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.
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.
And replace the heat-shield system with WHAT exactly?
DOES that not seem to be the crux of the problem here Reuters?
(Change the tires - NOT the car ...)
On the next vehicle, use carbon-carbon for the really hot spots and titanium elsewhere.
Given the amount of preliminary work done, I can't fathom why they need three years just to make a decision.
Yes, and look at this:
To: Miss Marple
You miss the point. This mission should never of happened. The shuttle should of been grounded until things were fixed RIGHT.....see the Nelson letter to President Bush.
556 posted on 02/03/2003 10:54 AM PST by TLBSHOW
To: Timesink
This could of been prevented.
8 posted on 02/03/2003 6:07 AM PST by TLBSHOW
To: Mo1
It should never of even gone up that is the bottom line. There was warnings before.
51 posted on 02/03/2003 6:28 AM PST by TLBSHOW To: BureaucratusMaximus
This is negligence plain and simple.
BUMP
58 posted on 02/03/2003 6:29 AM PST by TLBSHOW
To: Mo1
It was not an act of God it was NASA and there was plenty of warnings for years!
98 posted on 02/03/2003 6:39 AM PST by TLBSHOW
To: Mark Felton
This launch should of been halted!~
144 posted on 02/03/2003 6:56 AM PST by TLBSHOW
To: HairOfTheDog
this isn't a hatchet job its NASA that did NOT do their lob and 7 people are dead!
283 posted on 02/03/2003 7:51 AM PST by TLBSHOW
To: PBRSTREETGANG
Sorry no I can't take credit for that.
The only one that can take credit for that is Don Nelson who sent a warning to President Bush in the summer, and in dec the President said no he would not stop the program.
310 posted on 02/03/2003 8:06 AM PST by TLBSHOW
To: Fred Mertz
If this happened in the civilian sector, there would probably be negligent homicide charges filed at some point in the investigation. I doubt that will happen with NASA.
365 posted on 02/03/2003 8:30 AM PST by TLBSHOW
To: Timesink
Now telling that the WH rebuffed Don and says there will now be a push to say oh its just one of those things we could do nothing to cover their backside but truth is there was warnings and the people in power don't want to stop it because the program may never get off the ground and all the pork is gone.
672 posted on 02/03/2003 2:18 PM PST by TLBSHOW
To: ET(end tyranny)
I saw that, if anyone would of listened these 7 people would not be dead!
689 posted on 02/03/2003 2:32 PM PST by TLBSHOW
You see CWO...if you read all of these posts...and this is from one thread only, I have a REALLY hard time attributing an altruistic, 'just did it to give FR a heads up' motive to old TLB.
Frankly, TLB's defense with this 'just giving FR a heads up about what was going to hit the media', doesn't hold water based on TLB's very own posts, does it? You said it best CWO:This doesn’t just smear NASA, it smears the seven brave people we honor today.
Having worked R&D for NASA, I can personally attest to the fact that the fleet needs to be rebuilt. Until 5 years ago, the processors in your VCR were more powerful than those in the shuttle. To add a single wire to the shuttle takes MONTHS. Believe me, I know, I added 4 inches of wire (rebent a paper-clip, actually) to the on-board printer to prevent paper-jams. It took MONTHS. Material sciences has grown considerably in the past 40 years, we can make a better, safer and more efficient vehicle today that we did 30 years ago. Supercomputers now exist (thanks Cray, IBM and others) that can model EXACTLY what the shuttle will encounter as it goes from vacuum to light atmosphere, to dense atmosphere. We can predict and better simulate and control today, than we could 30 years ago.
Add to the fact that the Spin-Off technologies from the shuttle have far exceeded the costs of the program. How many materials and metalurgical processes do we enjoy today, that were a spin-off from a NASA need? Computer chips got their start from NASA, as did various OS's. As we continue developing, improving and researching, the spin-off technologies initiated at NASA will pay back to the USA many times the investments.
Face it, sometimes it's easier to simply throw a project away and start fresh, than to continue using obsolete designs. Would you continue to throw money into a 1970 Chevy (bottom of the line, using parts made from the cheapest vendor), or buy a new car and start fresh?
I think you are grossly mistaken. This site lists several examples: http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/
Biology, medical sciences, communications, computer chips, remote sensing, metalurgy, material sciences, physics and chemistry are just the tip of the ice berg.
But those insulating tiles have always bothered me. I am old enough to have remembered the first shuttle flight, and it seems to me that the tiles have been a problem from the start. Even by the standards of the 1970s, they always seemed a clumsy, low-tech solution. Not that I'm smart enough to offer an alternative -- and that's the danger of criticizing from the peanut gallery. But surely there's now a better way.
Whatever insulating material is used must 1) provide adequate heat-proofing or deflection; 2) be damage-resistant; 3) be lightweight; and 4) not impair the aerodynamics. Is there no material or layered combination of materials that is inherently heatproof as well as structurally sound?
But those insulating tiles have always bothered me. I am old enough to have remembered the first shuttle flight, and it seems to me that the tiles have been a problem from the start. Even by the standards of the 1970s, they always seemed a clumsy, low-tech solution. Not that I'm smart enough to offer an alternative -- and that's the danger of criticizing from the peanut gallery. But surely there's now a better way.
Whatever insulating material is used must 1) provide adequate heat-proofing or deflection; 2) be damage-resistant; 3) be lightweight; and 4) not impair the aerodynamics. Is there no material or layered combination of materials that is inherently heatproof as well as structurally sound?
This would be insane even if Columbia hadn't burned up, given that the NASA bureaucrats would take another 10 years to actually build it, assuming a Leftist president in the interim didn't come along and cancel it outright.
If it weren't for Clinton I think we would have the next generation shuttle ALREADY. gosh, i hope i'm wrong and the Aurora really exists and is space capable!
That's the truth.
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.