NASA Releases Columbia Report With Graphic Details Of Astronaut Deaths

WASHINGTON — When the first of many loud alarms sounded on the space shuttle Columbia, the seven astronauts had about a minute to live, though they didn't know it. The pilot, William McCool, pushed several buttons trying to right the ship as it tumbled out of control. He didn't know it was futile. Most of the crew were following NASA procedures, spending more time preparing the shuttle than themselves for the return to Earth.

Some weren't wearing their bulky protective gloves and still had their helmet visors open. Some weren't fully strapped in. One was barely seated.

In seconds, the darkened module holding the crew lost pressure. The astronauts blacked out. If the loss of pressure didn't kill them immediately, they would be dead from violent gyrations that knocked them about the ship.

In short, Columbia's astronauts were quickly doomed.

A new NASA report released Tuesday details the chaotic final minutes of Columbia, which disintegrated over Texas on Feb. 1, 2003. The point of the 400-page analysis is to figure out how to make NASA's next spaceship more survivable. The report targeted problems with the spacesuits, restraints and helmets of the Columbia crew.

Many of the details about the astronauts' deaths have been known _ they died either from lack of oxygen during pressure loss or from hitting something as the spacecraft tumbled and broke up. However, the new report paints a more detailed picture of the final moments of the Columbia crew than the broader investigation into the accident five years ago.

Astronaut Pam Melroy, deputy study chief, said the analysis showed the astronauts were at their problem-solving best trying to recover Columbia, which was starting to crack up as it re-entered Earth's atmosphere with a hole in its left wing, damage that had occurred at liftoff. "There was no way for them to know that it was going to be impossible."

The crew had lost control of the motion and direction of the spacecraft. It was pitching end-over-end, the cabin lights were out, and parts of the shuttle behind the crew compartment _ including its wings _ were falling off.

Story continues below

advertisement

"It was a very disorienting motion going on," NASA deputy associate administrator Wayne Hale said in a telephone conference call. "There were a number of alarms going off simultaneously. The crew was trying very hard to regain control. We're talking about a brief time in a crisis situation."

The NASA study team is recommending 30 changes based on Columbia, many of them aimed at the spacesuits, helmets and seatbelts for both the shuttle and the next space capsule NASA is building. Since the accident, NASA has quietly made astronauts put more priority on getting their protective suits on, Melroy said.

NASA's suits don't automatically pressurize, "a basic problem of suit design and it is one we intend to fix with future spacecraft," Hale said.

Had the astronauts had time to get their gear on and get their suits pressurized, they might have lived longer and been able to take more actions. But they still wouldn't have survived, the report notes.

The report lists events that were each potentially lethal to the crew: Loss of cabin pressure just before or as the cabin broke up; crew members, unconscious or already dead, crashing into objects in the module; exposure to a near vacuum at 100,000 feet; and crashing to the ground.

Killed in the Columbia disaster along with pilot McCool, were commander Rick Husband, Michael Anderson, David Brown, Kalpana Chawla, Laurel Clark, and Israel's first astronaut, Ilan Ramon.

Columbia was the second space shuttle NASA has lost. The hole in its wing was caused by a piece of foam insulation that broke off the fuel tank and slammed into it at launch. The shuttle Challenger blew up shortly after liftoff on 1986, also claiming seven lives. Investigators in both accidents pointed to a NASA culture of ignoring problems that later turned fatal.

Dr. Jonathan Clark, a former NASA flight surgeon and husband of Laurel Clark, praised NASA's leadership for the report "even though it says, in some ways, you guys didn't do a great job."

"I guess the thing I'm surprised about, if anything, is that (the report) actually got out," said Clark, who was a member of the team that wrote it. "There were so many forces" that didn't want to produce the report because it would again put the astronauts' families in the media spotlight.

Some of the recommendations already are being applied to the next-generation spaceship being designed to take astronauts to the moon and Mars, said Clark, who now works for the National Space Biomedical Research Institute at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

Kirstie McCool Chadwick, sister of William McCool, said a copy of the report arrived at her Florida home Tuesday morning but she had not read it.

"We've moved on," Chadwick said. "I'll read it. But it's private. It's our business ... Our family has moved on from the accident and we don't want to reopen wounds."

NASA held the report till after Christmas at the request of the families.

John Logsdon, who was a member of the original Columbia accident investigation board, questioned the need for the report, saying, "Those people are dead. Knowing in specifics how they died should be a private matter."

But for friends of the astronauts working on the investigation, confirming that the crew didn't suffer much "is a very small blessing," Melroy said.

__

Correspondent Mike Schneider in Orlando, Fla., contributed to this report.

___

On the Net:

The NASA report: http://www.nasa.gov/news/reports/index.html

Comments

[ShockandAutism]

"analysis is to figure out how to make NASA's next spaceship more survivable. The report targeted problems with the spacesuits, restraints and helmets"

Helmets? Restraints? Are you kidding?

Now they'll spend 50 million dollars designing seat belts which won't do anything WHEN YOUR SHIP IS DISINTIGRATING AND BURNING UP IN THE ATMOSPHERE!! I mean what is to gain from this? That you'll have charred remains firmly buckled into a seat with a helmet strapped to it's melted head?

Here's a novel thought. Try constructing a ship that doesn't blow up. That way seat belts/helmets not so futilely important on the priority list. I hope BO cuts their funding.

[ribe8g]

Big Yawn

[GodfatherofSoul]

This is what happens when you put a "run government like a business" administrator in charge of NASA.

[voltaire11]

This is a failure of quality control that resulted in the deaths of good men and women that dared reach for the stars and make this world a better place. NASA cannot skimp on the tiniest detail because it can cost lives. The lessons of Challenger were not learned and this report shows the results.

[BigPictureReg]

So, whose job was it to ignore the uncharacteristically cold weather/warnings/impacts on the fatal O rings, to permit the President to stick with his plan in that evening's State of the Union speech, most certainly focusing on a reference to the first teacher in space.

I'll always maintain that it was political pressure not to postpone the mission to a warmer day, and deny the certain references by RR to the mission.

This was as true a definition of a disaster as is possible - one that could very well have been prevented by only flying the shuttle under certain conditions, as originally designed.

[2bsure]

They covered up THAT story in a hurry, didn't they? But Saint Ronnie got to deliver his "slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God" eulogy, so he scored political points with the "under-informed" despite the SOTU snafu.

[Motes]

I am glad that they wrote up a comprehensive report of what went, mostly, wrong with columbia. That is the best way to learn; publically examining the issues that got us into the problem in the first place.
However, reading many of the comments here I wonder if it really was the best thing for the space program as it adds fodder to the question of why are we in space in the first place. I mean NASA's budget is what 1%, 5% of the total salaries of everyone employed in the financial sector? Are we really expected to believe that we cannot afford to do something with little return in the next 10 years but a lot of return in the next 100 years compared to the financial sector which basically does nothing to improve ourselves in any timeframe. If we stop the space program it will get more and more difficult to restart it and if anything we need to put more money into this but do a much better job focusing on what we want to do in space.

[Bubba Gump]

I absolutely agree that manned space flight must continue. But I want some reforms in NASA, to protect the astronauts. Why does a NASA administration bureaucrat run the mission? Why isn't the mission commander onboard the spacecraft the real commander? If it were a 747 with wing damage, doesn't the ground operator ask the pilot what he/she thinks the aircraft can and can not do? It's the pilot of an aircraft in distress that calls the shots as FAA does everything they can to support the pilot and crew. That's the way it should be in space, too.

[MyLowell]

question: after the wing was damaged, is there anything that anyone could have done to repair it before re-entry or were they simply doomed?

[Bubba Gump]

There probably was no way to repair the hole if it was of the same size as inflicted upon the post-disaster model, used to see if foam could have done that kind of damage.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/05/30/sprj.colu.shuttle.investigation/index.html

Although Columbia was too heavy to reach orbit to use the International Space Station as a lifeboat, Space Shuttle Discovery could have entered into a crash rescue mission to save the seven astronauts; the Russians could even have assisted with a coordinated rocket rescue. Gemini 4 successfully made a space walk using a tether in 1965, so certainly Columbia could have checked the left wing, if the crew had been told the true status of their spacecraft. And the Columbia could have skewed their re-entry to place more friction on the undamaged right side, giving the crew at least a chance to jump by parachute at a lower altitude. But without NASA's prompt action before the re-entry burn, the seven heroic astronauts could do nothing. May God bless their families and friends.

[fairywhatnot]

At THAT point, they were doomed, because they did not have a repair kit with them. (They did not even KNOW about the torn hole...).
NOWADAYS they DO have a small repair kit with them, so they could do small repairs. Also, once they are in orbit nowadays, there is a complete visual inspection going on, both from on-board cameras as well as from earth-situated ones if I remember correctly.

[Dystopic]

No. they were not equipped with space station docking systems. Even if the dmage was discovered, it was unlikely that another shuttle could have been launched for a resacue mission.

the space staion was originally designed as an orbital refuge for astronauts with damaged vehicles. the space station was not desgned originally for science

[RTIII]

If the station was operational, they could have EVAed to it.
.

[Bubba Gump]

The destruction of Space Shuttle Columbia was a tragedy. But I take offense to NASA's continued denials that nothing could have been done to save the crew. I remember the repeated calls by observers on the ground and even leaked calls by engineers DAYS BEFORE RE-ENTRY. There was even a plea for Russia to use it's spy satellites to check Columbia for damage when NASA began to drag it's feet. And I'm not alone in my opinion. According to CBS, "NASA's top administrator, Sean O'Keefe, said Friday he 'completely rejects the proposition' that nothing could have been done in orbit to help Columbia...."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/03/columbia/main542511.shtml

"E-mails that NASA disclosed Wednesday showed senior engineers worried a day before the Columbia disaster that the shuttle's left wing might burn off and cause the deaths of the crew....engineers in Texas and Virginia fretted about the shuttle's safety during its final three days in orbit." These e-mails prompted NASA to ask "the Defense Department -- then abruptly changed its mind -- to take pictures of the shuttle in orbit more than one week before its breakup." Engineer Robert Daugherty and a flight controller, Jeffery V. Kling, also sounded warnings days prior to the disaster.

[Bubba Gump]

In my opinion, Space Shuttle Discovery was preparing for a later launch and could have entered into a crash rescue mission to save the seven Columbia astronauts. The fate of Columbia herself was sealed when the piece of foam struck the left wing during launch, a warning neglected THREE YEARS PRIOR; the Columbia crew died without NASA even attempting to save them. NASA did not give the Columbia crew the true status of their ship until just prior to the burn for re-entry, denying them even a chance to brainstorm and hear one proposal to skew the shuttle's re-entry, to place less friction against the left wing in order to give the crew a chance to jump by parachute at a lower altitude. Why was the mission commander, Rick Husband, the leader aboard Columbia, not kept in the loop? Denying a crew the real knowledge of the status of their spacecraft defies all flight safety protocols. Especially since they could have made a spacewalk to inspect the left wing, tethered by a rope much like the Gemini 4 space mission.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/gemini_4_eva.html

In my opinion, Columbia's crew of seven human beings died as a result of NASA's negligent homicide.

[Dystopic]

I knew 2 of the astronauts personally, and was at several social events around houston before the launch. I was at the launch and I was at the landing. Once the sonic boom was not heard during landing, everyone's face dropped, most knew that that was a problem.

Rick Husband was a great commander, and was loved by the crew. The STS107 crew had been together for afew years, with their columbia mission being scrapped several times. Upon their arrrival back to earth, they were going to request that their crew remain together in future missions.

There were so many safety waivers on columbia, and all the astronauts signed.

[Forester]

"There were so many forces" that didn't want to produce the report because it would again put the astronauts' families in the media spotlight.

This sounds a lot like the rational used by the White House and DOD to censor images of Iraq War casualties. These agencies will claim they are protecting the victims when it suits their needs for privacy, but otherwise you are on your own.

[Tomlastliberalleft]

It was slow at work today so I had a chance to read much of the report. The report is both well written and clear in it"s conclusions. The comments that gets posted here is typical of what now passes as informed viewpoint by Huff-people who ought to know better. Suggest you download the report, read it, and then comment here. Yes America, read the report, it will break your heart. These brave people died and a few souls inside of NASA worked, in many cases, on there own time to put this together such that the findings may save lives in the future. Instead of throwing darts at one another could you guys at least consider the nature of progress? For crying out loud you people come across, dare I say it, like Republicans.

[kwright]

I will never forget that day. I was living in Phoenix and my Grandmother was in Detroit .

We were on the phone together watching the launch and then in great disbelief we both saw the shuttle explode. I cannot even begin to imagine the horror that took place inside. My prayers go out to the surviving families.

[tonewheel]

You're talking about Challenger, not Columbia which is the subject of this story. Columbia broke up during re-entry from California to Texas.

[RTIII]

Well, they never did release the report on Challenger. Oh, they issued _a_ report, but it left out a huge fraction of important details which were collected and known within the agency, but not permitted out to the public. Some of that material was leaked, and from that we know that the Challenger crew survived all the way to the impact with the water. They knew what was going on - what had happened (more or less) - and the conclusion was that they could have been saved if their craft was fitted with a few key - and lightweight - things, or some heavier ones. One solution would have been a parachute on the main cabin "box." Another - like Columbia - would have been ejection seats...
.

[robXdion]

That was Challenger in 1986. Columbia was destroyed as it reentered the atmosphere in 2003.

[OB-GYN]

My heart pains for these and all other astronauts suffering, as well as for their families. It must be particularly painful this time of year with their recollection.My sincere condolences.

[AmandaBC]

You could buy a hospital with the fuel budget of a single Shuttle mission.
Time to end the insanity.

[Catfish1968]

Thank you. Nasa is just a cover for the military to spend off-budget. It's time to end NASA.

[TMAN]

Thats right lets all just tuck our tail between our legs and crawl back into the caves. Shortly here, we, the Human race will simply have stripped the available resources from Earth. Contrary to your opinion, it is fast approaching the time when we must begin to seriously plan for the colonization of the Cosmos. We cannot sustain even the present population levels on the planet even taking into consideration,war and natural attrition. And I havn't even mentioned, global macro systems beginning to exhibit erratic, chaotic behavior. Wake up, stop looking at the fractules, back off and see the big picture.

[loosely coupled]

Besides the minuscule amount of actual funding, NASA is no doubt the highest yielding investment this country has seen in economic terms, scientific terms, technological terms, and social terms.

- NASA (and the contractors and suppliers it keeps in business) has been responsible for literally hundreds of scientific and technological innovations that have made their way from aerospace to the commercial and consumer markets, contributing a great deal to modern society.

- NASA serves as the premier scientific research agency in the world, and has provided scientists with a great abundance of absolutely invaluable research data for almost half a century-- most prominently in Earth science, climate science, meteorology and particularly astronomy and cosmology. The Hubble telescope, and the vast array of scientific satellites, telescopes, probes, landers, and rovers created by NASA have done more for space science than any other force in the history of the world. While average citizens commonly albeit wrongly associate NASA solely with manned flight, the majority of NASAs work and funding goes towards basic science.

[woodnthrifty]

I agree. Let's use any money we have to enhance living on this planet. If we can't get it right here, and it seems we can't ............ do we need a new planet to f k up?

[Indubio]

If the US cuts spendign it shouldn;t be with the space program, which is worth fundign at even higher levels. The military budget could be cut substantially.

[loosely coupled]

(continued - part 2 )
- In fact, NASA has been and continues to be absolutely essential to solving the two greatest (and inter-related) challenges of our lifetime --- the looming energy crisis and global warming. They have been one of the most important organizations in climate change research and advocacy, and their varied and extensive technological breakthroughs in chemistry, physics, and other areas have greatly contributed to our future ability to move past fossil fuels.

- NASA provides tens of thousands of high-quality employment opportunities and contributes enormously to the economy with all of it's employees, facilities, suppliers, etc. In addition, the excellent science and cutting edge aerospace research that they do attracts some of the best and brightest engineers and scientists from around the world.

- Perhaps most importantly, the work NASA does, both in basic science and manned space travel transcends the United States and is for all of humanity. From the first earth orbit to the historic Apollo moon landings to the awe-inspiring images of distance galaxies and star systems first provided by the Hubble space telescope, NASA's work has inspired millions around the world and brightened the soul of humanity. These intangibles are an aspect of space travel that cannot be replaced.
I believe the future of tolerance, understanding, and peace between people on Earth can no doubt be enhanced by international cooperation in space science, manned space flight, and the discoveries and revelations that reveal more about humanity and our universe.

[TMAN]

I commend you on a well reasoned and literate post. It does my heart good to know there are folks out there who are not only well informed but sensitive to the true economic realities of the future of the Human Race. Again, many thank you's for the post.

[RTIII]

In fact, NASA's contributions are far greater than even that!

Financially speaking, NASA has provided a return on investment of several orders of magnitude over the cost through technology transfers to the private sector. That is, NASA actually MAKES THE U.S. MONEY - a _lot_ of money. It's not a "cost," it's an "investment," and people who confuse the two are financially illiterate.
.

[loosely coupled]

Sorry, but your myopic suggestion is not only incredibly shortsighted and naive, and should be offensive to every American and anyone in the world who cares about science, our planet, and the future of humankind. It honestly makes me sad to read these types of comments when thinking about the enormous pride Americans had for NASA during the space race and moon landings.

Anyways, let's get this straight, I am the first one to advocate a re-balancing and re-prioritization of the national budget, with much more tax revenue going towards K-12 education particularly reforming science and mathematics, undergraduate and graduate level grants, renewable energy projects, 21st century infrastructure, next-gen broadband layout, universal healthcare, and other civic areas.

But it should NOT come from the budget of NASA, which overall is a TINY FRACTION of the total budget. NASA's budget for 2008 was $17 billion out of a 2.7 TRILLION dollar budget! Thats one-half of one percent. Compare this to the ~$500 billion dollars the military blew through in 2008, NOT counting the special funding of Iraq! We need a strong military, but there is an incredible amount of inefficiency, waste, and generally unnecessary expenditure. The military as a whole does not need such a huge percentage of the discretionary budget.

[AmandaBC]

I think what's really myopic is your powers of perception and understanding. I never said NASA should be eliminated, just the Space Shuttle.

Go ahead and enjoy your silly straw man...

[dems08]

Not to be picky but.. ok, I am picky.

I believe NASA's $17 billion budget is actually closer to 1/200 of 1% of the national budget.

This is equal to 1/20,000th of the annual nation budget for 2008.

[Todd12345]

manned space flight is or has become pointless. were not going to gain anything by exploring the big bang therory mars or any other planet. Its of no importance because we will not inhabit or benifit from any of it. For the things we have benifitted from space velcro tang and a few others - we would have figured it out anyway. They still cant figure out how the pyrimaids were built and likewise after all the speculation is done and money spent pluto will never matter because we will never go there. Quite wasting our tax dollars!!!!!!

[JoshuaChamberlain]

Don't read much do you. Great idea: "Lets stop learning, we won't figure out anything good." When has that been a good idea? Hey christopher columbus don't sail that way. Hey don't map the stars, don't make a calendar, don't make that rock round, don't make fire with those sticks don't question. don't ask questions, don't ask questions. Gimme my tax money. its my money. I need it to buy henna tattoos and flat screen TVs.

[newworldman777]

"Hey christopher columbus don't sail that way."

Now that would have been a good suggestion. It might have prevented the the murder, the genocide, of millions of Native Americans, the plundering of trillions of dollars worth of their precious metals and other natural resources, and the theft of more trillions of dollars worth of their land.

[jimmyjones22]

Its not pointless at all. Everytime I hear this argument I get so frustrated by the ignorance put into it. You suggest figuring out how the pyramids were built is more important or somehow more deserving of funds than space exploration?

Yet, the money we spend sending probes out into space, and for telescopes tells us more about the world around us than a pile of neolithic stones ever could.

For example, we know know the approximate age of the universe, and we are learning more about how our solor system formed. By sending probes, we have also discovered certain routes that can be used throughout the solor system, using gravity, to make trips more fuel efficient.

Not only that, but in space we can actually test some, and even apply, the theories that are critical to understanding ultimately where everything comes from, and where it will end up.

As far as manned space travel goes - do you actually think a robot can preform everything at this point? Most of the repairs on important hardware require a human to do it. Until rebots become as intelligent and inginuitive as a human with a doctorates and years of training there is no alternative.

[woodnthrifty]

You must be an atheist because all we need to know is in Genesis.

[JICC]

I don't normally go ad hominem, but dear Sir, you must be quite the dumdum. McCain was thinking precisely of people like you when claiming Obama spent $ 3MUSD on an "overhead projector" (a planetarium projector upgrade in reality). We just have to free the country of your kin, and it will be a smooth sailing from then on.

[Donegal]

Hey, we need to know as much as we can about space, because someday we may have to escape there.

[Forester]

I tend to agree with this sentiment despite a strong interest in astronomy and having grown up in the 60's wanting to be John Glenn. I believe we can learn more from supercolliders (despite the obscene costs) than we ever can from manned missions. And besides, the distances are just too great to achieve anything in a human lifetime. Another problem I have is the lifeboat issue. If we acually believe we will need to evacuate our planet, then we may not address the destruction of our precious planet seriously, and besides, who decides who goes?

The only way we could have any hope of spreading our DNA beyond Earth is if we place the material in digital form and send it into deep space like dandylion seeds, and hope that in the future something would replicate it in an environment that would sustain it. Somehow, I don't think this is what the average space colony enthusiast is thinking of. We need to focus on understanding and coexisting with ecosystem we evolved in, and not go blasting off after we destroy it Wallee!

[SwingingFromCenter]

The bottom line is, using spacecraft from the 70's is not only dangerous but ludicrous.

How many of us even OWN something from the 70's? Heck, these spacecraft are older than I am, and I'm a long-functioning adult.

The entire program needs to be shut down until such time as they come up with the funding to build new vessels.

[Bitsko]

The shuttle program is coming to an end, with no more being manufactured.

[RumiSouth]

You wouldn't drive to the store in a 25-year old car with a million miles on it.

[SwingingFromCenter]

That's a bad analogy. I love classic cars.

A better analogy would be "I'd never get on an airplane manufactured in 1973".

[mapleaforever]

Watch it. I just got back from a big box in my Rambler.

[Forester]

They still fly WWII era bombers for airtankers here in the west, and they (hardly) never crash. And my '54 Chevy was indestructable - broke my heart to sell her.

[MajorKong]

The Air Force is still flying B-52s and KC-135s from the Eisenhower administration. They plan to keep flying them until 2030 or so.

[AmandaBC]

...or until they start falling from the sky, whichever comes first...

[SwingingFromCenter]

And you won't see me in one of those.

[rue]

Have you ever flown on a 747 or 737? 70's tech, both.

[SwingingFromCenter]

70's design. NOT 70's tech. The tech is all modern. The PLANE is modern.

There's a difference between something that was designed in the 70's and built in 2005 and something that was designed in the 70's and made in the 70's.