Critics Question NASA on Safety of the Shuttles

[Zhukov]

Critics Question NASA on Safety of the Shuttles
By JOHN SCHWARTZ

Published: February 7, 2005

As NASA prepares to return the space shuttle to orbit this spring, a debate over whether the fleet is as safe as it should be has been building inside and outside the space agency.

There is widespread agreement that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, prodded by a searing report from the expert panel that investigated the loss of the Columbia two years ago, has made the fleet safer, and the agency is moving full speed toward launching as early as May. But critics, citing internal agency documents and NASA's own acknowledgment that it has not made all the improvements it committed to, contend that the agency is rushing back to the unforgiving environment of space with too much of the job left undone.

...

Then, too, there is the plan for astronauts to use the International Space Station as a "safe haven" from a damaged shuttle, a goal not required by the accident investigation board but taken on by NASA as a way to improve safety. The plan would have little chance of success under many circumstances envisioned by the agency itself, according to internal agency documents and Sergei K. Krikalev, the veteran Russian astronaut who will be commander on the next shift on the station and who echoed the view in comments this month to reporters.

NASA appointed a task force to monitor its progress in complying with the recommendations of the accident board. That task force, led by two former astronauts, Richard O. Covey and Thomas Stafford, is expected to make its final determination of NASA's progress next month, but it already appears to be willing to allow NASA some slack. In a report on Jan. 28, it said that the work left undone included "some of the toughest technological challenges the recommendations present," and that the accident board's recommendations need not be carried out to the letter so long as the activities resulted in "reduced risk" over all.

...

"I give them a passing grade, over all," Admiral Gehman said in an interview, adding that the board's goal was "breaking the chain" of problems that led to foam's falling off the fuel tank and striking the craft, so it did not have to do a "super whiz-bang job of in-orbit repair."

But another board member, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of employment restrictions, said the recommendations should not be interpreted with such flexibility. "Going ahead half-cocked and losing a third orbiter for known defects will affect the rest of history in ways that are immeasurable, and lead to the demise of NASA as we know it," the board member said.

More