Slashdot Mirror
Columbia Disaster Anniversary
Jorkapp writes "One year ago today, seven astronauts perished in a horrible silver-white comet over Texas skies. Since then, life at the Johnson Space Center seems to have returned to normal. Still, memories of the doomed STS-107 mission can be found throughout the center. Space.com has a rather interesting editorial about NASA's past, present, and future with the Space Shuttle program. In the immediate future, returning the Shuttle fleet to flight is a key first step. Eventually, NASA plans to launch Constellation, a new Crew Exploration Vehicle designed to replace the shuttles." Jim Lovell has a few words to say.
No, but things like these should never be totally forgotten.
"I'm not sure we ever want to get over it," McCulley adds. "You learn from it and, as we work through these technical issues, folks are asking questions today that they might not have asked before."
Honestly, I am very glad we are going to be at least planning on going back to the moon and too mars (hopefully this isn't just an election year ploy). But personally I wonder what we are going to do from 2010 to 2015 in terms of manned space vehicles. I think that if we just gave NASA a kick in the pants they could easily roll out a new vehicle by 2010, and hopefully they will not only get that kick but will be given the money to actually make it happen.
A Bugg
Some junior NASA engineers made an unauthorised request to the military to get some photos of Columbia so that they could see if there was damage. At the same time, a senior NASA engineer made the same request. NASA management heard about the first request, and (rightly) were upset because it was made without authorisation (these photos are very expensive, only the boss can ok them). So management contacted the military and told them not to take photos at this time. Now this is the scary bit. What they didn't realise was that there was a second (authorised) request. They accidentally cancelled both.
Now how do you protect yourself against that sort of misunderstanding? The only way I can think of is to go overly bureaucratic and assign tracking numbers to everything. The amount of paperwork explodes and you drown in self imposed red tape. Is there a way for a large organisation to avoid this sort of no-fault errors without needing a signature every time someone sneezes?
Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
The day after the tragedy I went out and bought a newspaper to save.
Everytime a major tradegy happens I try to save an editorial peice or something of the likes so my grandchildren/great grandchildren can remember the errors of the past
As they say: "Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it"
Hopefully in future generations, they will take this into account to assure the same error does not happen twice.
Those who trade in their freedom for security, deserve neither.
- NASA has known there were problems with tile flaking for a long time.
- Stress from the impact was noted on the black box recorder, but not transmitted to the crew or ground control
- Some of the shielding floated away during orbit, a fact confirmed by radar data, but no one noticed at the time.
- NASA turned down repeated requests to inspect the wing for damage during the mission.
- There was no real reason Columbia's flight couldn't have been delayed after tile problems with Atlantis except for the bureaucratic need to maintain "momentum."
All in all, the article is pretty damning for NASA's management.Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
You have a bunch of techie geek engineers who know their shit, and could probably succeed 10x beyond what they do now if just left alone to do it. But they're hampered and held back by moronic bueracratic managers. Throw in the fact that it's a government agency and underfunded and well, you get fireworks and 7 dead astronauts. It amazing they manage to have succeses like the Mars probes in spite of this. The saddest story I ever read regardign Columbia was about the engineer that tried in vain to get his manager to ask the DOD to use one of their satellites to image Columbia's wind, and was turned down repeatedly. PHB to the max, only not quite so funny in the end.
2010. Many years too late, but at least there is still an intended time to end of life the orbiter program. What a pain in the ass that thing has become. Like anything else, it's past its prime, and we now have new science to apply to making its successor. Hopefully we'll end up with two vehicles; A ship with a bunch of crew and little room for anything else, and a heavy lift vehicle. I also hope that NASA will continue their space elevator research, so that once the materials technology gets where it needs to be (which at this point is a case of if and not when) we can put up an elevator and stop burning all this rocket fuel.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
They didn't. If the ET insulation had impacted the tiles, there would have been only minor damage (a weeks worth of repair time before the next flight was estimated).
The insulation didn't hit the tiles, it hit the RCC panels at the front of the wing. These are entirely different. They are big, tough, heavy elements which turn out to be unexpectedly brittle.
Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
Online at Space.Com
The Online Columbia Loss Faq, compiled through March 2003 much of which might be outdated, but good for lots of small details, and a sense of the history as it happened.
The Columbia Accident Investigation Board Website, due to become inactive on February 1st, 2004 (!)
People might want to download the final report while they can, dated October 2003, although It is also available on the Nasa Website here
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Space.com article: "The Columbia board's scathing indictment of NASA's culture was the direct result of problems they discovered in how the MMT operated and members failing to speak up if they thought a problem should be handled differently."
I don't know if this reflects the author's attitude but I'm pretty sure the CAIB report didn't have this tone, which we saw after Challenger as well. Then it was engineers failing to "prove" their case (although they did speak up). This time the engineers "failed to speak up," although they had conferences on the foam strike involving dozens of people and escalated their concerns to the highest levels of NASA. I guess that does not count for "speaking up."
Next time they will be blamed if they don't commit mutiny, kidnap the managers and threaten them with torture. Roger Boisjoly moved large rocks in his backyard. I wonder what the Columbia engineers are doing?
You're absolutely correct. It was the weight of the tiles that was the problem. If only the shuttle were much heavier... [/sarcasm]
Communication issues? A fair criticism. NASA bureaucracy? Makes sense. But to criticize the weight of the tiles - which are designed to be heat-resistant yet lightweight - seems a little ignorant to me. I think a heavier object of similar size (say... a brick) would have no problem falling from the sky.
It's always pretty amazing how some of us feel qualified to give aerospace engineering advice to Ph.D. aerospace engineers.
Anyone besides me taken aback that it has already been a year? It seems like it happened, at most, 3 months ago.
Seems to me that an event is etched clear as day in our memory, and a week afterwards we push it aside as we go about our daily lives, and when the memory is brought back, it is so clear that it couldn't possibly have happened a year ago. Where did all this time go?
Is that there's not going to be another launch vehicle comparable to the Shuttle in terms of capability for the next half century. Look it up- all the plans on the shelf are either for expendables or for much lighter-lift craft.
sPh
I was out waiting on it to enter & was taking pictures as it flew over my house in central TX. I didn't know what I had caught on film until I watched it break up on the horizon. I went inside & looked at the pictures and I caught it with the first visible piece seperating. NASA was quite interested in it when I emailed it to them. They made a couple of phone calls to get my exact location, direction of the photograph, and even called a couple of months later with a thank you follow up. Apparently it helped them find that big piece that landed near Dallas.
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
This may be where I blow my good karma, I mean no offence but Columbia was an accident not a tragedy.
Any loss of life is a personal tragedy for the individual and the family but 7 lives lost in a spacecraft accident is not the worst thing to have happened in the last few years.
It's just an event, to be noted with due respect. Space is a dangerous place to travel, its just that the relatively good safety record of the shuttle craft has pushed that awareness out of the collective mind.
7 astronauts agreed to those risks and sadly paid the price. Real tragedies happening at the time and since have been forgotten in the rush to cover and re-cover this issue.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
They were going 18 times the speed of light...
h t.jpg
http://www.gongoozler.com/images/cnn-speed-of-lig
- what is the definition of simultanagnosia?! I've been meaning to look it up!
No my issue is that two NASA managers were overconcerned with 'efficiency', that is Ham and Dittemore both seemed rightly concerned that everything should go smoothly with minimal cost overrun that they ran roughshod over those who actually knew something who were unhappy but had no real evidence at the time.
If the managers were running a production line, there call was correct. If they were involved with something safety critical (not just the shuttle, the same could have been said if they ran a chemical plant) then until the engineers are convinced, they should play safe.
Another issue was the confusion felt by the lower ranking engineers. They realised that the capabilities of the military cameras were *very* classified. Some who really wanted the imagery hasd the impression that a more senior peron had seen it and there was nothing to worry about. If they did not have that impression, they may have fought harder to get the pictures.
No, from the initial (and stupid staetments by O'Keefe, where he completely discounted the foam) through to the detailed errors earlier, it shows a lack of engineering knowhow at the top of the shuttle program. Bean counters are useful and an invaluable aid to budget control, but puting them in charge of something they don't really understand is stupid.
Many of the findings are not unique to the space program, but reflect the pressures when the bean counters are chasing targets and are in the driving seat. Of course, the converse is that a true engineer is a perfectionist so things are late and too expensive if they run things. You need the mixture of bean-counters and engineers and that is difficult. One issue is that these days, the bean-counters are professional managers and have thus been educated in communication. Some engineers are but many aren't. The core problems addressed by the CAIB revolve around miscommunication and misunderstanding. Powerpoint didn't help either.
One year ago tomorrow, I posted in my weblog:
I still believe that. Bush's Mars program may or may not be the best way to go, and NASA may still need to figure out what it's really going to do about the Hubble, but the public is still talking about space exploration, the latest batch of Mars probes are capturing the imagination of the entire world, the X-Prize is still going strong, and we're making progress. The naming of the landing sites and nearby hills after those who gave their lives in this endeavor was a wonderful touch. We're ready to move forward.
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
It is of course very sad for the families, but I bet even they appreciate that those who died would always be left unfulfilled and dissatisfied if they had not taken the chance offered to them (perhaps they would still go even if they knew the consequences..?).
I do not think the actual loss of life was the real disaster: it was seven people who 99.99% of people hadn't even heard of before the accident. I think the true disaster was the tarnishing of a vision: the idea of the human race reaching beyond our home and "exploring the great unknown". The idea that our technology had allowed us to conquer the solar system. And why were we doing it? Just because.
Slightly offtopic, but I really hate it when people ask what the point of space travel is. If those people don't realise, they will NEVER understand why the rest of us look upon astronauts with such envy. In my view, these doubters are missing a key characteristic of humanity - the desire to increase our knowledge and understanding and to make the world a better place.
I respect the hell out of Jim Lovell. The man's got a set o' stones on him like Notre Dame Cathedral. That said, he's wrong about the shuttle and ISS. They are not magnificent technological accomplishments and their value is minimal at best. The flaws with the shuttle are well known and get documented every fifty flights when one of them kills its crew. The ISS is a floating joke, in which the 3 "scientists" spend all their waking time trying to stay alive. The ISS doesn't deserve to hold the jockstrap of the memory of Skylab or Mir.
I understand the fear that so many have, that if we stop manned spaceflight until we have a sensible replacement for the shuttle or a sensible place to _go_ other than LEO (again) to do "science" experiments submitted by grade-school children (again), then we'll never go back. The money will be appropriated for other purposes, and that will be that. Maybe they're right. Maybe the only way to stay in space is to keep pouring billions of dollars into creaky, unsafe vehicles going nowhere and doing nothing. If so, though, what's the real point?
The most-often cited reasons for manned spaceflight are science, the human drive to explore, and the need to get our eggs into at least one more basket. The science coming out of the budget-gobbling manned program is dwarfed by that of the robotic probes. We're not pushing the boundaries of anything by going to the same place we've gone 100 times before for a couple of weeks each time. Anything extraterrestrial human dwelling would be inexorably tied to home so a disaster to Earth (e.g., Shoemaker-Levy bopping us instead of Jupiter) would doom them as well.
I guess I've just lost the "vision". In my youth I was a big proponent of manned spaceflight. We were going to swarm the solar system and after inventing FTL, the galaxy or even the universe. Those were the dreams of a fat kid with a poor understanding of physics, though. The reality is that there's nowhere for us to go, nowhere we can reach. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I see an unmanned spaceflight program as vastly more worthy of our money until we've gathered far more information about "the neighborhood" than we have now.
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
There are things we can do with manned space projects that would mean a hell of a lot more to the taxpayers than a small handful of people bringing back a few pounds of Mars rocks and a ton of observations that'll be of use to generations of science grad students, and we need to get on with them.
Whether you believe the peak oil projections that say:
- already happened
- 2010
- 2030
it's plain that we're looking at the end of cheap oil and the beginning of the fossil-fuel energy end game. This means that we already need to be at work on reducing our own energy demand and replacing fossil fuel with something else. Renewable is cool, but it probably won't cover all the demand and will probably be too expensive for the Third World.We're better off starting with the quick-fix measures for energy conservation now and starting work on a the demo Space Power Satellite (SPS) satellite project already designed by NASA while development is done on an SPS network, a cheap orbital skyhook for at least freight, (elevator or railgun), a moon mining and processing facility.
The timeframes and the cost to do the above are about the same as Bush is calling for in order to send a handful of people to the moon and Mars, with these resources in place, a trip to Mars and to the asteroids to scout locations for the next phase of expanding our industrial base into the Solar System as a whole will be far less expensive, a lot safer, a lot faster, and will probably be done by the private sector. Looking for profit, not just scientific research.
If you want to read about alternatives to current technology policies of the Bush Adminstration and of all the Democratic candidates, check this page out. The information links that would ordinarily substantiate my post here are on that page and mostly work. If you don't like what I've got in mind, come up with something better and start working on turning it into public policy.
The best way to celebrate the lives of the astronauts who died in space is the way we celebrated the pioneers who died in the American West. By turning the lonely, isolated places where they died into places for human industry and human habitation.
We've mourned our astronauts for long enough. It's time to get on with the real goals they were working for.
Tech Public Policy stuff