NASA was fully aware of drowning risk with ISS space suits

[Klingon Admiral]

An internal investigation of NASA shows that the agency was aware of the issues with the space suits on the ISS, which nearly lead to the Italian astronaut Luca parmitano drowning while performing EVA on July 16th, 2013.

One has to wonder if the guy who gave the Challenger launch permission got a new job there. The amount of sheer incompetence NASA displays from time to time is just staggering.

[Seret]

I've only skim read the report, but it sounds like they weren't aware of it as a known failure mode, and had done ground testing that lead them to believe the system would behave differently. There was water identified in the suit after the previous EVA, but it was thought to come from a drink bag. Sounds like more a case of assumption being the mother of all cock ups, rather than negligence.

[Kilmeister]

Yeah, comparing this to Challenger is nowhere near applicable. Seret pretty much summed this up.

Challenger was gross disregard for safety at an institutional level.

[Klingon Admiral]

Well, in my oppinion any even possible problem should be fixed, not neglected. Because, what did it change in the long term? The pumps of the suits' fluid systems have to be replaced now just like they would have been years ago, and it did almost cost a life. And god knows what would have happened if the fluids would have leaked during a super-crucial EVA. Now that I think of it ... is the ISS insured?

[xcorps]

Challenger was gross disregard for safety at an institutional level.

So was Columbia.

"there is absolutely no concern for entry"

"Don't you think it would be better for them to have a happy successful flight and die unexpectedly during entry"

And Apollo 1.

NASA doesn't exactly have a track record of keeping the barn doors locked.

Sounds like more a case of assumption being the mother of all cock ups, rather than negligence.

I respectfully disagree.

Flight Control Team’s perception of the anomaly report process as being resource intensive made them reluctant to invoke it. Based on interviews and MIB investigation, it was clear that several ground team members were concerned that if the assumed drink bag anomaly experienced at the end of EVA 22 were to be investigated further, it would likely lead to a long, intensive process that would interfere with necessary work needed to prepare for the upcoming EVA 23, and that this issue would likely not uncover anything significant enough to justify the resources which would have to be spent.

However, the strong emphasis on utilization was leading team members to feel that requesting on-orbit time for anything non-science related was likely to be denied and therefore tended to assume their next course of action could not include on-orbit time.

Translation?

Yeah, we get it. You've got some water in your spacesuit. Don't worry about it, it's not a problem, there's nothing to worry about, and we aren't going to waste time and resources proving there's nothing wrong with WATER entering your SPACESUIT.

Yes, they assumed that it was a drink bag leak, and that's actually part of the problem. They made an assumption and instead of following up and proving the veracity of that assumption they allowed the risk to multiply. Is this on the same level as Challenger, Columbia, or Apollo 1? Yes and no. Yes, because it proves that NASA management still -after almost 50 years- places more value on mission than life. No because nobody died.

Edited February 27, 2014 by xcorps

[Seret]

Well, in my oppinion any even possible problem should be fixed, not neglected.

What do you do for a living? Do a lot of investigation of engineering incidents? Because what I read in that report sounds like pretty typical stuff; a combination of people's attitudes, common practice not quite aligning with the policy, people not identifying risks quickly enough, bad assumptions and judgement calls that came back to bite them. Every investigation turns up a string of causal factors, that's just how accidents happen. This doesn't necessarily mean everybody involved is incompetent, it might just mean they cocked up. Everybody cocks up sometimes, I've done it myself.

Now I'm not saying cocking things up that put lives at risk is a good thing. But incompetence is a big call. I haven't read the report in any great detail (these things are invariably as dry as the Pharaoh's crackers) but I didn't spot any smoking guns. It's unlikely to do much for the careers of some involved, but it doesn't sound like their conduct should be dealt with by "arse in a sling" rather than "learn from your mistakes".

[jwenting]

Well, in my oppinion any even possible problem should be fixed, not neglected.

ah, a product of the risk averse society that has led to the demise of mankind's spirit of exploration and innovation and caused us all to be once again afraid of the dark, afraid of what might lurk in the shadows, and have our litigation lawyers permanently on speed dial just in case we stub our toes.

Kid, life is risky. If EVERY risk in a space mission were to be excluded no rocket would ever leave the ground.

Heck, none would ever be built as something could fall and hurt someone...

[xcorps]

ah, a product of the risk averse society that has led to the demise of mankind's spirit of exploration and innovation and caused us all to be once again afraid of the dark, afraid of what might lurk in the shadows, and have our litigation lawyers permanently on speed dial just in case we stub our toes.

Kid, life is risky. If EVERY risk in a space mission were to be excluded no rocket would ever leave the ground.

Heck, none would ever be built as something could fall and hurt someone...

This is not about risk aversion though, is it? It's not about exploration or innovation, it's not about building things. It's about having knowledge of a potentially fatal equipment failure and ignoring it.

I suppose you wouldn't have a problem with your boss telling you to change a light bulb that required climbing a ladder KNOWING the ladder wasn't rated to hold your weight?

Are you of the opinion that the death of the Challenger astronauts was just one of them things and the risk was unavoidable?

But incompetence is a big call

I don't think this was incompetence, but it was clearly negligence. Which is worse? I don't know.

it doesn't sound like their conduct should be dealt with by "arse in a sling" rather than "learn from your mistakes".

Would you be of that same opinion if that EVA incident had resulted in a fatality?

Edited February 27, 2014 by xcorps

[rkman]

what I read in that report sounds like pretty typical stuff; a combination of people's attitudes, common practice not quite aligning with the policy, people not identifying risks quickly enough

Rocket science is not "typical stuff". That is why in space craft engineering -based on experience- a tradition has developed of bending over backwards to try and reduce the "typical stuff" as far as possible.

When the cause of a mishap is excused as "typical stuff", they definitely did not bend over backwards far enough.

a product of the risk averse society that has led to the demise of mankind's spirit of exploration and innovation

You come up with that "risk averse"-meme at every opportunity, and yet it is exactly that risk aversity that enabled NASA to accomplish what it has. How would it be better if more Space Shuttles had exploded? Do not confuse real life with KSP.

The only upshot of taking more risk -with other people's lives- is that it is cheaper. Don't want to be a cheapshot when it comes to space exploration, do you?

Edited February 27, 2014 by rkman

[xcorps]

Rocket science is not "typical stuff". That is why in space craft engineering -based on experience- a tradition has developed of bending over backwards to try and reduce the "typical stuff" as far as possible.

When the cause of a mishap is excused as "typical stuff", they definitely did not bend over backwards far enough.

NASA manned spaceflights have a fatality rate of 19%. Half those fatalities were caused by management ignoring engineering limitations. (The O-ring on Challenger).

In the instance of the other half of those fatalities, NASA actually intervened against engineering requests to investigate the damage. The CAIB report states explicitly that had NASA accommodated the requests, a rescue launch was possible.

In this instance, management ignored an anomaly and crew requests for investigation of the anomaly.

I see a pattern....

[vetrox]

You come up with that "risk averse"-meme at every opportunity, and yet it is exactly that risk aversity that enabled NASA to accomplish what it has. How would it be better if more Space Shuttles had exploded? Do not confuse real life with KSP.

The only upshot of taking more risk -with other people's lives- is that it is cheaper. Don't want to be a cheapshot when it comes to space exploration, do you?

Any form of space travel brings a big risk. We are just lucky nasa is able to carry on after the various tragedies that have happened. Loss of life is going to happen during space exploration. As long as we do as much as we can thats fine but people will die in our persuit of space exploration. We will be very lucky if no one dies during a mars trip and the training leading up to it.

What this article should really have you thinking about is 'will nasa learn from this and make sure it doesnt happen again' As long as we learn from these mistakes (and any loss of life) then its nothing to be up in arms about. Just because nasa ****ed up doesnt give you the right to start slating their competence.

Edited February 27, 2014 by vetrox

[Kryten]

NASA manned spaceflights have a fatality rate of 19%.

Bull. Given there were 135 shuttle flights alone, that'd make at least 26 flights with fatalities.

[rkman]

I see a pattern....

Sure enough. NASA has not always been equally successful wrt safety, but at least they try even though not everyone plays along. At any rate, being less risk averse is not the way to go.

Loss of life is going to happen during space exploration.

Sure. All i'm saying is that that's no reason not to minimize risk as opposed to increasing risk.

doesnt give you the right to start slating their competence.

Am i? To the contrary: i think that NASA is doing a fine job given the circumstances of budget cuts and being invaded by bean counters to replace engineers.

Edited February 27, 2014 by rkman

[vetrox]

Sure. All i'm saying is that that's no reason not to minimize risk as opposed to increasing risk.

I expect risk is reduced as much as possible. Regarding this particular incident though, whos to say the staff involved didnt see it as a high risk. They know now that it was really bad but it didnt start out with them thinking "****, big time water leak he is deffo gonna die...lets carry o anyway.The inward opening hatch on apollo 1 wasnt seen as a risk...nor the pure oxygen yet here we are

[rkman]

it didnt start out with them thinking "****, big time water leak he is deffo gonna die...lets carry o anyway.

I did not say it started that way.

Rather i am objecting to writing it off as "typical stuff". In space ship engineering it should not be (and traditionally is not) typical.

[Klingon Admiral]

Water leaking into a hermetically closed space which is relatively far away from any sort of atmosphere (don't forget, EVA is a slow and tenous process) should ring all sorts of alarm bells. Just think of the headlines: "Astronaut drowns in space" And I would bet that Congress would see this as a perfect valid reason to cut NASAs budget even further so that a General could get his new laser-guided toys. In space, you are not allowed to screw up, especially if you have made the public believe that space travel, at least in LEO, is a relatively safe-ish process. This is, after all, one of the main purposes of the ISS, isn't it? To prove that safe long-duration stay in space is indeed possible. And if you have enough funds to pay 1.5b USD to launch 20 tons into space, you can replace a few pumps (or, you know, develop a new EVA system, the current one is 30-ish years old).

[NASAFanboy]

NASA manned spaceflights have a fatality rate of 19%.

I see a pattern....

Of 135 shuttle flights, only two failed. And of multiple Mercuy and Gemini missions, only one, being Apollo 1, ended in fatalities while Apollo 13 somehow limped back home.

That's a death rate of around 1 or 2%. Possibly even lower.

In contrast, around 8-9% of US Military are killed in Afghanistan, and only half of them die in actual combat, accidents, fatigue, friendly fire, and suicides take out a massive number.

We need to accept that Space Exploration is going to kill. NASA knew about the leak, but they let the EVA proceed on the 40-70% chance that it wouldn't, or delay some ISS operations. Such a risk is totally acceptable. Had we delayed the spacewalk, it might've cost taxpayers thousands of dollars, maybe even millions.

One thing that intrigues me is how everyone says "Die for your country in war" and then, when a astronaut does for the human race, they proceed to call space exploration a waste of money. There is nothing different about sending soldiers to fight in a earth an it is t send astronauts to space. They will have risks, they will have issues. But they are brave people, and ready to die for a cause that is worthy of dying for. Space exploration is such a cause. I bet many of you here would gladly put their entire lives in danger to advance the human race into the universe. I know that I certainly would.

.

[Seret]

Rocket science is not "typical stuff". That is why in space craft engineering -based on experience- a tradition has developed of bending over backwards to try and reduce the "typical stuff" as far as possible.

When the cause of a mishap is excused as "typical stuff", they definitely did not bend over backwards far enough.

I didn't mean the cause of the accident was "typical stuff" I meant that the patterns of behaviour and causality were typical. All big accidents are caused by a string of tiny mistakes that all align to cause an extraordinary event. The concept is known as the Swiss Cheese model, the idea being that when individual small holes in layers of process line up just wrong (like the holes in slices of Swiss cheese) you get a great big hole right through the organisation that calamity can pass through. Normally things will get caught by one of the layers of processes, but when the holes align...

My point was, the patterns that led to this failure are pretty typical of what you see in any accident.

[xcorps]

Yeah, my bad on the math. 277 NASA people in space with 14 fatalities is not 19%.

But the point stands. Each and every one of those 14 are dead because of NASA management. Not equipment.

Space exploration is such a cause. I bet many of you here would gladly put their entire lives in danger to advance the human race into the universe. I know that I certainly would.

Wrong. Space exploration was not the cause. None of those 14 astronauts died for the human race or space exploration or any other lofty ideal. They died because mission decision makers made politically oriented decisions instead of mission oriented decisions, and they still are.

I certainly would. I would also expect management to do everything possible to prevent that from happening.

My point was, the patterns that led to this failure are pretty typical of what you see in any accident.

No they aren't. In a typical safety structure, on of the the main conclusions of an incident investigation is prevention. That was not the case for the anomaly of EVA 22.

What this article should really have you thinking about is 'will nasa learn from this and make sure it doesnt happen again' As long as we learn from these mistakes (and any loss of life) then its nothing to be up in arms about. Just because nasa ****ed up doesnt give you the right to start slating their competence.

It's not a question of preventing repeat incidents. It's a question of having a competent and accountable safety structure to prevent incidents in the first place. The incident of EVA 23 was preventable because there was an anomaly that should have been investigated on EVA 22. NASA management has demonstrated that it does not behave in a responsible manner.

Edited February 27, 2014 by xcorps

[Kryten]

They died because mission decision makers made politically oriented decisions instead of mission oriented decisions, and they still are.

For a government organisation, politically-oriented decisions are mission oriented. Politics is the only reason there are any missions at all.

[Skyrunner27]

A repair or rescue mission would have been risky due to the fact that Columbia did not carry the Canadarm. That would required multiple bodies in a small enviroment trying to fly in formation. A very risky situation.

[Tarrow]

[pulls on his hardhat-and-flamesuit-of-evidence-hunting]

ower.

In contrast, around 8-9% of US Military are killed in Afghanistan, and only half of them die in actual combat, accidents, fatigue, friendly fire, and suicides take out a massive number.

.

There have been 2174 deaths of US military personnel in Afghanistan in the 13 years they've been there (with 1795 formally listed as enemy action, 82%). There're 33,600 currently deployed personnel with an average deployment length of around a year. That's 2174 deaths in around 436800 personnel-years, or 0.497%

If NASA have had 14 deaths from 277 crewmembers then that puts their mortality rate for the shuttle program alone at 5.05%. Apollo / Gemini may shift that figure up or down a bit, but I don't have the figures to hand for those programs.

Per person being a member of the shuttle crew put people at a risk of dying ten times greater than being deployed to an active warzone as part of US forces.

edit: not that i'm against space exploration, far from it I'm an avid supporter. But NASA's safety record makes issues such as water leaks into suits completely unsurprising.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Tarrow

[Lexif]

Guys, this kind of statistics is totally meaningless, just stop it.

There is just not enough data to do meaningfull statistics on. It's the same bull as with aircraft accident statistics. Just like how Concorde was the safest passenger airliner in existance, and the next day, it was the most dangerous one. This just tells us the statistics are useless.

Also, don't the Afhanistan troop numbers include staff in supporting roles? Then why are we not counting launch pad crews etc. as well for space programs? See, you can spin this any way you want, because the dataset is too sparse.

[hugix]

Lies, damned lies and statistics

[xcorps]

[pulls on his hardhat-and-flamesuit-of-evidence-hunting]

There have been 2174 deaths of US military personnel in Afghanistan in the 13 years they've been there (with 1795 formally listed as enemy action, 82%). There're 33,600 currently deployed personnel with an average deployment length of around a year. That's 2174 deaths in around 436800 personnel-years, or 0.497%

If NASA have had 14 deaths from 277 crewmembers then that puts their mortality rate for the shuttle program alone at 5.05%. Apollo / Gemini may shift that figure up or down a bit, but I don't have the figures to hand for those programs.

Per person being a member of the shuttle crew put people at a risk of dying ten times greater than being deployed to an active warzone as part of US forces.

edit: not that i'm against space exploration, far from it I'm an avid supporter. But NASA's safety record makes issues such as water leaks into suits completely unsurprising.

The number of spacecraft fatalities for Gemini/Apollo is 3, but that fire was in a capsule on the ground so it falls under the category of Training Fatality, of which there were 11. All but the Apollo 1 fire were in training aircraft in flight or a collision with the ground. There was an additional fatality of an X15 pilot who was considered to have achieved space flight after reaching the 50 mile mark.

For a government organisation, politically-oriented decisions are mission oriented. Politics is the only reason there are any missions at all.

While true, surely you don't submit that those decisions are acceptable?

Edited February 27, 2014 by xcorps