Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

shuttle columbia

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
An RTLS abort in the eyes of several shuttle CDRs (and I heard this from the souce) is that you have a 25% of making the runway, 25% of ditching the shuttle (bailing first if you had time), and 50% chance of breaking up the shuttle under aerodynamic load and dying. It is considered the VERY last resort when you have no other choice because of engine failure. This will NOT change and I am terrifed of the day some crew has to do it... I don't want to see it... ever.
 
saabcaptain said:
Typhoon when did you realize what you were seeing was the shuttle... did you report it on the freq?
Didn't realize what it was until we got to DFW and somebody told me.

Here's what I submitted to NASA:

---------------------------

On Saturday, February 1, 2003, I was the pilot-in-command of Atlantic Southeast Airlines flight 479, operating as Delta Air Lines flight 4479. Our aircraft was a Canadair CRJ-200 Regional Jet registered as N854AS. My copilot was First Officer Timothy Mangan, and my flight attendant was Ms. Sabrina Mitchell. We departed Charleston, South Carolina, at 12:06 GMT and were on our way to the Dallas–Fort Worth Airport, our home base.

At approximately 14:00 GMT, we were flying west-southwest approximately fifteen miles southeast of Longview, Texas, at an altitude of 28,000 feet and a true airspeed of 441 knots (0.79 mach). The ceiling and visibility were unlimited.

I observed what appeared to be the condensation trail of another aircraft directly in front of us and slightly above, traveling east-southeast. As it drew closer, I began to see two or three thin, barely-visible condensation trails behind the main trail and moving parallel to it, although at a slightly slower speed.

The entire formation looked like a large aerial refueling tanker at high altitude with a group of small aircraft decelerating away from it.

As the object moved through my eleven o’clock position, a cascade of “sparks” showered from each side of the object. There were between fifteen and twenty of these objects, each of them leaving a similar trail of condensation or, perhaps, smoke. The larger sparks burned a brilliant white-orange. Smaller ones appeared green in color. Among the sparks was a diffuse cloud of extremely thin filaments that appeared to be a silvery-green color. The sparks were visible for about ten seconds, then began to dissipate.

The behavior of the objects reminded me of pictures of large military aircraft dispensing flares and chaff for the purpose of evading surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles. I came to the conclusion that what I was seeing was probably a B-1 Lancer bomber whose crew had inadvertently activated one of its defensive systems.

At this point, the object at the head of the original condensation or smoke trail was burning bright white-orange, much brighter than any of the sparks it had emitted. It also appeared to be descending at a small but increasing angle.

As the “cascade of sparks” began, an unidentified voice on the Fort Worth Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) VHF frequency said, “look up!” Upon the ARTCC controller’s request, the pilot of another aircraft described the object. The controller then announced that a Space Shuttle was scheduled to pass over the area on its way back to the Kennedy Space Center. Having no reason to assume anything unusual had happened, I accepted the idea that what I had seen was a normal re-entry, and I immediately directed my passengers’ attention to the orbiter, which was now passing through my ten o’clock position.

Almost immediately, I observed the object appear to “twist” to one side, then separate into four pieces which continued to glow very brightly. Two of these objects were smaller than the others and faded from view fairly quickly. Just before the objects moved out of view behind our left wing, the condensation or smoke trails they were leaving assumed a shallow “corkscrew” shape, as if the objects generating the trails were tumbling as they descended.

No longer convinced that what I had observed was an orbiter, I asked the ARTCC controller to verify that an orbiter was scheduled to pass over our area. He did. I informed the controller that the object I had observed was in three or four pieces, and that I doubted it was the orbiter in question. He replied that he hoped it wasn’t.

Upon arriving in Dallas–Fort Worth at 14:38 GMT, I was informed by another pilot that Columbia was missing and presumed destroyed. I immediately came to the horrible realization that the object I had observed was indeed Columbia. At approximately 19:30 GMT, after completing another scheduled round-trip, I returned to my home and contacted an operator at the Johnson Space Center to reported my observation.

I must stress that I cannot characterize any of the events I observed as an “explosion.” The events I observed looked like nothing more than the destruction of a large object by aerodynamic forces. In fact, at one point, I wondered if what I was seeing was the final plunge of an unusually large meteorite or some sort of manmade “space debris.”

Opinion: it is my understanding that there has been speculation that Columbia’s loss may have been caused by some sort of structural failure of the left wing. This theory would appear to be consistent with the observations I made. The “cascade of sparks” could have marked the moment the left wing failed, which would have caused the orbiter to tumble and be torn apart by excessive aerodynamic loads.
 
Driving to the airport this morning, I heard an update on the radio that left my mouth hanging open. The DJ said NASA was looking into other causes besides the foam, including the "possibility that an on-board system of explosives may have accidently been triggered". Now, it's true that the Shuttle has a range safety system like all other rockets, but
1) None of the eyewitness or video accounts even remotely suggests a sudden explosion that caused the breakup, and
2) The range safety package is only installed on the external tank and along the sides of both SRBs.

I haven't seen any mention of this on the internet, TV, or papers. I wonder if the radio DJ was just making stuff up, or if a NASA spokesman actually said that? Did anyone else hear that report?
 
EagleRJ said:
Driving to the airport this morning, I heard an update on the radio that left my mouth hanging open. The DJ said NASA was looking into other causes besides the foam, including the "possibility that an on-board system of explosives may have accidently been triggered". Now, it's true that the Shuttle has a range safety system like all other rockets, but
1) None of the eyewitness or video accounts even remotely suggests a sudden explosion that caused the breakup, and
2) The range safety package is only installed on the external tank and along the sides of both SRBs.

I haven't seen any mention of this on the internet, TV, or papers. I wonder if the radio DJ was just making stuff up, or if a NASA spokesman actually said that? Did anyone else hear that report?

In the local newspaper this morning there was an article that said NASA was looking to other causes. (Edit--see subsequent post).

So he was right about looking into other causes, but I don't know about explosives. Either more information has been released and the media didn't pick up on it, or the DJ was confused and thought thrusters firing meant explosion...
 
Last edited:
Just found a version of that article (by the AP):
http://www.canada.com/news/story.asp?id=5D2C14DD-903F-4D5D-9059-9DFAEAC99D31

HOUSTON (AP) - After days of analysis, NASA backed away Wednesday from the theory that a piece of foam debris that struck Columbia during liftoff was the root cause of the shuttle disaster.

Ron Dittemore, manager of the shuttle program, said investigators now are focusing more closely on the desperate effort of Columbia's automatic control system to hold the speed of the spacecraft stable despite an increasing level of wind resistance, or drag, on the left wing. Dittemore said that after a careful study of the damage possible from the fall of a chunk of foam insulation that was believed to be 50 centimetres and one kilogram, investigators are "looking somewhere else."

"It doesn't make sense to us that a piece of debris could be the root cause of the loss of Columbia and its crew," Dittemore said. "There's got to be another reason."

He said investigators are now asking if there was "another event that escaped our attention" that might have caused Columbia to break up just minutes before the end of its 16-day mission, killing all seven astronauts.

Practically from the start, investigators have been looking at the possibility that the piece of foam that fell off the shuttle's big external fuel tank 81 seconds after lifoff Jan. 16 caused damage to the thermal tiles under the left wing that doomed the flight. The thermal tiles keep the ship from burning up during re-entry into Earth's atmosphere.

While Columbia was still aloft, NASA engineers analysed the potential damage to the thermal tiles and concluded that based on such factors as the estimated size, weight and trajectory of the chunk of foam, any damage to the tiles was minor and the crew was in no danger.

In recent days, some space experts have speculated that the chunk of foam was coated or infused with ice, which could have increased the weight - and destructive potential - of the piece that hit the shuttle.

"I don't think it's ice. I don't think there's an embedded ice question here," Dittemore said, adding that the foam is water-resistant and that an inspection team found no ice conditions that day. "So it is something else."

Dittemore said that during Columbia's final minutes, the autopilot was causing the craft to rapidly move the control surfaces and to eventually even fire small rockets in a losing effort to gain control of the yawing motion of Columbia.

Final bits of data from the spacecraft showed that "we were beginning to lose the battle," he said.

For this reason, Dittemore said his team is intensifying efforts to recover a final 32 seconds of data from the spacecraft.

This data, the very last signals from the dying Columbia, was not processed at Mission Control because the quality of the electronic signals was too poor to be considered reliable.

But Dittemore said the signals are being extracted from computers and will be examined to find clues to why Columbia's left wing was encountering so much drag.

"Perhaps the 32 seconds will help us understand," he said.
 
CBS radio news this morning said USAF has photos of the shuttle just prior to breaking up showing a "jagged" left wing LE. This may be the evidence that would bring NASA to discount the wing underside damage theory.

However, it's not know what could have damaged the wing LE (ice, insulation, meteorite, space junk). Here's another article on the PC decision to change fuel tank insulation systems.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77832,00.html
 
Last edited:
Hi!

Some comments on the Challenger explosion:

An earlier poster said that the Morton-Thiokol (spelling>) co. told NASA they shouldn't fly the Challenger in the cold weather.

On a documentary I saw, they interviewed the 2 Mort-Thik engineers who knew the Challenger was unsafe at lower temperatures. They were fairly certain that the Challenger would blow up, and relayed that info to their manager. Their manager, who was the official co. rep to NASA disagreed and overruled them, and told NASA that the Challenger would be OK, so, officially, the co. did NOT tell NASA they shouldn't launch.

The engineers said they were fairly certain the Challenger would blow up on the pad, so when they saw it lift off successfully, they thought that it might actually make it to orbit. Obviously, their worst fears were confirmed a few seconds later.

My ex-father-in-law was a shuttle cargo engineer. My ex-wife and her mother both told me that he had come home complaining for a couple of years (this was prior to 1984, which was when he died), about problems with the shuttle. He said that it was unsafe at lower-temperatures, and that a number of workers at NASA had been discussing this for quite a while. Obviously, they were unable to get through to the top at NASA. Since he died in 1984, he didn't know that his fears were correct with regards to the Challenger.

Cliff
GRB
 
atpcliff said:
The engineers said they were fairly certain the Challenger would blow up on the pad, so when they saw it lift off successfully, they thought that it might actually make it to orbit.
It could well have. Reverse angle video of the launch pad showed black smoke coming from the joint just after the SRB's were lit.
 
In fact the black smoke was the O-Ring vaporizing and the residue turning crystaline which "saved" the shuttle from having a breach a few seconds into the launch. Then later in the climb the shuttle experienced the largest bit of air turbulence in the history of the program which the engines and shuttle system compensated for beautiful but which disturbed the "temporary O-ring" of crystal and caused the sudden appearance of flame which in less than 10 seconds melted the lower attachment point of the SRB to the ET. The right SRB then pivoted around the forward attachment point and the tip of the SRB breached the ET causing sudden and total aerodynamic breakup of the ET and shuttle. The fireball was the fuel burning but it was not an explosion that caused Challenger to be destroyed but rather pure aerodynamic forces. Sad facts, perhaps if the turbulence hadn't be encountered the weakend O-Ring would have held a few more seconds to burnout and the shuttle would have made it.
 
saabcaptain said:
In fact the black smoke was the O-Ring vaporizing and the residue turning crystaline which "saved" the shuttle from having a breach a few seconds into the launch. Then later in the climb the shuttle experienced the largest bit of air turbulence in the history of the program which the engines and shuttle system compensated for beautiful but which disturbed the "temporary O-ring" of crystal and caused the sudden appearance of flame which in less than 10 seconds melted the lower attachment point of the SRB to the ET. The right SRB then pivoted around the forward attachment point and the tip of the SRB breached the ET causing sudden and total aerodynamic breakup of the ET and shuttle. The fireball was the fuel burning but it was not an explosion that caused Challenger to be destroyed but rather pure aerodynamic forces. Sad facts, perhaps if the turbulence hadn't be encountered the weakend O-Ring would have held a few more seconds to burnout and the shuttle would have made it.

The facts may be sad but think about it this way: If NASA lucked out and the Challenger accident did not happen, then NASA would have, from that day forward, believed that it was okay to completely ignore safety warnings, and an accident would have occurred eventually.
 
dmspilot00 said:
The facts may be sad but think about it this way: If NASA lucked out and the Challenger accident did not happen, then NASA would have, from that day forward, believed that it was okay to completely ignore safety warnings, and an accident would have occurred eventually.
Good point. Sometimes instead of stumbling around continuously, it takes a fall on the face to wake up and fly right.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top