dpw@bonnie.UUCP (David Williams) (02/11/86)
My copy of Aviation Week arrived today - the coverage in this issue focuses primarily on the SRB and its components as the mechanisms for destruction of Challenger. The last issue was printed at a time when very little information was available, so it gives broad coverage to shuttle systems, the crew, history of the shuttle, and its future prospects. I recommend these issues as sources for answers to many of the questions that have been appeared on the net. I can summarize some of the points that have caught my eye: - The hot exhaust jet from a seam in the right SRB (~5500 deg. F) destroyed the struts that attach the booster to the base of the external tank. The SRB was then free to pivot on its upper strut crushing into both the liquid hydrogen and oxygen tanks causing the explosion that destroyed the vehicle. In a photo taken shortly after the explosion (both SRBs visible), a plume of smoke and flame can be seen in the vicinity of the lower joint between casings on the right SRB. Also, a closeup reveals the nose cone to have been ripped away and parachutes trailing from the top of the booster (meaning that the right SRB was going to hit the water hard in any event). - NASA is focusing attention on the combination of joints, o-rings, filler, and connectors between SRB segments to find a means for gases to escape the motor casing. There are 2 o-rings circling the casing in a grooved joint to seal against leaks. A heat- resistant putty fills space between the first o-ring and the interior of the casing. Steel pins (177) in two rows hold adjacent casing segments together. Previous flights of SRBs have resulted in gases charring and leaking past the first o-ring. - NASA officials believe it will be at least 6 months and more like 9 - 12 months before flights will resume. Ulysses and Galileo will be delayed until the next Jovian launch window. - National Transportation Safety Board members who are surveying the debris from Challenger are "surprised" at the amount of damage done to the aft parts of the shuttle by the gases from the SRB rupture prior to the explosion. The lower tail section remains show severe heat damage. [My feeling: Challenger was damaged beyond airworthiness within a second or two of the booster buring through.] - Flight cronology (from telemetry and photos): liftoff - 104% thrust on main engines, 3.3 million pounds of thrust on each SRB 20 sec. - main engines throttle down, SRB thrust to 2.4 M pounds 40 sec. - Challenger encountered a wind shear, engines all pivot to compensate (SRBs _are_ gimbaled) 50 sec. - SRB thrust increases to 2.7 M lbs. (the propellant is tailored through shape, retardants, etc. to change thrust) on the left booster _only_, beginning of leak in right SRB 59 sec. - photos show a 4' x 8' plume emerging from lower casing of the right SRB 70 sec. - plume lengthens, right SRB thrust is 4% low 71 sec. - right SRB thrust is 100,000 lbs low and begins to affect the flight trajectory, flight controls command main engines and SRB nozzles to swivel to compensate, the plume severs the SRB/external tank struts, the 17 inch liquid oxygen line on the outside of the tank breaks due to heat or stress, rate gyros on the SRB show it pivoting on its forward attachment to the external tank rupturing the liquid hydrogen and oxygen tanks - NASA managers and astronauts were _sharply_ critical of acting director Graham's statements that a survivable abort mode existed for the crew while the SRBs were still attached. They state that there is no survivable abort mode for the kind of failure that Challenger encountered: the shuttle would pivot around its aft umbilical connections with the effect of ripping the wings off and initiating an explosion. - The two SRBs on Challenger's flight were "high performance" boosters designed for extra thrust through lighter casings and improved propellant burning pattern. Investigators will examine the possiblilty that the new burning patterns caused turbulence and extreme pressure fluctuations at the gaps in propellant between casing segments. - The propellant in the SRBs is considered to be well insulated against fluctuations in outside (launch pad) temperatures - analysis indicates a temperature of 55 deg. F inside the SRBs. David Williams AT&T Bell Laboratories Morristown whuxl!dpw
ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (02/19/86)
In article <708@bonnie.UUCP>, dpw@bonnie.UUCP (David Williams) writes: > > My copy of Aviation Week arrived today - the coverage in this issue > focuses primarily on the SRB and its components as the mechanisms for > destruction of Challenger. ... > > - The two SRBs on Challenger's flight were "high performance" boosters > designed for extra thrust through lighter casings and improved > propellant burning pattern. Investigators will examine the > possiblilty that the new burning patterns caused turbulence and > extreme pressure fluctuations at the gaps in propellant between > casing segments. > > - The propellant in the SRBs is considered to be well insulated against > fluctuations in outside (launch pad) temperatures - analysis > indicates a temperature of 55 deg. F inside the SRBs. Hmmm, and yet the outer layers MUST have been cooler (due to their being in close contact with ice, cold wind, etc ...) What would be the effect on the boosters of having such a thermal gradient? With a warm inside and a cold skin, one is tempted to think that the inside would be compressed somewhat and the outside streched a bit; but would it matter? Would it change the risk of gaps and poor sealing between segments and/or O rings? -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.
lmc@cisden.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney) (02/21/86)
> What would be the effect on the boosters of having such a thermal > gradient? With a warm inside and a cold skin, one is tempted to > think that the inside would be compressed somewhat and the outside > streched a bit; but would it matter? Would it change the risk > of gaps and poor sealing between segments and/or O rings? > Speculating (since I've not actually ever had anything actually to do with the SRB's) I would presume that shuttle management presumed that the combination of the insulation that lines the inside of the SRB casing and the physical properties of the fuel itself would prevent any physical misalignment. The fuel is imbedded in an epoxy base which is, I believe, somewhat plastic and flexible. Obviously, though, something did go wrong. Lyle McElhaney ...hao!cisden!lmc