Critics question bias from NASA-appointed commission

WASHINGTON -- The NASA-appointed commission conducting an independent investigation into the Columbia accident is too closely linked to the space agency and has too little time to do its work, say critics who wonder whether the public can trust the findings.

They cite the perception of conflicts of interests -- a NASA official is a commissioner, a NASA engineer is the executive secretary, the board is relying on NASA staff and using NASA facilities.

The commission has 60 days to complete its mission, a timeframe perhaps insufficient for a thorough probe, says one lawmaker who notes the presidential commission investigating the shuttle Challenger explosion got 120 days.

Acknowledging congressional skepticism, NASA's chief has changed the commission's charter and may add more members.

Despite those moves, "I'm still concerned that the credibility and the independence of the commission can be challenged," Tennessee Rep. Bart Gordon, ranking Democrat on the House Science space and aeronautics subcommittee, said Saturday.

Some members of Congress want a presidential commission to investigate Feb. 1 shuttle Columbia disaster, much like the one President Reagan sent to look into the Challenger's explosion 17 years ago. Only a few days into that investigation, NASA was accused of secrecy and cover-ups.

To blunt Congressional criticism of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe revised its charter on Thursday, toning down language that seemingly had given him a strong hand to shape the investigation, and said the panel may get more members.

'Extremely independent'

On Saturday, O'Keefe called the commission an "extremely independent outfit." Gordon, in a letter sent Friday to President Bush, praised the changes but said more members still need to be added to the panel, and the board's charter must be revised further to ensure its independence. It also should report directly to the president and Congress, in effect a presidential panel like the Challenger's.

He also said the 60 days given to the board to probe the accident may not be enough time for a thorough investigation, noting the presidential commission looking into the 1986 loss of the Challenger had twice as long.

Any timeline should remain flexible, Gordon said Saturday, "but to start off with a 60-day mandate just isn't credible."

Late Saturday, NASA said the U.S. Strategic Command apparently tracked something flying near Columbia while the shuttle was still in orbit. Space agency spokeswoman Eileen Hawley said it was in the realm of possibility the object might have come from Columbia, but stressed "this is very raw data" that had just been turned over to investigators and that it was far too early to speculate.