Floyd 1
Cody Floyd
Professor Alicia Bolton
English 101
November 6, 2013
Houston… We Have a Problem
In 2004, astronaut Michael Foale and cosmonaut Sasha Kaleri found themselves in the middle of
a major problem depicted in the story “Picture Window”. To add insult to injury, this problem was over a
thousand miles into Earth’s atmosphere inside the International Space Station. NASA had notified the two
man crew of the space station that air pressure was slowly dropping inside the station. The leak was slow
but eventually could disable the whole station and waste the thirty billion dollars that went in to build the
magnificent technology (Casey 81). After countless hours of searching for the leak and sealing off
multiple modules of the station, Foale finally found the culprit. The leak came from “a flexible cable
called a vacuum jumper, used to help equalize air pressure across the multipaned window” (Oberg par. 5)
located in the Destiny module of the space station. After contacting NASA, Foale and Kaleri temporarily
fixed the leak while waiting on a replacement to be sent via cargo ship in the future. How did this leak
occur? Firstly, the hose was installed by NASA in the window in order to prevent any bacteria or mold to
form between the panes of glass. This would give the space station the clearest window it had, and it
would be in the NASA designed Destiny module instead of the Russian module (Casey 82). After the
event occurred, Russia later released several photos of past astronauts and cosmonauts taking pictures of
the miraculous view from the Destiny window (Casey 84). In every picture, the crew member had one
hand grabbing his camera, and the other grabbed the vacuum hose that was perfectly situated to be used
as a handle. The hose was never meant to be used as a handle, but that is what the crew men used it for
(Casey 84). The crew members of the space station had no clue that the hose was not to be touched.
NASA never sent up any precautionary instructions or safety issues about the vacuum hose for the crew
members of the space station. This is not the first time NASA has made a mistake. Other incidents such as
the Skylab accident and the two space shuttle disasters have tarnished NASA’s reputation. It is safe to say
Floyd 2
that the families of the crew members aboard the International Space Station would feel a lot better
knowing that every precaution for safety was taken in order to keep the crew members safe. The
protection of human life is essential for the space program. The protection of billions of dollars is also
essential in order to keep investors and American tax payers happy. No one wants to see an enormous
amount of money go to waste. Because of several past failures and disasters that crippled NASA’s
reputation, safety should be the space program’s top priority in order to protect human lives and
investments.
To start with, NASA can be blamed for the window incident because of its history of past failures
and disasters that resulted in the loss of human life. One of the first failures was the Apollo 13 mission.
The mission went completely wrong when something punctured a hole in the oxygen tanks of the ship.
The three astronauts watched as their oxygen supply “suddenly emptied” (“Disasters in Space” par. 1).
The crew had to make an emergency route back to Earth before all of their oxygen was depleted. The
crew made it home safely, but barely by using the Lunar Module as a “lifeboat” (“Disasters” par. 1) on
the long ride home. The next disaster occurred when NASA’s Skylab fell out of Earth’s atmosphere. The
Skylab was the very first space station NASA put into space which ended in disaster. Equipment that was
designed to keep the Skylab in orbit failed, and the 2.6 billion dollar station fell out of the sky and crashed
into earth (“Disasters” par. 1). This incident was one of the last straws for NASA and led to extreme
ridicule of the United States space program. Later into the 1980’s and early 2000’s, NASA saw disaster
once again with accidents in the Space Shuttle Program. STS 51-L Mission, also known as the Challenger
accident, occurred “at 11:38 A.M. on January 28, 1986” (Angelo 213). Seventy-four seconds into its
flight, the Challenger burst into flames and exploded killing all crew members (Angelo 213). Research
later found that “the decision to launch the Challenger on that particular day was flawed” (Angelo 213)
which contributed to the accident. NASA messed up once again, but this time loss of life was the result.
Finally, the most recent accident was the Columbia accident which occurred in 2003. The flight was
successful until sixteen minutes before the shuttle’s scheduled landing time. The shuttle caught fire and
disintegrated as it approached back to Earth, killing all seven of its crew. After later investigation, NASA
Floyd 3
found that a heating problem in the left wing of the shuttle caused the fire. This accident further showed
NASA had not prepared well enough for a routine mission. With these accidents occurring throughout
time, NASA should have taken more time in preparing for safety when designing the window of the
Destiny module of the International Space Station.
Resulting from NASA aiming at designing the “best window ever made” (Casey 82), safety
ended up flying out of the picture. NASA was aiming to outdo the Russian technique of filling the space
between the window panes with dry nitrogen (Casey 82). Instead, they used a vacuum jumper hose which
left the interspace of the window panes with absolutely nothing. NASA got too carried away in their
mission on the best window and ignored the advice recommended by the United States Research Council:
“As has been discussed elsewhere, the characterization of risk should be clearly communicated” (United
States 12). Risk was not communicated or taken into factor enough when designing the vacuum jumper.
This led to the hose springing a leak that caused air pressure to drop inside the space station. NASA
officials and designers did not take into account that the hose might not be able to withstand pressure
from astronauts grabbing onto it. NASA officials had not taken certain circumstances into account before
such as in the Challenger accident. The officials who decided to launch the Challenger on that particular
day were “unaware of the recent history of problems concerning the O-rings” (Angelo 213). The O-rings
were the part of the shuttle that was destroyed right after liftoff. These officials were also unaware of
recommendations by the contractors of the shuttle that “launch at temperatures below 53 degrees
Fahrenheit” (Angelo 213) should be prohibited. Finally, NASA officials did not have a clear
understanding “that it was not safe to launch because of the ice on the launch pad” (Angelo 214). This
provision was given to NASA by Rockwell (NASA’s main shuttle contractor and builder). In the end, if
the NASA officials had taken these provisions and predicted the risks of launching that day, “it is highly
unlikely that they would have decided to launch” (Angelo 214) the Challenger. NASA had failed to
communicate risk before the Challenger disaster.
On the other hand, is every disaster or safety issue that occurs in space always NASA’s fault? It
was the astronaut and Russian cosmonaut aboard the space station that physically created the leak. A few
Floyd 4
days after the leak was found and repaired, “the Russians made public an expansive album of photographs
spanning many many months” (Casey 84). These photos were of a cosmonaut or astronaut viewing earth
through the window. In every single picture, the “right hand held a camera and the left clutched the silver
colored metallic hose” (Casey 84). The hose was never meant to be used as a handle, but its position right
next to the window allowed crew members to use it for just this purpose. NASA could argue that the
crewman aboard the station should have enough common sense and experience in space to know not to
physically grab a hose that led straight out into outer space. On the contrary, NASA never sent any
notifications or cautionary instructions to the crew warning them about the danger of misusing the hose
too often. With the help of cautionary provisions, the crewman aboard the station might not have used the
hose as a handle and therefore preventing the leak from ever occurring. The crewman had no way of
knowing that they should not be using the hose as a handle. The hose was “perfectly positioned” (84) for
the purpose of being a handle to grab onto in order to snap a quick picture in zero gravity with your home
planet in the background. NASA could also argue that the Russians failed to communicate that the hose
was being used as a handle. Russian space officials had a wide collection of photos of crew members
gripping the hose. They had these photos in possession months before the leak occurred (Casey 84). With
this knowledge communicated to NASA, the U.S. space program might have contacted the crew members
and notified them that gripping the hose should be avoided. Also in NASA’s defense, the International
Space Station is “a merger of several previously planned space stations” (“Living in Space” n.p.). These
stations come from several nations that include the U.S., Russia, Canada, and several European countries
(“Living” n.p.). With that said, NASA might not be entirely at fault for the leak aboard the International
Space Station. With over fifteen other countries involved with the construction and development of the
station, none of them recognized the leak. Is it completely up to NASA to regulate all operations aboard
the station, or do other nations help out too? The ISS is a team operation, not a one man show; however
the leak occurred aboard the Destiny module (Oberg par. 5). The Destiny module was built and designed
by NASA, so this area should be regulated by NASA. NASA is responsible for all actions and designs
inside this module. The window was also designed by NASA, and it was obviously faulty in design.
Floyd 5
Finally, NASA is one of the world’s largest space programs, so they have the technology and numbers to
efficiently regulate and monitor the International Space Station.
Resulting from NASA’s faults and disasters throughout the past decades, the program has lost
steam the past few years. The once great United States space program has declined as the shuttle program
came to an end. All shipments to the International Space Station now come from “robotic Russian cargo
ships” (Oberg par. 6). In the past year a new company called SpaceX (Space Exploration Technologies)
has emerged. SpaceX is one of many “leading private companies working to restore America’s ability to
carry astronauts to the Space Station” (“United States: SpaceX Announces…” par. 1). SpaceX’s CEO and
Chief Designer Elon Musk made “‘safety [the company’s] top priority’” (par. 2). This clearly shows that
today’s new and evolving space programs have learned from NASA’s past mistakes and faults and want
to make safety their number one objective. Musk is taking safety serious, something NASA never tried to
do, by creating a Safety Advisory Panel composed of the leading spaceflight safety experts (par.3). If
NASA would have taken safety as a top priority like SpaceX is now doing, the once great space program
might still be at the top of the mountain.
The encounter International Space Station crew members Foale and Sasha encountered almost
cost them their lives and the United States millions of dollars. If the leak was not found, the station would
not be able to function. The leak occurred in the Destiny module of the station. This area was designed by
NASA. The window in the module was designed to be the best window in the entire station.
Unfortunately NASA had not done enough to prepare for this near disaster. NASA has run into many
disasters and failures from the Apollo 13 mission, to the Columbia and Challenger accidents during the
space shuttle missions. Some of these accidents led to loss of lives and millions of dollars invested into
the space program. After all of these events, NASA should make safety their number one priority. Double
checking all data, measurements, and other stats that go into these missions and technological designs
would benefit the space program and prevent accidents from ever happening. NASA was at fault for the
window incident on the space station. The crew members did physically cause the leak, but NASA’s did
not ever send any precautionary provisions or instructions on the sturdiness of the hose. NASA let their
Floyd 6
ego get ahead of them trying to create the perfect window. With past disasters and many accidents, NASA
had plenty of opportunities to learn from mistakes and to push safety to the top of their priority list. This
ultimate mistake not only resulted in loss of space crafts but sadly the loss of human lives. Today new
independent companies such as SpaceX have learned from NASA’s mistakes and are placing safety on
top of their to do list. NASA might still be the lead dog in the world’s space programs if safety was taken
into more account.
Floyd 7
Works Cited
Angelo, Joseph A. Human Spaceflight. New York City: Fact on File, Inc, 2007. Print.
Casey, Steven. “Picture Window.” The Atomic Chef: And Other True Tales of Design, Technology, and
Human Error. Santa Barbara, CA: Aegean Pub. Co. 2006. 78-85. Print.
"Disasters in Space." American Decades. Ed. Judith S. Baughman, et al. Vol. 8: 1970-1979. Gale,
2001. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 4 Nov. 2013.
Living in Space. Films Media Group, 2006. Films On Demand. Web. 4 Nov. 2013.
Oberg, James. “Crew finds ‘culprit’ in space station leak.” NBCNews.com. NBC News, 1 Jan. 2004.
Web. 4 Nov. 2013.
United States, National Research Council. Review of NASA Plans for the International Space
Station. National Academy of Sciences, 2006. EBESCOhost. Web. 3 Nov. 2013.
“United States: SpaceX Announces Independent safety Advisory Panel for Commercial Crew.”
TendersInfo News 30 Mar. 2012. Infotrac Newsstand. Web. 20 Nov. 2013.