|
Shuttle needs better cameras { July 2 2003 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60448-2003Jul1.html?nav=hptoc_nhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60448-2003Jul1.html?nav=hptoc_n
Photo System for Shuttles Called Inadequate
More Powerful Cameras Are Necessary for Launches, Investigators Tell NASA
By Kathy Sawyer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 2, 2003; Page A07
Investigators of the space shuttle accident called on NASA yesterday to change the way it photographs shuttle launches, describing the existing system as "obsolescent" and often inadequate.
A lack of powerful high-speed cameras around the Florida launch complex hampered engineers' ability to assess the threat posed by foam debris that struck the shuttle Columbia during its Jan. 16 launch, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board said in issuing its fourth preliminary recommendation.
A requirement that cameras be in good working order "should be included in the Launch Commit Criteria for future launches," the panel said, which means a broken camera would join the long list of factors that can delay a liftoff.
NASA has called for bids on a new contract to operate the cameras and is moving to take over control of the system from the Air Force, officials said. NASA is by far the larger user, accounting for about 80 percent of the fees.
The board said the almost 200 still and motion cameras "suffer from a variety of readiness, obsolescence and urban encroachment (i.e., civilian buildings around the asset) problems." And: "The imaging systems have not been upgraded to reflect changes in launch patterns."
As The Washington Post reported Monday, the panel declared the shuttle a "developmental" vehicle despite NASA's efforts over its 22-year flight history to make operations more routine.
This fundamental change in approach will require NASA to do a much better job of monitoring and studying the performance of the space planes for engineering analysis, as befits any experimental craft, panel members said.
The "lack of high-quality ascent image data" has hampered engineers' ability to assess the effects of persistent debris strikes that plagued shuttles well before the accident, the board said.
Possible improvements listed by the board include mobilizing ships or aircraft to provide additional views of the ascending shuttle and quicker access to the images, most of which are not available for one or more days after launch.
Investigators believe the impact of the foam insulation from Columbia's external tank damaged the left wing and led to the destruction of the vehicle and crew during reentry on Feb. 1.
Officials at the Kennedy Space Center launch site were aware before Columbia's last mission that there was a problem with the 15-year-old camera whose images would have provided the best view of the foam strike. The images were so fuzzy that investigators spent months enhancing them for use in the investigation.
Positioned at Cocoa Beach, Fla., the camera is attached to a powerful telescope that has to peer through miles of atmosphere to track the shuttle as it accelerates to supersonic speeds, Kennedy contract monitor Charles T. Brow said. The camera was "less than perfect but still useful," he said, "and the question was: Do you take it down if it takes six months to fix" and would likely mean missing one or more launches entirely?
He said the radar, telemetry, optic and other instruments that collect data for engineering analysis have worked well -- at least by existing standards. They are operated by Computer Sciences Raytheon, while the attached cameras are operated by Johnson Controls Inc.
E-mails released by NASA reveal a history of frustrations with the cameras. As Columbia orbited, Armando Oliu, a member of the team that monitors ice and debris hazards, said in a lengthy message dated Jan. 21 that because the data from a second camera were "out of focus and unusable . . . [t]he extent of damage on the orbiter is unknown at this point."
He added that "we simply don't have the number of cameras available to afford any problems. The loss of one camera can be, and is, significant. This mission proved that and then some."
He acknowledged that the malfunctioning camera might not have provided the information needed for the foam impact analysis, "but we certainly will not know now. . . . This is simply unacceptable from an engineering perspective."
The e-mails also contained complaints from another user of the cameras -- public relations.
In a memo sent Jan. 22, while Columbia was in orbit, public affairs official William Johnson submitted a list of "examples of the degradation in product and services" provided by Johnson Controls.
After a November launch, for example, he said the images were two days late, and "we begged the launch photos from our professional friends" -- photographers for news wire services -- "because we had NONE from JCI. . . . I can no longer ignore the lack of sufficient support in the photo area."
Brown responded that "there is a definite negative trend," and "the remedy may be a new contractor."
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
|
|
