News: 0173524538

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

CNN Reporter 'Still Haunted' By Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster (cnn.com)

(Sunday April 14, 2024 @08:54PM (EditorDavid) from the days-of-remembrance dept.)


After nearly 11 years as CNN's space correspondent, Miles O'Brien [1]found himself in 2003 at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida covering the launch of the space shuttle Columbia:

> As part of the post-launch routine, NASA began sharing several replays of the launch from various cameras trained on the vehicle. And that was when we saw it. Producer Dave Santucci called me into our live truck, and said, "You got to look at this." It was kind of a grainy image of what looked like a puff of smoke, as if someone dropped a bag of flour on the ground and it broke open. We played it over and over again, and it did not look good at all. The giant orange fuel tank was filled with super cold liquid hydrogen and oxygen, so it was enveloped in insulating foam. A big piece of the foam had broken away near a strut called the "bipod," striking the leading edge of the orbiter's left wing. It was made of reinforced carbon to protect the aluminum structure of the spacecraft from the searing heat of re-entry from space.

>

> I reached out to some of my sources inside the shuttle program. Everyone had seen it, of course, but the people I spoke with cautioned me not to worry. The foam was very light, and it had fallen off on earlier missions and nothing of concern had happened as a result... I wish I hadn't taken my eye off the ball. Space was my beat, and I was uniquely positioned to put this concerning event into the public domain. Like NASA's leadership, I went through a process of convincing myself that it was going to be okay. But I had this sinking feeling. It didn't feel right. A spacecraft re-entering the atmosphere at 17,500 miles an hour — much faster than a rifle bullet — is enveloped in a glowing inferno of plasma...

>

> [As it returned to earth 16 days later] the communication between the ground and the orbiter became non-routine. Producers in the control room realized the gravity of the situation, and we cut to a commercial break to get me off the couch. As I was making my way across the newsroom, I started heaving. I knew in an instant that they were all gone. There was no survivable scenario. I was sickened. It was like a body blow. Somehow I got my act together and started talking. I felt like it was my responsibility to mention the foam strike, to get the information out there to the public. About an hour after Columbia had disintegrated, I shared with a huge global audience what I knew... "That bipod is the place where they think a little piece of foam fell off and hit the leading edge of that wing."

>

> During the mission, I could have easily done a story about the foam strike, spreading the word that some NASA engineers believed there may be some reason for concern. What if I had done that? It might have made a difference.

"A rescue mission would not have been impossible," the article concludes, "and I feel certain that if NASA managers saw that gaping hole in Columbia's wing, they would've tried.

"We will never know for sure, but I do know how so many of us on the ground failed to do our jobs during that mission. It still haunts me."

CNN broadcasts the last two episodes of its four-part series Space Shuttle Columbia: The Final Flight tonight at 9 p.m. EST (time-delayed on the west coast until 9 p.m.PST). CNN's web site offers a " [2]preview" of its live TV offerings here .

The news episodes (along with past episodes) will also be available on-demand starting Monday — "for pay TV subscribers via CNN.com, CNN connected TV and mobile apps." It's also available for purchase [3]on Amazon Prime .



[1] https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/14/opinions/columbia-disaster-final-flight-obrien/index.html

[2] https://www.cnn.com/videos/live

[3] https://www.amazon.com/Part-1/dp/B0CVY1GNXB/



Chief O'Brien (Score:2)

by XanC ( 644172 )

I would think Chief O'Brien would have known how to handle this situation.

Re: (Score:2)

by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 )

He's haunted because he couldn't get to the transporter room fast enough to save them.

I'm still haunted by it, and I watched it on TV (Score:2)

by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 )

Though not as bad as watching Budd Dwyer shoot himself on live TV.

Like so many others... (Score:4, Insightful)

by Temkin ( 112574 )

All I can say is... Go ahead, be haunted. Pray to whatever deity you believe in for forgiveness. But coming out 20+ years later... Narcissism & bad engineering decisions seem to go hand in hand. But Narcissism and journalism? They're joined at the hip. To think you as a journalist had any extra insight, or knowledge... Please... Spare us your bleating...

Re: (Score:2)

by Temkin ( 112574 )

> So you're mad that a journalist did his job and wrote about something he experienced?

Mad? No I'm at peace with the Shuttle program's mistakes. If anything, I should be mad that he didn't perform actual journalism back in the late 80's or early 90's when it might have made a difference. But even there, it seemed like we all got lulled into a sense of complacency.

What I can be mad about... Is the self promotion... "I was there, I knew something was wrong!"... 20+ years later. Just spare us, and more importantly, spare the families, and the large numbers of first responder's that walked m

Re: (Score:2)

by christoban ( 3028573 )

> I should be mad that he didn't perform actual journalism back in the late 80's or early 90's when it might have made a difference.

Yeah, he kicks himself over that.

> What I can be mad about... Is the self promotion... "I was there, I knew something was wrong!"... 20+ years later.

O_O

He wasn't "self promoting." Jesus!

Re: (Score:2)

by kmoser ( 1469707 )

It could be construed that 20 years after his initial failure to investigate, he milked his mistake for another story, i.e. more eyeballs. It would seem less mercenary if another reporter had written the story about him.

Re: Like so many others... (Score:5, Insightful)

by kenh ( 9056 )

He saw it, the engineers saw it, they dismissed it, now he thinks "if only I, a journalist, had shared my special insight into something NASA dismissed I could have, single-handedly, lead the nation to dream up a successful rescue mission!"

Is everyone at CNN as so self-centered as Jim Acosta?

Re: (Score:2)

by christoban ( 3028573 )

He literally said if HE had done something he MAY have been able to make a difference. And he's totally correct!

WTF is wrong with some of you people?

Re: (Score:2)

by WaffleMonster ( 969671 )

> He saw it, the engineers saw it, they dismissed it, now he thinks "if only I, a journalist, had shared my special insight into something NASA dismissed I could have, single-handedly, lead the nation to dream up a successful rescue mission!"

> Is everyone at CNN as so self-centered as Jim Acosta?

I liked Miles as reporters go but find it strange the idea something could have been done persists with the benefit of hindsight.

There have been times in history where a single reporter asking public questions have lead to the unexpected. For example a reporters question to John Kerry during the Obama administration lead to Syria willingly giving up its chemical weapons stocks. You would think the domain experts and diplomats would have already exhausted all possibilities before dropping bombs but it is l

Oh, really? (Score:4, Interesting)

by kenh ( 9056 )

> "A rescue mission would not have been impossible," the article concludes, "and I feel certain that if NASA managers saw that gaping hole in Columbia's wing, they would've tried.

A rescue mission WAS impossible.

I can't imagine what the 16 days of the flight would have been like, the crew knowing they were going to die, and the press hammering it and second-guessing NASA until the shuttle exploded...

What could NASA have done? They couldn't prep a shuttle before the astronauts ran out of oxygen - that's just a fantasy born out of ignorance. They were dead the moment that foam fell off the shuttle, there's nothing that could have saved them.

Re: (Score:1)

by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 )

> They couldn't prep a shuttle before the astronauts ran out of oxygen

Atlantis could've been prepped and ready to go in 14 days.

The accelerated schedule would've meant some long hours, but it could've been done.

NASA considered it but decided the damage to Columbia wasn't so bad and didn't want to cancel Atlantis's scheduled mission.

Re: (Score:3, Informative)

by Burdell ( 228580 )

Columbia's flight could have been extended to 30 days (oxygen wasn't the problem, the 30-day limit was from lithium hydroxide canisters used to filter carbon dioxide from the atmosphere). Atlantis was already being prepared for a launch planned for 45 days after Columbia's launch, so could have been prepped and launched within the 30 day window (if the decision had been made quickly). It would have been risky, but it was not outside the realm of possibility.

Re: Oh, really? (Score:2)

by LindleyF ( 9395567 )

How would they know if the whole exercise was worth it? You can't land those things by remote. Well, today you probably could.

Re: (Score:2)

by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

You could then too, but only after Columbia demonstrated it was needed.

Re: (Score:3)

by Zangief ( 461457 )

NASA actually planned, a posteriori, a rescue mission; they concluded it was possible although really difficult

[1]https://spaceflightnow.com/col... [spaceflightnow.com]

of course one of the options involves launching _another_ space shuttle to rendezvous with Columbia, which risks either having the same problem as Columbia, or, you know, any kind of problems of both machines colliding

[1] https://spaceflightnow.com/columbia/report/rescue.html

Re: (Score:2)

by ghoul ( 157158 )

There were 7 on the shuttle and only 2 needed to fly it. They could have dropped the other 5 off at the ISS and then taken the risk to land. The 5 could have been picked up on subsequent ISS missions. ISS does have excess capacity for emergencies.

Re: (Score:2)

by erice ( 13380 )

> There were 7 on the shuttle and only 2 needed to fly it. They could have dropped the other 5 off at the ISS and then taken the risk to land. The 5 could have been picked up on subsequent ISS missions. ISS does have excess capacity for emergencies.

I don't think ISS was reachable from Columbia's orbit. AFTER the disaster, shuttle missions profiles were required to be in range of ISS for exactly this reason.

Shit Happens. (Score:3)

by zenlessyank ( 748553 )

Humans are imperfect. Life is hard. Go to therapy. Smoke some weed. Find a new hobby. Move on.

CFC-free foam caused it (Score:3)

by Megane ( 129182 )

Reminder that this happened because NASA wasn't allowed to use foam made with nasty evil CFCs, even for life-critical purposes. The CFC-free foam was a lot more brittle.

It also happened because of other design decisions such as the crew vehicle being placed next to the fuel tank instead of safely above it, each poking holes into the "Swiss cheese model of safety".

NASA knew shuttle wasn't safe (Score:3)

by XaXXon ( 202882 )

then they hired different people to tell the public it was safe.

They knew they were sacrificing astronauts to GO GO GO!!! and they didn't give a shit.

"If we were meant to fly, we wouldn't keep losing our luggage."