European Stars And Stripes (Newspaper) - January 28, 1987, Darmstadt, Hesse                                Alex Roland of Duke University a longtime a tic of the manned space program does t hmm so i thought a year ago this would have o macabre bul salutary effect on the space program to says and a year later i Don t think it has we be concentrated on symptoms and ignored the disease " the symptoms he says were Mana Gonal problems procurement and Quality control. What the country should do he said is to is gelling Over our infatuation with manned space flight and deciding what we want to do in space " list astronauts were sprinkled into engineering learns that began to stud America s space Effort. They also assumed key roles in the management shakeup that followed challenger s loss. The voice of the astronaut corps began to be heard in places where it had been silent since the Days of the Apollo program. Sally rid we named to the Rogers commission thai investigated the Accident and later become a special assistant to the Nasa administrator. Robert Crippen was sent to Washington to study management problems and then to head the space operations management team. Richard truly a former astronaut was placed in charge of the space transportation system Fred Gregory became Chiel of the operations of a new safety division. Rick Hauck became associate administrator Tor external affairs before returning to the corps As commander of the firs Post challenger Crew. Being included in decision processes sent morale rising. The astronauts would have been hurl or Felt left out if they were just told to sit in the Tolice and Wail for the system to Correct itself said o Connor who was named chairman of a safely Lask Force. John Young chief of the astronaut office believes the heavy involvement of the corps in fundamental decisions will end once the shuttle is flying again. Most of those now working Al the centers of Power in Nasa Headquarters and at the Nasa centers Are expected to return to the Johnson space Center to pick up flight training again. But Young and others believe that the astronaut influence in Nasa is permanently strengthened. The astronauts will carry a Little bigger stick now " said Leestma. We now Are piped into most of the engineering reporting chains so that we know what is going  the astronauts do not believe they will Ever again have the same Trust in the system they had. There s got to be a healthy mistrust said o Connor. Part of a Good tying safety program is or everybody to have mistrust of everybody else those Are healthy  Ufa photo i Wllliam Rogers chairman of challenger commission studying computer enhanced photo of the explosion. Building a better Booster by Paul Recer associated Pressl Ess than 13 months before the shuttle is scheduled to Fly again Nasa engineers have yet to conduct a Lull scale test of a new Booster rocket to rep Ace the flawed system responsible for the challenger disaster. Such a test was scheduled Tor next month but officials at Morton Thi Okol inc., manufacturer of the rocket said to May be at least mid March before a test rocket engine can be tired at the firm s Brigham City. Utah Plant. At least four such tests Are planned. Although the original test schedule has slipped Nasa of Licals say they still expect that new boosters will be delivered to the Kennedy space Center by next october s deadline for meeting a Fob. 18,1988, proposed launch Date. A nothing unexpected pops up they should make it said one shuttle program official reflecting the Agency s official optimism  a committee of the National research Council which is supervising the Booster project recently warned hat questions with the new design remain and must be cosely monitored before a Fina go ahead is Given. The presidential comm Simon that investigated last january s challenger disaster determined that a Leaky Booster rocket made by Thi Okol ignited fuel in a rocket propellant Sank and triggered the fireball that killed seven Crew members and grounded the nation s shuttle Fleet. Hearings before the commission revealed hat engineers had known of Haws in the rocket joints Lor More than two years but had not considered them serious enough to Slop the shuttle irom flying. Twin boosters fire at liftoff and provide most of the Power needed for a shuttle to reach orbit. The Basic problem with the solid rocket was in the joints formed when our 27 foot sections of the rocket Are filled together to create the 116-foot Long Booster. Thi Okol Man a failures the Roc Cej sections and ships them 10 the Kennedy space Center in Florida Lor Assembly. The sections fit together in a Tongue end Groove fashion to torm what Are called Field pints. The joints Are designed to to sealed by two rubberized o rings and the use of a Putty. The commission found that l so degree gases escaped from a lower Point on Cna Flinger s right rocket and triggered the explosion. Tests conducted As Early As 1977 revealed that the Tongue and Groove design of the rocket joints tended to loom instead of tighten As expected when pressure was applied. But engineers considered the problem called joint rotation not significant. But investigators also Learned that he rubberized o rings lost resiliency at Low temperatures the commission report speculated that the so degree temperatures on launch morning May have kept the rings from sealing. Following challenger explosion Nasa assigned a team to work with Thi Okol in a $300 million redesign of the joint. John Thomas who led the team found that Thi Okol and the Marshall space flight Center already had developed several new designs. By August Thomas announced that the team had settled on a design that would add another o ring and include a Metal lip. Or capture feature that would Force the 0 rings to Seal. I Don t know Why it the it Jan change was t done a Long time ago Thomas said at a news conference. The engineers also a design insulation that would Block the rocket gasses from impinging on the 0 rings and developed healers that would maintain a constant temperature in the joints during cold weather. One advantage of the new joint design was that it could be machined into the existing rocket sections thus savings millions of dollars and reducing the time needed to conduct tests and resume flight. Nasa considered testing the new rocket engine in a vertical position mimicking As close As possible actual launch conditions. But engineers decided that horizontal Testa actually put More stress on the joint. Nasa also approved a new $19 million test stand that would be Able to impart some of the dynamics of actual Light against the Side of the Booster Rochet starting in August. Thi okd conducted a series of tests using rocket sections that included the Oid joint and about 400 pounds of solid fuel. Some tests duplicated challenger s launch conditions and others tested the new insulation design. Engineers also tested a new material for the 0 rings that would be More elastic at Tow temperatures. That material however deteriorated when in came in prolonged Contact with a rust inhibiting grease and engineers went Back to the same Type 0 rings that doomed challenger. A committee irom he National research Council which was directed to Monitor the redesign cited that As an example of poor planning by Nasa to have alternatives for problems that crop up. Another arc committee said Nasa s feb. Is 1988, target Date for the first Post challenger Light does not allow for design changes it they should become necessary.1987 the stars and stripes Pagels