I can’t help myself from thinking that SNL could write a funny skit about “a three hour tour, a three hour tour” regarding this current “stranded” mission (for those too young, look up the Gilligan’s Island sitcom song). I was there and taking pictures of Challenger when things went horribly wrong. Things like that “didn’t” happen in American space programs. We were the best. Well, SpC (below) said it…hubris. That is what killed them. Aviation is not forgiving, and space flight is exponentially less forgiving than that.
Correction needed on here "until a Space X mission can be readied early next year". Early next year refers to when Suni and Butch will be coming back to earth. The capsule, Crew-9, that will bring them back early next year is expected to arrive at ISS in September. It could have arrived sooner except the are no open ISS docking stations due to Starliner being stuck. Crew-9 will come to ISS with two empty seats. Butch and Suni will be replacing two astronauts that were previously scheduled to arrive on Crew-9. I understand why NASA is nitpicking about "stranded". If there was an emergency need Suni and/or Butch could return on Crew-8 capsule which is currently docked at ISS.
"There are new risks introduced by using Space X to bring back the astronauts" Not sure what are the new risks by changing the return vehicle to Space X Crew Dragon. Crew Dragon has delivered 34 astronauts to ISS. Obviously this has been deemed the option with the least risk. That said, as the same sentence correctly notes, there are no guarantees.
Seems to me the only real decision that could have been made is sending the astronauts back on a SpaceX ship. Knowingly putting them back into a spacecraft that is damaged, without knowing the extent of the booster and helium leak failures to me feels like the biggest risk.
"To balance the agency’s cosmic ambitions and budget constraints, NASA turned to industry...
some leaders at NASA said they probably didn’t spend enough time looking over Boeing’s work given their long and successful relationship with the company"
There was a bit more to the quote in text on the chummy relationship leading NASA to not take care in examining what Boeing was doing. Also, many within the agency thought it was a really bad idea to outsource to industry in this particular context.
How much of this is "growing pains." Air travel wasn't particularly safe in its juvenile years; today it is one of the safest ways to travel. Of course, with space travel there will be a difficult question to answer - need. Until we develop productive mines on the moon or other asteroids, it will remain a novelty limited for scientific research exclusively.
An appropriate quote, attributed to John Glenn, "I felt exactly how you would feel if you were getting ready to launch and knew you were sitting on top of 2 million parts — all built by the lowest bidder on a government contract."
I once heard an excellent talk by one of the Apollo astronauts, who explained that the Challenger disaster was the result of "normalization of deviance". He pointed out that from the beginning, o-ring problems were observed with every Space Shuttle launch. If everything else with the launch went well, the o-rings still showed heat damage, shrinkage, even blow-by. Rather than re-design the joint with a more robust metal-to-metal seal, everybody go used to living with o-ring damage to a greater or lesser extent to maintain NASA's reputation for a high mission launch rate. An organization which won't admit it has a problem is not going to fix it. Until disaster strikes and reality can no longer be denied. Perhaps something similar happened when the Columbia shed those tiles?
Highly complex systems are impossible to model (or so says my space engineer son). And I agree after 20 yrs of trading options on the US Treasury 30 yr bond. So, the shuttles were doomed.
Weather is a highly complex system too. Anyone trust a forecast beyond 72 hours? This sailor doesn't....
"In 2002, NASA’s only option for rescuing its crew on Columbia, had it chosen to do so, would have been Space Shuttle Atlantis, which was being prepared for a March 2023 launch to the international space station. "
I think you mean March, 2003. And that would have been a daring rescue attempt if only NASA realized the danger that Columbia was in.
Thanks! It would have been incredible and we will never know if they could have pulled it off. Another big issue was the foam, which had dented one of the boosters on another earlier flight. What would have happened if Atlantis was similarly compromised by a foam strike? Lots of ways that could have gone sideways.
Not to make lite of a serious subject. but it all reminds me of Gilligan's Island and the Minnow which left for a three hour tour before ending up on an uncharted island waiting for a rescue which may never had come.
An o-ring fails to perform as expected due to unusually cold temperatures it was subjected to prior to its failure.
A piece of foam insulation fails to stay secured to the fuel tank it's there to protect, then damages a critical part of the space vessel that tank is part of.
So many parts to each endeavor, so many ways that a single failure of any one of them may lead to failure of a mission.
Both instances were predictable yet hubris and 'procedure' caused these conditions to go uncorrected with tragic result. No malice involved, just a failure to respect the consequences of a wrong course of action.
I can’t help myself from thinking that SNL could write a funny skit about “a three hour tour, a three hour tour” regarding this current “stranded” mission (for those too young, look up the Gilligan’s Island sitcom song). I was there and taking pictures of Challenger when things went horribly wrong. Things like that “didn’t” happen in American space programs. We were the best. Well, SpC (below) said it…hubris. That is what killed them. Aviation is not forgiving, and space flight is exponentially less forgiving than that.
RE: " I embed the entire video below and highly recommend watching it. "
This is the message I get:
'Video unavailable
This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated.'
Is it just me?
Same here
I’ll see if I can find a replacement
It is also on CNN and Max for those who subscribe
Thx!
Correction needed on here "until a Space X mission can be readied early next year". Early next year refers to when Suni and Butch will be coming back to earth. The capsule, Crew-9, that will bring them back early next year is expected to arrive at ISS in September. It could have arrived sooner except the are no open ISS docking stations due to Starliner being stuck. Crew-9 will come to ISS with two empty seats. Butch and Suni will be replacing two astronauts that were previously scheduled to arrive on Crew-9. I understand why NASA is nitpicking about "stranded". If there was an emergency need Suni and/or Butch could return on Crew-8 capsule which is currently docked at ISS.
"There are new risks introduced by using Space X to bring back the astronauts" Not sure what are the new risks by changing the return vehicle to Space X Crew Dragon. Crew Dragon has delivered 34 astronauts to ISS. Obviously this has been deemed the option with the least risk. That said, as the same sentence correctly notes, there are no guarantees.
Thanks!
I agree would have been more accurate to have written:
"until a Space X mission can be readied for returning them early next year"
Agreed on risks.
The mission is ready now. It is waiting for a parking spot.
Seems to me the only real decision that could have been made is sending the astronauts back on a SpaceX ship. Knowingly putting them back into a spacecraft that is damaged, without knowing the extent of the booster and helium leak failures to me feels like the biggest risk.
I thought this reporting was interesting:
"To balance the agency’s cosmic ambitions and budget constraints, NASA turned to industry...
some leaders at NASA said they probably didn’t spend enough time looking over Boeing’s work given their long and successful relationship with the company"
There was a bit more to the quote in text on the chummy relationship leading NASA to not take care in examining what Boeing was doing. Also, many within the agency thought it was a really bad idea to outsource to industry in this particular context.
https://www.wsj.com/science/space-astronomy/how-on-earth-did-nasa-leave-two-astronauts-in-space-6c8ffc32?st=gcim9fsiyjne9k4
RE: " . . . some leaders at NASA said they probably didn’t spend enough time looking over Boeing’s work . . ."
Given recent, near catastrophic, quality control issues at Boing.
Have you ever thought of doing a series on Substack or a book on bad risk calculations? Groom COVID to Columbia, it’s a rich field for stories.
Nicely done, sir. Thank you.
How much of this is "growing pains." Air travel wasn't particularly safe in its juvenile years; today it is one of the safest ways to travel. Of course, with space travel there will be a difficult question to answer - need. Until we develop productive mines on the moon or other asteroids, it will remain a novelty limited for scientific research exclusively.
An appropriate quote, attributed to John Glenn, "I felt exactly how you would feel if you were getting ready to launch and knew you were sitting on top of 2 million parts — all built by the lowest bidder on a government contract."
I once heard an excellent talk by one of the Apollo astronauts, who explained that the Challenger disaster was the result of "normalization of deviance". He pointed out that from the beginning, o-ring problems were observed with every Space Shuttle launch. If everything else with the launch went well, the o-rings still showed heat damage, shrinkage, even blow-by. Rather than re-design the joint with a more robust metal-to-metal seal, everybody go used to living with o-ring damage to a greater or lesser extent to maintain NASA's reputation for a high mission launch rate. An organization which won't admit it has a problem is not going to fix it. Until disaster strikes and reality can no longer be denied. Perhaps something similar happened when the Columbia shed those tiles?
Highly complex systems are impossible to model (or so says my space engineer son). And I agree after 20 yrs of trading options on the US Treasury 30 yr bond. So, the shuttles were doomed.
Weather is a highly complex system too. Anyone trust a forecast beyond 72 hours? This sailor doesn't....
Good piece though. Thank you.
"In 2002, NASA’s only option for rescuing its crew on Columbia, had it chosen to do so, would have been Space Shuttle Atlantis, which was being prepared for a March 2023 launch to the international space station. "
I think you mean March, 2003. And that would have been a daring rescue attempt if only NASA realized the danger that Columbia was in.
Thanks! It would have been incredible and we will never know if they could have pulled it off. Another big issue was the foam, which had dented one of the boosters on another earlier flight. What would have happened if Atlantis was similarly compromised by a foam strike? Lots of ways that could have gone sideways.
Not to make lite of a serious subject. but it all reminds me of Gilligan's Island and the Minnow which left for a three hour tour before ending up on an uncharted island waiting for a rescue which may never had come.
They all seemed to bring a lot of luggage for a three hour tour . . .
An excellent and sobering piece!
A redundancy that reduces should risks by providing options.
Should be:
A redundancy that reduces risks by providing options.
Thanks!
An o-ring fails to perform as expected due to unusually cold temperatures it was subjected to prior to its failure.
A piece of foam insulation fails to stay secured to the fuel tank it's there to protect, then damages a critical part of the space vessel that tank is part of.
So many parts to each endeavor, so many ways that a single failure of any one of them may lead to failure of a mission.
Both instances were predictable yet hubris and 'procedure' caused these conditions to go uncorrected with tragic result. No malice involved, just a failure to respect the consequences of a wrong course of action.