Are NASA's Human Shuttle Flights Worth the Risk

Reuters ^ | Sun Sep 14, 2003 | Deborah Zabarenko

[anymouse]

There's little doubt that NASA can get its space shuttles flying again, but seven months after the deadly Columbia accident, there are plenty of doubts about whether it should.

With no clear vision for why the United States is pursuing human space flight, a tight national budget and a scathing critique of the U.S. space agency's "broken safety culture" coloring the debate, some in Congress wonder if sending humans into space at this point is worth the risk.

"We're putting American men and women at great risk for their lives, flying orbiters that are 30 years old that cannot be made safe," Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, told NASA chief Sean O'Keefe at a congressional hearing. "My proposal is ... to use these orbiters in an unmanned capacity, build a new space plane or space orbiter that's just for people."

Another Texan, Democratic Rep. Ralph Hall, pushed O'Keefe to commit to developing an escape vessel for shuttle crews.

But perhaps Sen. Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican, put the question most starkly at an earlier hearing: "Are we throwing good money after bad?"

So far, recovery from the Feb. 1 Columbia disaster has cost nearly $400 million, about the price of one shuttle launch. This does not include changes to the shuttle program recommended by the independent Columbia Accident Investigation Board in its highly critical report released on Aug. 26.

Yet even as the board flayed the U.S. space agency for its skimpy budgets, uneven safety record and habit of turning a deaf ear to engineers' concerns, the final report presumed that "the United States wants to retain a continuing capability to send people into space, whether to Earth orbit or beyond."

NEVER EASY

A central point of the board's report was that the space shuttle is not an "operational" vehicle, such as a commercial airliner or military jet, but after more than 20 years remains a "developmental" craft still in the testing stage.

"If shuttle operations came to be viewed as routine, it was, at least in part, thanks to the skill and dedication of those involved in the program," the board wrote. "They have made it look easy, though in fact it never was."

The Columbia disintegrated over Texas just 16 minutes before its scheduled landing at Cape Canaveral, the victim of falling insulation foam that damaged its left wing and allowed superheated air to penetrate the craft during re-entry.

All seven astronauts aboard were killed. The three remaining shuttles have remained grounded since the accident.

It was the second time a shuttle had fatally fallen apart in mid-air, and the board noted that NASA had not internalized the lessons of the 1986 Challenger disaster -- which also killed seven astronauts.

Given the space agency's record, the board found it unlikely that shuttles could continue to fly "for more than a few years based solely on renewed post-accident vigilance."

Before the Columbia disaster, NASA called for the development of an orbital space plane, seen as a simpler and safer way to get people into orbit and onto the International Space Station (news - web sites).

Since the tragedy, O'Keefe and others have talked about accelerating the space plane program, and O'Keefe said last week the contract for the project could be awarded less than a year from now. Not even a test orbit is expected until 2006.

But O'Keefe acknowledged NASA lacks the sense of urgent mission that prevailed in its Cold War years.

"What we're dealing with is a much more widespread ... equally frightening ... terrorist campaign that has to be countered in very different ways than the way we took on the Cold War," O'Keefe said.

[anymouse]

Did Reuters goof on this O'Keefe quote?

Maybe the unabridged quote puts this in context, but how you compare shuttle safety to terrorism is quite a leap.

[anymouse]

Space ping.

[FreedomCalls]

In the last year, we have lost 7 people in manned space flight. Over the last year, 42,000 people have been killed in traffic accidents -- a significant number of which were children. You should ask: "Is driving you car (to the mall, to a restaurant, to work, to a store) worth risking your life?" You make a calculated decision every time you get into your car as to whether it is worth it or not. The astronauts and NASA clearly know the risks of manned space flight and they choose to go.

[Coeur de Lion]

I think O'Keefe is referencing the fact that the race to the moon with the Soviets, with whom we were in a cold war, allowed NASA to justify whatever funding was necessary. This is not the case with the war on terrorism.

[steplock]

WHY even bother listening to this anti-American LIE MACHINE called reuters. (or AP for that matter)

Most of todays technological innovations have come from the NASA Space Program . . .

MOTIVATED by MAN in SPACE!

Maybe some of the crybabies would look up the "Nasa Tech Briefs" Unclassified magazines of all the technological breakthroughs, the plans, reports, the companies, their practical applications on earth.....

But then - that would take a little bit of effort. Something that the majority of Americans no longer can do.

[dr_lew]

With no clear vision for why the United States is pursuing human space flight ...

I can think of one reason. Five letters starting with 'C'.

[Jeff Chandler]

ping

[Coeur de Lion]

The space program is not the only contributor to technological advancement. You also have to include government research funded for the military.

I've worked as an engineer since 1978. Fifteen years with NASA and prior to that research with various aerospace firms on military projects. I was enamored with the space program going back to the first Mercury launch. I remember the day after the first moon landing; the evening news carried these protest marches of folks complaining that too much money was being spent on space and these funds should now be spent to reduce poverty in the inner-city. Of course, I was livid. We already had Johnson's war on poverty and that had accomplished very little and spending more money was going to change anything, Duh. To me, it seemed almost treasonous.

The first job I got in engineering was in developing sensor technology for the use in "smart bombs" and missile defense. Had to hear over in over again these idiots pronouncing, "why are we spending all this money on this stuff? It'll never work anyway." Almost twenty years later I'm watching the coverage of Desert Storm, and I kept finding myself chuckling, shaking my head and saying to myself "yeah, this stuff was never going to work."

[tortoise]

Risk? Yes. Money? No.

[ibtheman]

Right those human beings chose to go, you are right, but they chose to go with the understanding that the guys on the ground would look after well being! The people in nasa did not look after those in space! They were not taking the chance of burning up! Also you need to consider this, What was the nasa people thinking? There have been many tiles missing on other previous launches! Come on think about this! The craft could not be even repaired in space, no way to hock into the space station? The craft was un safe, that craft was on going to be decommisined after that flight! One more thing, this will blow you away, I was a test subject at nasa. I physically worked with phys. dept, and in the hypobaric, hypobolic test chambers. I even got to work with the astronauts. Some talked of that particular craft as being worn out, and always needed many repairs after the return of each launch! I would love to see all the forms on that craft, especially leading edge tile repairs! Think about this, let it soak in , those 7 were doomed as soon as that rocket was lit! Unsafe craft, just that simple, no ejection pod, give me a brake!

[Knightsofswing]

We may loose a few brave souls, but the conquest of the unkown draws us towards it. Robots are fine for the first experiments anywhere, but it takes a real live person to plant our flag. Yes the shuttle must be replaced, there is a lot of differnt ideas out there we must take the goverment out of the equation, of exploration. They can screw up a one car funeral! There were palns a few years ago about a home-built,sub-oribatil [sp] craft that you could build in your workshop. Both NASA [read as never a stright answer]& FAA shot the idea down. They saqid it was too dangerous for non-astronaut personel to deal with, the rigors of space flight. I have never heard such drivel.

[Movemout]

Sean's quote is politics. I worked for DoD for 20 years. I worked for NASA for 11 years. Nobody at NASA wanted those astronauts to die. Manned spaceflight is here to stay but whether space ops are conducted in English or Chinese is in question.

[FreedomCalls]

!

[RightWhale]

Most of todays technological innovations have come from the NASA Space Program .

A large portion of modern program management techniques have come from military development. The PERT system, for example, came from the Polaris program and refinements to PERT also came from military programs. Most of the funding for science research comes from military budgets and the necessity to keep technological capability preeminent for military supremacy.

[anymouse]

Thank you for pointing that little known or acknowledged fact. For too long NASA has been taking credit (or not denying false assumptions) for technical developments of military funded researchers, while enjoying the limelight for supposedly creating all of these wonders of modern science.

BTW, Tang and Velcro were developed commercially long before the manned space program used them.

[AFPhys]

Your observation that military applications have been driving technology is undisputable. It has ever been thus - and at least as far back as Julius Caesar that observation has been in print. Space and other big-science (astronomy, meteorology, high-energy physics, biotech, etc.) technology is only a very recent motivation driving technology.

Nevertheless, we must accept that people are going to die when we are doing things as dangerous as space travel. As an former AF pilot, I guarantee to you that all those astronauts realize and accept the risk for doing this very dangerous job. Their families realize it, too, though they may not accept that.

The nation must come to accept that we will continue to have losses in this dangerous quest.