Does the USA still want to reach for the stars? The Columbia Shuttle disaster has highlighted a lack of real commitment to the high frontier
The tragic end of Space Shuttle Columbia, and the loss of its seven crewmembers has underscored that space is still a new, and dangerous, frontier. In the days and weeks that follow Columbia's break-up over Texas, questions will be asked about every aspect of the Shuttle programme - including whether manned spaceflight is even necessary.
The question that should be asked is whether the USA has betrayed its hard-won leadership in space by forgetting that space is still a frontier, and that it is human nature to conquer new frontiers. It is a sad indictment that it has taken the Columbia accident, the second disaster to befall the Space Shuttle in two decades of otherwise successful operation, to remind the American people that spaceflight is not routine - it is still a risky business.
The public needs also to be reminded why the men and women who died on Columbia were in space in the first place. They were there to explore a new frontier, one of the few left for man to conquer, and it has been mankind's nature to try to push back the boundaries of new frontiers, whatever the risks.
It has been too long since the USA had a clear vision for its space programme. A vision like that which took Americans to the moon within a decade. A vision which had begun to fade even as the Space Shuttle programme was launched.
Blame can be apportioned at all levels: to successive administrations for failing to articulate to the American people the importance of space exploration; in equal portions to Congress for penny-pinching micro-management and NASA for cost-oblivious mismanagement of the US space programme; and to the public for losing sight of the long-term goal - lifting humanity from the confines of the planet into the vastness of space.
Unfortunately, since Apollo put man on the moon, the US space programme has lacked a coherent direction. This has become painfully obvious following the Columbia crash. Today, the Space Shuttle exists to support the International Space Station (ISS) - and the station exists because the Shuttle is there to support it. The two are symbiotic.
But the US administration, Congress and NASA have never treated the two programmes as one. Budget cuts to offset cost overruns on the ISS have hurt the Space Shuttle as much as any other NASA programme. Now Columbia's demise has made it clear how much the station needs the Shuttle and the Shuttle needs the station. NASA's original plan, once ISS development and assembly costs were history, was to launch another multi-billion dollar programme, this time to replace the Shuttle with a second-generation reusable launch vehicle. The price tag was estimated to be at least $30 billion, cheap only in comparison with the ISS's $95 billion cost.
The Shuttle was to be upgraded to keep it safe to fly until 2012, then phased out in favour of the fully reusable second-generation vehicle. All that changed last year, in the face of ISS budget cuts and cost controls. Under the new strategy approved late last year, the Shuttle is to be upgraded to keep it flying until 2020, and possibly beyond. In the meantime, a smaller reusable vehicle, the Orbital Space Plane (OSP), is to be developed for launch on an expendable booster. The OSP is set to enter service in 2010 as a crew rescue vehicle, launched unmanned to the ISS and returning to Earth with crew aboard. In 2012, the OSP is to begin flights as a crew transfer vehicle, flying manned to and from the ISS.
So much time and money has been wasted already. If the symbiotic relationship of the two programmes had been acknowledged, the Shuttle could have been upgraded into a more robust space transport system than it is today. Liquid fly-back boosters and new orbiters with improved thermal-protection systems are just some of the options. None of this could have saved Columbia's crew, but it might have made the space programme of which they were a proud part more robust and more likely to survive the scrutiny and inevitable criticism that will follow.
It is to be hoped that the independent Columbia Accident Investigation Board, in its deliberations on the consequences of the crash, recognises that the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station are symbiotic. And recommends that the administration clearly articulates a commitment to and direction for the US manned space programme. And that Congress and NASA recognise that Shuttle and Station, and their eventual successors, are essential and interlocking steps towards Mars and on to the stars.
Source: Flight International
