columbia

Eyewitness to Disaster

Eyewitness to Disaster: Thoughts on the Demise of the Columbia Shuttle
by Mark Weisberg, Houston, Texas, USA
February 1, 2003

I was driving on Voss and Highway I-10 facing north at 8:03 when I saw the high contrail of what I thought was the space shuttle moving high and far and fast. Suddenly, I saw a large piece move off in a separate direction with its own contrail! My first thought was that it was the shuttle. I berated myself for thinking such morbid thoughts. Twenty-five minutes later I was shocked to learn that I did see two fragments on reentry just after the detected breakup over Texas. I was numb with shock and sadness. What a tragic loss!

Our freeway emergency information signs are displaying a local telephone number for Texans to report shuttle fragment locations to the authorities. The debris trail is sprinkled through east Texas, Louisiana, and possibly Arkansas.

Within 24 hours the news has reported opportunists attempting to market the sale of shuttle fragments through eBay – a Federal offense and another contrasting example of the best of human ideals juxtaposed against the lowest of human behavior.

Columbia meant a lot to my fellow aerospace workers and aviation buffs as it was the first U.S. manned craft to return to orbit since 1975’s Apollo-Soyuz ASTP docking and a visible triumph after the fiasco of the fiery return of Skylab in 1979. I remember watching the first shuttle launch of Columbia very clearly at a friend’s house in College Station during my senior year at Texas A&M. I was amazed that such an unusual and seemingly unbalanced stack of hardware could push its way past the launch gantry into orbit.

I should not speculate on what went wrong. I’m not an expert and the Space Shuttle Transportation system represents one of the most complex engineering systems ever built. And yet, I wonder whether this is a signal that this system (designed in the 1970’s) is due/overdue for more robust and reliable replacement equipment and technologies.

I’ve already heard the talking heads confuse Columbia with the ill-fated Challenger of 1986 and how people are worried about the remaining international space station team astronauts. Grief and shock sometimes blur the memory and confuse the tongue, but we have fewer immediate concerns for the space station. The International Space Station has a Soyuz return module already in place and in good working order. There are plenty of supplies and water and the ability to dock with a second Soyuz capsule for crew exchange. The long-term question will be the impact of a diminished space shuttle program to the completion/final configuration of the station hardware – or if politics and budget will be slashed past the point of viability for an American manned space program.

I’ve also heard many questions directed to experts and former astronauts regarding escape systems. Three thoughts:

1. At 200,000 plus feet and 12,500 MPH bailing out never was an option considered for the crew by the designers and operators of the STS.

2. A “flying anvil” undergoing de-orbit and approach without remaining fuel for its rocket engines has few options to recover from problems not protected by redundant equipment and systems. When Columbia’s damage occurred will be subject to a long period of investigation and cause analysis. This catastrophic failure probably occurred very quickly and it may eventually turn out that the destruction to the crew cabin was mercifully brief. I pray to G-d that I may be right on this thought.

3. Given the period of time and budget assigned to this program in the 1970’s this generation of “orbital trucks” could have been built with the “breakaway crew cabin” that has been mentioned in the speculations of the media interviewees – at the expense of most/all of its payload capability. Its designers, operators, pilots and passengers always understood the inherent risk to the crew. Through the years the odds of catastrophic mission failure have consistently been estimated to be between 1:50 to 1:100. Again, we have lulled ourselves into believing that a first generation, partially reusable orbital transportation system is “airline” reliable, routine…. and anything but experimental. STS is not the DC-3 of the 1930’s or the DC-9 of the 1960’s jet age. It is more like the first post WW1 aircraft of wood, fabric and metal used for carrying the mail, barnstorming, performing speed, altitude and endurance contests and other high-risk endeavors, scientific exploration (and stunts).

I hope that we have learned enough from over 22 years of orbital operations to work our way to the next generation of safer, efficient and more capable launch systems. My observations from the periphery of the industry suggests that the remaining three craft will have their work cut out for them while replacement technologies leave design and proposal and enter system realization and operation. Given progress made with recent systems of similar complexity we may be looking at: 1. 3-6 years if a replacement for shuttle Columbia is authorized, tooled up and assembled, 2. 5-10 years for a new orbital personnel transfer system, or 3. 7-10+ years for the next generation of STS (based on R&D performed by NASA and the industry during the past 20 years).

Think about it, the next shuttle is already 18 years old and may have to remain in service past 2010. I would only be mildly surprised to learn that NASA/DOD and others eventually opt to keep the main tank, strap-on solid boosters and main engines of the shuttle transportation as an unmanned “big dumb booster” for the large components and satellites. Despite its age and expense without the space shuttle glider the launch system has the raw power to send over 200,000 pounds into low earth orbit. It may have to develop another “smaller” vehicle as a reusable crew and light supplies exchange system – something that can carry enough fuel for single stage launches and controlled landings that doesn’t require much more existing infrastructure than today’s airports.

One would not be surprised if this turns out to have military applications as financial justification for its joint development and production. We have seen how the aerospace industry reacts to previous disasters – yes, they will learn and benefit from this hard and tragic loss of dedicated personnel and critical orbital capability. However, the industry and its public and private underwriters will be slow in recovering and our timetable for exploration of the greatest frontier will be delayed for years.

I pray that after we mourn our losses and lick our technological/political-pride wounds, we will be able to restore our vision and commitment to look and reach outward for a future that dances beyond our grasp.


In Memory

(photo – NASA) – STS-107 Columbia
Rick Husband, William McCool, Michael Anderson, Kalpana Chawla, David Brown, Laurel Clark, Ilan Ramon

Useful Articles and Videos

Amy - Teen's Health Expert

By Amy - Teen's Health Expert

Discover the dedicated author behind Teen Health Secrets, an experienced expert committed to providing in-depth knowledge and guidance on various aspects of teen health, ensuring young individuals lead healthy, informed lives.