Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “ACCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 217 records · Page 12
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

TPSAS-NF1676L-13013-DND

Description, capabilities and utilization of the NASA Langley Aerothermodynamics Laboratory (LAL) are presented. The LAL consists of four hypersonic, blow-down-to-vacuum wind tunnels that collectively provide a range of Mach number from 6 to 10 (18 simulation), unit Reynolds number from 0.05 to 8 million per foot and, most importantly for blunt configurations, normal shock density ratio from 4 to 12. These wide ranges of hypersonic simulation parameters are due, in part, to the use of two different test gases (air and tetrafluoromethane, CF4), thereby making the facilities unique. The complex represents half of the conventional (as opposed to impulse) -type hypersonic wind tunnels operational in this country. LAL facilities are used to assess and optimize the hypersonic aerodynamic performance and aeroheating characteristics of aerospace vehicle concepts and to provide benchmark aerodynamic/aeroheating data for generating the flight aerodynamic databook and final design of the thermal protection system (TPS). Modifications and enhancements of LAL hardware components and instrumentation have been pursued to increase capability, reliability, and productivity in support of programmatic goals. The facilities are utilized to generate essentially all of the experimental hypersonic aerodynamic and aeroheating information for high-priority, fast-paced Agency programs and were a major contributor to the Shuttle Columbia Accident Investigation, space shuttle Return-to-Flight program and Hypersonic Thermodynamic Infrared Measurements (HYTHIRM) project. The LAL has also contributed to the development of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, Ares launch system, Mars Science Laboratory, Genesis Sample Return Capsule and supported DOD programs including HIFiRE, X-37, Falcon HTV-2 and X-51A.

John R Micol↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Growing the NASA Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA) Workforce of Tomorrow

The NASA Safety Center (NSC) was established in2006 in response to Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) recommendations to strengthen NASA’s safety program. The NSC supports all NASA centers and facilities. The NSC fosters world-class Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA) support for NASA programs and projects through professional development activities and the advancement of the following SMA technical disciplines: - Aviation Safety - Operational Safety - Quality Engineering - Reliability and Maintainability - SMA Technical Leadership - Software Assurance - System Safety The NSC’s Technical Excellence Office (TEO) is charged with encouraging technical excellence in NASA’s SMA community primarily through professional development products and services. TEO’s first initiative was the SMA Technical Excellence Program (STEP). STEP is a career-oriented, professional development roadmap for safety professionals, which is designed for the employee to learn specific knowledge and skills to improve performance in their current role.

Safety and Mission Assurance↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Safety Culture at the World’s Premier Multi-User Spaceport

NASA’s Agency-wide Safety Culture is implemented at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) using a unique strategy due an unparalleled approach in making human spaceflight history. Kennedy Space Center, the world’s premier multi-user spaceport, enables U.S. government and commercial space access, while providing the world a resource to allow the exploration of and the ability to work in space. A consistently healthy safety culture at KSC is imperative for mission success: desired achievements, protection of space flight hardware, and ultimately, the preservation of human life requires the support of a healthy safety culture. Emphasis on the NASA Agency-wide development of Safety Culture began with the conception of the NASA Agency Safety Culture Working Group. After the devastating loss of life and mission of the Space Shuttle Colombia, a broken safety culture was identified as an organizational cause by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report. Thus, the Agency Safety Culture Working Group was developed in 2009 to assess the status of the Agency’s Safety Culture, while addressing safety culture concerns at the NASA Center-level. A Five-factor model was developed to serve as the guiding principles for Safety Culture: 1) Reporting Culture, 2) Just Culture, 3) Flexible Culture, 4) Learning Culture, and 5) Engaged Culture. These five factors are included in the NASA Safety Culture logo, which was intentionally designed as a DNA double helix to prompt the permeation of safety into day-to-day work. KSC specifically implements the NASA Agency-wide Safety Culture principles in a tailored approach that is relevant to the diversity of work being performed. An emphasis is placed on the implementation to include safety at home, not exclusively at work. This emphasis is a KSC-specific element that has been intentionally added to promote a closed loop Safety Culture. To advertise the safety culture, various safety and health events are held throughout the calendar year, providing innovative speakers and engaging activities, while also promoting a wide range of curated safety initiatives. Development and continuous improvement of the KSC safety tracking database, allows for advanced tracking-to-closure, along with providing data sets used to identify areas of emphasis. Other safety initiatives rely solely on employee participation, such as the photo challenges; participants are encouraged to identify and capture themselves, coworkers, or family members participating in safe or healthy activities to share with others within the Center and at Agency levels. Fabrication of exclusive videos and graphics are utilized to advertise and inform employee of safety initiatives, upcoming safety events, and general dispersion of safety information. In addition, an anonymous Agency-wide Safety Culture Survey is advertised, administered, and analyzed at Kennedy Space Center, with the purpose of receiving basic feedback on Safety Culture perceptions to help prevent future incidents from occurring. Through these briefly identified means, and many other forms of employee engagement, Kennedy Space Center aims to maintain safety in the forefront, while creating an environment where everyone trusts that safety is a priority.

Larrin E. Moody↗
NASA NTRS2006

Space Shuttle Columbia Post-Accident Analysis and Investigation

Although the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia and its crew was tragic, the circumstances offered a unique opportunity to examine a multitude of components which had experienced one of the harshest environments ever encountered by engineered materials: a break up at a velocity in excess of Mach 18 and an altitude exceeding 200,000 feet (63 KM), resulting in a debris field 645 miles/l,038 KM long and 10 miles/16 KM wide. Various analytical tools were employed to ascertain the sequence of events leading to the disintegration of the Orbiter and to characterize the features of the debris. The testing and analyses all indicated that a breach in a left wing reinforced carbon/carbon composite leading edge panel was the access point for hot gasses generated during re-entry to penetrate the structure of the vehicle and compromise the integrity of the materials and components in that area of the Shuttle. The analytical and elemental testing utilized such techniques as X-Ray Diffraction (XRD), Energy Dispersive X-Ray (EDX) dot mapping, Electron Micro Probe Analysis (EMPA), and X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) to characterize the deposition of intermetallics adjacent to the suspected location of the plasma breach in the leading edge of the left wing, Fig. 1.

McDanels, Steven J.↗
NASA NTRS1986

Investigation of the Challenger Accident

The work of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident (hereafter referred to as the Rogers Commission) and the work of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in investigating the causes of the accident were reviewed. In addition to reviewing the five volumes of the Rogers Commission, the entire direct on-line Rogers Commission data base, which included full-text and document retrieval capability was also reviewed. The findings and recommendations contained also include materials submitted for the record, staff investigations, interviews, and trips.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2005

Application of Electron Microscopy Techniques to the Investigation of Space Shuttle Columbia Accident

This viewgraph presentation gives an overview of the investigation into the breakup of the Space Shuttle Columbia, and addresses the importance of a failure analysis strategy for the investigation of the Columbia accident. The main focus of the presentation is on the usefulness of electron microscopy for analyzing slag deposits from the tiles and reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC) wing panels of the Columbia orbiter.

Shah, Sandeep↗
NASA NTRS2009

Orbiter Payload Bay Bucket Hoist Mishap...An Accident We Should Never Forget

This slide presentation reviews the accident that occurred in 1985 when a bay bucket hoist fell from its stowed position. This accident damaged the orbiter, injured a technician, and delayed the launch. The accident was investigated, and the cause of the accident was determined to be the practice of two-blocking. Two-blocking is the result of hoisting beyond the intended safe upper limit of hook travel to the point of solid contact between the load block and the upper block or hoist/trolley structure. The usual result is immediate failure of the wire rope, due to the ropes being cut by the grooves of the drum or sheaves. The design of the hoist, the inspection, and the operator training were all in part responsible for this failure.

Lytle, Bradford P.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Introduction and Mission Response Team (MRT)

On February 1, 2003 the Space Shuttle Columbia, returning to Earth with a crew of seven astronauts, disintegrated along a track extending from California to Louisiana. Observers on the ground filmed breakup of the spacecraft. Debris fell along a 567 statute mile track from Littlefield, Texas to Fort Polk, Louisiana; the largest ever recorded debris field. At the time of the accident the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) flight surgeon on-duty at the Mission Control Center (MCC) in Houston, Texas initiated the medical contingency response. The DOD surgeon at Patrick Air Force Base was notified, NASA medical personnel were recalled and the services of Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) were requested. Subsequent to the accident the NASA flight surgeons that had supported the crew on orbit now provided medical support to the crewmember s families. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and numerous other federal, state and local agencies along with the citizens of Texas and Louisiana responded to the disaster. Search and recovery was managed from a Disaster Field Office (DFO) established in Lufkin, Texas. Mishap Investigation Team (MIT) medical operations were managed from Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana. Accident investigation teams (Columbia Accident Investigation Task Force (CAITF) and Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB)) appointed immediately after the disaster included current and former authorities in space medicine. In August 2003, the CAIB concluded its investigation and released its findings in a report published in February 2004.

Pool, Sam↗
NASA NTRS2012

Software Programs Derive Measurements from Photographs

Even under the most unfortunate circumstances, NASA continues on a path of innovation. After the Space Shuttle Columbia reentered the atmosphere on February 1, 2003, it experienced a catastrophic failure, and the entire crew and vehicle were lost. For the two weeks prior to the accident, Columbia STS-107 was on a mission to perform physical, life, and space sciences research in the unique environment of microgravity. Following the accident, the remaining shuttles - Endeavor, Atlantis, and Discovery - were grounded, and an intense investigation ensued. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board spent nearly 7 months examining the cause of the accident and determining what would ensure a safe return to flight. To this end, investigators performed an extensive review down five analytic paths: aerodynamic, thermodynamic, sensor data timeline, debris reconstruction, and imaging. As part of the evaluation of all the available imagery from Columbia's ascent, orbit, and entry, investigators needed a new method for analyzing still video images to determine the size of the material that fell from Columbia, as well as the distance that the material traveled. John Lane, a scientist at Kennedy Space Center, devised a software program to calculate the unknown dimension of the material in the images, and soon after the investigation was complete, continued to enhance the technology. Eventually, the program that assisted in the Columbia investigation became available for licensing.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1932

German aircraft accident statistics, 1930

The investigation of all serious accidents, involving technical defects in the airplane or engine, is undertaken by the D.V.L. in conjunction with the imperial traffic minister and other interested parties. All accidents not clearly explained in the reports are subsequently cleared up.

Weitzmann, Ludwig↗
NASA NTRS2011

NASA Medical Response to Human Spacecraft Accidents

This slide presentation reviews NASA's role in the response to spacecraft accidents that involve human fatalities or injuries. Particular attention is given to the work of the Mishap Investigation Team (MIT), the first response to the accidents and the interface to the accident investigation board. The MIT does not investigate the accident, but the objective of the MIT is to gather, guard, preserve and document the evidence. The primary medical objectives of the MIT is to receive, analyze, identify, and transport human remains, provide assistance in the recovery effort, and to provide family Casualty Coordinators with latest recovery information. The MIT while it does not determine the cause of the accident, it acts as the fact gathering arm of the Mishap Investigation Board (MIB), which when it is activated may chose to continue to use the MIT as its field investigation resource. The MIT membership and the specific responsibilities and tasks of the flight surgeon is reviewed. The current law establishing the process is also reviewed.

Patlach, Robert↗
NASA NTRS2002

Boiling Point

The author recounts his experiences he helped to investigate the accident which destroyed the Space Shuttle Challenger. The focus was on how he used novel approaches to investigate heat transfer in the shuttle's hydrogen tank, after an expert he sought for advice proved unhelpful.

Jansen, Michael C.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Examination of Icing Induced Loss of Control and Its Mitigations

Factors external to the aircraft are often a significant causal factor in loss of control (LOC) accidents. In today s aviation world, very few accidents stem from a single cause and typically have a number of causal factors that culminate in a LOC accident. Very often the "trigger" that initiates an accident sequence is an external environment factor. In a recent NASA statistical analysis of LOC accidents, aircraft icing was shown to be the most common external environmental LOC causal factor for scheduled operations. When investigating LOC accident or incidents aircraft icing causal factors can be categorized into groups of 1) in-flight encounter with super-cooled liquid water clouds, 2) take-off with ice contamination, or 3) in-flight encounter with high concentrations of ice crystals. As with other flight hazards, icing induced LOC accidents can be prevented through avoidance, detection, and recovery mitigations. For icing hazards, avoidance can take the form of avoiding flight into icing conditions or avoiding the hazard of icing by making the aircraft tolerant to icing conditions. Icing detection mitigations can take the form of detecting icing conditions or detecting early performance degradation caused by icing. Recovery from icing induced LOC requires flight crew or automated systems capable of accounting for reduced aircraft performance and degraded control authority during the recovery maneuvers. In this report we review the icing induced LOC accident mitigations defined in a recent LOC study and for each mitigation describe a research topic required to enable or strengthen the mitigation. Many of these research topics are already included in ongoing or planned NASA icing research activities or are being addressed by members of the icing research community. These research activities are described and the status of the ongoing or planned research to address the technology needs is discussed

Reehorst, Andrew L.↗