On January 16th, 2002 the 7-member crew of the space shuttle Columbia settled in to begin a 2-week mission that consisted of a series of miscellaneous scientific experiments. With no planned docking at the International Space Station and no spacewalks, everything about the mission seemed fairly routine. With the successful launch of the shuttle, everyone at the mission control centre breathed a cautious sigh of relief since 18 separate delays had caused this, the 113th shuttle launch, to be pushed back over two years.
Over the next 14 days the 7 astronauts dutifully carried out their mission, all the while oblivious to the fact that by the end of mission day 15, each one of them would be dead. Unbeknownst to either the crew or their colleagues at the mission control centre in Houston, the astronauts’ fates had been sealed just 82 seconds after lift off when immense aerodynamic forces caused a suitcase-sized chunk of insulating foam to brake off one of the external fuel tanks. The foam fragment, which is estimated to have weighed approximately 1lb, struck the leading edge of the shuttle’s left wing at a speed of 240m/s, piercing a 6 to 10 inch hole into the carbon fibre paneling of the wing. The damage severely compromised the shuttle’s thermal protection system causing the structure to overheat and eventually disintegrate during re-entry, leaving a 200 mile-long trail of wreckage across the southern United States.
While the shuttle was in orbit, a few engineers on the ground expressed concerns over possible damage sustained during the launch. But management at NASA decided against carrying out a thorough investigation, believing that it was already too late to fix any problems that might be discovered. However, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, which was assembled immediately after the disaster in order to ascertain its causes, identified two possible options for saving the crew that could have been attempted had action been taken sooner.
The first option was to send a second shuttle to perform a rescue mission. Under normal circumstances, this would have been impossible given the preparation time required to safely carry out a launch, however the shuttle Atlantis was already scheduled to launch on March 1st for an unrelated mission. It was estimated that Atlantis could have been launched as early as February 10th without sacrificing any of the standard safety protocols. Also unusual was the fact that Columbia had been equipped with an inordinately large supply of power, air and water. The investigation board determined that, if all nonessential operations were shut down, the abundance of these resources could have sustained the crew for up to 30 days, leaving a 5-day window within which to conduct the rescue mission.
The second option was to have the astronauts conduct a spacewalk and attempt to repair the damage using whatever tools and scrap metal they could find within the cabin. It was believed that the repair option was the least desirable since it could not be verified that the repairs would hold up under the stresses experienced during re-entry. But even with that being said, the rescue option had all the risks associated with any space mission plus the added risk caused by the shortened timeframe. Therefore, there was the inevitable risk of losing the would-be rescuers in addition to the Columbia crew.
The scenario gives rise to many ethical questions and dilemmas. Did the NASA managers make the right decision to avoid investigating the damage? If they had found the hole in the wing, should they have sent a second crew to perform the rescue mission? If they decided not to send the rescuers, how would they explain this decision to the astronauts? And what would the astronauts do after having done all they could to make the necessary repairs, knowing that there’s a strong likelihood that they’ll all die a violent death within a matter of days?
One might assume that everyone involved was aware of the potential risks. After all, this was just 17 years removed from the Challenger disaster in which another mechanical failure caused the shuttle to disintegrate almost immediately after launch, killing all seven crew members on board. In fact, over the entire history of human spaceflight, 2% of all missions have ended in fatal disasters, which have claimed the lives of 22 astronauts (5% of all those who’ve ever traveled to space). This means that if you were to serve a one-year tour in Iraq with the coalition forces, you’d be 4 times more likely to make it home alive than if you were to fly a single mission to space. But the astronauts, whatever their motivations, are willing to assume that risk.
[/caption]On Monday, the world celebrated the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11’s historic landing on the moon. As we commemorate this epic triumph of human ingenuity, it’s important that we remember those who never made it to their final destination.
It is often said of soldiers that they fight for the freedom of their nation and its citizens, both present and future. At best, this is a cliché and at worst, it’s completely false. But in many ways the sacrifices and achievements of astronauts embody all that we expect from actual soldiers. They sacrifice so that we may enjoy the freedom that comes with having a more sophisticated understanding of our physical universe. They risk their lives so that we can have the freedom that comes from knowing that, as human beings, our limit is no longer the sky, but rather the boundaries of our own imaginations.
AlexsJenkins
I agree with Rui.
NASA needs a new vision. Only now are they hanging up the space shuttle with barely nothing in the way of new spacecraft designs. The new Aries / Orion design is frankly pathetic and is simply a rehash of 40 year old ideas. It doesn't take a genious to come up with the idea of launching a module atop a rocket. By this time, I expected at least some type of interplanetary ship. The international space station is also the ugliest thing I've ever seen. Every month they seem to be adding another component with no sense of style. You would think that someone could think up an elegant design for the "premiere symbol" of our scientific ingenuity in space.