NASA releases details on deaths of Columbia crew

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The astronauts on the shuttle Columbia tried to control the spacecraft as it broke up over Texas on its way back from a 16-day mission on February 1, 2003, but they had no chance of surviving, NASA says in a sobering report.

All seven crew members were killed when the craft split apart from damage the left wing suffered after a huge chunk of insulating foam from the shuttle’s external tank broke off during its launch.

At least one crew member tried to reset the shuttle’s autopilot and had flipped cockpit switches as alarms sounded on board, according to the report released yesterday. But all of the astronauts lost consciousness within seconds as the spacecraft depressurized and spiraled out of control.

"We have evidence from some of the switch positions that the crew was trying very hard to regain control. We're talking about a very brief time in a crisis situation," NASA's deputy associate administrator, Wayne Hale, said at a press conference yesterday.

The astronauts were wearing pressurized space suits, but apparently didn't have time to activate them. The depressurization in the cabin “occurred so rapidly that the crew members were incapacitated within seconds, before they could configure the suit for full protection from loss of cabin pressure,” the report says. “The effects of the depressurization were severe enough that the crew could not have regained consciousness. This event was lethal to the crew.”

Flaws in other equipment also contributed to the astronauts’ deaths, NASA says. Their shoulder harnesses didn’t lock, and their helmets didn’t conform to their heads. So as the orbiter spun out of control, its cyclical rotation rocked them violently about, causing traumatic injuries.

"This report confirms that although the valiant Columbia crew tried every possible way to maintain control of their vehicle," Hale said, "the accident was not ultimately survivable."

The report recommends improvements to crew training and equipment design, but extreme weather in the upper atmosphere, including thermal conditions and strong winds, still would have been enough to kill the Columbia crew, the report adds. “The only known complete protection from this event," it says, "would be to prevent its occurrence.”

Image of Columbia crew/NASA. Top row, from left: David M. Brown, William C. McCool, Michael P. Anderson. Bottom row, from left: Kalpana Chawla, Rick D. Husband, Laurel B. Clark and Ilan Ramon.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe