Posted on 02/04/2003 9:08:47 AM PST by TLBSHOW
Shuttle Loss Highlights Need for New Space Vehicle
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The loss of the space shuttle Columbia underscores the need to develop a next-generation U.S. space vehicle, and could help reinvigorate the nation's "lethargic" space program, aerospace experts said.
Our Business Section is growing!
Check new sections for: Stock Markets, Earnings, Economy and more... Business Front
"When a disaster like this occurs ... it does change people's thinking," said John Douglass, president and CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association and a member of a U.S. commission that ended its work last year with an urgent call for more funding for human and robotic space flights.
"If history repeats itself, we will see not only a re-emergence of interest in the space program, but also a greater willingness to fund it," said Douglass, a former assistant Navy secretary and congressional aide, on Monday.
"I think it's going to focus people's attention on the need to field a shuttle replacement," said Douglass, noting NASA (news - web sites) secured a boost in funding for shuttle missions after the 1986 Challenger disaster, which like that of Columbia, killed all seven astronauts on board.
NASA has begun work on developing a successor to the shuttles in its program, but NASA's head of space flight admitted last November there was no timetable for retiring the current fleet, now numbering three after Columbia's loss, despite earlier plans eyeing a 2012 date.
NASA documents showed the 20-year-old shuttle program might continue to operate in some form through 2020 and beyond, but those plans could come under closer scrutiny after Saturday's accident, according to industry experts.
Columbia and the other shuttles were built in the 1970s, based on technology dating back to the 1960s.
Robert Walker, who chaired the 12-member Commission on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry, said the United States could not afford to lose its leadership role in human space exploration, despite a lack of funding and "sense of lethargy" that characterized the program in recent years.
CHINA COMPETING FOR SPACE ROLE
He said China was striving to put humans in space within a year and to reach the moon within a decade -- and possibly sooner.
(Story continues after advertisement)
Walker acknowledged the Bush administration faced competing demands for funding as it prepared for a possible war with Iraq and continued its war on terrorism, but said space exploration was an important arena for driving technological developments.
"You're always evaluating these things in terms of the immediate need, but once we figure out that the Chinese have ambitions in this area, we will not want to fall behind," said Walker, a former Republican lawmaker from Pennsylvania.
Walker said NASA programs were clearly underfunded in recent years, and the commission's report cited concerns about the aging launch infrastructure used in the shuttle program.
It noted that the checkout, control and monitoring subsystem developed in the 1970s for shuttle testing and launch was so old there were not enough space parts for 10 percent of its components.
Walker said there had been no suggestion funding shortfalls were in any way responsible for the shuttle disaster.
But he said the tragedy was riveting public attention to the space program and could help shore up funding for increased work on space flight programs, including work on a vehicle to replace the shuttle.
President Bush (news - web sites) Monday proposed a 22 percent increase for the space shuttle program in his fiscal 2004 federal budget request to Congress, which was prepared before the Columbia disaster. He requested $3.9 billion for the program, compared with $3.2 billion in 2003.
Administration officials say it is too early to consider whether to replace the lost shuttle and what the consequences will be for work on developing a successor spacecraft.
SHUTTLE REPLACEMENT
Under current plans, NASA expects to make a decision around 2006 or 2007 about what type of spacecraft would succeed the shuttle, with a new spacecraft to be put into operation by the end of the decade.
It took 32 months for NASA to resume space flights after the 1986 Challenger accident, but officials are already saying flights should resume more quickly in this case, not least because of a need to service the International Space Station (news - web sites).
"There is no real option to the shuttle going forward in the near term," said Walker.
He said the accident underscored the inherent dangers of putting humans into space, citing a statistical 1-in-100 chance of a catastrophic event on every shuttle flight, especially aboard a shuttle with decades-old technology.
Developing the next-generation space vehicle, with far more modern technologies available, would help reduce those frightening statistical odds, Walker said.
A red herring argument.
MANY of these tiles have survived substanyially intact during a hair 'more than just a breath' while falling from +200,000 feet (NOT to mention some sort of explosion while up there at Mach 18).
I now think that is was the RCC in the left wing's leading edge -
- part of the LESS (Leading Edge Structural Subsystem) system
- that was damaged during lift-off ...
How 'bout them apples?
Within hours of this terrible disaster there were some on FR claiming that the disaster was the result of NASA’s incompetence, that the disaster was avoidable and that the cover up had already began. They have offered up memo’s, doctored photos and wild rumor as evidence. In order to be true than we must also assume that the seven astronauts who died were fools or somehow duplicitous in their own deaths. Are we expected to believe that the knowledge of a few rumor mongers on the internet is greater then that of those who flew on Challenger?
Are we to believe that these seven astronauts were not aware of the foam problems on the shuttle program or the effects of budget cuts on the program? Are we to believe that they were foolish enough to fly a platform into space that was doomed from the beginning as some on FR claim?
If we accept their speculation then we must also assume that their fellow astronauts, walking the woodlands of east Texas looking for their remains, will not seek to discover the real cause of their deaths, but will work to cover up for NASA. Do you really believe this?
Is this what we’ve come to on FR? This doesn’t just smear NASA, it smears the seven brave people we honor today.
You find this embarassing? This is the product of your logic?
The shuttle is not so much reuseable as salvageable. It is exhaustively inspected and many systems are rebuilt with each flight. That is why it takes so long to turn one around. This is a direct consequence of running everything at the bleeding edge of its capability and needing it to be extremely reliable.
Because it is such a large and relatively dense object, the thermal protection system has more stringent requirements. A larger area must be protected against higher temperatures than another configuration.
Repeated attempts at a shuttle successor have been stymied by politics and bureaucratic incompetence.
Neither is titanium. If you aren't going to go with a hot structure, the difference is that the insulation is only exposed to thermal loads rather than aerodynamic loads.
We need a goal like the one set by JFK. Not the aimless wanderings of our current program.
If need be sell shares, like England did, for the exploration and exploitation of the Moon and Mars.
If we don't get off the dime we'll be paying a toll to Chinese Merchants for going to Mars and the Asteroids.
Russian Roullette.
The Columbia lost.
Much better to keep the reentry vehicle safely away from liftoff and boost phase peril.
It just seems to me that all things equal, a solution to getting payload into space which protects, simplifies, and minimizes in size the crew reentry vehicle is hard to argue against.
It is another good idea that is often proposed and often ignored.
The biggest obstacle is that congress has never been in the mood to approve anything that needed that kind of lifting capability.
...This doesn’t just smear NASA, it smears the seven brave people we honor today.
Thank you for saying it! Enough of the fingerpointing and screeching by people who have no stake in this, no expertise, and no repercussions if they are wrong. Let NASA solve this. It is their project, their passion, and they are the ones who have to really know the right answer. They'll find it.
Presidents Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams would probably agree somewhat. And then act tyranically to build a Space Transportation System and send out Lewis and Clark all over again. Sometimes a President has to act tyranically for the good of the nation. Reality trumps idealism.
Of course, it's hard to beat subsidized govt. cost shuttle launches.
Maybe they should be more open minded; a BDB rescue vehicle capability alone would be worthwhile!
Certainly a ten man "Apollo" type reentry vehicle that is not beaten to crap on the way into space would be a better way to go.
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.