Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report Press Briefing, August 26, 2003

On August 26, 2003 the Columbia Accident Investigation Board held a press briefing in Washington, DC to release Volume I of their final report. The report is online at:
govinfo.library...
Visit our web site at www.spaceksc.com. We're on Twitter at @SpaceKSCBlog.

[@baTonkaTruck]

The question at 42:10 and subsequent answer gets to the very heart of every engineering organization's main struggle: There has to be some separation between a system's technical definition of "readiness" and the business/management desire to meet deadlines and cost caps. How much separation is right? Give engineers full control and it will be too slow. Give the business full control and quality will be terrible. Striking the right balance is unique to the product and teams involved.

[@ronniebishop2496]

Where’s Linda Ham and why is she not in prison

[@tonypaella]

She was demoted but from what I read, she stayed with NASA and that's pretty much it.

[@faffabout9412]

Yep, they never fired that peice of work

[@ronniebishop2496]

@@faffabout9412 I can’t stand that!

[@silvereagle2061]

She deceived the Columbia crew.

[@vsirrmk]

Suppose she said yes to photo, what would it change? No repair possible in space.. No Atlantis available.. Just to let the crew know that they will die soon?

[@onegirlrev]

That was a horrible, horrible morning. I’ll never forget it. After what happened on 9/11, everyone kept bringing up potential terrorism. It was horrible to watch these parts be found over the next few weeks, it was horrible to see the interviews with Texas locals talking about what they’d found in pieces here and there. To go on years later and realize this could have all been fleshed out and potentially handled by the most brilliant minds in that industry made me sick, even as a teenager. Now 20 something years later, I feel the same.

[@lmfao7558]

Agreed. Finding out that NASA refused to let satellites take photos is gutting.

[@silvereagle2061]

I wonder if Harold Gehman was told the same thing William Rogers was told which was "Don't make NASA look bad"

[@silvereagle2061]

As Robert Crippen said regarding Columbia and I'm paraphrasing "Columba fought heroically to save her crew"

[@josephdupont]

Dear Editor, In 2003 STS-107 and it's crew were lost on re-entry due to damaged tiles. This was not the first time insulation falling off the fuel tank had damaged our shuttle. Whether a rushed rescue mission could have saved the doomed Columbia crew will never be known. But I have a feeling that Linda Ham did not want the public to know how bad the tile damage was . Why? Because life is cheap and the shuttles had squeaked through similar insulations before. Ask Hoot Gibson about his Atlantis flight.

[@GH-oi2jf]

It wasn’t lost due to damaged tiles. The leading edge of the wing, which is not tiled, was damaged.

[@faffabout9412]

But blocking imaging was not necessary or prudent in even the most basic safety consideration, even a local Boeing flight will RTB if it suffers a serious impact and suspects damage to the aircraft…. She’s a dogshit peice of work, and it’s criminal that she was not fired immediately.

[@lmfao7558]

@@GH-oi2jfNot correct. The leading edge had black “tiles” that were damaged.

[@christopherwaits7852]

@@lmfao7558it wasn’t the tiles damaged. The leading edge is reinforced carbon carbon panels. Not tiles

[@UsmanAli-nf1gw]

Linda Ham was responsible for the Columbia loss ............... :(

[@nickv4073]

No, Linda Ham participated in saving NASA over a billion dollars by not having to hastily put together and launch the most expensive and dangerous rescue mission in human history that probably would not have worked anyway. It all depends on how you look at it.

[@AlonsoRules]

yep, a rescue mission would have made Apollo 13 look like nothing

[@DustinTheNow]

Anthony Kernich 7 lives are priceless.

[@AlonsoRules]

This is true, however there's no way that NASA would have had time to get the Atlantis up to rescue them.

[@DustinTheNow]

Anthony Kernich There’s always a way. It just so happened Atlantis was ready to go, inside the VAB. If they would have found the problem and called a rescue, the shuttle could have launched and a rescue could have been done.

[@LTV_inc]

This is the double speak that got us into this. I worked as an engineer in aerospace manufacturing it’s tough to get the momentum of a culture to change. Everyone in management already knows everything it’s rare to find people that have open minds. It’s like we’re wired this was as humans as a survival instinct. 😢

[@onegirlrev]

Look what’s happening with Boeing.

[@elysepintar2233]

It's interesting to me that the people who died exhibited such stellar qualities cooperation supportive attitudes and ability to work as a team. That was a joy to watch. Someone who is turf guarding, angry & insecure cancels imaging requests & refuses to allow co-workers who want to go the extra mile.

[@lmfao7558]

@@elysepintar2233well said.

[@BrawnyBuddha]

The makers of Chernobyl (HBO) should make a miniseries about this incident.

[@marcusalexander7088]

BRILLIANT!

[@villebooks]

No thanks

[@jameshoran8]

Linda Hamm. Failure is the option.

[@anyjojinkerson6107]

you wait for it to happen to make recommendations think about what will happen and prevent it before

[@anyjojinkerson6107]

they are talking their way around it and don't care about human life

[@dawnieb.7394]

Can't believe it's now 20 years later. Very struck by what Adm. Gehman said around 44:00 about changing a "bad culture" - he was ahead of his time. Today, corporate workshops & seminars will tell you that to achieve real change in an organization's culture, leadership (ALL leadership) must not only buy in to it 200% but also actively drive the bad traits out of the organization; that's precisely what the Admiral said. He also said it wasn't easy and it would take time, which is also very true. Given that the shuttle program ended in 2011😔I'm very curious to know if this was ever accomplished at NASA - ? I very much hope so; it was obviously desperately needed, but it also would have been the least they could, and should, have done to honor the crews of Challenger & Columbia.

[@michaelmangano1732]

Linda Ham... you can’t!!

[@5Andysalive]

Interesting to read John Youngs book concerning the shuttle program. . The struggle for safety features and options vs. the budget restrictions. Most of his safety requests were not rejected because of cultural issues but because there was no money for them. The budget wasn't raised either after the report. A lot of people wanted the shuttle do a lot of things during the design phase- Especially the military demanded glide capabilities that caused much larger wings than planned. But nobody adjusted the budget. In the Apollo era it was absolutely unthinkable to have a spacecraft with no abort options for a full 2 minutes of a launch. But any such option would have cost money and weight. And the costs for the shuttles and their maintainance were ludicrously underestimated. That doesn't mean the "can you definitely prove it is damaged" culture was definitely a sign of things being wrong in Nasas organisational structure.

[@Sleazball_]

Humans can be so unsympathetic it’s just awful to Thank the individuals who did the REPORT BEFORE HE EVER EXPRESSED SYMPATHY FOR THE LIVES LOST AND HE TALKED ABOUT IT LIKE IT WAS JUST ANOTHER DAY AT WORK

[@nigelh3253]

Agree. The chairman could and should have made an introductory and sincere statement expressing regret for the terribly tragic loss of human life and the effect this had on their families and friends. It's the lives of the astronauts that matter. Then he could have gone on to talk about the technicalities and organisation at NASA.

[@m.h.6499]

💯 I noticed that, too.

[@nutsackmania]

Thank you for the upload.

[@hassanakhtar5112]

i was 13 years old when this accident happened. i was always interested in space research. in 2003 i read this in a news paper. and that feeling of sadness is still with me and i have studied the facts behind that accident. Mere thought of what those 7 people wnet through at 200000ft above earth at 3000 degree celcius. :( My Thoughts and prayers for those 7 wonderfull people who sacrificed their lives.

[@weebgrinder-AIArtistPro]

I was 14 (born in 88). Just thought I'd share that useless anecdote lol

[@youdontseeanoldmanhavinatw4904]

@@weebgrinder-AIArtistPro the difference with the original comment and yours is that yours has no interesting information whatsoever.

[@danielmorris4676]

Admiral Gehman takes great pains to justify the existence and assert the safe design of the space shuttle system, saying that the shuttle is inherently safe to fly. This is an absurd assertion. If there weren't any field joints in the SRBs and if the system had no surfaces in front of the shuttle, i.e., the giant central fuel tank, then the safety of the shuttle would have been increased by a factor of two magnitudes. As it was designed, the shuttle was a great danger to the crews. "The foam did it" ignores the simple fact that there was a surface on the leading structure of the launch that needed the foam. This is the result of poor design. The shuttle needed to be at the very top of the launching system.

[@GH-oi2jf]

To be precise, he stated that their conclusion was that “the Space Shuttle is not inherently unsafe.” That is not quite the same thing.

[@B1900pilot]

In point of fact, the Orbiter was never safe to fly as the program was envisioned. Way too many design compromises for the sake of schedule and budget. The final result was a system that couldn’t possibly operate with the ambitious schedule originally envisioned by both NASA and contractors. From the very beginning these design, material and fabrication were obvious, and an accident was inevitable…

[@lmfao7558]

The last question wasn’t really answered. And, it was the most important IMO. Rescue the astronauts should have been the utmost of importance.

[@pattih7]

Excellent delivery of information. Understandable to anyone, and responsible actions recommended.

[@MissilemanIII]

People should be in jail for this.

[@gertieshaw90]

I found the board slightly defensive and they ignored or evaded the elephant in the room. Dripping with innuendo. They would not and did not talk about the real, actual issue that reporters wanted answered. Just my take on it.

[@GH-oi2jf]

Gertie Shaw - This statement is rather coy. The chairman has said elsewhere that everything is in the report.

[@lmfao7558]

@@GH-oi2jfThat’s true - there’s probably more detailed info in the report.

[@joereid8557]

i have all the original volumes and video etc from this investigation

[@weebgrinder-AIArtistPro]

Would love to see them

[@NathanApostropheL]

Wouldn’t it be great if Congress would act in good faith, like these people, and actually try to do what’s best?

[@KevinWRay]

IT WAS A CRIME TO HAVE THIS SHUTTLE UP THERE FOR 16 DAYS WITH A HOLE IN THE DAM WING, THEN TO BRING IT BACK AND NOT DO ANY INSPECTIONS. HELL GET A SECOND SHUTTLE READY SEND IT UP AND INSPECT IT! F=MA math was pretty simple! CATASTROPHIC MANAGEMENT FAILURE!

[@yxeaviationphotog]

How would they have carried out an inspection. The only way they could have gotten an astronaut over the payload bay doors, was to use the robotic arm. Only there was no arm onboard, as a weight saving measure. The interior of the payload bay doors have no handholds, allowing an astronaut to safely translate from the payload bay to the edge of the doors. Approaching the Air Force didn't happen because there was no definitive proof that there was any damage. Even if the spy satellites had been used, the images would have been immediately classified, so the engineers wouldn't have been able to see the pictures. Yes, there were lapses in the decision-making process, but there really was ko way for the crew to do an inspection. The CAIB looked into a hypothetical rescue mission and it was deemed to great a risk. The probability of stranding a second crew made the attempt not feasible. Plus, corners would have had to have been cut and what had to happen, had to happen perfectly. Also, a decision to mount a rescue would have had to have been made on flight day 2, in order to put the crew in a hunker down mode.

[@KevinWRay]

WAIT, I ALREADY SAID THAT!

[@mikewillis44]

@@yxeaviationphotog surely NASA with all it's millions could stick a camera in a ball with some reaction jets to look over the orbiter. Come on. They made false assumptions.Arrogant .Ok the wing may be damaged but there's nothing we can do about it and of course we have that conversation in a corridor between two people.The designers of Skylon have worked out that you don't have to go screaming through the atmosphere if the craft is bigger compared to it'd weight.

[@aaronvaldes3104]

Agreed

[@salvation4all313]

@Colin Kunkel... Linda Ham chaired the mission management team for all shuttle flights between 2001 and 2003, including shuttle mission STS-107 that ended with the catastrophic destruction of Columbia. After that disaster she acknowledged she could have ordered American spy satellites to take detailed photos of the possible damage to Columbia's left wing.

[@dovermcmanus4595]

This report was sort of a wash. They said they were thorough and unique and uncovered every stone but they did not do a thorough job. They refused to address a major issue and cause. That was the people who made the wrong decisions and did not listen to their cohorts or other team members.

[@GH-oi2jf]

Dover McManus - The report covered the role of everyone involved in the matter. The board left it to the readers to make judgments based on the facts in the report.

[@lmfao7558]

They said it without bluntly saying it.

[@elysepintar2233]

It blows my mind they finished this in 7 months.

[@christopherwaits7852]

We knew it was the foam the moment the temp sensors went off scale low during re-entry.

[@silvereagle2061]

Boy, John Logsdon sure has an issue with public speaking. I don't think he ever looked directly at the press. Just looking at the ceiling all throughout the Q&A session.

[@kevincady5613]

Bad design using weak material caused the accident. The truth is they had no capability to space walk and fix it and the Columbia had no ability to “link up” or dock to remove the crew. They were doomed. That’s probably why they decided to look the other way and have the shuttle return despite what they all knew.

[@hoghogwild]

Atlantis could have brought the crew home safe so long as the damage was discovered by Flight Day 7.

[@AlonsoRules]

they were doomed at launch sadly

[@mr.brenman2132]

​@@AlonsoRulesWrong.

[@christopherwaits7852]

They had capability to do EVAs and inspect and maybe repair the wing.

[@jamesburrelljr.8561]

boy in their zeal to be comprehensive, they expressed it in a wordy, longwinded and boring. I noticed a spectator yawning almost 15 minutes into the program.

[@huckcast7175]

Foam issue was still happening after this so tell me how this investgation was worth anything?

[@SpaceKSCBlog]

The rules for return-to-flight dealt with the consequences of another potential foam strike. NASA needed to honor its commitment to its international partners to complete ISS. NASA needed the Shuttle to fly the remaining ISS components to orbit. To mitigate the risk, NASA restricted remaining Shuttle flights only to go to ISS. Upon arrival, a complete inspection was done of the orbiter to look for damage. A second arm was added to the starboard side of the orbiter, which could be attached to the Canadarm, to aid in the inspection. If foam damage were found and couldn't be repaired, the crew would take safe haven at ISS until a rescue mission could be dispatched. The wounded orbiter eventually would be remotely piloted into the atmosphere and splashed into the Pacific Ocean. This plan raised a fuss in the astronomy community, because Shuttle was the only means of servicing Hubble, so eventually one last service mission was added. Another Shuttle was on standby to launch a rescue mission if required. Once ISS was completed, the Shuttle was retired, although STS-135 was added with a minimal crew to run one more supply mission to bridge the gap until Commercial Cargo flights were operational. If Atlantis had been damaged, the crew would shelter at ISS until Soyuz rotations could bring them back.

[@anyjojinkerson6107]

how about the external tank renforcement

[@thebonecrusherofrugby3983]

This was no accident it was encompontence and neglect ignorancy ..you better get it sorted quick because our time on our planet is running out we have destroyed this planet I see the signs nature is affected and out of balance

[@iVenge]

Linda Ham should be in prison.

[@dks13827]

The foam was BETTER WHEN FREON made it adhere better. They KNEW IT WAS MADE WORSE.

[@anyjojinkerson6107]

the shuttle was mothballed shortly after

[@bigruss2069]

I believe that's normally referred to by N.A.S.A as a BPU. :-)

[@AlonsoRules]

25:40 - 2 star general presents the report back to front. That just about sums up the Space Shuttle Program.

[@thebonecrusherofrugby3983]

To late for high priority mate ...my 10 year old son would of told me to have a back up shuttle ....don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out

[@esjihn]

Board Putter Upper!

[@anyjojinkerson6107]

the foam did it but it still killed 7

[@ArslanOtcular]

Robinson Frank Thomas Eric Clark Kevin

[@Urko2005]

Challenger still sends sivers up me more than this , but i guess most on KZbin were only born in the 90s.

[@kevincady5613]

Question - what exactly is so important to keep the program running?

[@hoghogwild]

In order to finish building the International Space Station. The STS program was a national asset and was the only method the US had of accessing space.

[@weebgrinder-AIArtistPro]

And to see how insects behave in space 🙄

[@deoglemnaco7025]

Astronauts!

[@jessicasimplicioreis3824]

Mt bom..🤍💞

[@thebonecrusherofrugby3983]

Engineering crap ......hang on might of been taliban on the moon with a giant bazooker

[@lmfao7558]

LOL