(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); You must login or register to view this content.

Nasa has revealed that the Columbia crew, which included first Indian woman in space Kalpana Chawla, were not told the shuttle had been damaged during its launch and that they might not survive re-entry.

The revelation came as the seven astronauts who died were remembered at a public memorial service at Florida on the 10th anniversary of the disaster.

The shuttle was returning from a routine 16-day mission when it broke over Texas. According to the Daily Mirror, Wayne Hale, who later became space shuttle programme manager, has blogged about the day.
"After one of the MMTs (mission management teams) when possible damage to the orbiter was discussed, he (flight director Jon Harpold) gave me his opinion: 'You know, there is nothing we can do about damage to the TPS (thermal protection system)," he wrote.

"If it has been damaged it's probably better not to know. I think the crew would rather not know. Don't you think it would be better for them to have a happy successful flight and die unexpectedly during entry than to stay on orbit, knowing that there was nothing to be done, until the air ran out?'," he added.

According to the report, it took months for an investigation to discover the cause of the accident, a briefcase-sized piece of foam, which had broken off an external fuel tank and punched a hole in the wing.

Possible emergency procedures (from Wikipedia)

The CAIB determined that a rescue mission, though risky, might have been possible provided NASA management had taken action soon enough.[48][49] They stated that had NASA management acted in time, two possible contingency procedures were available: a rescue mission by shuttle Atlantis, and an emergency spacewalk to attempt repairs to the left wing thermal protection.

Normally a rescue mission is not possible, due to the time required to prepare a shuttle for launch, and the limited consumables (power, water, air) of an orbiting shuttle. However, Atlantis was well along in processing for a planned March 1 launch on STS-114, and Columbia carried an unusually large quantity of consumables due to an Extended Duration Orbiter package. The CAIB determined that this would have allowed Columbia to stay in orbit until flight day 30 (February 15). NASA investigators determined that Atlantis processing could have been expedited with no skipped safety checks for a February 10 launch. Hence if nothing went wrong there was a five-day overlap for a possible rescue. As mission control could deorbit an empty shuttle but could not control the orbiter's reentry and landing, it would likely have sent Columbia into the Pacific Ocean;[48] NASA later developed the Remote Control Orbiter system to permit mission control to land a shuttle. Docking at the International Space Station for use as a safe haven while awaiting rescue (or to use the Soyuz to systematically ferry the crew to safety) would have been impossible due to the different orbital inclination of both vehicles.

NASA investigators determined on-orbit repair by the shuttle astronauts was possible but risky, primarily due to the uncertain resiliency of the repair using available materials.[48][49] Columbia did not carry the Canadarm, or Remote Manipulator System, which would normally be used for camera inspection or transporting a spacewalking astronaut to the wing. Therefore an unusual emergency extra-vehicular activity (EVA) would have been required. While there was no astronaut EVA training for maneuvering to the wing, astronauts are always prepared for a similarly difficult emergency EVA to close the external tank umbilical doors located on the orbiter underside, which is necessary for reentry. Similar methods could have reached the shuttle left wing for inspection or repair.[48]

For the repair, the CAIB determined the astronauts would have to use tools and small pieces of titanium, or other metal, scavenged from the crew cabin. These metals would help protect the wing structure and would be held in place during re-entry by a water-filled bag that had turned into ice in the cold of space. The ice and metal would help restore wing leading edge geometry, preventing a turbulent airflow over the wing and therefore keeping heating and burn-through levels low enough for the crew to survive re-entry and bail out before landing. Since the NASA team could not verify that the repairs would survive even a modified re-entry, the rescue option had a considerably higher chance of bringing Columbia's crew back alive.

My question: From reading all of that, do you think NASA made the right choice in not telling the astronauts that they may not survive re-entry so they could die quick and probably happily after completing a mission, or should they have told them astronauts so that they could make peace with themselves and speak to loved ones before attempting to repair the shuttle, get rescued or die.

Personally NASA should have attempted to rescue them with Atlantis, it's ridiculous that they didn't and they should be brought up on murder charges for denying the astronauts a chance to live. I hope whoever made that decision can't sleep at night.

I think they should have been told. They had the right to be, and it should have been up to them how they handled the news. Not up to someone else whether or not they even got the news.

Very true, I don't know what was going through the person who decided not to tell them's head.

Imagine a diver who is deep underwater and has run out of oxygen. Should a diver with an oxygen tank be sent down in order to save him?

It seems like a simple enough question, and yet people don't realize the risks that would be involved. They could very well end up with two dead people down there instead of one.

NASA had an extremely difficult problem here. They had to risk the lives of more astronauts in order to save the lives of the other. Not only that, but Space Shuttles aren't exactly the cheapest means of transportation. NASA had to balance the cards:

It's either we have one crew dead and once space shuttle lost, or we spend all of our energy and time to end up having two dead crews and two lost space shuttles. Not only that, but people need to realize that this rescue mission could have failed altogether.

All in all, I can guarantee that if I was in that situation I would not have liked to be told that I am going to die. It would make the entire trip horrible for every crew member on board, and it would just be an overall catastrophic failure of a mission as no one would really be able to function in that kind of condition. I feel that it was best to have them die a painless death than have them know they are going to die for the entire mission. Truly I can tell you that it would not have been as simple as it's portrayed in that wiki article. The amount of planning to dock Columbia at the ISS and wait for a rescue cannot simply be done over a time span of a shuttle flight. It takes months in proper training and preparation to do something like that.



I hardly think that this holds a whole lot of scientific merit, or even if it was possible with what was at Columbia's disposal. Water filled bag? Seriously? Even the terms being used like "bail out" don't sound very professional. I could be wrong, but it just looks fishy to me.

i completely agree that a rescue could have been and most likely would have been futile. However, the way it works imo is that anotherhumans life should not be risked when the danger is significant. However money should play no part in the rescue as that is putting a value on a life, which i dont see how anyone can, how can someone judge another persons worth?

The point which i found disturbing was that they weren't told. If i were to develop a terminal illness, that posed a threat to my life within the coming weeks and the hospital chose to not tell me, be it what they believe is in my best interest or not. I would sue and quite comfortably win the case, as it is my right. to know the situation. i believe the same applies here.

Companies always place the cost on human lives, regardless of what people like to say. I can remember one instance where Ford made a car and they knew that it the gas tank would explode from a rear end collision because they failed to install a $13 plastic part for the car. Ford ended up estimating that it would cost less to have people die instead of install the part in the vehicle.

Similarly to Maple Leaf foods causing the death of numerous people and paying $5 million (if I remember correctly) to each person dead.

It's how this society works. The astronauts knew that there was a chance of them dying when they went into space, so they decided that they would follow through with the mission.



It doesn't really apply here. A terminal illness is not the same thing as spontaneous death. You would suffer, and go through agony. The space shuttle crew didn't really feel anything when they died. It was an instant death. They didn't suffer, they didn't have anything to do. They died in a happy mood. Sure they probably felt the cockpit warming up and there being some failures, but the death experience was truly a completely different story. Think about it, would you like to know that you are going to die tomorrow? Or would you rather wake up, live a nice happy day and then die all of the sudden without you knowing a thing?

Why not just stop at the international space station and hang out there for a bit and give nasa time to prepare a repair flight or something like that.

sadly, i know that is the case. Companies do put a cost on human lives. However, nasa doesn't make money from its flights, not in the same way you described the companies above. Their main job when a shuttle leaves, is the safety of the people inside. companies like ford are moneygrabbing and greedy...

The point im getting at is regardless of how quick or painlessly they died, it was their right to know. How can anyone decide whether to tell you? how is it their decision?

I remember this day. Its weird the things you remember because I remember going to costco and getting 007 driving ps1 game. That game always reminds me of this

Do you want to know what is really sad about that example you provided? The fact that it was a cop car and that a couple of police officers lost their life due to Fords bs...