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 the book “American Moonshot: John F. Kennedy and the Great Space Race.” CNN’s Original Series “Space Shuttle Columbia: Last Flight” reveals the events that ultimately led to the disaster. The four-part documentary will premiere on Sunday at 9pm ET/PT. The opinions expressed in this review are solely those of the author. View more opinions about CNN.
At the beginning of this century, there were only two major players in human space exploration in the world: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Russian Space Agency Roscosmos. A decade later, the skies were crowded compared to a host of private companies vying to restart the space race with Russia. Internationally, China had regular manned missions, and the United Arab Emirates, Japan, and European countries were approaching success.
The turning point between the two eras was an unforeseen tragedy: the disintegration of the space shuttle Columbia on February 1, 2003. This incident occurred almost exactly 17 years after an earlier shuttle, Challenger, burned down shortly after liftoff.
This 1986 disaster sparked a rising tide of public anger against NASA; This was mainly because senior officials had been given very specific advice to cancel the launch. Simply put, the weather was too cold for the equipment. The intrepid American space program survived the Challenger horror, but NASA’s self-doubt never abated. Even two decades later, after Columbia exploded during reentry, two fatal failures shattered much of the American public’s faith in NASA.
Seven astronauts were aboard Columbia for its 16-day mission, primarily to conduct scientific experiments. The mid-January launch went smoothly except for one thing. The team assigned to review video of the journey noticed what appeared to be a loose piece of the protective foam layer insulating the shuttle’s external tank. Shortly thereafter, a briefcase-sized piece of foam became dislodged and hit the forward part of the left wing. Analysis of the malfunction was forwarded to others at NASA, but the problem was deemed minor.
Shuttles were always damaged during missions. It was just something to be expected. “There’s a term at NASA called accepted risk,” explained Nancy Currie-Gregg, who has flown four shuttle flights, the last in 2002. “There is no such thing as zero-risk spaceflight, but how do you decide how much risk there is?” acceptable?”
As other shuttle missions returned safely with “shattered” surface pavements and the daring Columbia brought home astronauts from 27 previous flights, many NASA officials had become complacent. They went so far as to reassure the pilot and commander via email that “there are no concerns… We have seen the same phenomenon on many other flights and there are absolutely no concerns regarding entry.”
NASA officials also decided not to use spy satellite photography to further examine the shuttle damage. If so, it was possible for the astronauts to repair the spaceplane or at least abandon it for shelter on the International Space Station. Instead, as Columbia descended from space, superheated atmospheric gases entered through the gaping hole left by the dislodged foam pile. The structure was compromised and the shuttle disintegrated in mid-air. Debris spread across Texas and Louisiana.
unknown content element
–
Following the disaster, NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe said in a statement, “This is a truly tragic day for the NASA family and the families of the astronauts who flew STS-107, and it is equally tragic for the Nation.”
As the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) noted in its final report, “NASA organizational culture had as much to do with this accident as the foam.” All NASA launches are suspended for two years. While the shuttles flew again after Columbia, the schedule was disrupted and curtailed.
But while NASA floundered, Elon Musk’s startup SpaceX planned launches of its own. Musk’s venture initially proved how difficult rocket science was, but his company finally found success with its reusable Falcon Heavy rocket in 2008. The billionaire’s club was usurping NASA in space. Around the same time, Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin was developing rockets aimed primarily at suborbital flight. United Launch Alliance brought together two legacy aerospace companies, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, in a joint effort to develop and launch massive rockets. All four companies are thriving in the space industry today.
Virgin Galactic, an American company run by Sir Richard Branson, is dedicated to space tourism rather than exploration. Likewise, Axiom Space was founded in 2016 to establish a space station for adventurers. And now SpaceX aims to return humans to the moon.
Space entrepreneurs were spurred into action by the chance to make money during NASA’s recession after the collapse of Columbia. Far from feeling threatened, NASA encouraged many private companies with large contracts. The agency already had a long history of working with subcontractors; was using his pocketbook to drive aerospace development; this tradition has adapted seamlessly to the current space economy.
Whether the age of greed in space will be driven by the idealism of President John F. Kennedy’s American Moonshot is an open question. Certainly, the seven astronauts who performed physics experiments day and night aboard Columbia had, just as JFK hoped, “sailed this new sea, because there is new knowledge to be gained and new rights to be won, and they must do it.” must be earned and used for the advancement of all people.”
For more CNN news and newsletters, create an account at CNN.com