Report: It might have been possible to save 'Columbia' astronauts [Columbia Accident Investig. Brd]

Jerusalem Post ^ | Aug. 27, 2003 | TOVAH LAZAROFF

[yonif]

Columbia's seven-member crew, including Israeli astronaut Ilan Ramon, could have been saved by launching the shuttle Atlantis on a rescue mission had NASA recognized the extent of the damage caused to the craft during its launch, according to the report released this week by the the Columbia Accident Investigation Board.

The conclusion came as no surprise to local author Yaffa Shir Raz, who recently wrote a book on the doomed shuttle, Hahitraskut (The Crash), which mirrored many of the conclusions in the US report.

In an interview with Channel 2 on Wednesday, she said: "There was a high possibility that they could have been saved," because Atlantis was only one month away from a scheduled launch and could have gone to their aid.

The US report stated the option to launch Atlantis could only have been done in the first seven days of Columbia's flight. "It was challenging, but feasible," the report said.

The shuttle crew had the ability to stay in space for 31 days, and Atlantis could have been launched early with the help of round the clock crews, allowing five days to rescue the Columbia crew, according to the report.

The two orbiters would have maneuvered to face each other. Wearing suits, the astronauts could have been transferred via spacewalks, returning to Earth with the Atlantis.

A repair scenario by Columbia astronauts was also feasible.

The weather would have allowed rescue attempts. But both scenarios were highly risky and relied on perfect conditions, the report said. Neither were considered because the loss of a piece of foam was seen as an acceptable risk, the report said.

"We would have done everything and anything to save them" had people understood how fatal the situation was, NASA spokeswoman Debra Rahn told The Jerusalem Post, adding that a rescue attempt with Atlantis was feasible.

Raz said, as did the report, that the NASA culture, bureaucracy, and decision-making process allowed the accident to occur. She said that people who warned of the possible dangers were fired.

"The question was not would a disaster happen, but when," Raz said.

One former NASA employee interviewed for the book told Raz that many changes were made in the first four years following the 1986 explosion the Challenger. But after that, it all returned to how it was, Raz.

"What happened there is what happens in every bureaucracy; the difference is that we don't expect it from NASA," Raz said. She added that not enough was done in the report to focus on rescue attempts or to hold specific individuals accountable for the death of the seven astronauts.

[BushCountry]

It will hopefully become procedure to check for tile damage by spy sats or other methods. However, was the reason the enviromentally friendly foam the cause or not? Inquiring minds wants to know.

[Dialup Llama]

Another scenario would have been to use Russian boosters to ferry supplies to the shuttle, extending their ability to stay in orbit until Atlantis was ready. Was this feasible?

[BushCountry]

I need to proofread what I write. };O(

[bedolido]

interesting story and theory. just wish they could've known there was a problem. I'm sure there'll be routine space walks to ensure the craft is fit to land from now on. All in all it's a sad event. Thanks for the post

[jayef]

This aspect of the disaster was included in the report, but no linkage was established.

[bedolido]

I need to proofread what I write. };O(

Proof read? what's is thta?

[BushCountry]

Do you think there is a linkage? I just want someone else's opinion. From what I read there is a linkage, but everything I read was a little slanted.

[MEGoody]

Anything is possible. I'm sure mistakes were made, and corrections to processes (and it sounds like to the management culture) need to be made. There may be some who need to be fired, but I don't think they need to be hanged.

[Springman]

Ping!!

[bvw]

The cause was too many people came to work each because that was their job.

[John Jamieson]

Sort of a catch 22 here, isn't there?

The report says "might" not "could".

You would have to believe that the first failure was very unlikely, in order to safely decide to fly a second one.

The technical part of the report seems very well done. Stayed up most of the night reading it.

[bvw]

To correct and increase: "The cause was too many people came to work each day because that was their job"

That is, a job as a job. A paycheck, a pension, a cubical or office, a position in the community. A sinecure, an entitlement, the regular order. Regularity, security, comfort at all costs.

Seeing problems, fighting to fix them, the continual struggle to improve -- radically improve -- all run counter to such mindset.

A goal? The JOB was the goal. The PENSION was the goal. Nine to five. Nine to five. Clockers.

[bicycle thug]

There was a book and apparently a movie called "Marooned." It was about a rescue of an Apollo crew stranded in orbit.

I have since day one suspected the crap spewed out that Columbia's crew could not have been saved if they had discovered the breach in the wing was bureaucrat nonsense.

Those who ignored attempts to photograph Columbia in orbit should at the very least be shown the door. We don't need people like that involved in manned space exploration.

[Prof Engineer]

ping

[Freedom4US]

My opinion on the cause is simple. They didn't have a crew-chief on board. Lots of smart, intelligent folks - mission specialists, "political" guests, schoolteachers, pilots, etc. But nobody who gets dirt under their fingernails.

I was floored when I found out there was no "walk around" of the aircraft prior to re-entry into the earth's atmosphere. What in hell were they thinking? I'm surprised this hasn't happened before. NOBODY flies an aircraft without a quick walk-around and inspection, and even though the orbiter is, well, in orbit - makes no difference. SOMEBODY should have made an underside/outside visual inspection of the acft mandatory on every flight, either by camera, physical inspection or some other means or combination of means.

I mean no disrespect to NASA, but this kind of thing happens when we get away from the steely-eyed missile types and start installing beauracrats and sociology majors to run things.

[jayef]

I think it's highly probable. There were ongoing discussions of the problems with the insulation and with the lack of contingency planning related to tile damage. Those that were most vocal got pink slips.

Count me as one of those who think that space exploration should be a private enterprise. This incident is a perfect illustration of the goverment's mismanagement of that enterprise and will hopefully hasten the demise of NASA.

[Prof Engineer]

Proof read? what's is thta?

What's even worse is not proofreading your tagline. That could get embarassing.

I've done it

[bedolido]

thanks... now I have to proff red my tag lnie

[MainFrame65]

I do not believe that this is true. From what I have read and seen - and yes, I have neither special access nor such an overwhelming interest that specially informs me - the Columbia did not carry EVA suits, and was not equipped with an airlock.

Without one or the other, how would they have been able to transit from one ship to the other?

Each mission is designed for certain tasks, and carries along only the equipment required to accomplish the mission, allowing for appropriate contingencies such as bad weather on the ground extending the mission be a few days.

Maybe in the future an airlock and some kind of emergency transit suits, bags, or bubbles will be part of the mission kit, but every pound of kit costs a pound of payload.

And as for repairs, the damaged leading-edge tile was a one of a kind part, glued in place. I seriously doubt that they could carry all the possible tiles that might be needed, and I also doubt that any kind of adhesive could be made to work in a vacuum. Outgassing would turn it into a foam instantly, causing enough voids to insure failure.

Maybe the engineers can come up with a way to do such repairs using some new adhesive and a sufficiently small number of generic tiles to make it feasible. I hope so, because I believe that we should be able to work in space safely when necessary.

I am not defending NASA management; I believe most of the criticism is justified there. But I believe their errors were in degree rather than kind. Many of them would have made any sacrifice to prevent the final outcome.