The Challenger Accident - The Inside Story (1986-97) By Tim Furniss. E-book format for £6.50

By Tim Furniss (Spaceflight Correspondent, Flight International 1984-2006).
E-Book
ISBN 978-0-9555651-1-3. 2008.
18,000 words, plus illustrations

(Click images to enlarge)

With thanks to Ali Abutaha for his co-operation.

Comments welcome to tim@spaceport.co.uk.

PDF from www.spaceport.co.uk for 6.50 pounds sterling.
Delivered by email from tim@spaceport.co.uk through PayPal.

This reporter investigated and reported on the Challenger accident for over ten years. Was the loss of Challenger and its crew due to defective O-rings - or a breached booster in the area of the attach ring? Far too many questions have not been answered fully by NASA. More critically, much evidence was seemingly ignored, overlooked or not released. You can make up your own mind.

This is not a conspiracy theory - it is investigative journalism, which we didn't see from American journalists who just swallowed all the Rogers Commission findings.

The sensational unpublished Time Life images story of the accident can be read in full below the highlights.

Highlights

Before the Challenger accident, the Space Shuttle primary software supported a premature powered SRB separation manoeuvre and hardware was in place. Obviously, crews were not eager to try. However, the Challenger crew could have attempted the manoeuvre before the break up. The crew of an airliner believed that they saw an SRB separation just before the break up. Jettisoning the whole "stack" including the ET was also an option for crews.
Post-Challenger, crews could practice unauthorised powered SRB-ET separations but apparently simulator time was very scarce for this practice. These were not in the manuals.
The breached booster trailing flame and gas at T+20s and debris coming off top of right hand booster, seen in unpublished Time Life images.
Where was the wind shear?
Views from New Smyrna Beach showing debris shed from the booster.
The crew transcript: What was the '486' report - wind speed or booster pressure reading? See the pressure reading diagram! It matches perfectly with pressure and not wind speed.
The wrong piece of debris was identified as the crew cabin, which explained why it took so long to find it.
Rogers Commission said O-rings were to blame - after 10 days of the 120-day investigation!
Astronaut John Young said it was breached booster in region of semicircular attach ring of right hand booster. He urges for fully circumferential attach ring.
National Research Council is concerned about how well NASA understood the launch loads.
Astronaut Hoot Gibson and NASA Marshall SFC concerned about semi-circular attach ring.
Where was the 'wind shear'? The plume was straight. The later zig-zag part of the plume - due to Challenger's erratic flight path due to the breached booster - remained for ages.
Flight trajectory is erratic. Observers later saw zig-zagging.
Before the first missions the Shuttle's lift off time in was increased from T+4s to 6s after ignition of the SSMEs – doubling the loads on the whole system. A 100% dynamic overshoot. This caused an array of malfunctions on the early missions from lost tiles to broken down satellites.
Shuttle’s payload capacity is reduced from 65,000lbs.
Challenger is heaviest at 4,526,583kg, with heaviest payload of 52,308lbs to date.
Extreme damage in the region of attach ring of right hand booster.
Flight trajectory is erratic. Observers later saw zig-zagging.
Investigation of NASA footage reveals, gases playing on wings, leaking gases striking aft skirt, small flames by right elevons and a lost piece in the plume at 70s.
Viewers at New Smyrna Beach north of KSC see the erratic flight path and debris from plume of right hand booster. Amateur video by Harold Senhert shows everything – even a NASA camera team reported the debris coming out of third plume. The Rogers Commission showed the last 2 seconds of the Senhert video! Imagine only 2s of the film of Kennedy assassination!
Where are all the traditional NASA images of the launch from every conceivable angle as previous missions?
There were 190 cameras covering the launch but only two of the nine pad cameras worked! Not all the coverage was revealed.
The crew conversation links to several launch events, especially the '486'.
National Research Council says that there were significant changes in estimates of loads on STB attach rings.
Finally, Abutaha, Ralph Morse of Time Life and other observers in the New York office inspected only some Challenger images taken by Morse’s cameras and two showed flame and gas emanating from Challenger at T+20s and debris coming off the top of the right SRB at lift off. Everyone was ready to publish them – but they never appeared! This reporter was shown the images in Washington in 1997.
There's much more too.
You can make up your own mind.

1. Here is the full quote from an Abu Abutaha article on NASA references: "It now (2009) appears that NASA specifically noted both my findings and Tim’s article on the Challenger Crew Cabin in its records. For example, the NASA History Division included the text given below in the Report, “Astronautics and Aeronautics: A Chronology, 1996-2000,” posted in 2009. Under a “February 1997” entry (Page 55), the following is noted from Tim Furniss’ article: Taha’s (AbuTaha’s) photographic analysis also revealed that the explosion had propelled Challenger’s crew compartment thousands of meters away from the explosion, partially explaining why investigators had taken 40 days to locate the shell. Taha (AbuTaha) suggested that a shock wave had killed the crew instantly, although NASA had never found evidence of a shock wave. News of the photographs and of Taha’s (AbuTaha’s) research kept alive the debate surrounding the decade-old accident,” (my emphasis). Even though Furniss’ article was specifically highlighted in NASA’s own briefs, the dramatic evidence of the Challenger Crew Cabin remained dormant."

2. Ali AbuTaha who investigated the Challenger accident has produced new evidence. Only one space reporter, Tim Furniss, mentioned Ali Abutaha’s Challenger evidence on the tenth anniversary in a premier international aerospace publication, Flight International. Abutaha has posted this report. It now (2009) appears that NASA specifically noted both his findings and Tim’s article on the Challenger Crew Cabin in its records. For example, the NASA History Division included the text given below in the Report, “Astronautics and Aeronautics: A Chronology, 1996-2000,” posted in 2009. Under a “February 1997” entry (Page 55), the following is noted from Tim Furniss’ article: “Taha’s (AbuTaha’s) photographic analysis also revealed that the explosion had propelled Challenger’s crew compartment thousands of meters away from the explosion, partially explaining why investigators had taken 40 days to locate the shell. Taha (AbuTaha) suggested that a shock wave had killed the crew instantly, although NASA had never found evidence of a shock wave. News of the photographs and of Taha’s (AbuTaha’s) research kept alive the debate surrounding the decade-old accident,” (my emphasis). Even though Furniss’ article was specifically highlighted in NASA’s own briefs, the dramatic evidence of the Challenger Crew Cabin remained dormant. The line between incompetence and cover-up can be thin. Sometimes, incompetence leads to cover-up. Sometimes, incompetence appears as cover-up. Also, the line between incompetence and mistakes is thin. With great care and effort, I captured and photographed the shock wave that ripped the Challenger and External Tank apart, sending the Crew Cabin tumbling far away from all the other pieces! You can see my (Abutaha) photo of the shock wave in my Post #118 to CollectSpace. (Incidentally, Collect Space had been provided with the information! And a CS correspondent did his to best portray me as a nutcase.) Was there a shock wave? A picture is worth a thousand words. So, was it a mistake? Was it cover-up? Was it incompetence? To me, these are empty questions.

Tim Furniss says: Incidentally – Robert Pearlman had the data and did not use it in a debate on the CollectSpace. Jim Oberg also had the information but did not mention it – even making a comment “Furniss used to be respectable”. I thought Oberg was a self-appointed fount of all space knowledge and he didn’t know anything about the inside story!

3. Here is Abutaha’s account. “I had developed a completely different “sequence of events” for Challenger from lift-off to, and beyond, the explosion that we all saw on television. There were many unique events that were missed in all the other investigations. The important events are supported with clear evidence. “One event was the real Challenger Crew Cabin (CCC) tumbling far away from all the other debris after the explosion. In 1986, I discovered that what NASA identified as the CCC after the explosion, in the films, was a piece of debris, and I also captured the real Crew Cabin in the film record. I showed the evidence to a distinguished member of the Rogers Commission, officers from NASA, and others. The subject was emotionally charged then. Everyone thought it better not to release my finding publicly, and I agreed. In January 1989, I gave a Continuing Engineering Education Program at my alma mater, the George Washington University, entitled, “The Challenger Accident: An Integrated Analysis of the Official Investigation.” In video, I showed the attending engineers the Challenger Crew Cabin drifting alone away from, and way above, all the other pieces. One engineer from NASA attended my 1989 program; Wayne Hale. My course was cancelled after interference from NASA, as described in the Shuttlefactor Report. Again, I shelved the Challenger Crew Cabin subject. On the tenth anniversary of the Challenger accident, I shared the Crew Cabin evidence with space reporters. The evidence included sequenced photos showing the CCC tumbling end over end, frame after frame. The photos show the unmistakable truncated outline of the Crew Cabin. I also pointed out that the piece identified by NASA as the Crew Cabin was shallow-shaped, that looked exactly like the Lower Forward Fuselage. The Fuselage piece can easily move in a stable attitude, like a kite, in the atmosphere.”

(Click image to enlarge)

NOW READ THE BOOK FOR MORE REVELATIONS! YOU WILL BE AMAZED!

Free E-Book extract

The Smoking Guns

Comments welcome to tim@spaceport.co.uk.

Courtesy of Ali Abutaha.

Abutaha had discovered flame emanating from the base of the orbiter Challenger at lift-off and had evidence of the massive leak from the SRB as seen from New Smyrna Beach at T+25s. Now he needed evidence of flame between these times. It was the "disappearance" of the flame after lift off that led NASA down the track concluding that the fire had somehow miraculously stopped. This is Abutaha’s description of what happened afterwards.

In 1987, Ali had shown his enhancements of the fire at lift-off to Jerry Hannifin, the Washington correspondent of Time Magazine who covered the space programme. Hannifin suggested that Abutaha contact the ace photographer Ralph Morse at Time Life. As in previous missions, Morse's coverage numbered thousands of images for each launch. Thousands of Challenger images had been impounded and examined by the government. Abutaha flew to New York and spent a day with Morse in the photo vault with the eager permission of senior science editor of Time, Leon Jaroff. Abutaha was allowed access to dozens of trays of slides numbered in sequence.

He spent hours using a light box and magnifying glass and it was obvious he needed help, so Morse offered to set up a projection system and started to review some images himself. He was astounded to see an image of the lift-off showing two pieces of white debris falling away from the top of the right hand SRB at lift-off. NASA had examined their launch images, so must have known about the objects, which explains why the NASA images of lift off do not show the top of the SRB!

Things got even better just as Abutaha was becoming tired and depressed. He asked Morse more about the location of the cameras and then requested a search of images that were taken by a camera on a boat north of the KSC, which would have looked straight up the plume. After a search of many images, Abutaha cried, "there is a fire!" It was between the belly of Challenger and the ET. That meant that the fire started at lift-off and continued through the ascent! Morse was amazed and knew the significance of the find. Abutaha thought that he had won his battle.

The series of images showing the flame were displayed in the viewing room. Others joined Abutaha and Morse. "This will be the cover story next week!" said one of the reviewers. Morse would win an award. NASA must have had a similar sequence of images taken by its own cameras - especially those classic shots looking up as the Shuttle leaves the pad - but told the world that there was no fire until T+59s. Time’s Michael Lemonick was assigned to write the story and he took notes.

"Then something happened", said Abutaha. The interest suddenly subsided, Lemonick backed away and Ali's promised lunch was cancelled. Abutaha told me that later, at the Senate, Marty Kress and Lana Couch, a veteran NASA engineer, saw the pictures. Abutaha said that Kress was enthusiastic. The author did his upmost to contact Ralph Morse to confirm the story, via Hannifin but it was "not possible" for me to talk to Morse, I was told. I tried again when I was visiting Cape Canaveral and the KSC later and enjoyed Jerry's hospitality but got no joy then either. He did not want to discuss it. I managed to get Ralph's fax number and sent a message to try to get confirmation. Ralph would not respond. Was Time Life under pressure from the Government not to publish? Surely Time Life is not that scared of the Government? Kress told Aerospace America, "Abutaha warrants consideration. When are you guys going to publish a story?" Again, nothing happened. Abutaha told me later "this was the same person who later became a NASA associate administrator and told me to go to hell"!

Jay Lownes, the editor in chief of Aerospace America magazine saw the pictures, said Ali and he was interested - but backed off. An article was to be written by someone else but he soon realised that there was "no way the article would be published in Aerospace America". It was political dynamite. The publisher, Jerry Grey had sent a draft to Morton Thiokol! Coincidentally, at the time space journalist Dave Dooling confirmed that Morton Thiokol had planned to extend the 180deg attach ring on the SRB to 360deg before Challenger!

The most important image in the history of the Shuttle programme and Time refused to use it! Abutaha told me what he felt. Time Magazine was the major news organisation in the free world. Facts and evidence came first - "but apparently, they bend in the wind like everyone else!"

Time let Abutaha have five photos with "Print property of Time Magazine". "Personal use only". Abutaha showed the images privately to congressional aides in Congress but nothing happened. He told me that he showed the pictures to some journalists including Craig Couvault. “Either out of fear of NASA, the Government or rejections by Time, no one followed up the story. John Wilford Noble of the New York Times had wanted to write a story about Abutaha but suddenly got cold feet. He refused to take Abutaha’s calls, Ali told me.

Incidentally, if anybody is still dubious, the Time Life images showing the debris coming off the top of the SRB at lift-off and the flame during the roll programme are 06 08-4NN2216 and 0608N111216 respectively. I saw the pictures for myself during one of my meetings with Abutaha in Washington. The flame and gas were as clear as daylight!

The Time Life episode was described by Flight International magazine in 1997, just after I had seen the images for myself during a visit to Washington. For copyright reasons it was not possible to reproduce the images or create illustrations but an image of the Space Shuttle showing the area where the fire was seen was highlighted (see the above image).

E-Book contains the full story (18,000 words) with diagrams and illustrations. Purchase with Paypal £6.50

Reader Comments

I read the Challenger Accident report. I found it very interesting and informative. I have always thought that there had to be more to it than a o-ring failure that caused the explosion. I can see the evidence of Mr. Abutaha as having merit. I think it was a combination of factors when put together caused the Challenger Accident.

I always questioned why the films of the launch do not show the top of the stack nor the smoke pouring from the joint. Only when the pad camera pictures were developed do you see the plume of black smoke. As a result of reading your report, I have my doubts of the Roger's Commission Report and the causes it cites. Thank you for making this report available.

The conventional wisdom is that it was faults with the O-rings that doomed Challenger in January 1986. Reading this e-book may well make you change your mind, though - or at least look at the official version of events more critically. Veteran British space analyst Tim Furniss presents a cogent and well-argued case - quoting Ali AbuTaha, the engineer who studied the disaster - that the real flaw lay elsewhere but that NASA chose not to admit it, as this could have triggered a fundamental, time-consuming redesign and a longer delay for a return to flight. The strengthening of the attach ring from a semicircular design to a fully circumferential design - the most obvious redesign - presents a very strong case.