NASA Procedures Said to Be Flawed

WASHINGTON--The chairman of the presidential Challenger commission bluntly denounced NASA yesterday for a "clearly flawed" decision-making process, after hearing of a second instance in which the space agency brushed aside contractor fears for the safety of the shuttle and crew.

Summarizing three days of hearings at which several witnesses complained that their concerns were not passed to the agency's top officials, Chairman William Rogers told four senior NASA officials, "You eliminate the element of good judgment and common sense."

Rogers said he was speaking for the whole panel and said the process "should require people to take stands, and you should have a record on it."

His statement came on the heels of testimony by the official who decided to launch Challenger that he rejected an unsafe-to-fly warning from the spaceplane's manufacturer, because "it was not an objection to launch."

Arnold Aldrich, the number-two man in the shuttle program, said he rejected an objection on the morning of the January 28 liftoff by Rockwell International that ice on Pad 39B made conditions "not safe to launch."

But, he told the presidential commission, "I would think it was more than reasonable that if someone were still concerned this was a very bad judgment or bad action, they would call me. I left every opportunity for that to happen" in the time between the 9 a.m. objection and the 11:38 a.m. launch. No such call came.

"It seems to me that if you are going to have a decision-making process with key people involved, it ought to be clear where they stand," said Rogers, as he closed out the second phase of public testimony.

He told the four senior launch officials that "the recommendations that were made were either not fully understood by you or not conveyed to you."

Rogers said yesterday's hearing was the last public session planned on the decision process, although the panel will continue its work in private. The next public hearing will not come for a week at least, he said.

The commission, appointed by President Reagan February 3, was given 120 days to make its report.

Rogers, who has grown increasingly vocal in his criticism about gaps in the information flow to officials making critical launch decisions, seemed particularly surprised by the Rock well testimony.

Rockwell's testimony about its concerns that ice could damage the Challenger made it the second major contractor to express reservations about the cold before the launch, which cost the lives of seven astronauts and destroyed one of four shuttles in America's fleet.

An inspection team that went to the pad three times on launch morning--the last time 40 minutes before listoff--told the launch control center that ice would pose no danger. Two men on the team told the commission that post-launch films showed that to be the case.

Earlier in the week, engineers from Morton Thiokol, which manufactures the shuttle's booster rockets, said they argued against the launch because they feared booster safety seals would not work properly after a night in subfreezing weather.