|
©
2003 J. Lee Lehman
The space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated across
the skies of America on February 1, 2003, just days after the
anniversaries of NASA’s two other fatal accidents, the Apollo
1 launchpad fire, and the explosion of the space shuttle
Challenger. In this article, we examine the following
questions:
1. Was Columbia destined to “die” in
a way other than old age?
2. Was the take-off time of Columbia mission
STS-107 particularly dangerous compared to other shuttle launches?
3. What, if any relationships can we see with the three
fatal accidents that might predict a reoccurrence in the future?
Lurking behind these questions is also the issue of
which chart to use for a disaster. At the time I am writing this,
there is no good conventional chart for the actual disaster itself,
because, while we have a timeline, what we lack is a corresponding
set of geographical coordinates. As a result, until such time as more
specific data become available, we may need to study the actual event
in Astrocartography - not a bad idea, in any case.
As for the rest, there are two primary charts to
consider. The launch chart of the fatal mission STS-107, that ended
tragically in flames is the immediate focus of our concern because it
is this event that brought together that particular craft and crew.
This was the point of no return for the crew, as far as any
individual free will is concerned: this is where the crew joined
their personal fates to that of the shuttle -- whatever that fate
would be. But before that, we must go back to the first flight of
shuttle Columbia. That was the “birth” of Columbia
as a flying vessel, and should show its eventual fate, just as a
birth chart does the same for a living being.
The Ultimate Fate of the Shuttle
Columbia
Astrologers who study flight have noted that actually
there are several times which could be used for the birth of a craft.
The “roll-out” time is when the craft is completed at its
manufacturing facility.
Columbia was originally designated Orbiter 102: Orbiter 101
was Enterprise, which was used for all of the pre-orbital test
flights and Orbiter certifications. However, so many modifications
were made as a result of these test flights, that NASA deemed it
cheaper and faster to change to a “newer” Orbiter that
was still in the production pipeline, 102.
We do have a date for the roll-out from Rockwell, and
the noon chart does have certain intriguing relationships to later
charts, including the launch of STS-107. Be that as it may, it is
probably not a good chart, as neither the engines had been certified,
nor had the thermal tiles been installed. The problem here is the
conventional concept of roll-out (leaving the manufacturer facility)
is not really applicable - the Orbiter was modified substantially by
NASA once it left Rockwell.
The real roll-out, I believe, is for when Columbia left the
Orbiter Processing Facility to go to the Vehicle Assembly Building,
where it would be mated to the rockets that would be used to take it
into orbit. At this point, the manufacturing process truly was
complete.
The Cancer Moon of this chart, we shall see shortly,
actually ties this roll-out chart to the launch of STS-107. The chart
of the roll-out is a worrisome chart: while the Ascendant ruler Mars
is exalted, the Moon in the 8th house is just separating from the
opposition to it, and applying to a square to the Jupiter-Saturn
conjunction in early Libra. The Moon is applying to Mercury, ruler of
the 8th House. Furthermore, Mercury is at the Bendings.
This is not good.
However, in my opinion, the best chart for the birth of
an object is for the time that the object first does that which it is
designed to do: in this case, launch into space. Columbia flew
its first mission, and the chart for that launch thus becomes not
only the chart of the mission, but the chart of Columbia --
and also of the space shuttle program itself. This fact raises a
problem. Columbia can have one result as far as its first
mission is concerned (which was successful), and a different fate as
far as its ultimate death, which was a disaster. How do we
distinguish two outcomes from the same chart? The answer, I believe,
is to delineate the chart two separate ways: as an interrogatory
(or horary) for the immediate mission, and as a nativity for its
ultimate “life” and “death.”
In the chart for STS-1 examined as a nativity, we see
the Sun in the 12th house in a partile
opposition to Pluto. The Ascendant sign ruler, Venus, is combust, and
debilitated in the sign of her detriment. Furthermore, Mars is also
conjunct the Sun, although in his own sign. The trouble here is that
Mars is also the killing planet of this chart.
The conjunction of a planet related to vitality (as the Sun always
is) with the killing planet is not an ideal situation. One way of
thinking about this is: that which makes the individual vital in the
first place, also is what eventually kills.
Reevaluating Columbia as an event using horary
methods, i.e., from the standpoint of the mission itself: Venus,
ruler of the Ascendant, is not aspecting Jupiter, ruler of the 8th,
and the Moon is separating from the sextile to the 8th house ruler
Jupiter. The approaching aspect of the Ruler of the 1st to the Ruler
of the 8th, or of the Moon to the Ruler of the 8th, is a classical
indicator of death. With the three 12th house planets in fire signs
opposite Pluto, we would expect some problem related to fire, and
there was. The first few missions of Columbia had a high
failure rate in the heat insulating tiles. With the Moon (in Leo, no
less) in a partile sextile to Saturn, we would expect that the
problem was of some duration, and it was. However, with exalted
Saturn ruling the 10th house of reputation, we would expect that,
overall, the mission would be a success. It was.
So in the short-run, the STS-1 chart was fine. The
problem here was in the natal analysis. We have already mentioned the
challenge of Mars as the killing planet. A fiery death is more than a
small probability here. Add Jupiter as the ruler of the 8th, and this
fiery end becomes the big bang. We will see that the position
of Uranus in this “natal” chart was being transited by a
partile conjunction of Mars for the take-off of Columbia’s
last and fatal mission.
There are three points to use for vitality in a
nativity: the Sun, the Ascendant, and the Hyleg.
The Ascendant in this chart is the Hyleg. The Alcocoden
is the Moon, but the Moon is peregrine. Having the Ascendant as the
Hyleg adds no additional vitality to the chart, because points have
no intrinsic strength like planets do. There are no 1st
house planets to contribute vitality. The Sun, while exalted, is
cadent and afflicted by two malefics. Thus, all of the indicators of
vitality are problematic. Summarizing this situation, we can say that
Columbia had less than average vitality. Supposedly, the
shuttles were designed to fly 100 missions. (How they came to this
figure of 100 is anyone’s guess.) Columbia disintegrated
on its 28th mission.
The Final Voyage of the Shuttle Columbia
Beginning with the launch of STS-107, this fate is all
too obvious. 29° Pisces on the Ascendant is not only a difficult
degree as any 29° placement is, it’s also the location of
Scheat, one of the most malefic of fixed stars, and specifically a
shipwreck star.
Mars, ruler of the 8th house, is in a partile trine to the Ascendant
- a very unfortunate aspect, both as a general malefic, and as an
accidental malefic (ruler of the 8th).
This chart has so much fixed star influence, it is a
whole story in itself. Jupiter, the Ascendant ruler, is conjunct
Dubhe, one of the pointer stars of the Big Dipper, of the following
influence:
“...these are souls with courage to spare, who
grab for power and glory and cling to it with stubborn determination;
possessing a keen awareness of history, they will go to great lengths
to be part of it. Imperious, bossy, grasping, and passionately
willful, they will not give in, give up or let go of what they have.”
Beyond the fixed star interpretation, Jupiter’s
dignity (the Ascendant is the “ship at sea,” the vessel)
is only skin-deep. Death (Mars in Scorpio) is not only stronger than
Life, it is beholding Life (the trine to the Ascendant). It is
perhaps worth mentioning that Columbia launched at its
scheduled time: this take-off was elected, although not
astrologically.
Let us briefly compare this chart to the chart of
STS-109, the previous Columbia mission to service the Hubble
telescope.
Here we see 0° Pisces Rising instead of 29 degrees! There is no
relationship between the ruler of the Ascendant and the ruler of the
8th. The Moon does not apply to the ruler of the 8th House. Even on a
very simplistic reading, this is a much safer chart.
The Fate of the Other Shuttles
What does this method say for the remaining shuttles?
The first flight of Challenger was STS-6. In this chart, Mars
again is the killing planet. The Sun was Hyleg, as well as ruler of
the Ascendant, and Alcocoden as well. This can be a problem, when all
your vitality is resting in one planet. While the Sun itself is in
good condition, Mars at 29 degrees of Aries is translating the light
from an opposition of Pluto to a trine to Neptune. Jupiter and Uranus
are trine the Ascendant. Jupiter is the ruler of the 8th, and the
Moon and Jupiter are not in ptolemaic aspect. Notice that this
combination of Mars as killing planet and Jupiter as ruler of the 8th
is exactly the same combination as with STS-1.
The first flight of Discovery was STS-41D.
On an immediate basis, the retrograde Mercury ruling the Ascendant is
separating from both the sign ruler and the Almuten
of the 8th house. The Moon likewise makes no aspect with an 8th house
ruler. However, like the two doomed shuttles, Discovery has
Mars as the killing planet. Here, Aries is on the 8th house cusp,
giving Mars and the Sun both as rulers. The Ascendant is Hyleg (like
Columbia) and its Alcocoden Venus is in Fall. The Moon is
again translating the light from the sextile of Neptune, to the
conjunction with Pluto, and the Moon is again at 29°. Mars is
applying to the conjunction of Uranus, again in a fire sign. This is
a very worrisome chart.
The fate of Atlantis also shows some danger. Its
first mission was STS-51J. For that flight itself, the 1st and 8th
house rulers are separating from each other, and the Moon is out of
orb for applying to the 8th house ruler. On a long-term basis, Venus
is the killing planet, and it is partile conjunct Mars, and then both
are partile square Uranus. The Sun is Hyleg, and the Sun is in Fall.
Jupiter, ruler of the 1st, is in participating Triplicity. There is
definitely danger here as well, although the signature is different
from the other three.
Endeavour looks like the safest of the remaining
three shuttles. For its first mission, STS-49, the rulers of the 1st
and 8th are separating from each other, and the Moon is past both.
The Moon is in a late degree, but not 29°. Longer term, the Hyleg
is the Ascendant, but its three principal dispositors (Mars, Venus
and the Moon) are all dignified, making this as strong an Ascendant
Hyleg as we can imagine. Mercury is both the killing planet and the
8th house ruler, and Mercury is not immediately involved with any
malefics. The Sun is in a tight trine to Uranus and Neptune, but in
this chart they are in Earth signs, not Fire signs. In fact, the
overall amount of fire in this chart is significantly reduced from
the other four.
The Columbia Disaster compared to
the Apollo 1 and Challenger
There were two prior fatal accidents in the US space
program: the fire on the launchpad at the beginning of the Apollo
program, and the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger
just after launch.
It is not at all clear that the two disasters are
comparable astrologically, except for the tantalizing fact that the
Sun position for the two accidents is only one day apart, and that
Columbia disintegrated yet three degrees later in Sun
position. One would expect that the Challenger explosion would
be closer in meaning to the Columbia loss, since in both cases
the shuttles were flying, although at take-off for the Challenger,
and landing for the Columbia.
The situation relating to the Apollo fire is very
difficult. At the beginning of the Apollo program, there was much
more chaos in the construction process than during the later Space
Shuttle program. Apollo brought together four completely separate
units: the capsule itself, the service module,
the lunar module, and the Saturn V rocket. Each was produced via a
separate contractor stream, and each was having its own set of
developmental glitches. There was massive re-engineering going on in
the midst of less than stellar test results. The astronauts
themselves had identified a whole series of problems in the craft
design - including, significantly, the hatch mechanism which was to
trap the three Apollo astronauts in the oxygen fire that we will
shortly discuss. Some of these problems were fixed on the prototype
used by Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee. Others, such as the
hatch mechanism, were slated to be fixed on future capsules. In the
Autumn of 1966, the capsule and the service module had been mated and
then disassembled as testing procedures and retrofitting required.
When the capsule, service module and Saturn V were assembled and put
on the launchpad a few days before the fatal event, it was not in
expectation of launch, but for tests simulating orbital conditions.
Actual liftoff was envisioned as being at least a month away at this
point, and the actual designation of the equipment was still AS-204:
it would not bear the name Apollo 1 until death had struck.
Under these circumstances, a roll-out date is really
impossible. All that we have to work with (other than the time of the
accident itself) is the time when the astronauts entered the capsule
to begin the day’s tests: 1:00 pm on January 27, 1967.
This chart had 29 degrees Rising (like the STS-107 launch), and this
time, it’s the fixed star Alcyone rising - another baleful
influence. Apart from an odious star rising, the worst one can say
about the chart is that death (parading here as Jupiter retrograde in
Cancer) is stronger than life (Venus peregrine). There is a fire sign
on the 8th house cusp. Frankly, this is a chart that no space-happy
electional astrologer would have even considered back then. The test
was considered routine and not dangerous, although later examination
showed exactly how wrong that assessment was. What is rather
interesting astrologically was that the Moon was Void of Course for
the start of the afternoon’s activities: the fire didn’t
occur until the Moon had entered the next sign.
At the time of the oxygen fire that killed the three
astronauts, the nodal axis had come to the MC/IC axis. All the angles
were fixed, showing slow reaction time. The Ascendant was Leo, and
the Ascendant ruler was the Sun in Detriment, which more clearly
shows the problem than the Venus-ruled ship at the start of the test.
The Sun’s Detriment is the air sign Aquarius, which was
precisely the problem: the Sun in Fixed air. Specifically, the
problem was that they were running the test in a 100% oxygen
atmosphere at greater than sea-level pressure: despite warnings that
no technology existed to put out a fire in 100% oxygen, and despite a
rating on the hatch whereby, under the best of circumstances, it
would take 90 seconds to open the door.
The astute observer will notice the grand trine in
water, which includes the ruler of the 8th house and a planet in the
8th house. There was a literal connection to this - and most
appropriately with Neptune, the third member of the configuration.
One of the probable contributing factors (the obvious final cause
being that a spark ignited in the oxygen environment) was that the
coolant used in the capsule was a water-glycol mixture. There were a
lot of coolant leaks during previous tests, and glycol was found to
act as a corrosive on the wiring insulation.
While AS-204 went through its tests and demise outside
the public view, the same cannot be said for the Challenger.
The fatal outcome is much more clearly shown in the final voyage of
Challenger, mission STS-51L. Here, for the take-off chart, the
Nodes are right on the Ascendant-Descendant axis. Pluto is conjunct
the 7th house cusp. If the Ascendant is the Portal of Life, the
Descendant is the Portal of Death - not the entire 7th house, but the
cusp. So this is actually a very critical position for Pluto. The
ruler of the 1st applies to the ruler of the 8th, although out of
orb. The Moon applies to square Uranus, a planet in the 8th. Saturn
afflicts the 8th house cusp itself by conjunction. Each of these is a
strong indicator of death. Thus, we see that the maiden flight of the
Challenger, STS-6, showed as a much safer flight - in the
short run. However, the longer term fate of the Challenger
combined ominously with the dangerous chart of the STS-51L mission,
and the result was catastrophic.
Conclusions
Whenever disaster strikes, astrologers are galvanized to
find the answer: why did this happen? Unfortunately, far less energy
is put into determining whether these events can be predicted in the
first place. The charts that I have presented here suggest that both
the short-term and the long-term health of shuttle flights may be
predictable. While some members of the astrological community balk at
prediction, how is the examination and interpretation of a disaster
chart itself any different, except for being in hindsight?
If we are to move from acting as coroners (explaining
what has already happened) to attempting to prevent disaster in the
first place, we need to move away from studying the chart of the
fatal moment, and back up our attention to an earlier event in the
stream of time and fate. One of the things that electional astrology
teaches us is that most “outcomes” actually consist of a
stream of events. For example, there’s the finals of an Olympic
event, but before that are the preliminary rounds, and before that,
the qualifying nationals, and before that, regional events, and
before that, earlier competitions, ultimately leading back to when
the athlete first took up the sport. As each successive event occurs,
that athlete’s “fate” becomes more fixed as the
choices narrow.
Does this analysis impinge upon the great fate/free will
debate? Yes and no. There seems to be a line which is crossed when an
event is part of the “public” consciousness. Public
events seem to play out in a much more stereotyped fashion. This
translates to a much starker astrological interpretation. I suspect
that the reason the launchpad fire of AS-204/Apollo 1 is the
least “satisfying” of the charts that we have examined
astrologically is precisely because that test was not a public event.
It only became public once the fire occurred, and the time of
the fire is convincing enough as a chart.
To put this into context, once the astronauts entered
Columbia for their mission, their fate was completely subsumed
within the “greater” fate of Columbia itself.
There are moments where we surrender our personal freedom to
participate in a collective event. Do we even think about this as
such? Probably most of the time, the answer is no.
This style of interpretation does not address yet one
other issue: was it fated that each of those seven astronauts would
die on Columbia? We can only say that once they “signed
on” to this particular event stream, the answer was yes. But if
they had any choice about whether or not to join in this fate remains
a mystery.
Footnotes:
|
|
