AIP FYI #115: Science Committee Begins Shuttle Accident Hearings

The House Science Committee has started a series of hearings on the
Space Shuttle Columbia accident. Committee members held their first
oversight hearing last week, calling in the chairman of the Columbia
Accident Investigation Board, Admiral Harold Gehman, to discuss the
board’s findings and recommendations. Straight-talking committee
chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) did not mince words in his opening
remarks, describing NASA’s “organizational and cultural
deficiencies,” and stating, “The sad fact is that the loss of the
Columbia and her crew was preventable. This is not even close to
being a case in which the problems could only be seen in
hindsight.” There were no arguments from the other side of the
aisle in Boehlert’s assessment of the Board’s work, with committee
members joining the chairman in giving Gehman standing applause at
the end of the hearing.

Boehlert sees his committee’s role as more than just reviewing the
cause of the accident. As he stated, “we need to make fundamental
decisions about the future of the Shuttle program and of the manned
space flight program.” Boehlert added, “we need to better define
NASA’s overarching human space flight vision – something that has
been lacking for more than a generation. That won’t be easy, and it
can only be done after hearings that will enable us to make a
clear-eyed appraisal of the costs, benefits and risks of different
options.”

Other committee members were equally critical. Ranking Minority
Member Ralph Hall (D-TX) decried the lack of a crew escape vehicle,
while Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Chairman Dana Rohrabacher
(R-CA) said NASA may have been on the wrong track with the shuttle,
as it has cost too many lives and too much money.

Gehman was unambiguous about the cause of the accident. “The foam
did it,” he told the committee. The Board wanted to determine, he
said, “was this a legitimate surprise?” “We were not very pleased
with what we found,” Gehman testified.

There were several prominent themes in this hearing. One was
outlined by Rohrabacher in his questioning when he asked,
“Shouldn’t we minimize the use of the shuttle?” Yes, replied
Gehman, it should be replaced as quickly as possible. Saying that
NASA’s present shuttle management scheme is inadequate, Gehman said
that NASA can operate the shuttle for another ten years if the
agency is very careful, ensuring that tiny signals of possible
problems do not continue to be ignored. Boehlert noted that the
agency has granted 3,200 waivers for shuttle performance, 1,000 of
which had not been reviewed in the last ten years. The Board found
that many NASA workers feel “enormous schedule pressure,” Gehman
said, while NASA managers reported that they did not. Gehman told
the committee that schedule pressure did not cause the accident..

Another hearing theme was the need for an independent safety review
panel. Advocated by both Republican and Democratic members, Gehman
urged that this panel be similar to those used in some missile
development programs. The new panel should not be independent of
NASA, but should be separate from the shuttle program and from
budget and schedule pressure. Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) predicted that
such a panel would challenge the basic culture of NASA.

Also discussed at several points during the hearing was the need for
a vision for the space agency. Gehman made an important point when
he said that it is not just NASA that needs a vision of what the
future space program should be, but the nation as a whole. Boehlert
added that NASA may have to adjust its vision, since no agency gets
all the money that it wants, and that Congress needs to agree to
this vision.

Another prominent theme was the usefulness of manned space flight.
In response to several questions from Rep Vernon Ehlers (R-MI),
Gehman described the configuration of the shuttle and its operations
such as re-entry as “extraordinarily dangerous” to the crew, but
said that the Accident Board “really didn’t do much of a study” on
human space flight. Rep. Nick Smith (R-MI) made clear his
preference for unmanned space exploration, calling for an analysis
of the costs and benefits of sending humans into space.

Toward the end of the hearing, when discussing NASA and its vision,
Gehman said, “I have confidence in NASA, it’s a great
organization.” Another witnesses, MIT Professor Sheila Widnall,
also a member of the Accident Board, concurred, adding “NASA needs a
tough partner . . . [to] get a common agreement about what the
vision is.” Addressing the committee members, she said, “It would
be you guys.”

###############

Richard M. Jones

Media and Government Relations Division

The American Institute of Physics

fyi@aip.org http://www.aip.org/gov

(301) 209-3094

##END##########