NASA Columbia disaster: The investigation into one of history’s worst space tragedies – and its lasting legacy
Scott Hubbard remembers exactly where he was on the day of one of the deadliest tragedies in the history of space travel.
Before he stepped out of bed on the morning of 1 February 2003, a radio broadcast brought news that NASA’s Columbia space shuttle was “overdue” on its return to Earth.
“I had a feeling in the pit of my stomach that something had gone wrong,” he recalls.
The spacecraft, which had launched from Kennedy Space Center in Florida just over two weeks prior, with seven astronauts aboard, was scheduled to land that morning.
But the landing never came.
Columbia, which flew its maiden voyage back in April 1981, disintegrated over Texas 16 minutes before its planned Florida touchdown, killing its entire crew. They were commander Rick Husband; pilot William McCool; the mission specialists Michael Anderson, Laurel Clark, David Brown and Kalpana Chawla; and payload specialist Ilan Ramon, who was the first Israeli astronaut.
L/R: The Columbia crew – David Brown, Rick Husband, Laurel Clark, Kalpana Chawla, Michael Anderson, William McCool, Ilan Ramon. Pic: NASA
It marked the beginning of the end for America’s space shuttle programme, which had already endured the loss of seven astronauts in the Challenger disaster of 1986.
For Hubbard, a veteran of the US space agency who served as its first Mars programme director, Columbia changed his view of rocket launches forever.
“When that low-frequency rumble, that pressure wave hits you, you have a feeling of awe about the power that is being used to lift out of the gravity well of the Earth. But having had the Columbia experience, when I see a launch that has people on board, there’s that extra sense of anxiety: ‘Have I done everything possible to ensure mission success?'”
The crew pictured aboard Columbia during its final mission. Pic: NASA
The call that changed everything
Before the loss of the crew was even confirmed, Hubbard received a call from the NASA administrator’s office asking him to represent the agency in an investigation into what happened.
The administrator at the time was Sean O’Keefe, who was with the families of the astronauts when it became clear something was wrong.
“The mood went from excitement and anticipation to despair, once it became evident that the shuttle wasn’t coming home,” he tells Sky News.
“Normally, you can set your watch as to when the shuttle will come through the atmosphere. Just like a launch day, we had a countdown clock, with these big numbers that would progressively roll downwards.
“It got to within about two minutes of 00 – usually before you see the shuttle, you hear two sonic booms as the shuttle passes the sound barrier, which tells you it’s about to land. Neither sonic boom showed up.”
The breakup of Columbia had already occurred, its wreckage raining down on Texas while the crew’s loved ones waited unawares at the Kennedy Space Center.
Not long later, the official investigation was launched.
Scott Hubbard was picked as the only NASA representative on the investigative board to work with Air Force generals, Navy admirals, and former US astronauts to paint a detailed picture of why Columbia ended in tragedy.
“I knew, if we were facing loss of the crew, that this would be having the same impact on the agency that the Challenger accident had years before,” he says.
“So I went into this with a determination to do whatever I could.”
NASA’s mission control centre at the moment it lost contact with Columbia. Pic: NASA
‘The most difficult duty’
The Columbia investigation was expected to last 30 days. It ended up taking six months.
Beginning with seven-day work weeks from a base outside Johnson Space Center in Houston, Hubbard labels it the “most difficult duty” of his 20 years at NASA.
“The first part was the very sad search and recovery operation for the remains of the crew, so the families could have some closure,” he says. Remains for all seven astronauts were found.
Some 25,000 people were involved in efforts to collect pieces of the wreckage, O’Keefe recalls, which was strewn across a 200-mile swathe of land from Dallas to the Louisiana border.
Tributes left outside NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston
Hubbard’s background in science and engineering saw him assigned to focus on the technical cause of the accident.
“Initially, it was circumstantial evidence,” recalls Hubbard.
“There was only one good, high-resolution image of this piece of foam falling off of the main tank and hitting the shuttle somewhere on its left wing, and then a spray of debris coming out.”
That incident had occurred not during re-entry, but after the launch on 16 January – 82 seconds into the flight.
Mission control notified the commander and pilot, who were assured that – because it had happened on previous missions too – there was no reason for alarm when it came to re-entry.
Still from a video of the launch showing the moment of foam impact on the wing. Pic: NASA
Proving the cause of the tragedy
But when Columbia re-entered the atmosphere, the damage to the wing let in “superheated gases” that led to the destruction of the wing and subsequent disintegration of the entire shuttle.
“Foam falling off had been happening since the very first flight of the shuttle, 30 years before,” says Hubbard.
“But while it was originally labelled an in-flight anomaly, which is the most serious of problems, it eventually became considered a turnaround issue, just a maintenance thing, and was demoted in its seriousness.
“We think this casual approach, to what was a serious issue, was one of the organisational causes of the accident.”
G. Scott Hubbard during a news briefing on the investigation into the disaster
Due to a “sense of denial” among those who were interviewed during the investigation, Hubbard says he pushed for a test that would look to recreate the so-called anomaly, settling on a research facility in Texas used to simulate the impact of a bird striking parts of an aeroplane.
Over the course of months, it was configured to the specifications of what happened to Columbia.
The test was carried out on live TV on 7 July 2003 – and the result was beyond doubt.
“It caused two emotions in me simultaneously,” Hubbard recalls.
“One was ‘yes, we proved it’, and the other was, ‘oh my God, this is how these people died’.
“And that was… quite a moment.”
The legacy of Columbia
The Columbia Accident Investigation Board’s full report – which O’Keefe received 10 days before its publication in August 2003 – made 29 recommendations to improve the safety of future space shuttle flights, all of which were adopted by NASA.
They included that foam falling from the shuttle’s external tank during launch, as had been accepted as par for the course among NASA engineers, should no longer be allowed to happen.
The agency has not lost astronauts during spaceflight since.
“It was a hard-hitting report,” says O’Keefe. “Nothing was light about it. It was very critical, however, that’s what we needed to hear.”
Read more from Sky News:
Mars shines bright in night sky as it vanishes behind moon
Earth’s near miss with asteroid explained
Sean O’Keefe accepts a copy of the report from Admiral Harold Gehman
NASA commemorates the victims of Columbia, as well as its other fallen astronauts, every January, with flowers laid and tributes read during a memorial service at Kennedy Space Center.
The site at Cape Canaveral has been a hub of excitement since November, when the launch of the Artemis mission kicked off NASA’s bid to return people to the moon for the first time in more than 50 years.
Space is also increasingly the playground of private enterprise, with the likes of SpaceX and Blue Origin setting themselves grand targets to go further than humans have before. A worthy venture, O’Keefe says, but – for all the wonder so many feel upon witnessing a launch – never one that should see people lose sight of the risk.
“The nature of it just scared me every single time,” he admits. “Everybody who talked about shuttle launches that are ‘routine’ – there is no such thing. Every one of them is an opportunity for disaster, and that’s the nature of it.
“But over the course of human history, we have done things that are inherently dangerous because our curiosity gets the better of us.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Why are we still racing to space?
For Hubbard, who became chairman of SpaceX’s safety panel in 2012, with Elon Musk among those receiving his advice, the lessons learned from Columbia are only growing in importance.
“Space is a hard thing to do, launching humans into space is difficult, and we have been fortunate that thus far there have been relatively few disasters,” he tells Sky News. (NASA has lost 15 astronauts during spaceflight: seven in Columbia and Challenger, and one, Michael Adams, in a sub-orbital flight in 1967.)
Hubbard says the experience of Columbia “profoundly changed” his view of human exploration of space, but our collective ambition to go further, faster, is only going one way.
“Any rocket you send up there, you can’t say with any certainty it’s going to be just fine,” says O’Keefe. “But the alternative is: ‘let’s not go?’ And the answer is, you can’t relent to that.”
Russia’s investment envoy has said research into the feasibility of a tunnel joining the US and Russia started “six months ago”.
Kirill Dmitriev first posted about the idea on Thursday, suggesting a “Putin-Trump” rail tunnel could connect the two countries under the Bering Strait, which separates Russia‘s vast and sparsely populated Chukotka region from Alaska.
Asked about the idea during a press conference with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Friday, Donald Trump called it “interesting”.
He also asked President Zelenskyy what he made of it, to which Mr Zelenskyy replied: “I’m not happy with this idea.”
This prompted laughter from the US side.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
What happened at the Trump-Zelenskyy meeting?
Overnight, Mr Dmitriev posted on X, saying: “We have started the feasibility study of the Russia-Alaska tunnel six months ago.
“Russian Direct Investment Fund with partners financed on a commercial basis the first ever railroad bridge between Russia and China.
“The bridge reduced cargo route by more than 700 kilometres,” he said.
He directed a post on X towards Elon Musk, suggesting the tunnel could be dug by the billionaire’s construction firm, Boring Company.
Graphic of the proposed project. Pic: Kirill Dmitriev
“The dream of a US-Russia link via the Bering Strait reflects an enduring vision – from the 1904 Siberia-Alaska railway to Russia’s 2007 plan,” Mr Dmitriev wrote.
“RDIF has studied existing proposals, including the US-Canada-Russia-China railroad, and will support the most viable.
“Imagine connecting the US and Russia, the Americas and the Afro-Eurasia with the Putin-Trump Tunnel – a 70-mile link symbolizing unity.”
Read more from Sky News:
Zelenskyy on US ‘long-range’ weapons
Putin faces difficult trip to summit
Trump’s ‘game of diplomatic chess’
“Traditional costs are $65B+, but @boringcompany’s tech could reduce it to future together,” he added.
There has been no public response from Elon Musk.
US
Volodymyr Zelenskyy believes ‘Putin is afraid’ that Donald Trump could still supply Ukraine with Tomahawk missiles
Volodymyr Zelenskyy has not ruled out the possibility that he can secure long-range Tomahawk missiles from the US, adding that he believes “Putin is afraid” of the consequences.
In an exclusive interview with NBC News’s Meet the Press, Ukraine’s president discussed some of the details of his two-hour meeting with Donald Trump on Friday, including his desire for the weapons after three years of war with Russia.
“It’s good that President Trump didn’t say ‘no’, but for today, didn’t say ‘yes’,” he said about the supply of the missiles, as part of a discussion which will air on Sunday.
Ukraine war latest: Zelenskyy proposes ‘drone for Tomahawk’
He admitted the US president was concerned about a potential escalation with Russia, but Mr Zelenskyy told NBC, Sky News’s US partner, that the weapons are a genuine concern for Vladimir Putin.
“I think that Putin [is] afraid that United States will deliver us Tomahawks. And I think that he [is] really afraid that we will use them,” he said.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy still hopes the US will supply Tomahawks. Pic: Meet the Press/NBC News
The weapons have a significantly longer range than any other missiles in Ukraine’s armoury and have the potential to be a game-changer in the war against Russia.
While Mr Trump did not rule out providing the Tomahawk missiles, he appeared cool to the prospect as he looked ahead to a meeting with the Russian president in Hungary in the coming weeks.
‘US doesn’t want escalation’
Following the meeting with Mr Trump, who held a phone call with Mr Putin on Thursday, Mr Zelenskyy told reporters: “We spoke about long-range (missiles) of course. And I do not want to make statements about it.”
But he added: “We don’t speak about it because… United States doesn’t want this escalation”.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s plans to secure new missiles had worried Russia. Pic: Reuters
Later in a post on X, Mr Zelenskyy said he was counting on President Trump to “bring this war closer to an end”.
“We discussed all key issues – our positions on the battlefield, long-range capabilities and air defence, and, of course, diplomatic prospects,” he said.
“Russia must end the aggression it started and continues to deliberately prolong. We count on the United States’ pressure.”
In a roundtable with journalists following the meeting, Mr Trump confirmed that hitting targets deep inside Russian territory would be an “escalation”.
Donald Trump said hitting targets deep inside Russian territory would be an ‘escalation’. Pic: Reuters
He also said he was hesitant to tap into the US’ supply of Tomahawks, saying: “I have an obligation also to make sure that we’re completely stocked up as a country, because you never know what’s going to happen in war and peace.
“We’d much rather have them not need Tomahawks. We’d much rather have the war be over to be honest.”
At Mr Trump and Mr Putin’s last meeting in Alaska in August, there were hopes that the conflict may finally be coming to an end.
But the US president was unable to pressure the Russian leader into accepting a ceasefire or a one-on-one meeting with Mr Zelenskyy.
Read more from Sky News:
Putin’s challenge ahead of summit
Was Putin forced back to talks?
Listen: Trump-Putin – Friends reunited?
Following Friday’s meeting at the White House, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer confirmed he had called Mr Zelenskyy to reiterate his support.
Ukraine has UK’s ‘resolute support’
A Downing Street spokesperson said: “The prime minister spoke to the president of Ukraine, European leaders and the NATO secretary general this evening following President Zelenskyy’s visit to the White House today.
“The leaders reiterated their unwavering commitment to Ukraine in the face of ongoing Russian aggression. A just and lasting peace for Ukraine was the only way to stop the killing for good, they agreed.
“Further discussions about how they could support Ukraine in the lead up to, and following, a ceasefire would continue this week, including in a Coalition of the Willing call on Friday, the leaders agreed.
“Following the call with world leaders this evening, the prime minister then spoke to President Zelenskyy bilaterally to underscore the United Kingdom’s resolute support for Ukraine.”
Before Donald Trump met with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, he hosted one of his favourite singers, Andrea Bocelli, in the Oval Office.
The Italian tenor serenaded him with the signature track Time To Say Goodbye, a song about hope and new beginnings.
But the next event on his agenda suggested antipathy between Trump and the Ukrainian president are firmly lodged in the past.
On the key issue of whether Vladimir Putin actually wants peace, the pair continue to fundamentally disagree.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
What happened at the Trump-Zelenskyy meeting?
Trump repeated several times his belief that Putin is committed to ending the war, which may come as a surprise to the people of eastern Ukraine, being pummeled by an expanded Russian offensive in the past few months.
Trump also spoke about “bad blood on both sides”, again inferring equal blame on Zelenskyy, whose sovereign nation was invaded, and Putin, who is doing the invading.
It’s in Putin’s gift to stop the fighting immediately, but that was glossed over.
Zelenskyy, clearly contorted by a need to put the record straight but not anger the famously mercurial man on the other side of the table, fired back that it is the Ukrainians who are committed to a ceasefire, a trilateral meeting and ultimately, an end to this war.
Ukraine war: Zelenskyy proposes ‘drone for Tomahawk’ deal
Relations between Zelenskyy and Trump have, obviously, improved from February when the Ukrainian president was berated and left the White House early.
On that occasion, he was mocked for wearing a T-shirt and so, the next two visits, he has sported an all black suit. He has also learned that Trump responds to flattery and, accordingly, he peppered the president with compliments.
Zelenskyy, pictured following his meeting with Trump, has learned that the president responds to flattery. Pic: AP
He credited him with “managing the ceasefire in the Middle East”, and said he believes he has a “chance” to do the same in Ukraine.
Trump came into the meeting buoyed by the diplomatic success of the past fortnight in the Middle East, intoxicated by the praise he has received from all sides for brokering the hostage deal. But the war, he said he could solve in 24 hours, is proving a tougher nut to crack, and he’s growing frustrated with everyone involved.
That much could be gleaned from his Truth Social post after the meeting, which implored Putin and Zelenskyy to end the war along its current lines. “Let both claim Victory, let History decide!” he wrote.
Read more from Sky News:
Zelenskyy on US ‘long-range’ weapons
Putin faces difficult trip to summit
Trump’s ‘game of diplomatic chess’
It was a marked shift from less than a month ago, when Trump, at that point more angered by Putin, suggested Ukraine could potentially win back all its territory.
As recently as Sunday, he was threatening to send long-range Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine but he made clear after their meeting that he wouldn’t be doing that right now. It’s likely he will wait until at least after his trailed meeting with Putin in Budapest.
👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈
I was in Alaska in August when Trump hosted Putin and laid out the literal and metaphorical red carpet for him.
The US president went in with two aims: to broker a ceasefire and a one-on-one meeting between Putin and Zelenskyy. He left with neither and there is no public sign that Putin has shifted from his maximalist aims in Ukraine.
Trump greets Putin on the red carpet in Alaska in August. Pic: AP
Even by Trump’s own measurement, the summit was a failure.
Yet he seems determined to take the Russian president at his word, granting him first a phone call ahead of the Zelenskyy visit to Washington DC and now another meeting.
Putin was first successful in getting Trump to hold off on more severe sanctions on Russia, which were crippling economically. Now he has, seemingly, played a role in persuading Trump to hold off on sending Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine.
The US president was asked by a journalist whether it was possible he was being played by Putin. He admitted it was possible but said he usually comes out of these things pretty well. Time will tell.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024