The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped

Time ^ | 2/2/2003 | Gregg Easterbrook

[The Iguana]

Even I would agree that the satellite launching capabilities of the STS can be duplicated (and bettered) by unmanned booster vehicles.

Repairs are another story. But then the question becomes whether it's cheaper to just launch a replacement satellite or to go up and repair it, as some have pointed out in regards to Hubble.

I think that unmanned vehicles have their limitations and are likely to be so for many years to come. Taking care of satellite or even weapons system launches into LEO or GEO are not one of them - for the foreseeable future.

[The Iguana]

Columbia is too heavy to dock with the ISS and - so far as I know - does not have the required docking mechanism.

I guess they could spacewalk into it. But it would be risky.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

with Columbia, you are talking about a split-second decision to try a pre-orbital abort, which is very risky in itself.

Wrong. Mr. Dittemore (sp?) yesterday said that he himself was among the group that reviewed the videos of the launch to assess the possibility of damage to the tiles. They had 2 weeks to abort the re-entry. I just have the feeling that someone had to have recommended modifying the mission to address any possible damage and put the safety of the crew first instead of completing the mission at hand.

Just a feeling...an opinion.

[AmishDude]

Maybe if we spent the hundreds of billions on developing this technology instead of manned spaceflight, we'd all be better off.

Psst. We already do. You don't think the scientists at CMU are living off tuition money, do you?

[First_Salute]

I'm not certain, but one report yesterday stated that there was not sufficient fuel aboard the Columbia for it to reach the Station.

[AmishDude]

I told you his area of expertise.

Actually, you didn't, but that's OK. What I'm really interested in is in what field he holds his Ph. D.

He writes about science as it interconnects with economics, politics, and the law and public policy.

I write poems, it doesn't make me a poetry expert.

Here is a sampling for you of Easterbrook the Luddite.

Your link was enlightening and an unexpected article for TNR. As you are more familiar with his broader oeuvre, I'll concede that his work does not belie a technophobic view and provides an interesting juxtaposition between technical topics and a significantly-more-than-casual writing style. Nonetheless, this Time article is more than a little disappointing on that score.

[steve86]

Humans belong on the earth, or using a more liberal interpretation, within the earth's biosphere, so as not to exclude travel within the lower reaches of the atmosphere or the oceans.

Regarding the ISS, the three astronauts should be evacuated at the earliest possible time and the project abandoned. A possible followup project would be use of the ISS as a laser weapon target, thereby providing a means whereby earth-based mass spectrometers can be precisely calibrated as aluminum, titanium and other alloys are vaporized in the vacuum of space.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

And now there's this from the Guardian...

Faaaascinating.

[beckett]

I agree with Easterbrook. What we are essentially doing now is providing enormous tax monies to a few companies and giving a select few Americans an very costly joy ride. The science can be done equally well without bioforms in space doing it.

Gore's space station is not needed, and neither is the shuttle. Time to shut them both down and save the American taxpayer BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars.

[Torie]

Here is Easterbrook's bio. He has no science degree, so feel free to ignore him.

Here is another example of Easterbrook's Ludditism vis a vis the environment.

[John Lenin]

"Whitey's on the Moon and I can't get a sandwich"

Deal with it !

[WoofDog123]

"NASA was faced with taking extreme measures (rush a rescue or park them at the space station are two possibilities) or guess it was okay to land. "

I think Nasa's choices were limited to attempt reentry and pray, or let them asphyxiate in space. It would have been impossible to have another shuttle launched before their air ran out, and they were way below the orbit of the ISS, and would not have been able to get there. I personally wonder if NASA was in fact aware that this was a really bad situation they could do nothing about, and if they discussed it with the shuttle crew.

Nasa changed the foam type on the booster rockets to a freon-free type several years ago, which is when this breaking-off foam problem began. I would like to know why this decision wasn't reversed once it became evident that this was an ongoing problem.

[Torie]

Here is the link again to Easterbrook and the environment. I hope this one works.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Could they have been brought back without burning up, or were they dead man walking after the launch?

I have to believe that if NASA flight directors had decided to mofify the mission, they could have docked at the ISS and waited for another orbiter to come and get them, leaving Columbia behind...waiting for a repair crew to do assessment and repair to the tiles. I think the lives of the Columbia 7 and a billion dollar orbiter would have been worth the effort.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

I guess they could spacewalk into it. But it would be risky.

I think it would be worth the lives of 7 people and a billion dollar orbiter to give it a shot.

[Tall_Texan]

They had 2 weeks to abort the re-entry. I just have the feeling that someone had to have recommended modifying the mission to address any possible damage and put the safety of the crew first instead of completing the mission at hand.

But you are presuming they'd be capable of repairing the problem when it seems they didn't successfully diagnose it. Once you're up there, you're up there.

I do think there are probably contingency plans in place for any mission where the spacecraft had sustained significant damage. I suspect they didn't consider this significant. And as to the left wing indicator, it had been reported that it had gone out on SIX previous Columbia flights during re-entry. And it made it down safely each previous time. The insulation hitting the wing *may* have been totally irrelevant to why the craft burned up.

I frankly don't have much confidence in NASA being able to tell us what exactly went wrong with 100% certainty. What's left of the craft is so burned and broken and scattered that a meaningful piecing together of the parts might be impossible.

[DK Zimmerman]

That may well be the case, but it is a bit off my main point. This was a two-fold, decision making failure, period. The first was undoubtedly done by some bean counter who proposed an additional low gravity fungus growth study, in lieu of a tether/propulsion or camera on a stick that would have allowed the crew and by extension, those on the ground to better understand if there was a problem.

Failing that provision, the guys on the ground were put in the position of having to decide whether or not to abort, via some other means, or continue, in the hope (vain it would seem) continuing this mission wouldn't be hazardous.

As to whether or not the launch-strike caused this or not, while it is true that investigators need to remain objective to properly conduct their job, the evidence at hand is pretty strong. A strike occurred, no inspection was done, sensors in that area failed, the shuttle broke up. Now, off the top of my head, I would propose the likelihood that something totally unrelated caused it at about 30%, terrorism about 5%, and the lauch-strike as about 64% (I'll leave 1% in for ghosts or aliens.)

Unfortunately, the likely investigation will come back as "indefintie cause" due to destruction of evidence. This will neatly sidestep the bean counters referred to above and the subsequent, far harder decision faced the day of the launch. That is when a determination to mount some form of rescue should have been made. There will have to be clear and convincing evidence before I am convinced of anything else (and the odds are it does not exist either, unless manufactured).

[WoofDog123]

"Of course, rocket scientists are smarter than me. I simply have a gift of common sense."

My understanding is that this event was not detected until hours after launch, as tapes of the launch were reviewed.

[redrock]

"Let's dedicate the unmanned exploration of the universe to their memories, and make them the last people to die in space."

The timid....and the cowards WILL stay home and let everyone else...(or their current 'wet dreams' of robotic exploration)...but some humans WILL explore space.

It's in our genes.....to go looking.

Stay home...you probably couldn't hack it anyway.

redrock

[berkeleybeej]

"I have to believe that if NASA flight directors had decided to mofify the mission, they could have docked at the ISS and waited for another orbiter to come and get them.."

Wrong - the orbiter could NOT HAVE made it to the ISS...this mission had an orbit that was too far from the orbit of the ISS, and a different altitude. They did not have the fuel to make it.

IF the tiles were damaged at launch, these fine people were dead men walking. And IF that were the case, would you bring them home sooner to die? Would you tell them? Would you tell the world?