News: Why did Laurel Clark die? The answers aren't pleasant

Why did Laurel Clark die? The answers aren't pleasant
By Rob Golub

The Journal Times - Racine, Wisconsin

6-Jul-2003


We are finally beginning to understand why Laurel Clark died.

It has been five months since the Columbia broke apart, killing all
seven astronauts, including this brilliant surgeon who called Racine
home.

For five months, officials have been working to solve America's first
spaceflight death investigation. The Columbia Accident Investigation
Board is expected to issue a report this month. Leaks indicate we're
not going to like what it has to say.

First, the Horlick High School graduate completed a 16-day mission of
space-borne medical experiments for the betterment of mankind. Then,
she died in a seemingly preventable accident.

Investigators have reportedly admitted to the Associated Press that
flyaway foam from the fuel tank was "the most probable cause" of wing
damage that brought down Columbia. Half the expected report from the
board is to focus on NASA management and culture.

Maybe the greatest disappointment comes from what my grandfather used
to call the coulda-woulda-shoulda. We coulda put a service station in
the sky. We shoulda taken pictures of the foam damage.

The board has recommended that NASA keep a repair kit on the
International Space Station or aboard the shuttle. If only the
scientists had thought of this before the accident.

Also, NASA was reportedly offered a chance to photograph the wing
after the foam hit. The space agency decided not to, even though a
flyaway foam impact is a violation of flight safety rules, according
to media reports.

It's frustrating. It's not as though NASA didn't know catastrophic
in-flight damage was possible. The 1971 Apollo 13 mission illustrated
that point, when astronauts survived only after rolling pages from
operation manuals into tubes for air conduits.

And yet I sometimes feel sorry for NASA.

Yes, yes, the accident might have been prevented with creativity,
forethought and preparation. Yes, it's possible a reported no-bad-news
NASA culture may have contributed to the disaster.

But nobody said human spaceflight would be easy. The fact is, NASA has
a dangerous job to do while constantly fighting to breathe beneath an
anvil of federal budget pressure. The financial pressure was so strong
in the 1990s, the agency started to live by a "faster-better-cheaper"
motto.

Space failures followed, including a robotic probe that crashed into
Mars in September 1999. The probe crashed after one science team used
English units (inches, feet, pounds) while another used metric.

It sure seems like NASA had money problems. Maybe, before the Columbia
flight, nobody seriously suggested a repair kit in the sky because
they knew it wouldn't get funded.

During the flight, maybe NASA's alleged no-bad-news culture kept new
ideas, like getting pictures of the damage, out of mission
discussions.

Why did Laurel Clark die? It's sadly ironic. In interviews, friends
and family have repeatedly told me she was such a nice, regular
person, yet so driven, so committed to getting it right.

Humanity's most slothful traits were absent from Laurel Clark, yet
those are the traits that betrayed her. For the villains in this
story, it seems we may have to choose from among human carelessness,
bureaucracy, poor funding for big plans and a lack of imagination.

As Laurel Clark experimented on cells in the weightlessness of space,
in an effort to unlock the secrets of cancer, earth failed her.

She deserved better.

Rob Golub is a reporter with The Journal Times. Contact him at (262)
631-1718 or via e-mail at:


http://www.journaltimes.com/articles...iq_2338251.txt

"Rusty B" wrote in message
m...
Why did Laurel Clark die? The answers aren't pleasant
By Rob Golub

The Journal Times - Racine, Wisconsin

6-Jul-2003

snip

The 1971 Apollo 13 mission illustrated
that point, when astronauts survived only after rolling pages from
operation manuals into tubes for air conduits.

snip to set up ironic juxtaposition

Space failures followed, including a robotic probe that crashed into
Mars in September 1999. The probe crashed after one science team used
English units (inches, feet, pounds) while another used metric.


The Bob Haller disease is catching - those (like Rob Golub, not the OP) with
20/20 hindsight accusing others of sloppiness while excusing
themselves...run that Apollo 13 date past me one more time....

--
Dave Kenworthy
-----------------------------
Changes aren't permanent - but change is!

"Dave Kenworthy" wrote in message
...

The Bob Haller disease is catching - those (like Rob Golub, not the OP)
with
20/20 hindsight accusing others of sloppiness while excusing
themselves...run that Apollo 13 date past me one more time....

--
Dave Kenworthy
-----------------------------
Changes aren't permanent - but change is!


And this is Golub's article after he got spanked for inaccurate writing on
the first version. He needs an editor. And his editor needs an editor.

"rk" wrote in message
...
Lots of errors in that article. Like two teams of scientists using
different units. Wrong answer. And sloppy ...

Redundant Journalism, ahoy!

I'm beginning to think that these people are like lawyers... WAY too
freakin' many of them out there.

Apollo 13 - 1970. The author also writes:

The board has recommended that NASA keep a repair kit on the
International Space Station or aboard the shuttle. If only the
scientists had thought of this before the accident.

I emailed him a few days ago to tell him they did think of the tile
repair kit, it was on the first couple flights, was tested and the
adhesive was problematic. NASA then decided the risks of sending an
astronaut out on a dangerous spacewalk outweighed the likelihood that
a repair could be made with the kit. The kit was cancelled. He was
very nice and wrote me a reply email.