Lessons from the Columbia Disaster

Bulleted

Text

Key Insights

The Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated upon re-entry into Earth's atmosphere due to damage sustained during launch.
A piece of insulating foam broke off during liftoff, striking the left wing and damaging the thermal protection system.
Mission managers discounted the significance of the foam strike, and no inspection or contingency plans were implemented.
NASA implemented corrective actions, including creating contingency plans for future missions and releasing a report with lessons learned.
Both the Columbia and Challenger disasters highlighted requirement issues related to physical factors and human perception of risk and normalized violations.

1/12

2/12

3/12

4/12

5/12

6/12

7/12

8/12

9/12

10/12

11/12

12/12

1. create your future www.utdallas.edu Office of Communications Columbia Disaster Robiel Ghebrekidan SYSM 6309: Advanced Requirements Engineering Summer 2013 6/22/2013

2. create your future www.utdallas.edu Table of Contents 1. Overview 2. Cause of the Failure 3. Corrective Action 4. Requirement Issues

3. create your future www.utdallas.edu Columbia Disaster • Space shuttle Columbia, re-entering Earth’s atmosphere at 10,000 mph, disintegrates • As a result: – All 7 astronauts are killed – $4 billion spacecraft is destroyed – Debris scattered over 2000 sq-miles of Texas – NASA grounds shuttle fleet for 2-1/2 years

4. create your future www.utdallas.edu Cause of Failure • Insulating foam separates from external tank 81 seconds after lift-off • Foam strikes underside of left wing, breaches thermal protection system (TPS) tiles • Superheated air enters wing during re-entry, melting aluminum struts • Aerodynamic stresses destroy weakened wing

5. create your future www.utdallas.edu Cause of Failure • Many times chunks of insulating foam broke off at launch and dinged the thermal protection system • NASA had observed it so many times on orbiters that did return safely, they didn’t consider it a serious problem

6. create your future www.utdallas.edu Cause of Failure • Foam strike detected in launch videos on Day 2 • Engineers requested inspection by crew or remote photo imagery to check for damage • Mission managers discounted foam strike significance • No actions were taken to confirm shuttle integrity or prepare contingency plans

7. create your future www.utdallas.edu Earlier Shuttles • January 28, 1986, the shuttle Challenger explodes 73 seconds into its launch, killing all seven crew members • Investigation reveals that a solid rocket booster (SRB) joint failed, allowing flames to impinge on the external fuel tank

8. create your future www.utdallas.edu Earlier Shuttles • Liquid hydrogen tank explodes, ruptures liquid oxygen tank • Resulting massive explosion destroys the shuttle

9. create your future www.utdallas.edu Corrective Actions • NASA created a contingency plans to launch a rescue for future mission • Released a report outlining what it had learned from the Columbia accident with regard to crew safety and survivability for future spaceflight.

10. create your future www.utdallas.edu Requirement Issue – Both disasters happened because of both physical and human factors. – Each successful mission reinforced the perception that foam shedding was unavoidable…either unlikely to jeopardize safety or an acceptable risk. – Foam shedding, which violated the shuttle design basis, had been normalized

11. create your future www.utdallas.edu Bibliography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster http://www.space.com/19436-columbia-disaster.html