Final Report of the Return to Flight Task Group 4 TRANSITION TO THE ASAP The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) is a senior advisory committee that reports to the NASA Administrator and Congress. The Panel was established by Congress after the Apollo 204 Command Module (“Apollo 1”) spacecraft fire in January 1967 to advise NASA on the safety of operations, facilities, and personnel. The statutory duties of the ASAP, as prescribed in Section 6 of the NASA Authorization Act of 1968, Public Law 90-67, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2477, are: “The Panel shall review safety studies and operations plans that are referred to it and shall make reports thereon, shall advise the Administrator with respect to the hazards of proposed operations and with respect to the adequacy of proposed or existing safety standards, and shall perform such other duties as the Administrator may request.” The ASAP consists of nine members appointed to two year terms, reaffirmed annually, by the NASA Administrator. The NASA Chief Safety and Mission Assurance Officer participates as an ex-officio member in Panel activities. The ASAP meets as a group four times per year, and conducts independent fact-finding as needed. Given that the ASAP meets only quarterly, and has no full-time investigative staff, the RTF TG recognizes that this volume of forward work may be beyond the resources of the ASAP. It is possible that ASAP may be assisted by other independent entities to assess the Agency’s performance of the tasks described in the subsequent sections. For example, the ASAP could make arrangements with the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC), the Independent Technical Authority (ITA), the National Research Council, the National Academies, or other independent organizations to assist in its evaluations. 4.1 Conditions for Transition It became clear early-on that the ASAP would ultimately become involved with monitoring the NASA implementation of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) recommendations. The RTF TG was responsible for assessing only the CAIB recommendations marked “return to flight,” and the Task Group limited itself to this subset of 15 items. The remaining 14 (non-return to flight) CAIB recommendations, as well as other findings, observations, and NASA “raising the bar” actions would need to be assessed by another organization, such as the ASAP. CAIB believed that all 29 of their recommendations captured “thinking on what changes are necessary to operate the Shuttle and future spacecraft safely in the mid- to long-term.” While the RTF TG, by charter, focused solely on CAIB return-to-flight recommendations, the CAIB report focused more broadly on the needs of the Space Shuttle and future program needs. As the RTF TG completed their assessments, it also became apparent that some of the return-to-flight implementations contained forward work that would require monitoring by another organization, and the RTF TG negotiated a Memorandum of Agreement with the ASAP to continue this work. In the case of the return-to-flight recommendations, the RTF TG only assessed those portions of the NASA implementation that was specifically intended for STS-114 – any future work was largely outside the scope of the Task Group. The conditions that predicated a need to transition a CAIB recommendation to the ASAP were: 1. A CAIB recommendation had a phased implementation approach, some being implemented before return-to-flight and some planned for implementation afterwards. For those phases of implementation not planned for STS-114, the ASAP will need to monitor and evaluate the future implementation. Page 119 of 216Final Report of the Return to Flight Task Group 2. The implementation of a CAIB recommendation will be available for the return-to-flight, but the implementation needs to be demonstrated in the flight environment. An example includes the reduction of debris shedding from the External Tank. Since the RTF TG completed its assessments prior to STS-114, the ASAP will have to assess the results of the flight data to verify the performance is as expected. 3. A CAIB recommendation has a temporary implementation for STS-114 which cannot be used on a specific later flight, such as the proposed Hubble servicing mission. While the RTF TG has assessed the STS-114 implementation, the ASAP will need to monitor and evaluate the final implementation. To assist in the turnover of activities from the RTF TG to the ASAP, several ASAP members were invited to observe the final two plenary meetings of the Task Group and witnessed at least one Mission Management Team (MMT) simulation. The turnover is also assisted by the fact that two Task Group members (Dr. Dan L. Crippen and Dr. Amy K. Donahue) are also members of the ASAP. Page 120 of 216Final Report of the Return to Flight Task Group 4.2 Items to be Transitioned Several of the CAIB return-to-flight recommendations contain items the RTF TG believes the ASAP should continue to monitor. In addition, the Task Group has several items – not related to specific recommendations – that it believes require future monitoring or assessment. The ASAP might also wish to review the “RTF TG Observation” portion of each assessment. 4.2.1 Integrated Vehicle The STS-114 Operations Integrated Plan for Thermal Protection System Assessment (or simply, the OIP) and its Damage Assessment Annex greatly enhanced the ability of the Space Shuttle Program to perform an integrated vehicle external damage assessment in support of decision-making, primarily within the MMT. The RTF TG believes that NASA should continue to develop the OIP and it’s Annex for all future flights, not just for STS-114. The information, understanding, and experienced gained from producing the document for STS-114 will be invaluable for future mission data integration. The ASAP should monitor the continued development of the OIP and its Annex, as well as how the processes and timelines described in the documents are used for decision-making within the MMT and other groups. 4.2.2 CAIB Recommendation 3.2-1, External Tank Debris Shedding Debris from the External Tank was the physical cause of the Columbia accident, and NASA has gone to tremendous lengths in their attempts to cure the problem. According to the NASA May 2005 document The Integrated Risk Assessment Approach for Return to Flight, “… The External Tank debris allowable requirements currently do not protect against