The Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster: Clarity of Purpose and its Impact on Risk

Frank Winters has more than 30 years of consulting and Information Technology experience serving as a project/program manager, consultant and IT service industry executive.

 

Introduction

Space Shuttle Mission STS-107 ended in disaster on February 1, 2003, cutting short the lives of the seven remarkable crew members. The United States and most of the world is in mourning over this tragic event. Once again, the United States space program is being subjected to criticism, costly delays and close scrutiny.

One of the factors contributing to controversy over the Space Shuttle Program has been a perceived lack of clarity of purpose. This lack of clarity has made it difficult to determine an acceptable level of risk. We have heard many people speak out in favor of continuing the space program. Retired astronauts, politicians, NASA administrators and journalists have said we must continue space exploration because mankind will always seek to understand the unknown, will continue to push the envelope and will continue to reap many benefits from this important work. Most advocates say we know there are risks but we are willing to accept risk given the importance of the mission. But what is the risk, what is acceptable risk and what exactly is the mission?

Where does the execution of the Space Shuttle Program stand? To quote NASA’s website, “STS stands for ‘Space Transportation System’, a.k.a. the Space Shuttle, and ‘107’ is the ‘flight tail number’ or the 107th flight of the Space Shuttle, although the order of missions may have changed after …

Please log in or sign up below to read the rest of the article.