Columbia: One Year Later: NASA's cautious re-entry

It has been a year since the space shuttle Columbia broke up in the atmosphere over Texas, and today, more than ever, the U.S. space agency faces an uncertain future.

Will it soar to reach exciting new goals of manned journeys to the moon and to Mars?

Or will it sink under the weight of unsafe vehicles, unrealistic expectations and lack of money?

The shuttle fleet is 40 percent destroyed -- two of five vehicles have been lost -- and 14 shuttle astronauts have died. The three remaining orbiters -- Endeavour, Discovery and Atlantis -- are grounded while NASA struggles to meet tough new flight standards imposed after the Columbia tragedy.

NASA wants to launch Atlantis on Sept. 12 to continue assembly of the international space station and to test new shuttle safety hardware and procedures. Few experts, however, expect them to make that date.

It's a long shot, according to the panel appointed to monitor the agency's compliance with new safety standards recommended by the CAIB -- the Columbia Accident Investigation Board.

"It is still much too soon to predict either the success of implementation (of new safety standards) or the timing of the next flight," the panel reported on Jan. 20. "As time passes and the interval before the next scheduled flight diminishes, the enormity of the remaining task looms."

But in the midst of the gloom and doubt about the shuttle's future, President Bush stepped up to promise the moon and Mars.

"We will give NASA a new focus and vision for future exploration," he said on Jan. 14. "We will build new ships to carry man forward into the universe, to gain a new foothold on the moon, and to prepare for new journeys to worlds beyond our own."

But the president sketched out a vague schedule and promised little money for what eventually would be a stupendously expensive and hazardous venture.

"It seems to me that it's either a great way to raise the space program up, or to bury it," said David Baker, editor of Jane's Space Directory and a former 20-year employee and consultant for NASA. "The goals aren't attainable if there's no money in the budget to pay for it."

When George Bush, the current president's father, outlined a similar program during his presidency, cost estimates came back at between $400-billion and $500-billion. Congress promptly lost interest.

"I'm very concerned about the long term affordability of such a project (a Mars mission)," said Baker, "and meanwhile NASA will retire its only means of putting men in space, of getting people to the space station, years ahead of development of the next human flight vehicle."

John Logsdon, director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University and a member of the CAIB, said he welcomed the president's announcement.

"To fly the shuttle beyond 2010 it would have to be recertified, and we (the CAIB) weren't convinced it would pass recertification in 2010. But without it, NASA lacked a long-term mission. The White House took care of that with the moon and Mars initiative."

According to Bush's plan to reorganize the space agency, the shuttle fleet would complete work on the international space station by 2010 and then be shelved.

NASA hopes to fly about 23 missions before 2010 -- eight to finish the U.S. portion of the space station, and at least 15 more to finish assembling the parts contributed by partners such as the European Space Agency.

To get started, NASA wants to launch twice before the end of this year, beginning with Atlantis in September. First, however, the agency must make certain that the remaining three shuttles can meet safety standards and that the crews can deal with problems such as the one that claimed Columbia, a damaged heat-resistant panel on leading edge of the vehicle's left wing.

"There's not a showstopper that says we can't get there," said Michael Kostelnik, NASA's deputy associate administrator, in a telephone news conference last week.

John Pike, the blunt, longtime observer of the space program for the Federation of American Scientists, agreed. Pike, now director of the nonprofit, nonpartisan Web site globalsecurity.org, says there is no real reason NASA can't fly the 23 or so missions necessary to complete the space station. But the public should not think the three remaining shuttles will ever be safe, he said.

He also noted that the Columbia investigation board produced recommendations, not orders, and that NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe has said that he will decide when the shuttle is safe enough to fly.

To some it already sounds like NASA is feeling pressure to hurry again, a mistake that got the agency in trouble with Columbia a year ago and Challenger in 1986.

"NASA always seems to pick up pressure from someplace to move fast. Now there will be pressure from industry to get the shuttle flights over with and to put the space station behind, so they can move on to the next big projects -- Mars and the moon."

Baker said he doubts NASA's ability to meet even its short-term goal of getting the shuttle flying regularly again.

"If everything works I suppose it is achievable," he said, "but it's a very bold plan -- especially since it involves a vehicle designed 40 years ago, a vehicle that would not be certifiable for space flight today.

The plans to make the shuttle safer Columbia broke up during re-entry as it headed for a landing at Kennedy Space Center. The cause of the accident was a breach in the reinforced carbon panels on the left wing, which occurred when a piece of insulating foam from the external tank hit the panel during liftoff on Jan. 16.

Engineers are trying to come up with a way to repair both the heat-resistant tiles on the underside of the vehicle, and the panels on the leading edge of the wings.

The ability to do on-orbit repair was one of five recommendations from the the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. They also suggested NASA find ways to limit debris, improve the ability of shuttle astronauts to inspect the vehicle's skin for damage, better understand the impact tolerance of the tiles and panels, and evaluate the international space station for use during emergencies.

Currently NASA is studying a plan in which a space-walking astronaut would apply a silicon-based caulk to damaged tiles or panels, then smooth the new surface to reduce any turbulence it might cause during re-entry.

To do this low-tech repair, there must be a way to get the astronauts in position. The shuttle's existing mechanical arm might be used, though some sort of extender would be needed to reach some places on the vehicle. NASA is working on one.

Assuming NASA's plan to finish and then disengage from the space station goes as planned, it may leave the U.S. "space partners" such as Russia and the 15-nation European Space Agency in an awkward spot.

"Europe has had a long tense history of failed deals with NASA," said Baker. "Now the president says the U.S. will pull out of the space station. Does this mean ESA will be asked to buy the space station? Will ESA have to make deals with the Chinese?"

Turning to the Chinese is "a fantasy," according to CAIB member Logsdon. "How many manned spacecraft have the Chinese launched? Just one."

Pike said NASA's new marching orders offer supporting evidence for the people around the world "who believe the U.S. too often acts unilaterally -- that we don't play well with others."

I'm not sure what would stop the shuttle from flying again - the money is available, and the plans are there. I suppose if the RCC vendor came back and told NASA that the wing leading edges and nose cap were unsafe, that might do it.

Below is a letter to the shuttle workers that came out a couple of days ago (See if you can find the typo.)

"Adjusting Our Thinking" - Letter from Wayne Hale to the Space Shuttle Team

From: HALE, N. W., JR (WAYNE) (JSC-MA) (NASA)
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 5:25 PM
Subject: Adjusting Our Thinking

To the Space Shuttle Team:

I have been doing a lot of thinking lately: the approaching anniversary of the Columbia accident, reading the new book on the accident, the incessant questions from the press, the opportunity to observer our JPL collegues in their time of testing, and most importantly thinking about the new policy and direction from our leaders. Like many of you I have had some mixed emotions from all of this. I would like to share some of my thoughts with you.

The vision of future space exploration existed long before we came to work here. It is a natural continuation of the American dream. The vision has shown up over the years in dozens of NASA strategic planning documents, reports from special commissions, and the like. I signed onto the vision as a schoolboy, long before I came to work here. Many of you did the same. The vision has variations in detail and timetable, but the central theme has not varied for decades. Explore the solar system; first by sending robots and then with people establishing outposts, then base camps, and eventually colonies.

In my mind's eye our progress is like the Olympic torch relay: each person and each program holds the flame of exploration and progress high for an allotted portion of the route, and then the torch is passed to the next runner in the relay. Sometimes we run alone and sometimes we run together with others, but the goal is to move the flame forward, to illuminate the darkness, to allow the next generation to start just a little closer to the goal. The goal of exploring and settling the solar system will not be completed in our lifetime or our children's lifetime. But we - here and now -- are called to run our lap with skill, dedication, vigilance, hard work, and pride.

It sometimes seems that there is enough commitment or enough money to accelerate the vision into fast forward. The march to the future moves with fits and starts. Sometimes we have had to compromise for what we could get, accept the part of the dream could be sold at any given time. This is what happens in so much of real life: doing the best we can with what we have. In spite of this, this generation has done great things in low earth orbit and our colleges have made tremendous strides exploring ahead of us with robots.

The steady grind and necessary constant attention to the daily tasks has shifted our gaze from the higher vision. We have become accustomed to putting the vision off, waiting for the day - long to come -- when we could take the next step into the cosmos. Every year we have tried to been more efficient than the year before in the hopes that we could sock away enough money to build the future, to prove to our national leaders that we were fit to be given the permission to take the next bold step. Our attention shifted from the vision to the next flight. We came to accept the status quo as the best that coould be. We became complacent in more than our technical abilities. We became complacent about the vision. It became enough for us to do great things in low earth orbit. And in that day to day grind our hearts have come to believe the vision is something far off, something for the distant future.

The shuttle is a marvelous and revolutionary machine. You, the people that make her fly, are incredible in your dedication and attention to detail. The achievements that the shuttle has produced will be heralded in the history books of future years. A short list hardly covers all the shuttle's achievements: first and only reusable spacecraft, heavy lift launch vehicle, heavy cargo return vehicle, delivering three times more people to orbit than all other space vehicles to date combined, the most successful launch vehicle in the world, the most efficient engines ever made; the list could go on for many pages. Don't believe the critics when they sell her short.

But those of us who know her best know her shortcomings. She is terribly complex; she is extraordinarily difficult to prepare for flight, she is too expensive to operate, and frankly, she is not as safe as we need our human transport vehicle to be.

The shuttle is an amazing machine, but like every other machine ever built, she is the result of a series of compromises, built within financial constraints, a product of the state of the art of technology when she was designed.

So too will be the next space vehicle we build.

The shuttle was supposed to be the DC-3 of space travel; the DC-3 became the first economically successful airliner; safer than anything flying at the time - not perfect, but just what was needed to cause air travel to become commonplace. Yet the analogy falls apart when we remember that in the 31 years between the Wright flier and the DC-3 ten thousand different aircraft types were designed and build. Designs and technologies were tried, tested, evaluated, and either discarded or incorporated into future, better aircraft. In the 42 years of human space flight, there have been exactly 9 different model spacecraft built by all the nations of the world. Without similar experience of trial and evaluation building multiple space vehicles, the wonder is that we came so close, not that we fell short. The real truth is, the shuttle does her job too well. She has never been quite bad enough to motivate the nation to build the next and better spacecraft. If the shuttle was not the DC-3 of the space age, the fact remains that the shuttle remains a huge advance in capability, technology, and even safety over all other spacecraft.

We cannot let the familiarity of long years and the investment of our personal time and energy in any one program or any one vehicle confuse that program or that vehicle with the vision. The shuttle has its place and time in the great relay but it is not an end in itself. Those of us in the shuttle program need to take care lest we become the battleship admirals of the new century; failing to understand when times have changed and in which direction progress is marching toward. We must move out of what is comfortable and familiar.

It is time to adjust our thinking.

In a virtual reality age, spaceflight is profoundly real. Surrounded by imitations of real life on computers, at the movies, on television, our work has real consequences. Every time we light the SRBs, the stakes are high. First of all the lives of the crew are on the line. Next, a great investment of our nation's treasure in the form of the vehicle itself and the facilities that support and surround it are at risk. They are at real risk, not theoretical or philosophical or virtual risk, but risk of life and limb and physical destruction. There is more. You must understand that every time the countdown clock reaches T=0, we bet the future, and we do it with the whole world watching. Not only are we wagering the program; we lay the agency on the line. Not only is the agency at risk, but national pride and esteem are in question. Not only national pride is at stake, but we place the human exploration of the cosmos for a generation on the table. Until the wheels safely kiss the runway, everything is in play. I don't know any other agency or any other organization where that is so completely and thoroughly true. We all of that at stake, the very best of our abilities and efforts is required.

When we build the new human space launch vehicle and count the clock down to T=0, we will make same gamble. It is the only way to get to the universe; bet everything every single step forward.

Last year we dropped the torch through our complacency, our arrogance, self-assurance, shear stupidity, and through continuing attempt to please everyone. Seven of our friends and colleagues paid the ultimate price for our failure.

Yet, the nation is giving us another chance. Not just to fly the shuttle again, but to continue to explore the universe in our generation. A year ago it was my firm belief that a second fatal accident in the shuttle program would result in the lights being turned out at NASA, the vision would go into hiatus for a generation, and we - all of us in the agency - would be through. Instead, the nation has told us to get up, fix our shortcomings, fly again - and make sure it doesn't happen again. That is the goal to which we are all working now.

No matter how hard we worked before, now is time to redouble our efforts. The vision runs right through the next launch of the shuttle. We cannot be found wanting again. The future steps depend on flying the shuttle safely and building the space station. These accomplishments are the necessary requirement to go on to the future.

Now we have been asked to raise our eyes to the bigger vision again. We are asked to look at what and who will run the next leg of the relay. Our lap may come to an end sooner that we had come to believe but the distance we have yet to run ahead is longer than it rightfully should be for those who have dropped the torch. We must not fail. It will demand constant attention in the face of many many many distractions, doubts, and critics. The task ahead is not easy. But then, it never has been easy. We just understand better what is required.

Therefore, do not worry about the future. We have work to do today. If we do it well, there will be even more work for us to do in the very near future. The foundation for that work is to fly the shuttle safely. We have been given a great mandate. Those of us who are in the shuttle program now will be required to help the next generation succeed. Write down what you have learned; pass it on to those who are starting to consider future designs. Many of you will be called on to lead that effort. Eventually, all of us will be called. But until then, stay focused on the task at hand. We must make sure that the next launch - and landing - and those that follow are safe and successful. That will be our finest contribution to the future, carrying the torch ahead.

P. S. A final, personal note: a worker at KSC told me that they haven't heard any NASA managers admit to being at fault for the loss of Columbia. I cannot speak for others but let me set my record straight: I am at fault. If you need a scapegoat, start with me. I had the opportunity and the information and I failed to make use of it. I don't know what an inquest or a court of law would say, but I stand condemned in the court of my own conscience to be guilty of not preventing the Columbia disaster. We could discuss the particulars: inattention, incompetence, distraction, lack of conviction, lack of understanding, a lack of backbone, laziness. The bottom line is that I failed to understand what I was being told; I failed to stand up and be counted. Therefore look no further; I am guilty of allowing Columbia to crash.

As you consider continuing in this program, or any other high risk program, weigh the cost. You, too, could be convicted in the court of your conscience if you are ever party to cutting corners, believing something life and death is not your responsibility, or simply not paying attention. The penalty is heavy, you can never completely repay it.

Do good work. Pay attention. Question everything. Be thorough. Don't end up with regrets.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.