Untitled
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- Two years ago, NASA dismantled an expert panel that was questioning the budget-strapped space agency's long-term plans for safety. Now, with the Columbia disaster bringing safety issues to the fore, some are wondering why panel members were dismissed.
Five of nine members of NASA's Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel and two consultants to the panel were replaced in the summer of 2001, midway through their annual review, by then-NASA Administrator Dan Goldin. Most of those removed had more than a dozen years of service.
"I don't have any direct knowledge that we were kicked off because of our views or positions, but I do know that we annoyed some people,'' said John B. Stewart, a former aerospace consultant who served 21 years on the board and now lives in Knoxville.
A sixth member, retired Navy Vice Adm. Bernard Kauderer, resigned after the dismissals. And the chairman, Richard Blomberg of Stamford, Conn., was replaced soon after the panel's report to NASA and Congress was completed in March 2002.
Stewart, Kauderer and Blomberg all stressed that no connection can be drawn between the panel's turnover and the Columbia disaster on Saturday, which killed all seven astronauts on board.
"I couldn't possibly say that. In fact, I don't think it is relevant to Columbia at all,'' Stewart said. ``But it will be relevant once the shuttle (program) gets flying again.
"How are you going to maintain these vehicles for the long term? Will you make investments now that will make that possible? All of those issues come right back to the surface as soon as the three remaining shuttles are declared operational.''
NASA Associate Deputy Administrator Michael Greenfield said Wednesday that "the panel had done a wonderful job,'' but the agency decided it would benefit from new members with more specific high-tech skills.
The advisory group, made up of former NASA officials and outside experts, was formed by Congress in the wake of the 1967 Apollo spacecraft fire that killed three astronauts.
NASA's inspector general suggested in 1997 that too much time on the panel might impede a member's ``independence, objectivity and willingness to delve into areas of substance and controversy.''
But Stewart said the panel's fight to remain independent of NASA oversight is the very thing that led to the dismissals.
Blomberg, reached at his Stamford, Conn., consulting business, said he never a received an explanation.
"I don't think it was a single issue. I do think there was pressure maybe to change to people who would sing a little different tune, if you know what I mean,'' Blomberg said.
"What was happening was that the panel over and over was saying there is a problem - we think things are underfunded. We think you are not preparing for the future,'' he said. ``NASA was concurring, but it was lip service.''
Blomberg said the funding issue may have been more of a political problem with Congress or the White House, but the panel felt the heat from NASA. He was asked to reorganize the panel, then dismissed after nearly 15 years of service before his term ended.
"I was really disappointed in the treatment that these very senior, very experienced members of the panel received,'' Kauderer said in explaining why he resigned after four years on the board.
He said he also was concerned that the newly reconstituted panel would not ``maintain the same level of independence.''
The panel, with replacement members, wrote in the report released in March that its ``safety concerns have never been greater.''
"Unless appropriate steps are taken to reduce future risk and increase reliability are taken expeditiously, NASA may be forced to choose between two unacceptable options - operating at increased risk or grounding the fleet until time-consuming improvements can be made," the panel said.
advertisement
