Columbia Final Mission
Wayne Hale, Deputy Shuttle Manager
Wrote:
"Last year we dropped the torch through our complacency, our arrogance, self assurance, sheer stupidity and through our continuing attempt to please everyone". "Seven of our friends and colleagues paid the ultimate price for our failure. Yet the nation is giving us another chance
..We must not Fail"
More then three years ago the Space Shuttle Columbia went down in flames, due to the damage caused but not limited to, a piece of insulating foam that broke off the external tank and struck the wing's leading edge. The foam struck with enough force to create an opening in the wing which allowed hot plasma to enter during reentry. No one thought that foam could cause this much damage since nothing like this had resulted from previous instances where the foam had come off.
In the beginning NASA was faced with a tight budget given to them by the government. This budget was large enough to build a state of the art air craft but wasn't enough to develop an escape system that might of proving to be useful in this case. The culture of NASA was a factor that created this mistake, "The mantra "Prove to me that there's something wrong". The chain of command was not equal; the small guys couldn't voice their opinions and concerns because of the position they held in the organization. Another concern was that they miscalculated the risk of the foam creating any damage just because it never destroyed another shuttle. The facts were clear that the foam had the ability to create some damage, and this was apparent in many other space shuttle launches. Foam debris was classified as an "in-family" event- a problem within NASA experience base that was not considered a safety of flight issue. NASA even knew that foam debris tended to fall off the left bipod ramp and that ten percent of the fights recorded loss foam from this area. Over the years NASA decided to put their concerns of foam damage to the side and called it an acceptable thing to happen during common flight procedures instead of finding a way to prevent it.
On its first day in orbit NASA engineers came to the conclusion that the foam debris that hit the left wing might have caused severe damage to the shuttle and could prevent it from a safe reentry.
During the flight, the second oxygen tank exploded. The oxygen tank contained liquid required for fuel and oxygen. Liquid oxygen has to be handled very carefully. The astronauts need to constantly stir the oxygen to prevent it from separating. The wires in the device needed to stir the oxygen were damaged, causing a big fire when electricity was passed through them. The explosion caused the number one oxygen to be critically damaged. This was bad because it left the ship with little power. Clueless about the real reason for the explosion, the crew thought a meteoroid had hit them. There was a large amount of damage caused by the explosions. Lovell looked out of the window, thirteen minutes after the explosion. He noticed that the ship was venting some gas out into space. Oxygen gas was leaking out of the spacecraft. Reacting on impulse, the astronauts closed the hatched between the Command Module and Lunar Module. Slowly, the crew and ground controllers began to realize that Apollo 13 was losing oxygen. Ap...
Before going any further with this paper, I would like to take a moment to thank the crew of the space shuttle challenger for their bravery, courage, determinations and and sacrifice for this great nation. Francis R. Scobee (2), Commander, Michael J. Smith (1), Pilot Judith A. Resnik (2), Mission Specialist 1, Ellison S. Onizuka (2), Mission Specialist 2, Ronald E. McNair (2), Mission Specialist 3, Gregory B. Jarvis (1), Payload Specialist 1, Sharon Christa McAuliffe (1), Payload Specialist 2 (science.ksc), were parents, friends, children, husbands and wives, heroes, smart human being that were killed on this tragic day. May God be with your soul and may your memories and courage and passion shall not be forgotten but instead drive future generation determination and passion. The crash of the space shuttle
In the mid-1980’s, the shuttle space program was the focus of the political media since it had failed to deliver on its exp...
"10,9, ignition sequence start, 6,5,4,3,2,1, zero. All engines running. Liftoff! We have a liftoff! Thirty-two minutes past the hour. Liftoff on Apollo 11!" (Apollo 1) It all began with the emotions that the new television brought to the average family. The television was not popular until the 1950s (before). The tv was not so popular because of the price this tehnology had in the 1950s. As time passed on it began to get cheaper and cheaper, obviously this made it more affordable for family to obtain.
On January 28, 1986, the American shuttle Challenger was completely destroyed 73 seconds after liftoff, a catastrophic end to the shuttle's tenth mission. This disaster took the lives of all seven astronauts aboard. One of those astronauts was a teacher, Christa McAuliffe, who was selected to go on the mission and still teach but teach to students all over the United States from space. It was later determined that two rubber O-rings, which had been designed to separate the sections of the rocket booster, had failed because of cold temperatures on the morning of the launch. This tragedy and the aftermath received widespread media coverage and urged NASA to temporarily suspend all shuttle missions.
Rodney Rocha is a NASA engineer and co-chair of Debris Assessment Team (DTS). When possibility of wing damage appeared he requested an additional imagery to obtain more information in order to evaluate the damage. This demonstrates that he actually tried to resolve the issue. However, due to absence of clear organizational responsibilities in NASA those images were never received. Since foam issue was there for years and risk for the flights was estimated as low management decided not to proceed with this request. After learning of management decision Rocha wrote an e-mail there he stated that foam damage could carry grave hazard and have to be addressed. At the same time this e-mail was not send to the management team. Organizational culture at NASA could be described as highly bureaucratic with operations under standard procedures only. Low-end employees like Rocha are afraid to bring any safety-related issues to the management due to delay of the mission. They can be punished for bringing “bad news”. This type of relationship makes it impossible for two-way communication between engineers and managers, which are crucial for decision-making in complex env...
The lose wires created a spark that lit the oxygen tank which made it extremely unstable! Lights were flashing like crazy and my co-astronauts and I all had a very worried look on our faces. “Oh, no!” Leonard said.
Engineers and scientists began trying to find what went wrong almost right away. They studied the film of the take-off. When they studied the film, they noticed a small jet of flame coming from inside the casing for one of the rocket boosters. The flame got bigger and bigger. It started to touch a strut that connected the booster to the big fuel tank attached to the space shuttle. About two or three seconds later, hydrogen began leaking from the gigantic fuel tank. About seventy-two seconds after take-off, the hydrogen caught on fire and the booster swung around. That punctured the fuel tank, which caused a big explosion.
For this assignment we will discuss some theories on organizational change learned during this class and how they relate to the case study of NASA (The Challenger and Columbia Shuttle Disaster). First we will look the images of managing change used by NASA in the case study. Then we will discuss the types of change(s) NASA under took. Next we will look at some of the challenges of change that NASA faced. Next we will discuss some of the resistance to change that NASA dealt with. Then we look at how NASA implemented change. Next we will discuss vision and change and the impact in the case study. Finally we will discuss sustaining change as it relates to the changes implemented by NASA in the case study.
Green, Nick. "Apollo 11 Mission - First Humans on the Moon." About.com Space / Astronomy. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.
Another theory is that the pilot, Jason Dahl might have purposefully crashed the plane to prevent the hijackers from taking it over. Or perhaps that Dahl had cut off the planes fuel with out the hijackers being aware. It was said that the plane looked like it went straight down; and that the plane had almost completely disintegrated on impact leaving a hole several feet deep.
"Space Debris and Human Spacecraft." NASA. NASA, 27 Sept. 2013. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. .
"I am sorry that I have not been able to bring your Majesty's business to a more successful conclusion.’ “ (420 Pickering).
Human fascination with the stars is as ancient as Babylonians and has been suggested to be older than Stonehenge. From “be fruitful and multiply” to “live long and prosper,” the instinct to protect and propagate the species has manifested in religion, art, and the imaginations of countless individuals. As human understanding of space treks out of the fantastical and into the scientific, the realities of traveling through and living in space are becoming clearer. Exploring, investigating, and living in space pose an expansive series of problems. However, the solutions to the problems faced by mankind's desire to reach beyond the horizon, through the night sky, and into the stars are solutions that will help in all areas of life on Earth.
After the accident, a full-scale investigation was launched by the United States National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). It concluded that the accident was caused by metal fatigue exacerbated by crevice corrosion, the corrosion is exacerbated by the salt water and the age of the aircraft was already 19 years old as the plane operated in a salt water environment.