Did downsizing and inexperience lead to Columbia's destruction?

February 23, 2003 8:30 AM

Did downsizing and inexperience lead to Columbia's destruction? In the rush to cut costs and 'downsize' NASA in the 1990s the agency outsourced most Space Transportation System (STS, or the Shuttle) functions to a private consortium called United Space Alliance. Now, senior engineers at Boeing (lead member of the USA) are beginning to talk about the lack of experience, 'brain drain', and negative effects of downsizing and privatization. This begs the issue of market imperatives, relative value of privatization and the question of how to better manage projects of this magnitude in a mixed private/public arrangement.
posted by tgrundke (3 comments total)

I don't doubt that cutbacks of this sort contributed to the recent loss of Columbia, but in my mind at least that's not the real issue. To me, the real problem is the shuttles themselves: they're too complicated, too labor-intensive and simply obsolete. They were a very good design by 1975 standards (although compromised by politics), but it's not 1975 any more and we can and should do better.
posted by Zonker at 11:27 AM on February 23, 2003

Exploring is dangerous. There are no guarantees.
Help I'm stuck on Everest, get me down!
posted by HTuttle at 4:47 PM on February 23, 2003

They were a very good design by 1975 standards

Agreed.

Say all you want about oversight or negligence, but remember we are talking about a machine that more closely resembles a balsa wood glider shot to the sky strapped to an M-80.

Ok, that is a bit glib, but considering the number of parts on that glider that could fail at any time, I am frankly surprised with the success rate of the entire program.
posted by lampshade at 8:41 PM on February 23, 2003