CNN Investigates 'Space Shuttle Columbia: The Final Flight' (cnn.com) 59
CNN revisits 2003's disastrous landing of the Space Shuttle Columbia tonight with two "immersive" specials co-produced by BBC and Mindhouse Productions "featuring exclusive interviews and revealing never-before-broadcast footage," according to an announcement — with two more specials airing next week.
You can watch a trailer here. Across four episodes, the story of the ticking-clock of Columbia's final mission is told in dramatic detail, beginning months before the troubled launch, unfolding across the sixteen days in orbit, and concluding with the investigation into the tragic loss of the seven astronauts' lives. Weaving together intimate footage shot by the astronauts themselves inside the orbiter, exclusive first-hand testimony from family members of the Shuttle's crew, key players at NASA — some of whom have never spoken before — and journalists who covered the story on the ground, the series paints an intimate portrait of the women and men onboard and uncovers in forensic detail the trail of events and missed opportunities that ultimately led to disaster.
CNN says the first two episodes will livestream tonight at 9 p.m. EST (time-delayed on the west coast until 9 p.m.PST) — and then be available on-demand starting Monday — "for pay TV subscribers via CNN.com, CNN connected TV and mobile apps." CNN's web site offers a "preview" of its live TV offerings here.
They're promising "the inside story of one America's most iconic institutions, uncovering how financial pressures and a culture of complacency may have contributed to the events of February 1, 2003. The series also reflects on the legacy of the Space Shuttle era, serving as a timely exploration of the challenges and inherent dangers that remain relevant to space travel today."
On its web site CNN has also published two companion articles — one by Rice history professor Douglas Brinkley arguing that NASA "was America's crown jewel. After the Columbia disaster it was never quite the same." Because other shuttle missions had returned safely with "shredded" surface tiles — and because the stalwart Columbia had brought astronauts home from 27 previous flights — many NASA officials were lulled into complacency. 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 absolutely no concern for entry."
NASA officials also decided against enlisting spy satellite photography to examine the shuttle damage more thoroughly. If they had, it's possible that the astronauts could have repaired the spaceplane or at least abandoned it for refuge on the International Space Station...
As the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) noted in its final report, "the NASA organizational culture had as much to do with this accident as the foam." All of NASA's launches were suspended for two years. While the shuttles eventually flew again, post-Columbia, the program was stunted and curtailed.
The article notes that since then SpaceX, Blue Origin, and the United Launch Alliance (Lockheed Martin and Boeing) "are thriving today in the space industry," along with Virgin Galactic and Axiom Space. "NASA, far from feeling threatened, has encouraged many of the private companies with massive contracts. The agency already had a long history of dealing with sub-contractors, using its pocketbook to steer aerospace development; that tradition has adjusted seamlessly to the current space economy."
In the other article CNN Space & Science writer Jackie Wattles notes that when America later retired its Space Shuttle program in 2011, "no U.S. astronaut would travel to space on an American-made rocket for nearly a decade."
You can watch a trailer here. Across four episodes, the story of the ticking-clock of Columbia's final mission is told in dramatic detail, beginning months before the troubled launch, unfolding across the sixteen days in orbit, and concluding with the investigation into the tragic loss of the seven astronauts' lives. Weaving together intimate footage shot by the astronauts themselves inside the orbiter, exclusive first-hand testimony from family members of the Shuttle's crew, key players at NASA — some of whom have never spoken before — and journalists who covered the story on the ground, the series paints an intimate portrait of the women and men onboard and uncovers in forensic detail the trail of events and missed opportunities that ultimately led to disaster.
CNN says the first two episodes will livestream tonight at 9 p.m. EST (time-delayed on the west coast until 9 p.m.PST) — and then be available on-demand starting Monday — "for pay TV subscribers via CNN.com, CNN connected TV and mobile apps." CNN's web site offers a "preview" of its live TV offerings here.
They're promising "the inside story of one America's most iconic institutions, uncovering how financial pressures and a culture of complacency may have contributed to the events of February 1, 2003. The series also reflects on the legacy of the Space Shuttle era, serving as a timely exploration of the challenges and inherent dangers that remain relevant to space travel today."
On its web site CNN has also published two companion articles — one by Rice history professor Douglas Brinkley arguing that NASA "was America's crown jewel. After the Columbia disaster it was never quite the same." Because other shuttle missions had returned safely with "shredded" surface tiles — and because the stalwart Columbia had brought astronauts home from 27 previous flights — many NASA officials were lulled into complacency. 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 absolutely no concern for entry."
NASA officials also decided against enlisting spy satellite photography to examine the shuttle damage more thoroughly. If they had, it's possible that the astronauts could have repaired the spaceplane or at least abandoned it for refuge on the International Space Station...
As the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) noted in its final report, "the NASA organizational culture had as much to do with this accident as the foam." All of NASA's launches were suspended for two years. While the shuttles eventually flew again, post-Columbia, the program was stunted and curtailed.
The article notes that since then SpaceX, Blue Origin, and the United Launch Alliance (Lockheed Martin and Boeing) "are thriving today in the space industry," along with Virgin Galactic and Axiom Space. "NASA, far from feeling threatened, has encouraged many of the private companies with massive contracts. The agency already had a long history of dealing with sub-contractors, using its pocketbook to steer aerospace development; that tradition has adjusted seamlessly to the current space economy."
In the other article CNN Space & Science writer Jackie Wattles notes that when America later retired its Space Shuttle program in 2011, "no U.S. astronaut would travel to space on an American-made rocket for nearly a decade."
Same old tired 'end of career confessions' (Score:1)
Why does the media take any of this at end of career confession seriously?
If it was that serious back 20 years ago, why didn't those persons send the information to the congressional investigation committee?
Credibility lacks when people chose their career over telling the truth and then having a 'end of career' confession....
It's worse now, with persons writing their own tell all book late in life, using social media and unprovable legal / government complaints to promote their book and get social media att
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because "proper channels" are designed for coverups, not transparency or oversight. The only guy to go to prison for the CIA's torture program, a former CIA agent named John Kiriakou who revealed its existence, was told by Sen John Kerry to stop investigating CIA war crimes in Afghanistan.
https://www.salon.com/2013/07/... [salon.com]
See also, Manning and Snowden, who tried raising their c
Columbia could not have sought refuge at the ISS (Score:4, Informative)
I guess there's a reason the guy was history professor and not a rocket scientist. Columbia was too heavy to reach the orbit the ISS was in. That's why it was never used in the construction of the ISS. Besides that, Columbia was in a completely different orbital plane. I'm sure there many things that could have and should have been done, as is always the case when looking backwards. But refuge at the ISS was certainly not one of them. I realize orbital mechanics involve math, but this guy really should have at least asked some questions before spouting off.
Re: Columbia could not have sought refuge at the I (Score:2)
Shouldn't it have been capable of picking up enough speed to skip off of the atmosphere and into a higher orbit? Sure, it's risky, but given the alternative...
Re: Columbia could not have sought refuge at the I (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately no. That's not how orbital mechanics work (it's counter-intuitive stuff that I don't understand very well). If you're interested, Scott Manley on youtube has done a few videos on orbital mechanics.
Besides that, the heat shield was damaged, so skipping off the atmosphere wasn't possible.
Re: Columbia could not have sought refuge at the (Score:1, Informative)
No. The atmosphere 'bounce' would have
A) Cost more momentum due to the natural aerobraking that would happen than it would gain
B) cause more heat than re-entry, where they are trying to slow down already, not hit it harder. They effectively would have ended the exact same way.
They were doomed before the vehicle cleared the tower and there was nothing but an early abort during launch that likely wouldnt have gone well either
Re: Columbia could not have sought refuge at the (Score:2)
While I'm not asserting viability here, I didn't think B is accurate. You're talking two drastically different angles between re-entry and and skipping off the less dense portion of the atmosphere. One will result in more heat than the other.
Though the reason it won't work is it turns out the source material I was watching (space race docuseries) about bouncing off of the atmosphere into a higher orbit is wrong, mainly because the "bounce" doesn't actually send it into a higher orbit. But the shuttle itself
Re:Columbia could not have sought refuge at the IS (Score:4, Informative)
Columbia was too heavy to reach the orbit the ISS was in. That's why it was never used in the construction of the ISS. Besides that, Columbia was in a completely different orbital plane.
Same issue in the movie Gravity [wikipedia.org].
From Here’s what ‘Gravity’ gets right and wrong about space [washingtonpost.com]:
Q: 1. The Hubble Space Telescope, the International Space Station and China’s Tiangong-1 are close enough to travel between them.
A: False. They’re so far apart, in fact, that it’s difficult to visualize. Not only are the three at different altitudes, but they’re also on different orbits — making it very unusual for them to even get within a few hundred miles of each other. In fact, when Cuaron asked Grazier about that particular issue, Grazier told him the closest the two would ever possibly get was “the distance between here and Mexico.” They were in Hollywood at the time.
Q: 6. Space debris from a low-flying satellite could knock out communications satellites.
A: False — mostly. [see article for explanation]
Re: (Score:2)
[see article for explanation]
Let me guess: Much higher orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
You're correct. The satellites in question are at 36k km above earth, where Hubble is 545km.
To hit both you'd need to destroy a satellite in a very unusual orbit at a very specific time and direction to get the right debris field.
Re: Columbia could not have sought refuge at the I (Score:2)
I actually laughed when the Clooney character made the Facebook comment. At the time there was no such thing as starlink, and any and all satellites that delivered internet service were WAAY above the height of the ISS, and more importantly, normal backbone connectivity is not and probably never will be carried via satellite. At best, TLS might have broken in any data centers that relied on GPS for timekeeping, which probably would have been fixed by the time Clooney's watch said it was time for the debris
Satellites and debris fields (Score:2)
Even servers that depend upon GPS time are designed to keep operating through momentary interuptions, even hours/days. Configuring them to use an alternate time source isn't that hard either.
Hell, even if Starlink is present - consider that there are 5.5k of them. You're probably not taking out a substantial fraction of them at once. And if the debris field is that low, it's going to degrade fast, so you won't have a long lasting Kessler syndrome.
Re:Columbia could not have sought refuge at the IS (Score:5, Informative)
Columbia wasn't too heavy to reach the ISS, it was just less desirable because of its weight.
In fact, if it hadn't been lost when it did, Columbia would have been fitted out for STS-118, which was intended to deliver a truss and stowage system to the ISS in November 2003.
The *only* reason Columbia couldnt have used the ISS as a refuge was because it didnt have the fuel to change orbits by that much.
Re:Columbia could not have sought refuge at the IS (Score:5, Informative)
Columbia wasn't too heavy to reach the ISS, it was just less desirable because of its weight.
In fact, if it hadn't been lost when it did, Columbia would have been fitted out for STS-118, which was intended to deliver a truss and stowage system to the ISS in November 2003.
The *only* reason Columbia couldnt have used the ISS as a refuge was because it didnt have the fuel to change orbits by that much.
I was just about to say the same thing. After all, the Columbia did servicing missions for the HST, which at 515 km, is considerably higher than the ISS.
To move into the orbit of the ISS, the shuttle would likely have had to go from apogee of its orbit at 285 km up to the perigee of ISS's orbit at 370 km (or possibly slightly higher), give or take a little bit. To do this, it could do a Hohmann transfer, where it makes the orbit more elliptical, then gets to the higher orbit and rounds out the orbit again.
You can find out the Delta-V required for various simple transfers by looking at the table on page 19 here [dtic.mil]. There's even a line telling how much delta-V it takes to go from 270 km to 380 km, which is almost exactly what would have been required to move into the ISS's orbit. The total is just 63.27 m/s of delta-V. This is only a fraction of of the shuttle's roughly 300 m/s Delta-V fuel capacity for the OMS engines, and considerably less than the roughly 90 m/s of delta-V that a shuttle typically expends during its de-orbit burn while landing.
Unfortunately, the problem is that the Columbia's orbital inclination was also very different. So although it might have been possible to make the shuttle crash *into* the ISS at a very high speed, it would not have been possible to change the inclination adequately to dock with it. Columbia was at an inclination of 39 degrees, and ISS is at 51 degrees. To simplify the math, if we pretend that we're working with a circular orbit, and assume a roughly 7,778 m/s orbital velocity, 12 degrees of inclination change would take a whopping 813 m/s of delta-V, and that's before adding the 63 m/s for the orbital altitude change or the delta-V for matching speed and docking.
Add that up, and you'd basically need on the order of 3x as much propellant as the shuttle would have been carrying, and that's before factoring in any fuel that had been used earlier on the mission.
Re:Columbia could not have sought refuge at the IS (Score:5, Interesting)
Fun fact: If China had launched their Tiangong-2 space station a couple of decades earlier, it actually *might* have *barely* been possible for Columbia to reach *that* orbit, which has an inclination that is only 3.79 degrees off from that of Columbia's final mission. But for some reason, every space station that the U.S. or Russia has ever launched has had an orbital inclination of roughly 50 degrees +/- 2. *shrugs*
But the interesting thing is that although it would not have been possible to get Columbia to the ISS, the reverse may not have been true. I don't know how much fuel was left in Zvezda when it actually reached its ISS orbit, but when it left the ground just a couple of years before the Columbia disaster, it had a whopping 5.1 km/s of delta-V, which at least theoretically would have been enough to not only match Columbia's orbit, but also re-match the ISS's orbit afterwards and still have something like 60% of its fuel left. It was, after all, designed to provide lift for ISS for decades.
This assumes, of course, that you could actually aim the engines adequately (possibly a big "if", given that the module was mainly designed to apply thrust in one direction, give or take). This also assumes that they could pull off such an insane operation without years of planning, and that they could have pulled off the spacewalk between ships required to evacuate (because I'm not sure Zvezda or Columbia was equipped with appropriate docking adapters). But at least theoretically it might have been within the realm of possibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, but the Shuttle does not need to survive the process. How much mass could you jettison from the shuttle if the only requirement is that the astronauts survive the transfer to the ISS? We can't increase the thrust or the fuel, but mass isn't fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, but the Shuttle does not need to survive the process. How much mass could you jettison from the shuttle if the only requirement is that the astronauts survive the transfer to the ISS? We can't increase the thrust or the fuel, but mass isn't fixed.
You definitely can't jettison the overwhelming majority of its mass, and you're talking about almost an order of magnitude thrust shortage here. Realistically, I don't think you'd have time or materials to unbolt the OMS engines from the shuttle, attach them to SpaceHab somehow, and build an emergency rig out of them plus the fuel pods, some tubing, and some sort of manual controller for the valves. And even if you did, I'm not sure if you could get enough oxygen supply for them to survive the transit to
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you VERY much for this interesting clarification.
Re: (Score:2)
>I guess there's a reason the guy was history professor and not a rocket scientist. Columbia was too heavy to reach the orbit the ISS was in.
Come now, do you really expect CNN to do even the most rudimentary of research before preparing hours of content for you to consume?
Re: Columbia could not have sought refuge at the I (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Incorrect options summary (Score:4, Informative)
No. Wrong orbit, insufficient fuel to reach the ISS. No tools or supplies for repair.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm...perhaps something involving a docked Soyuz capsule. Going to the ISS wouldn't be necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing involving the ISS was possible. Columbia's orbit was different from ISS; it takes a LOT of energy to change that, and neither had that level of fuel. Orbital mechanics is hard.
Re: (Score:2)
So a docked Soyuz capsule couldn't have been sent as either a lifeboat or with materials necessary for repair? You know, given it has to go to a lower orbit anyways, and the way it does so is by doing a de-orbit burn against its current velocity. My intuition tells me there's enough fuel in both the capsule and the shuttle to meet the same orbit.
Re:Incorrect options summary (Score:5, Informative)
Columbia was in an "ideal" orbit for a space shuttle, because it was just carrying out a science mission and not visiting anything.
ISS is in its own orbit.
Sure, a Soyuz from the ISS could have lowered itself to the same height as Columbia (ISS is at 400km, Columbia was at 170km), but they are still going in very different directions.
Its the change in direction that needs the energy here - and neither Columbia nor Soyuz has the required energy available to make that change.
So lets say that you manage to lower the orbit of a Soyuz to the right level, and you are lucky enough that you cross paths with Columbia on your current orbit...
Without changing direction, you are trying to jump on a train which is going through a station at full speed without stopping. And you might get *one* chance at that because on the next orbit your paths wont intersect at all. Theres no prospect of docking or anything, you are going too fast in different directions. And even if you do jump correctly, you are going to go splat against Columbia because of the speed difference.
Re: Incorrect options summary (Score:2)
Wait so the shuttle went in a retrograde orbit?
Re: Incorrect options summary (Score:4, Informative)
No, no ones saying that...
ISS is at approx 51 degrees inclination.
Columbia was in an orbit at approx 39 degrees inclination.
That difference doesn't sound like a lot, but it is.
People have asked the same questions as you for the past 21 years, and each and every time the answer has been the same - the math just doesn't work out, there was no way for Columbia to get to the ISS or for something to get from the ISS to Columbia. Those ~12 degrees difference in orbital inclination takes a *lot* to overcome - people just never understand the amount of energy needed to do things in space, its not like Star Wars where you point and go.
Re: Incorrect options summary (Score:4, Insightful)
That difference doesn't sound like a lot, but it is.
Indeed, going by my KSP experience, that sort of change is going to require like 10% of the fuel I used to circularize my orbit in the first place. Just getting back into atmosphere to leave orbit is a mouse fart in comparison.
Re: Incorrect options summary (Score:2)
its not like Star Wars where you point and go.
Wouldn't that depend on how much you're being influenced by gravity? And Star Wars seems to have taken the creative license to just ignore gravity completely, or just create it at will. Probably mass as well given they built the latest death star into a planet that they can just move willy nilly. Though I've never been a fan of Star Wars.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's just about inertia and how much energy it takes to change your velocity vector.
Re: (Score:2)
Orbital mechanics is a mind fuck all in its own.
Even if you are in an identical orbit to the ISS, and 500km behind it on the orbital path, how do you catch it up?
Well, you have to slow down.
By slowing down, you put yourself in a lower orbit, which actually is a shorter orbit, which means you orbit faster, which means you catch the ISS up. You then speed back up to slow down to match the ISS orbit.
If you thrust yourself toward the ISS (ie by firing your rockets behind you), you slow down in relation to the
Re: Incorrect options summary (Score:2)
I'm already aware of all of this, what I'm not understanding is why you can't alter the inclination and altitude simultaneously with the right thrust vector.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, no one is saying you cant.
But you consistently seem to avoid the answer being given to you.
Its about the change in energy involved. Which means thrusting in a particular direction for a particular amount of time.
And none of the elements involved in this thread has the energy available to make the change in orbit. If they had more fuel, then they could have thrusted for longer and changed orbits. But they didn't have the fuel available. So they couldn't meet the energy requirements. So they cant
Re: Incorrect options summary (Score:2)
I'm probably missing a critical element of physics here (I never took a single physics course beyond high school.) AFAIK with orbital mechanics we're just dealing with Newtonian physics. The river analogy just doesn't make any sense to me because you've got the river always pushing against you. Even if you slow down, you'll eventually pick up more kinetic energy, so doing a little is as you said -- basically just a waste.
But in space the only thing you need to counter is the kinetic energy that you already
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I see where you are going wrong.
Under newtonian physics, a body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, except insofar as it is acted upon by a force.
The moment you thrust in a particular direction away from your direction of travel, that is the "acted upon by a force" - your direction changes.
The moment that thrust stops, the change in direction stops, and you revert to "in motion at a constant speed in a straight line".
Your thrust needs to be constant to fully change dire
Re: Incorrect options summary (Score:2)
Isn't that fundamentally the same as how a gyroscope works?
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it isn't about orbital elevation - that is not that hard to change. It's about inclination - the angle of the orbit vs. the Earth. That takes a very large amount of energy (i.e. fuel) to change. In general, the only time that's changed is for satellites headed to geostationary orbit (when the satellite ends up directly over the equator), and that requires special stages designed just for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, no, sorry, like the others explained. Orbital mechanics again.
Also have you seen a Soyuz capsule? Even if it had been possible, that thing barely fits three humans. It's tiny. I saw one in a museum in Seattle. Each person had to have a custom seat insert to cushion their bodies on landing.
Re: (Score:2)
Some experts have suggested a different re-entry technique could reduce the stress on the compromised side of the craft by putting more burden on the good side. Not guaranteed to work, but increase their odds. Had they let the spy satellite take a look, things could have ended better.
Re: Incorrect options summary (Score:2)
Side-slip. Like they did when landing the Gimli Glider (but for different reasons). Keeping the damaged left wing behind the nose shock wave.
The risk would have been putting higher aerodynamic and/or thermal loads on other parts of the shuttle, resulting in a break-up anyway.
The alternatives were to tell the crew nothing and accept the high risk of death. Or involve them in a solution which might have an equally high risk of death.
Re: (Score:1)
> The risk would have been putting higher aerodynamic and/or thermal loads on other parts of the shuttle, resulting in a break-up anyway.
There is a margin of error for "normal" tiles. Yes, it would definitely add more risk to other parts of the shuttle, but there was a shot they could handle it.
And it's not all-or-nothing; they could have switched back and forth between the normal entry technique and side-slip.
I recall watching this. (Score:1)
All previous missions damaged by launch debris (Score:2)
“A June 2003 article in the publication Florida Today reported that a study of NASA records showed that all 113 shuttle missions flown before the Columbia disaster were damaged by launch debris. It was noted that connectors to the external fuel tank, known as the intertank, shed the most foam. This area also is most susceptible to harboring ice. The article explained that when workers apply foam to the intertank and bipods (whic
UK Release (Score:1)
For those in the UK this is currently on iPlayer as 'The Space Shuttle That Fell to Earth'.
Annoying one-sidedness (Score:5, Insightful)
The two Shuttle disasters have generated and continue to generate far more media attention including long-form documentaries than the entire rest of the Space Shuttle program put together. Tell me more about what those 133 missions did, instead of always and only playing the disaster tourist.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of them are relatively boring - launch a bunch of satellites, capture a bunch of satellites and service them. Many satellites are classified.
The "exciting" missions were well documented - Hubble was laucnhed from t
Columbia hit me harder (Score:2)
When I was in Grade 8, on April 14th, 1981, our Science Teacher trundled a TV into the classroom so we could watch Columbia land at Edwards after her first mission into space.
I always remembered watching with amazement when that "spaceplane" landed. When we lost her, I was crushed. Rest in Peace, STS-107.
Good job CNN (Score:1)
glory (Score:2)
Trying to relive the glory days.
Alternatively (Score:2)
My late ex, who was an angineer at the Cape for 17 years (and worked on Shuttle), but was no longer there when Columbia went down, always disagreed with the loss of tiles as the cause. She maintained that they always lost tiles, and her opinion was stress microfractures in the hydraulic lines in the wings.
Loss of the hydraulics would turn the Shuttle into, as she put it, "a Mach 5 ring of car keys". Has anyone ever looked at the recovered hydraulic lines?
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't missing tiles that brought down the Columbia but damage to the brittle RCC (Reinforced Carbon-Carbon) panels on the wing leading edge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I watched Columbia fly over my city in New Zealand a few hours before it was going to re-enter and imagined how busy the crew would have been at that time. I remember feeling a bit nervous when NASA didn't announce an emergency spacewalk to check the damaged wing.