Nasa's Next Step
Can the manned space program find a new, revitalizing mission in the wake of the Columbia tragedy?
More than 40 years after John Glenn's orbital flight, the romance of manned space travel is undimmed. We flock to see films like the Star Wars series or witness the gee-whiz hardware at Washington's National Air and Space Museum, the most popular attraction in a city of must-see sights. Thirty-four years later, our pride in the Apollo moon landings remains enormous. Not even the deadly disintegration of the space shuttle Columbia on February 1 dampened our belief that humans belong in space. A recent poll found that two thirds of Americans want the shuttles to take wing again.
But on Tuesday, when the Columbia Accident Investigation Board issues its report on the tragedy, it will set in bold relief the historic pull between our desire to keep Americans in space and our willingness to pay for it. As space historian Roger Launius explains, "We want to do these things, but we don't want to spend money on them." Trouble is, space travel is expensive. Launius estimates that Apollo cost more than $100 billion in today's dollars. Each shuttle flight gobbles up $500 million. The international space station (ISS) is $22 billion over budget and only 40 percent complete. Yet NASA's annual budget has languished for a decade at about $15 billion, leading to possibly fatal cuts in personnel, maintenance, and infrastructure.
The Columbia investigation panel is expected to say that those cutbacks indirectly contributed to the disaster, which was triggered when a chunk of foam insulation broke off a fuel tank on takeoff and gashed the leading edge of the left wing. The report is also expected to portray NASA as hobbled by poor management and communications roadblocks that kept low and midlevel employees from passing on fears about safety. Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, predicts that the board will pinpoint "the root cause" of the accident as "a lack of communications" and "an atmosphere of arrogance."
But once fingers have been pointed and fixes recommended, the spotlight will move beyond Columbia to how much money NASA needs to rebuild its manned program--and just what its mission should be. "It's a critical juncture for NASA," Launius says. Critics in Congress and elsewhere say it's time to revitalize the agency and make the exorbitant costs of space travel more palatable by investing it with a new, overarching goal: perhaps colonizing the moon. Or exploring Mars. Or both. "They need to come up with a goal that recaptures the excitement of the American people," says Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican.
Underwhelmed. NASA certainly hasn't managed that with its current focus: using the shuttles to build and maintain the space station. Since construction began in 1998, 250 miles above Earth, NASA has tried to make it look as routine as building a downtown office tower. "The ideal space mission is routine," explains Keith Cowing, editor of the NASA Watch Web site. But underwhelmed Americans showed little interest in the space program--until the fatal mishap. And although the ISS is meant as an orbiting lab for cutting-edge science, budget cuts have curtailed research. It's not worth the cost or risk, critics argue. Neal Lane, a former science adviser to President Clinton, says that "the space station on its own is not a sufficiently exciting or bold enough goal" to justify the dangers of space travel.
NASA's immediate goal is to get the shuttles safely flying again, perhaps as early as next March. And it does intend to complete the station, according to William Readdy, associate administrator for space flight. That task requires the shuttles, because the ISS modules were designed to fit into their cargo bays. But then the costly, fragile shuttles could be mothballed. Before the accident, some NASA officials had vowed to keep them flying through 2020. "I don't think [that's] plausible now," says Cowing.
The problem, says Lane, is that "there is nothing in the pipeline" to take their place. In the short term, NASA could speed plans for the orbital space plane, a sort of space taxi that could take the load off the shuttles by ferrying crews--but not heavy equipment--to the station. Barton thinks the craft could be ready in about five years, at a cost of $10 billion to $15 billion, although what it would look like is anyone's guess: Proposals include both winged vehicles and capsules, lofted by expendable rockets. But a true shuttle replacement is nowhere in sight. What to build depends on the mission. If the agency set its sights on the moon or Mars, it would need a more powerful and flexible launch system than if its future is in low Earth orbit.
NASA itself isn't about to articulate grand new goals. NASA chief Sean O'Keefe has said that talking about trips to Mars is pointless because the technology for such missions doesn't exist. "I don't understand that logic at all," retorts Louis Friedman, an engineer and the executive director of the Planetary Society. "If you really want to drive technology, you have to have a goal."
There's a rising chorus of voices in Congress echoing that sentiment, among them Republican House Speaker Tom DeLay's. Rhetoric isn't enough, as President Bush's father found in 1989 when he proposed a program to return to the moon and explore Mars. NASA, preoccupied with the shuttles and the ISS, said the plan would cost $450 billion, and Congress deep-sixed it. Yet Barton, who wants NASA's budget doubled, and other lawmakers believe today's Congress is ready to give the agency a revitalizing mission and the money to realize it.
Seize the moment. History is on their side. NASA has gotten budget boosts in midterm election years or after calamities. "But it's a narrow window of opportunity. It's not going to last more than six months," says American University space expert Howard McCurdy. Moreover, it won't happen without White House support--and given war, terror, and budget deficits, that may be a long shot.
Barton will meet with Bush next month in hopes of gaining that support. But advocates of a new mission for NASA also need to agree about what to push for. "There doesn't seem to be a consensus on where we ought to go or why we ought to go there," notes Readdy. Some urge a return to the moon. Others want a mission to Mars. Some would junk the space station. Others would maintain it and even reconfigure it into an orbital launchpad.
Neither technology spinoffs nor scientific discoveries are enough to justify a manned space program, many experts say. The spinoffs so far--in computers, telecommunications, and other fields--might have been developed more cheaply on the ground, and unmanned probes pay greater dividends for science. Launius says there are only two rather nebulous reasons for humans to venture into space: survival of the species and prestige. As Friedman puts it, "We are a better people when we try to seek new knowledge." President Kennedy's decision to shoot for the moon was a Cold War bid to enhance America's technological image.
So how about another space race? China may be planning a manned launch later this year (box, Page 37) and aspires to land a crew on the moon. If China succeeds, says Democratic Rep. Nick Lampson of Texas, "we need to be on the moon saying, `Welcome, China.' " Perhaps geopolitical gamesmanship here on Earth will again propel NASA beyond orbit.
SAFETY MEASURES FOR THE SHUTTLE
NASA engineers are already at work on steps recommended by the board investigating the breakup of the space shuttle Columbia. They include changes to avert hazards like the fatal damage to Columbia's wing, along with methods for finding and even repairing damage in orbit. NASA hopes to make the fixes and get the three remaining orbiters flying again as early as next March.
[Drawing is not available]
SHARPENING THE VIEW
In future liftoffs, NASA plans to watch closely for falling foam or other debris that could damage the orbiter. It is considering mounting cameras on the the external tank and the solid rocket boosters, which would view the wings and belly for any debris strikes. Several ground-based cameras already monitor liftoffs.
CATCHING THE BOLTS
On each mission, explosive bolts attaching the solid rocket boosters to the external tank blow apart to release the spent boosters. Two covers prevent the large bolts from striking the orbiter. Engineers have strengthened these covers to ensure they will do the job.
[labels]
Bolt catcher
Bolt
SECURING THE FOAM
A breakaway chunk of foam insulation 9see detail at right) from the "bipod," where connector rods secure the external tank to the orbiter, is thought to have fatally damaged Columbia. One part of the solution will be to remove insulation from the connectors and heat them instead to prevent the formation of ice, itself a hazard because it could break away during liftoff.
[labels]
Solid rocket boosters
WHY THE INSULATION?
The external tank acts as a large thermos. Inside is supercold liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, fuel for the shuttle's thirsty engines. The foam layer insulates the tank, keeping ice from forming on the exterior. Ice could break off during a liftoff and damage the orbiter.
[labels]
Liquid oxygen
Liquid hydrogen
Foam insulation
Metal tank
OTHER PRECAUTIONS
NASA wants to equip future shuttle crews to inspect and, if necessary, repair damage to the heat-shield tiles on the orbiter's skin and the carbon-composite material on its nose and wing edges while in orbit. For the time being, this will mean inspecting the orbiter while it docks with the international space station.
[labels]
Carbon-composite panels
Heat-shield tiles on orbiter's underside
NASA has also reached an agreement with the National Imagery and Mapping Agency to use imaging technologies, including spy satellites, to inspect the shuttle while it is in space.
Source: NASA
DOUG STERN AND STEPHEN ROUNTREE-USN&WR
This story appears in the September 1, 2003 print edition of U.S. News & World Report.