The Challenger and Asbestos Putty: So, why is this Even an Issue Worth Discussing? Chapter 2.

This Blog is Chapter 2 in our discussion on the January 28, 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Chapter 1 was the most widely viewed Blog since I began blogging in December 2020 and I appreciate the feedback and comments.

Given the passage of time, you may be wondering why the putty is even an issue when the popularly reported information is that the two O-rings failed because of the freezing weather. That is pretty easy to answer: the O-rings would not have failed, and the disaster not have occurred, if the putty did its job. The failure of the putty to act like the La Brea Tar Pits around the O-rings to provide a thermal barrier (like the Fuller-O’Brien putty would have) and instead become hard like a board in the cold weather (which the Randolph barrier did on the Challenger), caused blow-by through a blow hole, eroding both of the O-rings, and causing a three foot hole in the right hand solid rocket booster at the aft joint.

Holy cow!!! And how do we know that? To answer this question, I will follow the advice of Nobel Laureate, Roger’s Commission Member, and overall smartest person in the room Richard Feynman in his book What Do You Care What Other People Think? as discussing the Challenger Disaster when he says on page 218, “If you have a theory, you must try to explain what’s good and what’s bad about it equally. In science, you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty.” As such, hold me to such a standard as we discuss why the putty, or for that matter the asbestos content of the putty, is worthy of discussion.

Let’s go back in history to 1986. In fact, let’s start on February 13, 1986, only two weeks after the disaster, when the Orlando Sentinel printed an article by Tim Smart and Mark Thomas entitled “Putty Used in Booster Rockets a Nagging Problem for the Shuttle”. The article stated

“According to a July 17, 1985, memo written by NASA engineer Irv Davids, “the type of putty used” has emerged as the prime suspect in erosion of the O-rings, which has been a problem in several shuttle flights and may have been a factor in Challenger’s explosion.”

As you can see from the quote attributed to David Jenkins of the University of Florida, the pliability of the putty was key to its ability to property seal the the field joint.

Although the Roger’s Commission Report also discusses the putty, the best quote from the governmental investigations comes from the House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology issued on October 29, 1986 on page 62 as follows:

“Complicating this problem, two of the materials used in the joint, the putty and the fluorocarbon elastomer O-rings, were not suited to the task of containing the propellant gas under the full span of Shuttle operating conditions.

***

It became necessary to find a new putty when the original supplier, Fuller-O-Brien, stopped making it because it contained asbestos. The characteristics of the new putty changed substantially in response to the quantity of water in the air and was difficult to apply in both the dry climate of Utah and the dampness of Florida. Its performance was highly unpredictable. Again, NASA and its contractor tried to made up for the unsatisfactory material by storing it under refrigeration prior to application in Florida.”

One of the best reasons why the putty and its asbestos content even matter comes directly from NASA in its Lessons Learned from Challenger issued during February 1988 as follows:

Because original O-ring putty contained “carcinogenic material (asbestos), it became necessary to procure a new putty when the original supplier stopped production.” “Unknown putty behavior.” “Inadequate putty specifications.” “Performance of the new putty was highly unpredictable.” The areas which I have marked on the 4 above pages are worth reading to get a full flavor of NASA’s self examination for lessons learned.

Based on the above, the nature of the putty and its use is a worthwhile topic. If NASA, government investigations, and others at the time felt the putty important, then nothing has occurred since that time to change the nature of the conversation as to the putty’s involvement with physical nature of the Challenger disaster.

What has changed and expanded are the myths surrounding the putty and its use. These myths arise, to a certain extent, out of the political nature of “asbestos” and whenever it is involved in the conversation. Some people claim that the unavailability of the Fuller-O’Brien putty forced NASA to use a non-asbestos containing substitute that was the cause of the failure. Take the following statement by one of the most successful Plaintiff experts in the asbestos litigation field, David Egilman:

Hold your horses! Egilman claims that it was the removal of asbestos from the O-rings themselves, and the use in those O-rings of silicon instead, that caused the Challenger to explode? Remember, Egilman was no rookie or fan of asbestos at the time but, rather very successful in encouraging juries and judges that asbestos in all its forms was dangerous and should have been long eliminated from most applications. His statements like this would carry a lot of weight with some portions of our society, our court system, and politicians.

Let’s get back to the putty, which is where this discussion belongs. Mr. Fife claims that the asbestos substitution caused the space shuttle to explode:

So lets look at the major, and not so major, news outlets, all of which have inconsistent stories:

Of course, the following article by Roger Boisjoly (if you are reading this then you likely know who Roger Boisjoly is) chimed in by claiming that the replacement putty did not contain asbestos and that no analysis on the causation can occur without testing.

USGS asbestos expert Malcolm Ross weighed in with his own personal opinion, including that the replacement putty did have an asbestos content, but that NASA had been hasty in accepting the Randolph putty as a substitute:

How about the Confessions of a quality manager:

Even more weird is the commentary from our friends down under that the Challenger did not use asbestos containing sealant, but that later flights did:

Finally, even people on Quora as of the modern times are still asking:

Note that few if any of the above discuss the putty or asbestos related issues in the context of the joint rotation, increased psi for the leak check, the unexplained 8 degree temperature at the aft joint during the morning of the launch, or the other realistic potential contributing causes to the disaster.

With the above in mind, I hope that you agree with me that the topic is worthwhile and timely in order to re-examine issues related to the putty, O-rings, and other potential causes of the Space Shuttle Challenger tragedy, and that such examination needs to be scholarly so to as to dispel the myths and pin down the facts for future generations.

Let me know your thoughts either by email at TheAsbestosBlog@gmail.com or in the comments section.