Ep 9. NASA Under Pressure

In Engineering Catastrophes season 2 episode 9, titled "NASA Under Pressure," viewers are taken behind the scenes of one of the most iconic organizations in American history, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The episode explores how a sequence of decisions made by government officials, space scientists, and NASA engineers during the 90s created a kind of perfect storm that ultimately devastated the space program when two missions failed within a few short years of each other.

The episode begins by highlighting the successes that NASA enjoyed in the 80s and early 90s. The space shuttle program was flourishing, and NASA was making strides in scientific research, helping government agencies and private companies launch satellites, exploring new frontiers to search for planets that could potentially house life and more. However, changes in budget allocations and political priorities in the mid-90s would have far-reaching consequences for the agency. The Clinton administration insisted NASA cut costs and streamline operations to maintain public support and preserve its funding. NASA then made some significant changes in a bid to meet these objectives.

One of the most radical moves was to transfer ownership of the Space Shuttle from a government agency to a private concern called United Space Alliance. Though this move resulted in a few cost savings, it also meant that work that was done by highly trained engineers was replaced by contractors, who did not have the same level of expertise that NASA had in-house. This change lowered the quality of work, but more importantly, it created a change in how work was prioritized, with workers from United Space Alliance frequently being supervised by people who saw NASA as a customer rather than as a partner.

The episode then goes on to detail the two missions which failed. First up was the 1996 disaster of the Mars Pathfinder spacecraft. NASA had launched the probe on a mission of discovery to the red planet. It was supposed to land on the surface of Mars and then deploy a rover, a space vehicle that would traverse the planet's surface and send data back to NASA. However, something went wrong, and the rover was unable to communicate back with Earth. NASA traced the problem back to the manufacturer of the chips that controlled the rover's CPU. Apparently, these chips failed when they were exposed to cosmic rays. This was a perfect storm of bad decisions: United Space Alliance did not have the same level of expertise on board nor the same experience in testing equipment in space conditions as NASA had, leading to the use of sub-par equipment to meet initial cost goals. Additionally, much of the risk analysis that NASA would have performed was not carried out, given the tight timelines that were committed to after its transfer to United Space Alliance.

Next, the show details the 2000 crash of the space shuttle, Columbia. While the investigations into that failure are covered in other programs, this show focuses on the circumstances leading up to the crash, which were, again, a sequence of events started by the outsourcing of the shuttle program. United Space Alliance was wholly focused on minimizing the costs of the space shuttle program, and an internal audit revealed that many of the safety protocols and maintenance checks were either not carried or incomplete. NASA engineers tried to push back against the shift in priorities, but they were often hampered by United Space Alliance's budget concerns.

Overall, Engineering Catastrophes season 2 episode 9 is an insightful exploration of how overreaching goals fueled by political decisions and power struggles within an organization can undermine the very accomplishments of that organization. The episode highlights both the importance of maintaining quality control in the face of cost-saving measures and the need for sustained investment from government undertakings. NASA's reputation for exploring beyond the limitations of our world has inspired generations, but it shows how it's critical to maintain best practices and oversight to keep any such government programs healthy.