The Columbia Accident Investigation Board's independent investigation into the February 1, 2003, loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia and its seven-member crew lasted nearly seven months. A staff of more than 120, along with some 400
NASA engineers, supported the Board's 13 members. Investigators examined more than 30,000 documents, conducted more than 200 formal interviews, heard testimony from dozens of expert witnesses,and reviewed more than 3,000 inputs from the general public. In addition, more than 25,000 searchers combed vast stretches of the Western United States to retrieve the spacecraft's debris. In the process, Columbia's tragedy was compounded when two debris searchers with the U.S. Forest Service perished in a helicopter accident.
The Board recognized early on that the accident was probably not an anomalous, random event, but rather likely rooted to some degree in NASA's history and the human space flight program's culture. Accordingly, the Board broadened its mandate at the outset to include an investigation of a wide range of historical and organizational issues, including political and budgetary considerations, compromises, and changing priorities over the life of the Space Shuttle Program. The Board's conviction regarding the importance of these factors strengthened as the investigation progressed, with the result
that this report, in its findings, conclusions,and recommendations, places as much weight on these causal factors as on the more easily understood and corrected physical cause of the accident.
The physical cause of the loss of Columbia and its crew was a breach in the Thermal Protection System on the leading edge of the left wing, caused by a piece of insulating foam which separated from the left bipod ramp section of the External Tank at 81.7 seconds after launch, and struck the wing in the vicinity of the lower half of Reinforced CarbonCarbon panel number 8. During re-entry this breach in the Thermal Protection System allowed superheated air to penetrate through the leading edge insulation and progressively melt the aluminum structure of the left wing,resulting in a weakening of the structure until increasing aerodynamic forces caused loss of control, failure of the wing,and breakup of the Orbiter. This breakup occurred in a flight regime in
which, given the current design of the Orbiter, there was no possibility for the crew to survive.
The organizational causes of this accident are rooted in the including the Space Shuttle Program's history and culture, original compromises that were required to gain approval for the Shuttle, subsequent years of resource constraints, fluctuating priorities, schedule pressures mischaracterization of
the Shuttle as operational rather than developmental,of an agreed national vision for human space flight.traits and organizational practices detrimental to safety were reliance on past success as a substitute for sound engineering practices (such as testing to understand why systems were not performing in accordance organizational barriers that prevented effective communication of critical safety information and stifled professional differences of opinion; lack of integrated management across program elements; and the evolution of an informal chain of command and decision-making processes that operated outside the organization's rules.
This report discusses the attributes of an organization that could more safely and reliably operate the inherently risky Space Shuttle, but does not provide a detailed organizational prescription. Among those attributes are: a robust and independent program technical authority that has complete control over specifications and requirements, and waivers to them; an independent safety assurance organization with line authority over all levels of safety oversight; and an organizational culture that reflects the best haracteristics of a learning organization.
This report concludes with recommendations,some of which are specifically identified and prefaced as “before return to flight.” These recommendations are largely related to the physical cause of the accident,and include
preventing the loss of foam,improved imaging of the Space Shuttle stack from liftoff through separation of the External Tank, and on-orbit inspection and repair of the Thermal Protection System. The remaining recommendations, for the most part, stem from the Board's findings on organizational cause factors. While they are not “before return to flight” recommendations, they can be viewed as “continuing to fly” recommendations, as they capture the Board's thinking on what changes are necessary to operate the Shuttle and future
spacecraft safely in the mid-to long-term.
These recommendations reflect both the Board's strong support for return to flight at the earliest date consistent with the overriding objective of safety,and the Board's conviction that operation of the Space Shuttle, and all human spaceflight, is a developmental activity with high inherent risks.
