STS51L Accident Questions

As it is known, the left SRB burned through the o-ring at the side facing
the ET causing the accident. Then I started to wonder.

Would it have been possible for the o-ring to burn through on the other
side of the SRB (ie: away from the tank)? Was it just bad luck it burned
through where it did?

If the above is possible then what would the effect had been on the
remainder of the rise to orbit? Would the Challenger been destroyed
anyhow?

If not then would have one of the abort modes been called after SRB
burnout? How bad would the gasses leaking pushed it off course?

Mark Percival
Montreal, Quebec

I'm not an expert. lets down scale this to model rocketry. If
the area where the O ring was compromise the leak or explosion could
have taken place anywhere. If I remember correctly the SRB where
manufacture and shipped in pieces to cut costs. No problem...The
problem is basic plumbing you need a compression fit with the O ring.
I think this would have decrease the change of the accident from
happening.

Also everyone under pressure to meet time and cost restrictions.
NASA is Safe but sometime you have to gamble. The shuttle is a
proven.........We need a ship assemble like the space station in
orbit.......This will cut cost.

Daydreamer99 wrote:

I'm not an expert. lets down scale this to model rocketry. If
the area where the O ring was compromise the leak or explosion could
have taken place anywhere.



The area where it failed at was the one that got a great deal of stress
put on it during the "twang"- when the shuttle makes the rest of the
launch stack bend as its engines are ignited before SRB ignition. The
area of the SRBs astern of the aft attachment point to the ET undergo
the most stress during this event; and indeed film of the Shuttle on the
pad showed a jet of smoke emerging from the the field joint that would
later burn through on SRB ignition and prior to lift-off. This was due
to the O-rings on that field joint being unseated by the "twang" and
unable to reseat themselves due to their low temperatures making them
inflexible.

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote:

snip

and indeed film of the Shuttle on the pad showed a jet of smoke emerging
from the the field joint that would later burn through on SRB ignition and
prior to lift-off. This was due to the O-rings on that field joint being
unseated by the "twang" and unable to reseat themselves due to their low
temperatures making them inflexible.

Kind of like this unreleased STS 51-L video where the smoke, uh stops at
3.375 seconds?

http://www.challengerdisaster.info/s..._m-2_mpg_i.mpg

Daniel

Charleston wrote:

Kind of like this unreleased STS 51-L video where the smoke, uh stops at
3.375 seconds?

http://www.challengerdisaster.info/s..._m-2_mpg_i.mpg



You know, there's a far better video of the smoke plume out there than
that; in fact, I can't even see the smoke plume in that crappy and
distorted video. The other video is in color in color and a _lot_ closer up.

Pat

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:

Charleston wrote:

Kind of like this unreleased STS 51-L video where the smoke, uh stops at
3.375 seconds?

http://www.challengerdisaster.info/s..._m-2_mpg_i.mpg



You know, there's a far better video of the smoke plume out there than
that; in fact, I can't even see the smoke plume in that crappy and
distorted video. The other video is in color in color and a _lot_ closer up.

Pat

Which is probably one reason why this particular footage was
"unreleased," along with the fact that due to the angle of the camera
with respect to the trajectory and orientation of the stack
immediately prior to and following breakup, you can't really see much
that you can't see from much better perspectives elsewhere.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D., GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"The loss of the American system of checks and balances is more of a security
danger than any terrorist risk." -- Bruce Schneier
http://dischordia.blogspot.com
http://www.angryherb.net

"Pat Flannery" wrote:
Charleston wrote:

Kind of like this unreleased STS 51-L video where the smoke, uh stops at
3.375 seconds?

http://www.challengerdisaster.info/s..._m-2_mpg_i.mpg


You know, there's a far better video of the smoke plume out there than
that; in fact, I can't even see the smoke plume in that crappy and
distorted video. The other video is in color in color and a _lot_ closer
up.

There is definitely better film of the smoke puffs that occured immediately
at launch, that is true (film cameras E-60, E-63). Subsequently that film
was transferred to video. The best motion picture film photography of the
smoke puffs at launch, that is the cameras positioned with a direct angle to
observe the start-up tranisent as to location, direction of smoke, size,
etcetera, all failed to operate! The odds of that failure being coincidence
are dim, but it did happen that way.

As for your inability to see the smoke, please don't blame me. It takes a
lot of bandwidth to put up MPEG II or AVI. I will put up some higher
resolution photography later tonight for a limited timeframe. Personally, I
can see plenty of black smoke up to about 3.4 seconds, and subsequently I
see significant diffuse smoke brightly illuminated by the light of the SRB
flames. Also, I conclude that the "STS 51-L JSC Visual Data Analysis
Sub-Team" and the team at LMSC got it right when they saw smoke and "solid
material" as late as 45 seconds emanating from the same region of the
vehicle. Unfortuantely, they were overruled by the film team at KSC. As
you probably know, it is KSC's views that are reflected in the final
Presidential Commission report.

Daniel

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
Charleston wrote:

Kind of like this unreleased STS 51-L video where the smoke, uh stops at
3.375 seconds?

http://www.challengerdisaster.info/s..._m-2_mpg_i.mpg


You know, there's a far better video of the smoke plume out there than
that; in fact, I can't even see the smoke plume in that crappy and
distorted video. The other video is in color in color and a _lot_ closer
up.

Okay, I have uploaded MPEG II videos of M-2 and M-3. Still not AVI, nor
3/4", but they are good enough. If you look at M-3 at 10.4 to 10.5 seconds
MET, you will notice that the space between the SRBs and the Orbiter (side
shot) is obscured by smoke. At MET 12.7 and 12.8 seconds the first right
SRB stiffener ring immediately below the base of the ET and from there on up
the SRB to the ET is intermittedly obscured by smoke. When you combine M-3
with M-2 you can get a 3-dimensional feel for the smoke's location based on
what is being obscured! In a nutshell something is still leaking! I have
reviewed prior flight photography and nothing comes close to the density of
the smoke (obscured hardware behind smoke) as can be seen on STS 51-L.

If you do not have freeze frame/frame by frame advance, it is very difficult
to pick-up/appreciate the subtlety of what is happening as described above.

Daniel

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:22:39 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Charleston, J*** M*****'s ******* kid wrote:

....Who cares? It's all lies anyway.

You know, there's a far better video of the smoke plume out there than
that; in fact, I can't even see the smoke plume in that crappy and
distorted video. The other video is in color in color and a _lot_ closer up.

....Then again, Patrick, you're neither a washed-up janitor with a
mad-on for his former employers, nor one of his genetically-inferior
excuses for offspring.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

OMG. I hope you didn't really mean what you wrote. "...sometime (sic)
you have to gamble."????? NO WAY. Launching Challenger AGAINST
PROTOCOL, with icicles hanging off of it, was irresponsible at BEST,
and I hope the FOOL who gave the final "Go" has never slept a wink
since. I don't care if Reagan had to fly down to the Cape FIVE DOZEN
TIMES...you do NOT risk the crew!!!!! PERIOD.
Space flight is inherently dangerous, so "gambling" on KNOWN hazards is
tantamount to murder.