posted 01-03-2006 06:46 PM               

First off, Challenger. In 1997 there was a report in Flight International that an independent researcher had uncovered an image of a plume of flame emanating from the damaged joint on the right hand SRB at T+20 seconds. Has this image ever been publicly released?

Secondly, Columbia. The leading edge section that was used in the foam impact tests come from Atlantis or Enterprise? How many times was it hit before the hole appeared? and thirdly, was the hole in the same spot or section where the other impacts had taken place?

Any help would be gratefully appreciated.

posted 01-03-2006 08:35 PM               

You can see the results of the impact tests on the Columbia Accident Investigation Board website.

The same site has their final report in PDF format for download, in which you can read about the tests and their outcome.

As to your first question, according to NASA/Rogers Commission, the first evidence of hot gases escaping from the right-hand SRB (in the form of a visible flame) occurs at T+58.788 seconds. A smoke plume is first seen at just .678 seconds into flight.

There is a good timeline (with imagery of the plume) on SpaceflightNow.

From best I can tell, these times are still considered to be factual, which would suggest that the Flight International report was faulty (and I cannot find evidence of a photo being released). There are certainly a number of questionable sources who have made claims of "new" evidence since, but have never come forward with any material to support their assertions.

I'm not saying that's the case with the FI report, but I think more details are needed. Does the citation offer the researcher's name?

posted 01-03-2006 08:51 PM               

Regardless, it's clear that failure of the O-ring and joint begins immediately after SRB ignition. The black puffs of smoke are telltale.

posted 01-04-2006 03:48 PM               

The researchers name was Ali Abu Taha. He had apparently been given access to the NASA evidence and had carried out an independent analysis. My source for this comes from page 71 of the book "The Space Shuttle, Roles, Missions and Accomplishments" by David M. Harland and published by Wiley-Praxis in 1998. The ISBN No. is 0-471-98138-9.

The Author of the report in FI was Tim Furniss.

As for Columbia I'll give the CAIB reports another going over just in case.

Thanks for that link to spaceflightnow.

Cheers

posted 01-04-2006 04:43 PM               

At least, that was just one of the theories put forth by AbuTaha, who apparently created his own steady-stream of alternate causes, some of which were investigated, with negative or inconclusive results (writes Henry Spencer, a respected contributor to sci.space.history). Spencer read AbuTaha's article in Spaceflight and described it as "incoherent".

Anyway, getting back to CJC's original question, according to the same thread of discussion, pictures supporting AbuTaha's theory were published in the March 1987 issue of the British magazine Spaceflight News.

posted 01-06-2006 06:43 PM               

I remember Spaceflight News and I think I have copies of it lying around somewhere nearby so I'll start searching for them.

I've read the CAIB reports concerning the foam impact tests on the leading edge panels and have come to the conclusion that the hole only appeared after that particular section had been constantly hit, time after time, by pieces of foam. Surely all these impacts would have weakened the panel to a point which ultimatly led it to breaking?

So here I am scratching my head thinking about this, has anybody got any thoughts on this?

Cheers,