Challenger O-ring burns through 2 seconds after SRB separation

acgoldis

Imagine a timeline where the O-ring takes longer to burn through. Challenger lifts off and gets to SRB separation. The SRB's separate as usual. And at the moment of separation the O-ring blows as the last bit of fuel is exhausted.

The networks watch as a blast of flame comes through the O-ring. Thankfully, at this point the shuttle is far enough away from the booster at this point for it to be at risk.

The networks continue coverage for the next 8 minutes or so as the shuttle heads up to orbit with the External Tank still attached. However, enough reporters noticed the burn through to ask what the hell happened. They realize 2 minutes after SRB separation and start screaming on TV that NASA is being idiotic and nearly lost the vehicle. And the whole world hears it.

A few minutes later, the External Tank is jettisoned and the broadcast ends. From the standpont of the community at large, the mission continues as expected. McAuliffe teaches from space and so forth. However, the people in charge of the O-rings realize: "dude, we just dodged a bullet".

They then recover the SRB and see that many of the O-rings have the same problem. Had they separated a couple of seconds later Challenger would have been lost, just as the reporters claimed.
 
Last edited:

Dancing Fool

acgoldis said:
However, enough reporters noticed the burn through to ask what the hell happened. They realize 2 minutes after SRB separation and start screaming on TV that NASA is being idiotic and nearly lost the vehicle. And the whole world hears it.
Click to expand...
And you’ll almost need this much attention. Because organizations of all types discount and explain away near-accidents.

The classic example might be the door on the McDonnell Douglas DC-10.

In the “Windsor Incident” in 1972, the door blew, a partially-loaded passenger compartment had its floor collapse, restricting some hydraulics or control cables.

Two years later taking off from Paris,

a fully-loaded passenger compartment,

the door blew, rapid loss of air pressure,

floor collapse, loss of hydraulics,

300+ persons died.

======

Yes, with this much publicity, NASA will fix the O-rings [but gallingly, this success will be much closer than it needs to be]
 
Last edited:

CaptainCalvert

But one of the issues was that the senior managers overruled the engineers who warned about the risks at low temperatures.
A close run thing may convince the grown ups that they dodged a bullet and should pay closer attention to the engineers.

But that kind of management culture could equally well lead to "See it was fine really", and a few blah, safety is our number one etc etc statements, followed by continuing to ignore the people who actually know what's really going on.

That then just defers the disaster until next time, when we'll get the same irresponsible people rolling out "but who could have known?" and "why didn't anyone tell us?"
 

dwkelley

CaptainCalvert said:
That then just defers the disaster until next time, when we'll get the same irresponsible people rolling out "but who could have known?" and "why didn't anyone tell us?"
Click to expand...
While I agree that there is a high probability that the managers will say <insert "this is fine" dog here>, when (not if) a subsequent shuttle launch will end in disaster, they are NOT going to be able to say "who could have known?" - they'll have the Challenger near-miss thrown back at them. Many more heads than OTL will roll.

There's lots of other paths this could go. An engineer anonymously tips off the media that "management told us to shut up, any colder and the O-ring would have failed right after launch", or someone does the Richard Feynman dip-the-ring-in-ice-water-and-watch-the-rubber-break display, something.

In my opinion, likely management "paper overs" the problem by (quietly) inserting a new rule with some minimum launch temperature. No rework, no extra expense other than some delayed launches. Of course, that doesn't fix the shuttle's myriad other problems...
 

Dancing Fool

dwkelley said:
management "paper overs" the problem by (quietly) inserting a new rule with some minimum launch temperature
Click to expand...
I don’t think they can — psychologically, group dynamics, etc.

As an analogy, once a piece of land is designated toxic waste site, you can’t just do half-measures.

So, NASA can’t admit it’s unsafe in a major way. Probably big-time rework. Even though the more elegant solution is previous coldest launch of 51 degrees Fahrenheit + 5. [you see, that seems risky and cavalier, can’t do it, have to make more sure]
 
Last edited:

Peg Leg Pom

Dancing Fool said:
I don’t think they can — psychologically, group dynamics, etc.

As an analogy, once a piece of land is designated toxic waste site, you can’t just do half-measures.

So, NASA can’t admit it’s unsafe in a major way. Probably big-time rework. Even though the more elegant solution is previous coldest launch of 51 degrees Fahrenheit + 5. [you see, that seems risky and cavalier, can’t do it, have to make more sure]
Click to expand...
Swallow their pride and use the Ariane launch facility in French Guyana? (I know that has to be ASB. National pride wouldn't allow them to even think of it).
 

Popcorn

I think whatever reforms NASA has will be determined by how long the media presses the government for answers and results and how thoroughly congress investigates it. If the engineers can sit down in front of a committee on live television and they have a paper trail to show, then some heads will definitely roll. And it will be the people who were actually responsible for making the decisions who will be in trouble, not just a couple scapegoats.
 

Dancing Fool

Popcorn said:
If the engineers can sit down in front of a committee on live television and they have a paper trail to show, then some heads will definitely roll. And it will be the people who were actually responsible for making the decisions who will be in trouble, not just a couple scapegoats
Click to expand...
Add to this that the engineers are there under subpoena and are testifying under oath. In a very real sense, they’re just doing their job by describing all this.
 

DougM

You are not getting the US to move Nasa shuttle launches to move to somewhere outside the US. Forst off is the cost factor. Both the rental cost as well as the actual cost of shippingvthe Shuttle the parts and everything else south.

Also being as Nasa is a public US agency you are simply not getting it to leave the US. It may have been possible to have started off somewhere other then the US in the 60s in theory but once you established you could launch from the US and you go to the Moon from there then US congress is not paying to launch from elsewhere. And in the 60s the Space race was all about national pride and as such you are not getting the US to spend the kind of money it spent on the Space program and do it outside its own territory.
So this is just not going to happen.
 

jlckansas

The closest thing you might get done is to have Vandenburg be brought on line and not be shelved. You do have some disadvantages with there for launches other than Polar type orbits but as a stop gap to keep them flying it might work. Once the O ring and management problems are fixed you can go back to Canaveral for you launches and keep both going.

Ideally the better spot would have been out in Hawaii, if you needed to have a large area for the facilities or on some of the Atolls like Kwajalein if you didn't need large areas for supporting services.
 

e of pi

jlckansas said:
The closest thing you might get done is to have Vandenburg be brought on line and not be shelved. You do have some disadvantages with there for launches other than Polar type orbits but as a stop gap to keep them flying it might work. Once the O ring and management problems are fixed you can go back to Canaveral for you launches and keep both going.

Ideally the better spot would have been out in Hawaii, if you needed to have a large area for the facilities or on some of the Atolls like Kwajalein if you didn't need large areas for supporting services.
Click to expand...
Hawaii is insanely expensive to operate from, for anything, and the cost of relocating everything is prohibitive in the extreme. Vandenberg can't reach most of the operational Shuttle orbits, so it's out too.
 

jlckansas

Vandenburg would free up the non shuttle rockets to do payloads to space. Alot of the military sats need a polar orbit and that is why Vandenburg is good. By transferring some of the conventional rockets launches to the shuttle you are able to keep some of the fleet flying. That was the original idea for the SLC 6 launch complex there to be used for military missions or polar orbits on other flights.
 
TheKutKu

TheKutKu

The capture feature that mitigated the risk were already under development and already part of the Filament Wound cases that were needed for Vandenberg Polar launches and under qualification (Qualification firing was planned for the couple weeks after Challenger IRL) by the time of the accident. NASA was also studying their use on the steel cases, but no decision had been made, however Thiokol had, as of 1985, independently planned to forge future steel case in a thicker way that'd make Capture Feature addition an easier retrofit.


Realistically, a decision is made to use them on the steel case progressively over the next few years, but the shuttle is not grounded for extended durations. The more extensive SRB changes such as the third O ring are probably not made.
 
Last edited:

acgoldis

Can you imagine the repercussions if McAuliffe holds a press conference after Challenger returns and demonstrates the O-ring failure in a classroom in front of kids? She was a science teacher after all and probably could explain what happened in layman's terms. And she has no real ties to the NASA bureaucracy.

She won't have the equipment to do the demonstration in space (and it would be unsafe as well), but once she gets on the ground and starts being asked to visit classrooms...

All she has to do is demonstrate the failure and say "two seconds earlier that would have been me".
 

Dancing Fool

acgoldis said:
Can you imagine the repercussions if McAuliffe holds a press conference after Challenger returns and demonstrates the O-ring failure in a classroom in front of kids?
Click to expand...
But if her statement is pushed 1 second, 1 millimeter too far, it can come across as mean, right?

And then people (weirdly) backlash the opposite direction. And as weird as this may be, this does happen in human communication.
 
Last edited:

Dancing Fool

The original accident was Jan. 28, 1986.

and about three or four months later . . .

When the urban legend [or fact] of several of the families suing NASA and Morton Thiokol [and why wouldn’t the families sue ? ! ? :openedeyewink:

this relative said, “but they would’ve been heroes if they’d made it!”

Meaning . . . he thought the astronauts were getting too much attention and was jealous!
 

The Oncoming Storm

I can remember reading some time ago that even if Challenger had flown a successful mission, the entire program would have ground to a halt anyway in 1986 because NASA wouldn’t have been able to maintain the launch schedule due to budget constraints. They would literally have run out of spare parts as contractors couldn’t supply them at the necessary rate.
 

acgoldis

The Oncoming Storm said:
I can remember reading some time ago that even if Challenger had flown a successful mission, the entire program would have ground to a halt anyway in 1986 because NASA wouldn’t have been able to maintain the launch schedule due to budget constraints. They would literally have run out of spare parts as contractors couldn’t supply them at the necessary rate.
Click to expand...
What happens if they space out (no pun intended) the shuttle flights in anticipation of this gap in services so it's not obvious when it arrives? It avoids the dangerous launch in the process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top