Posted on 07/06/2005 1:50:40 PM PDT by JeffersonRepublic.com
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The success of next week's space shuttle launch is crucial to the future of US space exploration, more than two years after the Columbia disaster grounded manned flights.
NASA has undertaken major safety changes on its shuttle fleet since the February 2003 crash in which seven astronauts died, but the space agency acknowledges that flying into space will always carry risks.
"Returning the space shuttle safely to flight and resuming flight operation is the first step in the vision for space exploration," NASA administrator Michael Griffin told a congressional committee in late June.
"The risk won't be zero," he cautioned. The Discovery space shuttle is scheduled to blast off July 13.
Despite the uncertainties surrounding the safety of manned flights, President George W. Bush has set out an ambitious agenda for intergalactic exploration.
Bush announced in January 2004 a plan to return to the Moon by 2020 followed by the first manned mission to Mars.
In the short term, the space shuttles are needed to finish construction of the International Space Station.
Research conducted on the ISS and the shuttle flights are tied to future Moon and Mars missions, according to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Thanks to the ISS, "We're learning the answers to basic questions about how to keep humans alive and healthy for longer and longer periods of time in space, and how to improve spacecraft for those trips," said former ISS commander Leroy Chiao.
NASA plans to retire its three remaining space shuttles in 2010, once the ISS is finished, and replace it with a new spacecraft, the Crew Exploration Vehicule.
The new shuttle, which has yet to be invented, will have to be able to carry six astronauts to the Moon and later to Mars. It will also need the capacity to dock on the ISS for low Earth orbit missions.
But the implementation of the plan depends on the success of the return to flight of the old shuttles, first launched in 1981.
The 2003 crash and the 1986 Challenger disaster, in which seven astronauts died in an explosion shortly after blast off, has left NASA with three shuttles -- Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour.
"The launch is an absolutely essential step to creating forward momentum for the space program," said John Logsdon, a member of the panel that probed the Columbia shuttle disaster and director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University.
Investigators found that the Columbia crash was caused by damage sustained by the spacecraft after it was hit by chunks of insulating foam that broke off during liftoff.
The Columbia Accident Investigation Board also blamed NASA culture for the disaster, saying the space agency's managers were "as much a cause" of the crash as technical failures.
NASA's prestige took a hit after Columbia caught fire and broke apart over Texas as it re-entered Earth's atmosphere on February 1, 2003, said former astronaut George Nelson, a Western Washington University professor.
"Certainly, during the early sixties and seventies, Nasa was really the symbol of the country, in terms of technological prowess," he said, adding that it was no longer the case.
NASA has lost ground to major rivals Russia and China, both of which have flown manned missions to space since the Columbia disaster, Griffin noted.
The US space program "has fallen behind," he told US lawmakers.
"Our shuttle is grounded. Two nations have flown people in space since we last did it," he said.
"We (at NASA) and America need to work hard to regain pour pre-eminence in space."
I don't mean to rub salt in an open sore, but Burt Rutan also sent someone into space (twice in one week, on the same spaceship)... Opps, does that hurt maybe a little more salt will help. QUIT WASTING OUR MONEY. PUT UP OR SHUT UP!
Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com
Especially apropos to JPL's recent success, and in the spirit of continuing endeavor, I'd prefer you shut up, thanks in advance.
I didn't realize that the CEV was intended to go both to the ISS and to the Moon. Is this accurately reported?
On one level, the best thing that can happen is to lose another shuttle, and then place the remaining one in the Smithsonian. We should have weaned ourselves off of these 1970s relics a decade ago. What is it going to take to get the message across that it is time to go back to the blackboard and come up with something fresh?
headline - Duh. what else is news?
"Especially apropos to JPL's recent success, and in the spirit of continuing endeavor"
The Jet Propulsion Laboratory is managed by the California Institute of Technology, and they have had great success. Unfortunately for the US taxpayer, NASA recieve most of the space dollars, and seem to have a problem getting off the ground.
NASA's general funds should be shifted to other organizations like the California Institute of Technology.
Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com
"We should have weaned ourselves off of these 1970s relics a decade ago."
The shuttle is beautiful, but it kills people and it's very costly. If the government can't do any better then the shuttle, then they don't belong in space.
Let's fund private enterprise, and see what happens.
Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com
Burt Rutan is definitely a great designer, but please don't buy the hype. What besides the "feathered re-entry" and a different rocket fuel has he done in space that Nasa hasn't. In fact, he uses technology that Nasa developed. The first computers were only available to goverment, but as technology improved and costs dropped they became available to you and I. The same happens with space technology. As the technology improves, prices drop and it becomes available to the masses to use. I love Burt and his accomplishments, but I also see alot of people have bought the Discovery Channel hype. Launching a few seat of the pants sub-orbital made for TV flights is really nothing compared to sending people to the moon, or rovers to Mars, or Voyager to the ends of the solar system. As for the source of the funds...a pile of money is a pile of money no matter where it comes from.
As a Space enthusiast, I support both Nasa AND Burt, and the numerous other private and Goverment space endeavors.
Succeed within a
limited budget and a
limited time frame.
Didn't NASA already do that in getting to the moon?
How long did that take?
And "budget-less financing"
means spend what it takes.
It was done within the time frame that President Kennedy requested. Burt had whatever funds he needed also.
Technically in space, and in freefall, which is an orbit. Somehow seems not as inspirational as circling the earth.
Private enterprise funds itself. If we fund private enterprise then it wouldn't be private anymore, would it.
CIT would quickly become just like NASA.
Lots of ideas, but all these have been discussed before.
Bush announced in January 2004 a plan to return to the Moon by 2020 followed by the first manned mission to Mars. "
Writers these days just make me sad.
Intergalactic Being or occurring between galaxies: intergalactic space.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.