This Echo is READ ONLY !   NO Un-Authorized Messages Please!
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FYI
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
Number 27: February 19, 2003

First Hearing on Shuttle Columbia Accident

On February 12, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation 
Committee and the House Science Committee came together for the first 
of many hearings on the Space Shuttle Columbia tragedy and its 
ramifications.  "Today we are focusing on the Columbia," Senate 
Commerce Chairman John McCain (R-AZ) noted.  "At subsequent hearings, 
we will address the role of manned and unmanned space exploration, the 
costs and benefits of continuing the shuttle program and our 
investment in the International Space Station, and the effectiveness 
of NASA management.  More fundamentally, we must examine the goals of 
our space program….  We also must examine the extent to which Congress 
and the Administration may have neglected the shuttle safety program," 
McCain acknowledged.  "I view this hearing as the start of a very long 
conversation we will all be having about the Columbia incident and its 
ramifications," added House Science Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY).

Many House and Senate Members questioned NASA Administrator Sean 
O'Keefe during the four-hour joint hearing.  As the Columbia Accident 
Investigation Board, headed by retired Navy Admiral Hal Gehman, has 
just begun its work, the primary focus of the hearing was not on the 
cause of the Columbia accident.  Instead, many of the questions 
addressed the composition and independence of the Accident 
Investigation Board.  "I've become convinced" that the Board's charter 
must be rewritten, Boehlert stated, expressing a concern that was 
echoed by other Members throughout the hearing.  "The words of the 
charter simply do not guarantee the independence and latitude that 
both the Administrator and the Admiral have sincerely promised."  
O'Keefe explained that a description of the investigation panel had 
been written into the accident contingency plan developed by NASA 
following the Challenger incident, but he expressed willingness to 
modify the Board's charter and responsibilities to mollify Members' 
concerns about its objectivity.  "You have our assurance that this 
distinguished Board will be able to act with genuine independence," he 
declared.  Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) asked whether there was an 
independent scientist on the panel to provide "that Feynman voice" -  
a reference to the role played by physicist Richard Feynman during the 
Challenger accident probe.  O'Keefe replied that Gehman was 
considering several scientists for addition to the Board.

Other major lines of questioning revolved around the age and role of 
the shuttle fleet, the impact of grounding the fleet on the space 
station, the amount of science performed on the shuttle and station, 
and the value of manned versus unmanned space flight.  Addressing 
questions about whether the shuttle's age was a factor in the 
accident, O'Keefe admitted that Columbia was "the oldest of the four 
orbiters," but said it had recently been upgraded with new 
technologies, and that NASA had done everything possible "to ensure 
that age was not a factor."

O'Keefe also pointed out that NASA has proposed an Integrated Space
Transportation Plan that is intended to address the concerns of using 
the shuttle for both crew transport and cargo capacity.  The plan, he 
said, would focus near-term investments on extending the shuttle's 
operational life and providing new crew transfer capability as soon as 
possible, and, for the long term, would develop next-generation 
reusable launch vehicle technology.

Regarding impacts on the space station, O'Keefe reported that, since 
the Columbi a tragedy, a Russian unmanned Progress resupply vehicle 
had delivered supplies to the crew as planned, and additional Progress 
and Soyuz flights would take place as scheduled.  This would allow 
normal station operations, including research, to continue through 
June.  While the station has sufficient propellant to maintain its 
orbit for at least a year without shuttle support, if the shuttle 
fleet is not operating again by June, he said, additional resupply 
flights might be needed to provide the crew with enough water.  He 
also indicated that it would not be feasible for an autonomous 
resupply vehicle like Progress to bring up the next scheduled science 
experiments, so an extended grounding of the shuttle fleet  would
result in a "diminution of the science" being performed aboard the 
station.

Declaring that "we want science to be done in space," Rep. Anthony 
Weiner (D-NY) inquired whether the shuttle had been used less for 
science missions than as a delivery vehicle, "a UPS truck" for the 
space station.  The shuttle's cargo has included both portions of the 
station for assembly and scientific experiments, O'Keefe responded.  
He said most of the "groceries" were sent up on unmanned resupply 
vehicles, which could not be used to transport the science 
experiments.  Members repeatedly expressed their support for a strong 
science program in space; O'Keefe cited the various kinds of research 
being conducted aboard Columbia at the time of the tragedy, and on the 
space station, including human physiology, genetics, biology, fire 
suppression, earthquake resistance, and Earth observations.  To Rep. 
Lamar Smith's (R-TX) question, "can we justify decades of repetitive 
shuttle flights to a space station that's not met expectations?" 
O'Keefe responded, "in contrast to your characterization, we are 
spending a lot of time on science, as we transition from the 
engineering phase to science."  He indicated support for going beyond 
the planned U.S. core complete station configuration as he continued, 
"it does take at least two folks to maintain [the station], but as we 
are able to expand the crew, and reach the configuration that enables 
full use of the station's capacity, I think you will see" comparable 
scientific results to those from the Hubble Space Telescope.

Reports by NASA advisory and review committees raising warnings about 
the shuttle fleet's age and continued safety were cited by many 
Members.  O'Keefe stated that the concerns raised were all in 
reference to future safety, but there had been no indications that the 
current safety of the shuttle program was compromised.  Another issue 
raised repeatedly was the budget cuts made over the past decade to 
planned shuttle upgrades. O'Keefe explained that, in his understanding 
of the shuttle's budget history, quality assurance procedures and 
other program management approaches had yielded efficiencies and cost 
reductions, while at the same time, indicators showed safety 
improvements and a decrease in safety incidents both before and 
on-orbit.

Addressing questions about the justification of manned space 
exploration versus robotic, O'Keefe said it is "not an issue of 
either/or;" NASA's approach, as it is doing with the Mars mission, is 
to use robotic capabilities to understand the risks of human 
involvement and learn what would be necessary to support an eventual 
human mission "if it is deemed appropriate."  He mentioned the Hubble 
Space Telescope as an example of how unmanned exploration capabilities 
and human involvement worked in a complementary way to achieve 
outstanding science.

"This is not the beginning of the end; it is the end of the 
beginning," Boehlert said in conclusion.  He praised the openness and 
cooperation of O'Keefe and Admiral Gehman, and "the total commitment I 
find on the part of every person involved…to get the facts and let us 
be guided by the facts."

###############
Audrey T. Leath
Media and Government Relations Division
The American Institute of Physics
fyi{at}aip.org
(301) 209-3094
##END##########

 - End of File -
================

---