...itself doesn’t produce enough thrust or carry enough fuel to get into orbit. The thrust needed to get the Shuttle into orbit is produced by two large Solid Rocket Boosters, each is attached to the side of the external tank by the means of two large struts. The external tank contains the fuel needed to fuel the three main boosters in the Orbiter, which is attached to the Orbiter by the means of two large...
Words: 2129 - Pages: 9
...Challenger Disaster Research Paper Space Shuttle Challenger was first called as STA-099, and was built as a test vehicle for the space program. But despite its Earth-bound beginnings, STA-099 was destined for space. In 1979, NASA awarded a contract to Rockwell, a space shuttle manufacturer to convert the STA-099 to a space orbiter OV-099. After completion of OV-099, it arrived at the at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida in July 1982, bearing the name "Challenger." Space Shuttle orbiter Challenger was named after the British Naval vessel HMS Challenger that sailed the Atlantic and Pacific oceans during the 1870s. Challenger launched on her maiden voyage, STS-6, on April 4, 1983. That mission saw the first spacewalk of the Space Shuttle program. The NASA had planned for a six day flight, and their mission was to release and retrieve one satellite to study Haley’s comet, and to launch another satellite that would become part of the space communications network. Challenger was originally set to launch from Florida on January 22nd. But delays in STS-61-C and bad weather caused it to reschedule to January 23rd, 24th, 25th, and 27th. On January 28th 1986, the space shuttle was set to take off, but the launch time was delayed due to problems with the...
Words: 5390 - Pages: 22
...Problem ……………………………….. 6 Organizational Pressure…………………………………. 6 Using of reusable part…………………………………… 7 Recommendations………………………………………. 8 Conclusion………………………………………………. 9 Bibliography…………………………………………….. 10 Executive Summary This Report attempts to unfold the management flaws and terrible decision making that marked the morning of the 28th of January 1986 as a terribly tragic disaster. What it sadder is that this disaster was mainly due to inhumane practices conducted by the NASA and the management bodies of companies associated with this project than natural reasons. The whistleblowing led to the loss of billions of dollars and more importantly loss of 7 innocent lives. The space shuttle was propelled by the two attached Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) and an external fuel tank. The SRBs were joined to the External Tank. aOnce the SRBs ignited, hot gases heated the rubber O rings and they eroded to seal the joints. SRB joint design had a serious flaw in it and the engineers knew it meant a catastrophe and yet they passed the design for flight. The O rings worked only down to a temperature limit of 12 ̊ C, but the morning of the launch saw temperatures as low as -1 ̊ C which was much lower than the prescribed limit. Many engineers voiced to postpone the launch and wait for the weather to be stable but the management turned down these arguments and the challenger was cleared to launch at 11:38 A.M. As the shuttle took off, the right SRB emitted puffs of smoke which meant that...
Words: 2491 - Pages: 10
...1000s of approaches and landings to prepare for the real thing. This is the kind of training that each astronaut must do before even being selected for a mission, therefore only the best of the best make to an actual mission. One of the biggest problems that the mission constantly had was the weather. The Challenger Mission formally known as mission STS 51-L was originally scheduled for July, 1985. The team had been assembled nearly an entire year ahead of launch to go through training and familiarize themselves with the shuttle. However, in August of 1986 the team had to reschedule the flight for November of that year due to some extra equipment that had to be put on the shuttle. Suddenly there were maintenance problems with the rocket boosters that had to be inspected so the launch was yet again delayed. January 22 was the date of the new launch day but that got delayed to the 23rd then the 24th . Finally, the launch was reset for January 25 because of bad weather at the transoceanic abort landing (TAL) site in Dakar, Senegal. This site is basically an emergency landing strip, just in case there is some sort of failure before entering orbit. These sites can only be used 25 to 30 minutes after the space shuttle launches, therefore the Challenger, which exploded just 73 seconds after launch, nowhere near the time slot needed to get the TAL site. To utilize Casablanca, another alternate TAL site, T-zero was moved to a morning lift-off time. The launch was postponed another day...
Words: 2417 - Pages: 10
...The Challenger disaster could have easily been avoided. STS-51L (Challenger's last mission) was originally scheduled to launch on January 22. However a vast ammount of delays and aborts pushed thelaunch to the 28th. The morning on the 28th had been particularly cold, with temperatures close to 31 degrees Fahrenheit, the minimum temperature allowed for launch. The low temperature brought up concerns from engineers at Morton Thiokol, the manufacturers of the Space Shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs). They were concerned about the effects of the cold weather on the space shuttle'srubber O-rings, which prevent hot gases from escaping the joints in the shuttle's SRBs. On previous shuttle missions, cold weather had caused the O-rings to fail, allowing hot gases to escape. Thoughthis very dangerous problem had occured multiple times before, NASA and Thiokol management believed that because all of the past shuttle missions had been successful, the cold temperatures and athis very dangerous problem had occured multiple times before, NASA and Thiokol management believed that because all of the past shuttle missions had been successful, the cold temperatures and athat had already taken place, NASA did not want to delay the mission any longer. Not only were Thiokol engineers worried about the cold temperatures, but Rockwell International (The manufacturers ofthe Space Shuttle orbiters) were also concerned. When they saw the large amount of ice formed on the shuttle launch pad, they expressed...
Words: 533 - Pages: 3
...Challenger case study analysis Facts 1. Space shuttle challenger disaster leads to the death of its crew members 7. 2. NASA’S organizational culture and decision making process is a key contributing factor of the accident. 3. NASA managers had known contractor Morton Thiokol’s design of the SRB contained a potentially catastrophic flaw in the o-rings since 1977. 4. NASA disregarded warnings from engineers about the dangers of launching posted by the low temperature of that morning. 5. The ROGER”S commission offered NASA 9 recommendations that were to be implemented before shuttle flight resumed. 6. The o-rings had no test data to support any expectation of successful launch in such conditions. 7. Challenger was originally set to launch from Kennedy space center in Florida at 2:42 EST Jan 22. 8. Launch was delayed 1st to Jan 23 then 2nd to Jan 24, 3rd to Jan 25 due the bad weather at the TAL site in Senegal. NASA decided to use Casablanca as TAL site but it wasn’t equipped for night landings so they had to move it to the morning to Florida. 4th to Jan 27 9:37 as of unaccepted weather at Kennedy space center and5th to Jan 28 as by problems with the exterior access hatch. 9. Delayed 5 times shows lack of good decision making and management of NASA’s managers. 10. Morton Thiokol is the contractor responsible for the construction and maintenance of the shuttle’s SRBs. 11. Rockwell international is the shuttle’s prime contractor. ...
Words: 1586 - Pages: 7
...history of the flawed joint 7 Certified in spite of the flaws 8 Accepted as acceptable 9 The lesser of two evils 9 The problems grow worse 9 Anatomy of a tragedy 10 Why wasn't the design fixed? 11 Why wasn't erosion seen as a danger sign? 11 Operational and then what? 12 Why no second sources? 12 How did NASA and Thiokol view the odds? 12 What role did NASA's safety office play? 13 Was NASA or Thiokol pressured to launch? 14 Why didn't they talk to each other? 14 How about NASA's past success? 15 What lessons have been learned? 15 Defining terms 16 Figures Figure 1: The Launch Decision Chain 17 Figure 2: Anatomy Of A Booster Field Joint 18 Figure 3: Joint Rotation 18 Figure 4: Titan Joints vs. Shuttle Booster Joints 19 Figure 5: Joint Putty 19 Figure 6: O-Ring Distress 20 Figure 7: Joint Distress vs. Temperature At Launch 20 Figure 8: 7/31/85 Memo, Boisjoly 21 Figure 9: 10/1/85 Memo, Ebeling 22 Figure 10: 10/1/85 Memo, Stein 24 Figure 11: 10/4/85 Activity Report, Boisjoly 25 Instructions On the first day of the workshop, we will discuss the management system failures associated with the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion. Please read the attached article[?],[?] before the workshop and be prepared to discuss the study questions listed below. Study Questions | |Media reports at the time typically implicated individual managers within the...
Words: 11483 - Pages: 46
...The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster occurred on January 28, 1986, when Space Shuttle Challenger (mission STS-51-L) broke apart 73 seconds into its flight, leading to the deaths of its seven crew members. The spacecraft disintegrated over the Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Cape Canaveral, Florida at 11:38 EST (16:38 UTC). Disintegration of the vehicle began after an O-ring seal in its right solid rocket booster (SRB) failed at liftoff. The O-ring failure caused a breach in the SRB joint it sealed, allowing pressurized hot gas from within the solid rocket motor to reach the outside and impinge upon the adjacent SRB attachment hardware and external fuel tank. This led to the separation of the right-hand SRB's aft attachment and the structural failure of the external tank. Aerodynamic forces broke up the orbiter. The crew compartment and many other vehicle fragments were eventually recovered from the ocean floor after a lengthy search and recovery operation. The exact timing of the death of the crew is unknown; several crew members are known to have survived the initial breakup of the spacecraft. The shuttle had no escape system, and the impact of the crew compartment with the ocean surface was too violent to be survivable. The disaster resulted in a 32-month hiatus in the shuttle program and the formation of the Rogers Commission, a special commission appointed byUnited States President Ronald Reagan to investigate the accident. The Rogers Commission found NASA's organizational...
Words: 2145 - Pages: 9
...In the case study of the Challenger, Morton Thiokol was responsible for the challenger’s rocket boosters. Roger Boisjoly, a rocket booster engineer of Morton Thiokol, did an inspection on the rocket booster segments. Upon his investigation, he found a massive amount of hot gas from the propulsion which compromised the primary O-ring on the first rocket booster. He then discovered that the hot gas blasted pass the first O-ring and burned the second O-ring. He went over the post flight analysis and it shows the O-rings were 53 degrees Fahrenheit which was unusually cold for a launch. This was one factor that was different with flight 51C. With this information, he believes the temperature was a factor of the flawed design. In the design, the O-rings were supposed to be flexible, so they can stretch and squeeze to seal the gap in the joints of the rocket boosters. However, the primary O-ring failed on flight 51C but the backup, secondary O-ring luckily caught the leak, or the result would have been severely dangerous. After this discovery, he reported his concerns to NASA. Later, NASA and Morton Thiokol...
Words: 1272 - Pages: 6
...Government Investigative Agency 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington D.C, 02210 Dear Mr. Cummings: RE: Challenger shuttle; solid-propellant booster O-ring failure I am writing to inform you about my concerns regarding the launch of space shuttle Challenger which is scheduled to launch on January, 28 1986. I have already attempted to voice my concerns to my engineering supervisor through an interoffice memorandum, but my concerns were promptly dismissed in a manner that failed to resolve my concerns. For this reason, I am writing to ask for your help in averting what could potentially be a fatal accident if these concerns are not addressed. I am an engineer working the space shuttle Challenger project. My job is to observe every part of the shuttle before and after it has been launched. I make detailed documentations of every part of the shuttle and ensure they are functioning according to its manual. The space shuttle is designed to be a reusable launch vehicle with two solid-propellant boosters, and a single liquid-propellant booster. My main concern is with regards to the solid-propellant booster. Unlike its liquid counterpart, a solid-propellant booster has the disadvantage that once it is ignited, there is no immediate method to shut it off or to control the amount of thrust coming from it. For this reason, O-rings had to be installed inside the boosters in order to prevent hot gases from the combustion from escaping. Unfortunately, the rings are not particularly heat resistant...
Words: 1154 - Pages: 5
...during the investigation in order to prevent another space shuttle or crew from entering space until they found out what went wrong with the shuttle, they weren't risking any more lives. What they found and believed to be the proximate cause of the disaster was the failure of the O - rings seals, which had lost their resiliency in the cold, as a result, permitted the ignition of a gas blow - by in the right solid rocket booster. The resulting lateral thrust broke the strut connecting it to the external fuel tank, the flame then breached the tank and ignited its volatile liquid hydrogen and oxygen contents, which erupted into a fire, the crew compartment remained intact as the orbiter broke apart and fell into the Atlantic Ocean, crashing at 200 miles per hour and the O - rings were determined to be a design flaw in the boosters, a condition which was first recognized in 1977. According to the Presidential Commission Report, this weakness, along with “the effects of temperature, physical dimensions, the character of the materials, the effects of reusability [of the booster}, processing,...
Words: 754 - Pages: 4
...theory and the design of rockets. In 1922, he submitted a physics dissertation while studying at the University of Heidelberg on this subject. This paper examined mathematically the possibility for a rocket to reach escape velocity and leave the Earth’s orbit. He also supported and explained the notion that rockets could be propelled in a vacuum, an idea which was contrary to most scientific opinion at the time. These pioneering ideas have formed the basis of our modern space program. His work mentioned the possible effect on an astronaut’s body of experiencing the g-forces required to escape the Earth’s gravitational pull. Finally, he discussed the further possibility of launching spacecraft into orbit, which has led to our modern widespread use of communication satellites. His original paper on rocket design, entitled “Die Rakete zu den Planetenräumen”, was controversial and was widely rejected by the scientific community at the time. His work received greater support later, and he received the “Rep-Hirsch” prize in 1929, giving him $10,000, which he used to...
Words: 428 - Pages: 2
...(1962), many responsible observers felt that we were devoting too many of our resources to increasing an already affluent volume of private consumption and too little for public services, including space-flight programs. In early 1970, NASA initiated extensive engineering, design, and cost studies of a space shuttle. These studies covered a wide variety of concepts ranging from a fully reusable manned booster and orbiter to dual strap-on solid propellant rocket motors and an expendable liquid propellant tank. Each concept evaluated development risks and costs in relation to the suitability and the overall economics of the entire system. On January 5, 1972, President Richard M. Nixon announced that NASA would proceed with the development of a reusable low cost space shuttle system. NASA and its aerospace industry contractors continued engineering studies through January and February of 1972; finally on March 15, 1972, NASA announced that the shuttle would use two solid propellant rocket motors. The decision was based on information developed by studies that showed that the solid rocket system offered lower development cost and lower technical risk. On September 17, 1976, the first orbiter spacecraft,...
Words: 310 - Pages: 2
...Agency. However, in the last ten to 15 years, private companies have become major players in the final frontier. Companies such as SpaceX and Boeing are already making rockets, and other spacecraft, for NASA and other space agencies. For example, the International Space Station receives regular supply packages delivered by SpaceX’s Dragon and Falcon 9 spacecraft. The miraculous part of these two spacecraft is the fact that they are completely reusable. Unlike NASA’s Saturn V rocket, the booster will come back to Earth and land at the launch station immediately following jettison, or disconnection, with the main package. This technique, known as Supersonic Retropropulsion, works similarly to how a rocket launches. After delivering its package to Low Earth Orbit, the rocket will turn around and propel itself towards Earth. Once it enters the atmosphere, the...
Words: 1842 - Pages: 8
... SUBMITTED BY- SHUBHAM SHARMA XI (NON-MEDICAL) ROLL NO.-14 ST.KABIR’S RESI. AND DAY SCHOOL CONTENTS- • HISTORY • FLIGHT • PROPULSION, CONTROL AND GUIDANCE • MISSILE TYPES • INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILES • FLIGHT PHASES • MODERN ICBMs • REFERENCES Ballistic missile A ballistic missile is a missile that follows a sub-orbital ballistic flight path with the objective of delivering one or more warheads to a predetermined target. To date, ballistic missiles have been propelled during powered flight by chemical rocket engines of various types. History [pic] Diagram of V-2, the first ballistic missile. The first ballistic missile was the A-4, commonly known as the V-2 rocket, developed by Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s under direction of Wernher von Braun. The first successful launch of a V-2 was on October 3, 1942 and began operation on September 6, 1944 against Paris, followed by an attack on London two days later. By the end of World War II, May 1945, over 3,000 V-2s had been launched. A total of 30 nations have deployed operational ballistic missiles. Development continues, with around 100 ballistic missile flight tests (not including those of the US) in 2007, mostly by China, Iran and the Russian Federation. In 2010 the US and Russian governments signed a treaty to reduce their inventory of intercontinental ballistic...
Words: 2565 - Pages: 11
