space travel is similar to travel by submarine, being submersed in an atmosphere that is hostile and will kill you if you are exposed to it, where you are totally dependent on what you have on board to deal with any situation. With all the experience and science we have regarding submarines, we still have accidents and should expect no less with space travel, where you can't simply surface. There simply is not, and never will be, a 100% solution to guarantee total safety for either.

        This is part of the reason I still awestruck by those who are willing to take this extreme risk.
        • This is part of the reason I still awestruck by those who are willing to take this extreme risk.

          Let's see, there have been 3 major accidents with the US space program for 45 years. Lets say those 15 or so people represent 5% of all space travelers. Thats a 5% mortality rate. no big deal. Rig workers have a higher fatality. So you can be awe struck at how rig workers risk their lives.... It's sorta silly. you shoudl expect deaths when you deal with the amoutn of exstremes that space travel entail. The juvi
    • I'm disappointed that it took so long to figure this out.
      1) Time
      2) Money
      3) People

      When you want to shoot some people off into space in a tin can, choose three of the above. When you want a concrete answer as to why something as complicated as shooting a tin can into space goes wrong, choose three of the above again.

  • Same old shit (Score:2, Insightful)

    by deutschemonte ( 764566 )
    They will just launch another investigation into how this procedure was come up with to glue these tiles on.

    They will find out that some budgetary advisory panel recommended these procedures against the wishes of some NASA engineer in order to save a buck.

    Eventually this will fall out of the public eye (as most things usually do). In the end, no action will be taken against the people responsible for this horrible tradgedy. In fact, the same contractor will probably be hired again to advise them for the

    • Read the report on the Challenger (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It [nasa.gov] basically said NASA managers were clueless [nasa.gov].

      The more things change, the more they remain the same.... (see here [nasa.gov])

    • You and I are exposed to the incompetence of MBAs and bean-counters in our day-to-day lives as well.

      I have a very good personal friend who has been a civil engineer for a very long time, designing large-scale structures (think high-rises, bridges). Not only does he have to fight like a bastard at times to even get safety features past the budget people and on to the blueprints, but you would be shocked to hear him tell the sheer number of times in his career that he's gone to a building site and found that
    • They will just launch another investigation into how this procedure was come up with to glue these tiles on.

      Somehow I find it hard to accept any "insights" from someone who can't tell the difference between the gluing of heat-resistant tiles to the orbiter and the application of cryogenic foam insulation to the external tank.

  • Amazing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Billobob ( 532161 ) <{billobob} {at} {gmail.com}> on Saturday August 14, 2004 @08:19AM (#9966590) Homepage Journal
    It's amazing how something like the method of gluing on insulation tiles can cause a shuttle to blow up, yet for all the serious damage done to Apollo 13 they still managed to get back alive.

    • Re:Amazing (Score:4, Funny)

      by jginspace ( 678908 ) <.jginspace. .at. .yahoo.com.> on Saturday August 14, 2004 @08:24AM (#9966603) Homepage Journal
      Yes but they had Tom Hanks

      • Re:Amazing (Score:3, Funny)

        by yeremein ( 678037 )
        Yes but they had Tom Hanks

        And Apollo 13 managed to come home safely, despite being piloted by Forrest Gump. You really have to give credit to the ground team.

    • Re:Amazing (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Henk Poley ( 308046 )
      The Apollo heatshield was entierly different stuff. And accident on reentrance is far more likely to be fatal than something like an airleak in a spaceship with multiple compartiments.
    • Apollo 13 had one advantage: it may have been severely damaged, but IIRC none of the damage was to the reentry vehicle.

      • Re:Amazing (Score:4, Insightful)

        by yeremein ( 678037 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @09:00AM (#9966696)
        Apollo 13 had one advantage: it may have been severely damaged, but IIRC none of the damage was to the reentry vehicle.

        True. The Command Module wasn't damaged. However, the loss of electricity and oxygen in the Service Module following the explosion did deplete the batteries and reserve oxygen tank in the CM, and these supplies had to be replenished from the Lunar Module. What saved the Apollo 13 crew was the fact that they had an second independent spaceship. Had the SM oxygen tank explosion occurred on Apollo 8, where there was no LM, the astronauts wouldn't have survived.

        • Re:Amazing (Score:3, Interesting)

          by shadowbearer ( 554144 ) *
          Just a minor correction:

          According to Kraft and Lovell's books, the CM batteries and reserve oxy tank weren't "depleted" but drawn down a little. They did transfer some power from the LM bateries to the CM, but no oxygen.

          Had the SM oxygen tank explosion occurred on Apollo 8, where there was no LM, the astronauts wouldn't have survived.

          An interesting tidbit from Gene Cernan's biog is that the tanks on 13 were actually the original tanks from Apollo 10. I don't remember why they were pulled, I'd have
      • IMHO, the main advantage that Apollo 13 had was that the people on the ground and in the craft were trying to save it almost from the moment the damage occurred. This in spite of the fact that it seemed completely impossible to save the craft almost up to re-entry. They didn't accept a "can't do" answer and kept trying.

        Contrast with the "no problem" approach to Columbia, followed by a big surprise on re-entry.

    • Re:Amazing (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MavEtJu ( 241979 )
      It's amazing how something like the method of gluing on insulation tiles can cause a shuttle to blow up, yet for all the serious damage done to Apollo 13 they still managed to get back alive.

      The shuttle managed to do its whole program, until it went back into the atmosphere, as if there was nothing wrong.

      The Apollo 13 managed to fly to the moon and back, with a lot of luck and despite all the odds.

      The shuttle was damaged into the heatshield.

      The Apollo 13 was not damaged in the re-entry capsule.

      Draw y
      • Yeah, I heard that when the finally disconnected the Service Module (for re-entry) and saw how big the hole was, they were pretty much praying that their heat shield hadn't been broken.
      • > The shuttle managed to do its whole program, until it went back into the atmosphere, as if there was nothing wrong.

        > The Apollo 13 managed to fly to the moon and back, with a lot of luck and despite all the odds.

        In case of the shuttle, there was an indication that soemthign had happened, there was no indication of potentially catastrophic failure.

        The opposite was true in case of Apollo 13, it was evident from the start that there was potentially catastrophic damage.

        > The shuttle was damaged i
    • The tiles didn't break off because of improper adhesives-- they "broke off" because they were hit by a large piece of foam. That large piece of foam broke off the external tank because of the adhesive technique wasn't up to the task.
    • A big advantage is Apollo 13 knew early in the mission that the ship was crippled. Columbia did not have that knowledge. Had they been aware, something probably could have been done. They had two weeks worth of food abord, that could be stretched out a bit while NASA rushed Atlantis to be ready for a rescue flight which would have taken about two weeks.

  • Just one thing... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lisandro ( 799651 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @08:54AM (#9966677)
    "It was not the fault of the guys on the floor; they were just doing the process we gave them," Otte said. "I agree with the (accident investigation board) that we did not have a real understanding of the process. Our process for putting foam on was giving us a product different than what we certified."

    Kudos to Neil Otte for coming up like this.

  • I reflect back on several things... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by constantnormal ( 512494 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @09:25AM (#9966776)
    ... on Alan Sherpard's thoughts at lift-off of our first manned suborbital flight that here he was, sitting on a huge container of explosive materials, built by the lowest-bidding contractor. Yep these people truly have "The Right Stuff", and the ones who have died have paid the dues for all of us.

    ... and that what other nation on this planet would allow the news f the disaster and subsequent investigation to be covered so openly? Sure, "stuff" happens -- but if it's not given a thorough airing, how do we expect "stuff" to ever get fixed? I am both thrilled by the images and amazed by the political boldness when our government* allows real-time webcasting of events on the space station and space walks. At least with this revelation that we have a faulty process for applying the foam insulation, there's some reason to expect it will be fixed.

    *rotten and corrupt it certainly is, but (I think) it's still better than the rest -- we'll see in November if we can change course or remain headed for the pit.

  • There is no GLUE! (Score:5, Informative)

    by teridon ( 139550 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @09:48AM (#9966852) Homepage
    Nor are there any tiles, as more than two [slashdot.org] fool [slashdot.org] implies.

    The foam is sprayed on, and it adheres directly to the External Tank's aluminum substrate (and itself, of course). Some metallic sections of the tank are coated with epoxy before being sprayed. But the process is slightly different on the bipod structure:

    The insulated region where the bipod struts attach to the External Tank is structurally, geometrically, and materially complex. Because of concerns that foam applied over the fittings would not provide enough protection from the high heating of exposed surfaces during ascent, the bipod fittings are coated with ablators. BX-250 foam is sprayed by hand over the fittings (and ablator materials), allowed to dry, and manually shaved into a ramp shape. The foam is visually inspected at the Michoud Assembly Facility and also at the Kennedy Space Center, but no other non-destructive evaluation is performed.
    -- excerpt from CAIB report vol. 1, p. 51

    You can get all the CAIB reports here [www.caib.us].
    • Um, no.

      Some parts have sprayed on ablatives, but the underside had tiles and the leading edge of the damaged wing was composed of a carbon composite.

      Google [google.com.ni] has plenty of references.

      What you're talking about is simply the support struts for the External tank, not the orbiter underside.

      SB

  • This is bogus.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 14, 2004 @09:50AM (#9966862)
    The thing that doomed the shuttle was not the glue process. It was the way the organisation reacted to the clue that something was wrong. There were many people pushing for a pro-active inpsection of the shuttle, either by camera or EVA and the "suits" obstructed it.

    Let's suppose it wasn't a chunk of foam that hit the wing but some unlucky bird. Nothing would have changed - the film would show "something" hitting the wing and all the decisions form that point would be made the same way. Would we then be having an inquiry that decided the bird scaring process was flawed?

    The issue is that something unexpected happened and the process for dealing with that went wrong. That needs fixing, not the glue..

    YMMV

    • Re:This is bogus.... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by BoneFlower ( 107640 ) <anniethebruce@ g m a i l . c om> on Saturday August 14, 2004 @03:05PM (#9968881) Journal
      The glue needs to be fixed too. Had the glue worked, even with the disaster response problems Columbia would have made it home fine.

      Yes, they need to fix the way they respond to problems and potential problems, but they also have to fix the direct cause of the disaster, which is the glue.

  • the real cause (Score:2, Informative)

    by gordona ( 121157 )
    Its great to find the point source of the failure, but after reading the report of the committe, it was clear that the real cause of the failure was systemic, going back many, many years.

  • These guys forgot Kindergarten (Score:4, Funny)

    by elflet ( 570757 ) * <elflet @ n e x t q uestion.net> on Saturday August 14, 2004 @11:46AM (#9967369)
    Clearly, the NASA engineers just need to consult with their 5 year-olds:
    1. If at first it doesn't stick, use more Elmers
    2. If you're going to snap somebody with a rubber band, make sure it's nice and warm or it won't work (a/k/a the Calvin and Hobbes rule)
    3. Don't stick your tongue on the liquid nitrogen tank. Just don't.
    4. Always remember to put on your rubbers before going outside.
  • What I want is the name of the executive who quashed the suggestion voiced by a NASA engineer who'd watched the launch and seen the foam debris bashing the leading edges that the attitude of the shuttle be adjusted to allow ground telescope imaging of impacted leading edges.
    • Linda Ham [go.com] squashed a couple of requests to inspect the shuttle via spy satellite.

      Linda Ham dismissed the issue, saying, "Really, I don't think there is much we can do, so you know it's not really a factor during flight [be]cause there isn't much we can do about it."

      A far cry from the early NASA attitude of "Failure is not an option." I think Ms. Ham should be charged with negligent homicide for that decision. She was wrong on the foam and she was wrong that NASA couldn't have done anything about the probl

  • Sorry, but I really think that the real fault was (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rben ( 542324 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @01:16PM (#9967912) Homepage

    ...with the people who made the decision that they didn't need to inspect the orbiter using satellites before having it return. If the extent of the damage had been properly evaluated, perhaps we'd still have seven brave talanted people and one very expensive piece of equipment.

    It's good to know what caused the problems with the insulation in the first place, but unless there are procedures in place that insure that the orbiter is properly inspected if there are problems during launch we'll see this happen again. The shuttles are incredibly complicated machines that are quickly reaching the end of their design life because of procrastination on designing replacements. We need to make sure that we take that into consideration when evaluating problems in the future.

  • A solution? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mliesenf ( 713172 ) <mliesenfNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday August 14, 2004 @02:40PM (#9968651)
    For all of you /.'ers out there there's an interesting new technology out there to detect these types of flaws. I'm a nuclear student at UF and some in our department are working on lateral migration radiography. It's a rather cool process, shoot x-rays into the foam and get an image of what's inside and find out where delimanation or debonding has occured. http://www.nre.ufl.edu/facilities/backscat.php [ufl.edu]
  • The damage might have been due to faulty foam glue. But if that flight had included the usual arm/camera, the crew could have inspected the damage from the impact on liftoff. The shock was noticed at the time, but the extent of damage was unknown. The low budget of that mission cut the camera from the gear, so they took their chances on reentry. If they had inspected the damage, they might have had a chance to do something different that could have saved their lives, and the shuttle program itself.

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close