NASA blamed for Colombia Disaster

[Grendal]

PAUL RECER
Canadian Press


Tuesday, August 26, 2003
ADVERTISEMENT


WASHINGTON (AP) - The destruction of space shuttle Columbia and the death of its seven astronauts were caused by a NASA culture driven by schedule, starved for funds and burdened with an eroded, insufficient safety program, investigators said Tuesday.

The Columbia Accident Investigation Board, in a wide-ranging analysis of decades of NASA history, said the space agency's attitude toward safety is little improved since the 1986 Challenger disaster, which also killed seven.

"The board strongly believes that if these persistent, systemic flaws are not resolved, the scene is set for another accident," the report said.

In events leading up to the loss of Columbia, the report said, NASA mission managers fell into the habit of accepting as normal some flaws in the shuttle system and tended to ignore or not recognize that these problems could foreshadow catastrophe.

This was an "echo" of some root causes of the Challenger accident, the board said.

"These repeating patterns mean that flawed practices embedded in NASA's organizational system continued for 20 years and made substantial contributions to both accidents," the 248-page report said.

During Columbia's last mission, NASA managers missed opportunities to evaluate possible damage to the craft's heat shield from a strike on the left wing by flying foam insulation. Such insulation strikes had occurred on previous missions and the report said NASA managers had come to view them as an acceptable abnormality that posed no safety risk.

This attitude also contributed to the lack of interest in getting spy satellite photos of Columbia, images that might have identified the extent of damage on the shuttle, and led to incorrect conclusions.

But most of all, the report noted, there was "ineffective leadership" that "failed to fulfil the implicit contract to do whatever is possible to ensure the safety of the crew."

Management techniques in NASA, the report said, discouraged dissenting views on safety issues and ultimately created "blind spots" about the risk to the space shuttle of the foam insulation impact.

Throughout its history, the report found, "NASA has consistently struggled to achieve viable safety programs" but the agency effort "has fallen short of its mark."

Sean O'Keefe, who heads the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, had warned space workers earlier this summer that they should prepare themselves for a report that will be "really ugly" as it outlines flawed engineering decisions that led to the destruction of Columbia as it returned to Earth following a 16-day mission.

O'Keefe said Monday that he was telling space workers "we need to not be defensive about that and try to not take it as a personal affront."

Rather, he said, they should view it as a road map for getting the shuttle back into orbit.

The board made 29 recommendations, including changes it said NASA must make to start flying again and long-range changes that will alter the space agency culture.

"The changes we recommend will be difficult to accomplish - and will be internally resisted," the report said.

Some blame in the report was shifted to Congress and the White House because for almost a decade NASA lived on a lean budget that actually lost 13 per cent of its purchasing power from 1993 to 2002.

At the same time, NASA was under pressure to build the International Space Station. To cut costs, the agency reduced its staff and contractor workforce from about 32,000 in 1991 to just over 19,000 in 1997.

"The White House, Congress and NASA leadership exerted constant pressure to reduce or at least freeze operating costs (for the space shuttle)," the report said. As a result, "safety and support upgrades were delayed or deferred, and Shuttle infrastructure was allowed to deteriorate."

At another point, the report noted: "Little by little, NASA was accepting more and more risk in order to stay on schedule." Also: "The program was operating too close to too many margins."

[Timber Loftis]

The destruction of space shuttle Columbia and the death of its seven astronauts were caused by a NASA culture driven by schedule, starved for funds and burdened with an eroded, insufficient safety program, investigators said Tuesday. __________________ Some blame in the report was shifted to Congress and the White House because for almost a decade NASA lived on a lean budget that actually lost 13 per cent of its purchasing power from 1993 to 2002. At the same time, NASA was under pressure to build the International Space Station. To cut costs, the agency reduced its staff and contractor workforce from about 32,000 in 1991 to just over 19,000 in 1997. ___________________ "The White House, Congress and NASA leadership exerted constant pressure to reduce or at least freeze operating costs (for the space shuttle)," the report said. As a result, "safety and support upgrades were delayed or deferred, and Shuttle infrastructure was allowed to deteriorate." At another point, the report noted: "Little by little, NASA was accepting more and more risk in order to stay on schedule." Also: "The program was operating too close to too many margins." ____________________

Hmmmm.... Lemme get this straight. NASA had too little money and had too much demanded of it while its budget and labor force kept getting crunched, ergo.... NASA is to blame. WTF?? [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img] Sorry, I may need to bone up on my syllogisms, but this.... does... not... compute. Syntax error.

Congress is to blame. Let those slimy politicians stand up and be counted for once. I'd like to see every budget and finance committee vote cutting NASA's funding, denying NASA's requests for more money. Then I say we string them up by their toes. The attorney I know at NASA was talking about shoestring budgets 4 years ago when I interviewed with them. It was bound to happen. Unfortunately, it's our wonderful elected incumbents who are at fault.

[pritchke]

I believe Dilbert's boss said, "Credit travels up, Blame travels down"

[ 08-26-2003, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[antryg]

The results seem pretty predictable. A govt. agency is tasked to perform multiple tasks with no labor and no money. When things don't work out Congress is always amazed at how others failed.

[WillowIX]

Come on Timber. You really didn't expect your Congress would take the blame for something like this. It was pretty obvious that NASA would have to take the blame. However NASA could have stopped the project...

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by WillowIX: Come on Timber. You really didn't expect your Congress would take the blame for something like this. It was pretty obvious that NASA would have to take the blame. However NASA could have stopped the project...

It could? NASA could just say, "sorry 'bout that whole international space station thingy, but we're strapped for cash." I think not. Look, they would have had to scrap all projects. This problem was caused by cost-cutting measures, and would have resulted sooner or later on any given shuttle flight.

I don't expect politicians to blame themselves. But, I try to make it obvious to others that the blame falls squarely on the politicians. We should keep our eyes open when the blame game starts. And we should be angered. Rolling our eyes because "it happens all the time" is part of the reason it happens all the time.

NASA is and has been seriously underfunded. What we ask of them is akin to asking Ford to build cars that never fail and never have any safety failures for $3K a piece. It's ridiculous. Especially for one of our most worth-while programs. Medicines, new technologies, and inventions have all resulted from our efforts to get into space and from our studies and experiments in space. The contribution NASA has made to this world in the last four decades is phenomenal.

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: It could? NASA could just say, "sorry 'bout that whole international space station thingy, but we're strapped for cash." I think not. Look, they would have had to scrap all projects. This problem was caused by cost-cutting measures, and would have resulted sooner or later on any given shuttle flight.

Ahh but they could have gone public with that Timber. And if they had done that who would have taken the blame for this inceident? Well probably NASA anyway but it would send a little message wouldn't it. The mob still has power, even in the US.

[Timber Loftis]

I disagree, Willow. The last thing you do is go public and point fingers at the very Congressional twattle-heads who denied you some funding before, because most are still on the committee, and they will really slash your budget next time around -- very likely including cutting the need for the job you fill.

Everyone in DC knows you just don't mess with Senators -- scarier than messing with the mob.

[Grendal]

I can agree with both sides of the issue but the fact remains that NASA gave the go ahead even though they knew that things werent 100%. If I were in a space craft doing somewhere in the nieghborhood of 25,000 mph I would hope that my ground support did EVERYTHING in its power to make sure I was going to be ok. They knew the shuttle was hit by debris on the way up. The least they could have done was get a pic from a satellite. If Ford were to be having funding problems do you think they would let out cars with potentially catacalysmic flaws....hmmm....ok bad analogy, forget that! Even tho NASA has had budget cuts does that mean someone would say..ok our budget has been cut 10% so we will drop our safety standards 10%...IMHO its the ones who knew there was a problem at take off that are the ones to blame.

[Animal]

It's NASA's fault that their funding was cut? I've gotta side with TL on this one, you need to start looking at who's responsible for hacking the funding. Although the Columbia was certainly horrific, accidents do happen and no amount of funding could have prevented the shuttle from hitting debris on the way up, something that posed no safety risk in the past. When you start launching things into space at those speeds, sooner or later s**t is going to happen.

It's amazing that we condemn NASA for such actions when millions of people are driving cars that have no business being on the road, they are so dangerous. More people die in automotive accidents related to poor maintenance and faulty equipment every day than in NASA's entire history. So before you start blaming NASA for 'an accident' go out into your garage and take a good long look at that car you're driving. I'll bet for 90% of the population, there's at least 10 things wrong that pose a safety risk.