She was posthumously awarded the US Congressional Space Medal of Honour, the NASA Space Flight Medal and the NASA Distinguished Service Medal

The US Space Shutle was one of the most spectacular symbols of technological achievement ever. For the hundreds of men and women who flew on board, the shuttle represented the fulfilment of a cherished dream. And yet twice during its 30-year operational history, the inspiring narrative faltered. Kalpana Chawla was one of 14 astronauts for whom the dream ended in disaster.

Kalpana was born on July 1, 1962, in Karnal, Haryana. The youngest of four children, she always longed to be an engineer. She earned an aeronautical engineering degree in Chandigarh in 1982. Bent on higher studies, she flew to the USA the same year. Her educational quest culminated in a PhD in aerospace engineering from the University of Colorado in 1988. Later that year, she began working with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). She gained a Certificated Flight Instructor rating for airplanes and gliders and Commercial Pilot Licences for single and multi-engine airplanes, seaplanes and gliders. Intensely attracted by space, Kalpana volunteered for NASA astronaut training in March 1995 and was selected. She lifted off on her first mission on November 19, 1997, as part of the six-member crew that flew the space shuttle Columbia, STS-87. This made her the first Indian-born woman and the second Indian to fly in space (cosmonaut Rakesh Sharma who flew in 1984 was the first).

In 2000, Kalpana was chosen for her second flight aboard STS-107. Once again the craft was the space shuttle Columbia. The crew went into training for the scheduled launch date of January 11, 2001. However, due to a number of factors, including scheduling conflicts and technical problems (like the discovery of cracks in the shuttle engine flow liners) the mission was delayed 18 times before its actual launch date of January 16, 2003. So despite its official designation as STS-107, this was actually the 113th shuttle mission launched. As Mission Specialist, Kalpana’s responsibilities included microgravity study, and the crew made over 80 experiments in earth and space science, advanced technology development, and astronaut health and safety. As the mission came to an end it was time to return to earth. On February 1, 2003, Columbia commenced its re-entry sequence. On crossing California, the shuttle appeared to observers on the ground as a bright spot of light moving rapidly across the sky. Then the superheated air around it suddenly brightened, leaving a noticeable streak in its luminescent wake. It was the first sign of debris being shed. Four or five minutes later, Columbia disintegrated over Texas, killing its crew of seven. The accident occurred at about 9 a.m. (local time), 16 minutes prior to the planned touchdown at Kennedy Space Center.

Later, the Accident Investigation Board determined the cause of the crash to be a piece of foam that broke off during launch and damaged the thermal protection system components (reinforced carbon-carbon panels and thermal protection tiles) on the leading edge of the left wing of the shuttle. During re-entry, this allowed the hot gases to penetrate and weaken the wing structure, ultimately causing it to fail. The shuttle became uncontrollable and was destroyed by the extreme heat. Sadly, during the mission itself, ground engineers had requested high resolution images that may have provided an understanding of the extent of the damage, while a senior NASA engineer requested that astronauts on board Columbia be allowed to carry out a space walk to inspect the damage. However, NASA managers felt these measures were unwarranted. The report also delved into the underlying organisational and cultural issues that led to the accident. It was highly critical of NASA’s decision-making and risk assessment processes. As with the doomed Challenger space shuttle in 1986, NASA seemed to have grown complacent following a string of successful missions. Its managers were prone to accept unusual phenomena since no serious consequences had resulted from similar episodes earlier. They failed to recognise the relevance of engineering concerns for safety.