by Editor’s Note: Douglas Brinkley is the Katherine Tsanoff Brown Chair in the Humanities and Professor of History at Rice University. He is the author of “American Moonshot: John F. Kennedy and the Great Space Race.” CNN’s Original Series “Space Shuttle Columbia: The Final Flight” reveals the events that ultimately led to disaster. The first four-part documentary airs at 9 pm ET/PT on Sunday. The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. See more comments on CNN.
Around the beginning of this century, the world counted only two main players in manned space exploration: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Roscosmos, the Russian Space Agency. Ten years later, the skies were crowded by comparison, with several private companies trying to restart the space race with Russia. Internationally, China had regular manned missions and the United Arab Emirates, Japan and European nations were approaching success.
The turning point between the two eras was an unexpected tragedy: the disintegration of the space shuttle Columbia on February 1, 2003. It happened almost exactly 17 years after its predecessor, the Challenger, burned immediately after liftoff.
The 1986 disaster resulted in public outrage at NASA, mainly because top officials were specifically advised to scrub the launch. Simply put, the weather was too cold for the equipment. The intrepid American space program survived the Challenger disaster, but NASA’s self-doubt did not subside. Not even twenty years later, after Columbia exploded during re-entry, the two fatal failures shattered the faith of many in the American people in NASA.
Seven astronauts were on board the Columbia for its 16-day mission, mainly to conduct science experiments. The launch didn’t happen in mid-January – except for one thing. The team assigned to review video of the trip noticed a loose piece of the protective foam layer insulating the shuttle’s outer tank. Soon after a chunk of foam came around the size of a briefcase and hit the face of the left wing. The analysis of the malfunction was shared with others at NASA, but the problem was deemed minor.
Shuttles were constantly damaged during missions. It was only to be expected. “There’s this term in NASA called risk acceptance,” explained Nancy Currie-Gregg, who flew four shuttle missions, the last in 2002, “There’s no such thing as zero-risk spaceflight, but how do you decide how much risk there is. acceptable?”
Because other shuttle missions had returned safely with “destroyed” surface tiles — and because the Columbia flagship had brought astronauts home from 27 previous flights — many NASA officials were complacent. They went so far as to assure the pilot and commander via email that “there is no concern … We have seen the same phenomenon on several other flights and there is no concern on entry.”
NASA officials also decided not to enlist spy satellite photography to more accurately examine the shuttle damage. If it was, the astronauts might be able to repair the spacecraft or at least abandon it as a shelter on the International Space Station. Instead, as Columbia emerged from space, superheated atmospheric gases entered through the gaping hole left by the dislodged chunk of foam. The structure was compromised and the shuttle broke apart in the middle. The wreckage spread over Texas and Louisiana.
unknown content item
–
After the disaster, NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe said in a statement, “This is indeed a tragic day for the NASA family, for the families of the astronauts who flew on STS-107, and it is equally tragic for the Nation . .”
As the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) noted in its final report, “NASA’s organizational culture had as much to do with this accident as the foam.” All NASA launches were suspended for two years. Although the shuttles eventually flew again, after Colombia, the program was stunted and curtailed.
But as NASA faded, Elon Musk’s upstart SpaceX scheduled its own launches. Initially, Musk’s venture proved how difficult rocket science is, although his company finally succeeded in 2008 with its Falcon Heavy reusable rocket. The billionaire’s club was using NASA in space. At about the same time, Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin was developing rockets focused primarily on subsonic flight. United Launch Alliance brought together two legacy aerospace companies, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, in a concerted effort to develop and launch a giant rocket. All four companies are thriving today in the space industry.
Virgin Galactic, an American company operated by Sir Richard Branson, is dedicated to space tourism rather than exploration. Similarly, Axiom Space was founded in 2016 to establish a space station for adventurers. And now, SpaceX has set its sights on returning humans to the moon.
Space entrepreneurs themselves were thrown into action, driven by the opportunity to make money during NASA’s lull after the demise of Columbia. NASA, far from feeling threatened, has encouraged many private companies with huge contracts. The agency already had a long history of dealing with subcontractors, using its pocketbook to direct aerospace development; that tradition has adapted to the current space economy.
Whether President John F. Kennedy’s American Moonshot idealism will inspire the current turbulent era in space is an uncertain question. Certainly, the seven astronauts who were doing experiments in physics on the Columbia, just as JFK had hoped, “sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must . to be won and used for the advancement of all.”
For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com
