{"title":"Normal accident theory and learning from major accidents at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)","authors":"Leo Tasca","doi":"10.1016/j.spacepol.2024.101653","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>A review of NASA's accident history through the lens of Normal Accident Theory (NAT) offers insights into the prospects for safety during the Artemis Program. NAT is applied to NASA's four major human spaceflight accidents: the Apollo launch pad fire, Apollo 13, Challenger and Columbia. NAT predicts that in the complex and tightly coupled systems used for human spaceflight, an accident type known as the “normal accident”, is inevitable. These accidents are attributable to hidden system interactions that overwhelm the cognitive abilities of human operators and, thereby, escape detection. A review of the four official accident reports and supporting secondary analyses suggests NASA has had one such accident: Apollo 13. It was also the only major accident without injury and a successful recovery effort. NAT would categorize the other three as component failure accidents. Unlike normal accidents, component failure accidents are not inevitable. They stem from an organization's failure to appropriately monitor, assess and mitigate the risk associated with a faulty component. In such cases, NAT would ask if production pressures, often rooted in scheduling and resource constraints, were a factor.</div><div>Production pressures are ultimately imposed on organizations through the exercise of power. These pressures impede an organization's ability to adequately assess risk and increase the likelihood of component failure accidents. The substantial organizational literature on NASA's human spaceflight accidents has yielded potential remedies to help mitigate the risks associated with production pressure. This paper discusses these remedies and their potential safety benefits. It also proposes a modification to a safety governance mechanism recommended by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB). The resulting changes could help NASA, and other organizations administering high risk technologies, further improve safety.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":45924,"journal":{"name":"Space Policy","volume":"70 ","pages":"Article 101653"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Space Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265964624000444","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
A review of NASA's accident history through the lens of Normal Accident Theory (NAT) offers insights into the prospects for safety during the Artemis Program. NAT is applied to NASA's four major human spaceflight accidents: the Apollo launch pad fire, Apollo 13, Challenger and Columbia. NAT predicts that in the complex and tightly coupled systems used for human spaceflight, an accident type known as the “normal accident”, is inevitable. These accidents are attributable to hidden system interactions that overwhelm the cognitive abilities of human operators and, thereby, escape detection. A review of the four official accident reports and supporting secondary analyses suggests NASA has had one such accident: Apollo 13. It was also the only major accident without injury and a successful recovery effort. NAT would categorize the other three as component failure accidents. Unlike normal accidents, component failure accidents are not inevitable. They stem from an organization's failure to appropriately monitor, assess and mitigate the risk associated with a faulty component. In such cases, NAT would ask if production pressures, often rooted in scheduling and resource constraints, were a factor.
Production pressures are ultimately imposed on organizations through the exercise of power. These pressures impede an organization's ability to adequately assess risk and increase the likelihood of component failure accidents. The substantial organizational literature on NASA's human spaceflight accidents has yielded potential remedies to help mitigate the risks associated with production pressure. This paper discusses these remedies and their potential safety benefits. It also proposes a modification to a safety governance mechanism recommended by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB). The resulting changes could help NASA, and other organizations administering high risk technologies, further improve safety.
期刊介绍:
Space Policy is an international, interdisciplinary journal which draws on the fields of international relations, economics, history, aerospace studies, security studies, development studies, political science and ethics to provide discussion and analysis of space activities in their political, economic, industrial, legal, cultural and social contexts. Alongside full-length papers, which are subject to a double-blind peer review system, the journal publishes opinion pieces, case studies and short reports and, in so doing, it aims to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and opinions and a means by which authors can alert policy makers and international organizations to their views. Space Policy is also a journal of record, reproducing, in whole or part, official documents such as treaties, space agency plans or government reports relevant to the space community. Views expressed in the journal are not necessarily those of the editors or members of the editorial board.