Challenger+Disaster

Getting Started

 * **Click on the edit button above to put your own content on this page.**

Rubric: [[file:Space Exploration Adventure Rubric.doc]], [[file:Space Exploration Adventure Rubric.pdf]]

 * Written Information **: As you enter text, the area will expand. Make sure to check the required details of the assignment and review the rubric (see document links) to self-assess your work. Your paragraphs will be in block format, enter one return between paragraphs. The tab key, indent feature will not appear when typing directly into the wiki page.

Visuals Make sure to include the location of your image; add a caption with this information

**Works Cited** **Sources** : Include the source information for all of the magazine articles, reference sources (encyclopedias) and web site pages that were used to complete your project. The source information for encyclopedias may be found at the end or beginning of each entry in iCONN. When using periodicals, the publication information will be at the beginning or end of the article. This needs to be formatted for MLA standards. If it is not labeled 'Source Citation' it can be formatted appropriately by using EasyBib.com. You should use EasyBib for the web sites. The final Works Cited should be listed in alphabetical order by the first word of the source citation. "Milky Way." //Kids InfoBits Presents: Astronomy//. Gale, 2008. Reproduced in Kids InfoBits. Detroit: Gale, 2012. "The Milky Way." //WMAP's Universe//. NASA, 28 June 2010. Web. 06 Mar. 2012. . Vergano, Dan. "Galaxy Bracketed by Big Bubbles." //USA Today// 10 Nov. 2010: 05A. Web. 6 Mar. 2012.
 * Sample:**

[]
 * Your Source List:**

[|A4154318&docType=GALE&role=ITOF]

**Topic: Research Focus**
 * What is your topic?**
 * State the focus of your research:**

**Notes** Include notes, statistics and facts that you will use to write your final paper. You may want to label sections of your notes to help you be more organized as you write. As you take notes from a source, you should list the source citation in the Works Cited section above. []

mission plan:

The planned orbital activities of the Challenger 51-L mission were as follows: On Flight Day 1, after arriving into orbit, the crew was to have two periods of scheduled high activity. First they were to check the readiness of the TDRS-B satellite prior to planned deployment. After lunch they were to deploy the satellite and its Inertial Upper Stage (IUS) booster and to perform a series of separation maneuvers. The first sleep period was scheduled to be eight hours long starting about 18 hours after crew wakeup the morning of launch.On Flight Day 2, the Comet Halley Active Monitoring Program (CHAMP) experiment was scheduled to begin. Also scheduled were the initial "teacher in space" (TISP) video taping and a firing of the orbital maneuvering engines (OMS) to place Challenger at the 152-mile orbital altitude from which the Spartan would be deployed.On Flight Day 3, the crew was to begin pre-deployment preparations on the Spartan and then the satellite was to be deployed using the remote manipulator system (RMS) robot arm. Then the flight crew was to slowly separate from Spartan by 90 miles.On Flight Day 4, the Challenger was to begin closing on Spartan while Gregory B. Jarvis continued fluid dynamics experiments started on day two and day 3. Live telecasts were also planned to be conducted by Christa McAuliffe.On Flight Day 5, the crew was to rendezvous with Spartan and use the robot arm to capture the satellite and re-stow it in the payload bay.On Flight Day 6, re-entry preparations were scheduled. This included flight control checks, test firing of maneuvering jets needed for re-entry, and cabin stowage. A crew news conferences was also scheduled following the lunch period.On Flight Day 7, the day would have been spent preparing the Space Shuttle for deorbit and entry into the atmosphere. The Challenger was scheduled to land at the Kennedy Space Center 144 hours and 34 minutes after launch

Crew:

Commander [|Francis R. Scobee], Pilot [|Michael J. Smith], Mission Specialists [|Judith A. Resnik], [|Ellison S. Onizuka], [|Ronald E. McNair] and Payload Specialists [|Gregory B. Jarvis] and [|Sharon Christa McAuliffe]. Disaster:Just after liftoff at .678 seconds into the flight, photographic data shows a strong puff of gray smoke was spurting from the vicinity of the aft field joint on the right solid rocket booster. Computer graphic analysis of the film from the pad cameras indicated the initial smoke came from the 270 to 310-degree sector of the circumference of the aft field joint of the right solid rocket booster. This area of the solid booster faces the external tank. The vaporized material streaming from the joint indicated there was not a complete sealing action within the joint.Eight more distinctive puffs of increasingly blacker smoke were recorded between .836 and 2.500 seconds. The smoke appeared to puff upwards from the joint. While each smoke puff was being left behind by the upward flight of the shuttle, the next fresh puff could be seen near the level of the joint. The multiple smoke puffs in this sequence occurred at about four times per second, approximating the frequency of the structural load dynamics and resultant joint flexing. As the shuttle increased its upward velocity, it flew past the emerging and expanding smoke puffs. The last smoke was seen above the field joint at 2.733 seconds.The black color and dense composition of the smoke puffs suggest that the grease, joint insulation and rubber O-rings in the joint seal were being burned and eroded by the hot propellant gases.At approximately 37 seconds, Challenger encountered the first of several high-altitude wind shear conditions, which lasted until about 64 seconds. The wind shear created forces on the vehicle with relatively large fluctuations. These were immediately sensed and countered by the guidance, navigation and control system. The steering system (thrust vector control) of the solid rocket booster responded to all commands and wind shear effects. The wind shear caused the steering system to be more active than on any previous flight.Both the shuttle main engines and the solid rockets operated at reduced thrust approaching and passing through the area of maximum dynamic pressure of 720 pounds per square foot. The main engines had been throttled up to 104 percent thrust and the solid rocket boosters were increasing their thrust when the first flickering flame appeared on the right solid rocket booster in the area of the aft field joint. This first very small flame was detected on image enhanced film at 58.788 seconds into the flight. It appeared to originate at about 305 degrees around the booster circumference at or near the aft field joint.One film frame later from the same camera, the flame was visible without image enhancement. It grew into a continuous, well-defined plume at 59.262 seconds. At about the same time (60 seconds), telemetry showed a pressure differential between the chamber pressures in the right and left boosters. The right booster chamber pressure was lower, confirming the growing leak in the area of the field joint.As the flame plume increased in size, it was deflected rearward by the aerodynamic slipstream and circumferentially by the protruding structure of the upper ring attaching the booster to the external tank. These deflections directed the flame plume onto the surface of the external tank. This sequence of flame spreading is confirmed by analysis of the recovered wreckage. The growing flame also impinged on the strut attaching the solid rocket booster to the external tank.The first visual indication that swirling flame from the right solid rocket booster breached the external tank was at 64.660 seconds when there was an abrupt change in the shape and color of the plume. This indicated that it was mixing with leaking hydrogen from the external tank. Telemetered changes in the hydrogen tank pressurization confirmed the leak. Within 45 milliseconds of the breach of the external tank, a bright sustained glow developed on the black-tiled underside of the Challenger between it and the external tank.Beginning at about 72 seconds, a series of events occurred extremely rapidly that terminated the flight. Telemetered data indicated a wide variety of flight system actions that support the visual evidence of the photos as the shuttle struggled futilely against the forces that were destroying it.At about 72.20 seconds the lower strut linking the solid rocket booster and the external tank was severed or pulled away from the weakened hydrogen tank permitting the right solid rocket booster to rotate around the upper attachment strut. This rotation is indicated by divergent yaw and pitch rates between the left and right solid rocket boosters.

At 73.124 seconds, a circumferential white vapor pattern was observed blooming from the side of the external tank bottom dome. This was the beginning of the structural failure of hydrogen tank that culminated in the entire aft dome dropping away. This released massive amounts of liquid hydrogen from the tank and created a sudden forward thrust of about 2.8 million pounds, pushing the hydrogen tank upward into the intertank structure. At about the same time, the rotating right solid rocket booster impacted the intertank structure and the lower part of the liquid oxygen tank. These structures failed at 73.137 seconds as evidenced by the white vapors appearing in the intertank region.Within milliseconds there was massive, almost explosive, burning of the hydrogen streaming from the failed tank bottom and liquid oxygen breach in the area of the intertank.

Disaster will not be repeated: Challenger disaster will change the face of NASA NASA officials are optimistic that the U.S. Space Shuttle Program will be back in full operation as soon as investigators can determine the cause of the fiery explosion that engulfed the shuttle Challenger on January 28, killing all seven astronauts aboard. Last month, President Reagan appointed an independent, 12-member panel of experts to investigate the cause of the shuttle explosion and to develop recommendations for correcting any problems that are discovered. All shuttle launchings have been postponed until the commission completes its investigation. The panel, expected to submit its report the President by the end of May, is chaired by former secretary of state and attorney general William Rogers, and includes former astronaut Neil Armstrong and present astronaut Sally Ride. "It's time now to assemble a group of distinguished Americans to take a hard look at the accident, to make a calm and deliberate assessment of the facts and ways to avoid repetition [of it]," Reagan said. Whatever the results of the investigation, it is probable that the space agency will never again be the same, or at least k operate in the same fashion. Since the Challenger tragedy, NASA has become a target for political and economic flak. The day after the explosion, for example, the chairmen of the Senate and House committees that oversee NASA announced that they would hold detailed hearings and probe the internal operations of the agency. One criticism is that NASA had been accelerating its launch schedule at the expense of prudent safety practices. NASA officials deny the charge. "Our motto is: No shuttle before its time," acting NASA administrator William Graham told R&D. But critics are not easily dissuaded.