Instead of risking another tragic or humiliating setback Saturday, NASA should abandon the shuttle and focus on more productive missions.
The shuttle was intended as a reusable spacecraft that would require only routine maintenance between missions. But NASA has been working on the foam problem for more than three years. It's becoming increasingly clear that the issue with the shuttle isn't age but a design flaw.
In fairness, the officials who advised against Saturday's launch — the agency's chief engineer and its chief safety officer — say there isn't much risk that the shuttle's crew could die. If debris punctures Discovery's skin, its astronauts can abandon the craft for the International Space Station; the shuttle would burn up in the atmosphere without a soul on board.
Rep. Calvert (HT NASA Watch) replies here:
NASA is still working on the foam problem, but the problem is much more understood now and there are safeguards in place to ensure that shedding foam will not endanger the crew. Discovery's flight is a test flight to see how the foam fixes developed so far will work. But more importantly, it is a test of NASA's organizational culture. All indications are that the safety culture of NASA is working well thus far throughout the pre-launch process. Two senior members of the Final Flight Readiness Review did not recommend a launch at this time. Their concerns were given due consideration by the Administrator when he made his decision to proceed with the launch. Unlike with Columbia's mission, the process was transparent and consultative throughout. The Administrator has received the entire spectrum of NASA opinion about the launch. He has taken this information, weighed the risks, and made a decision that he believes is the best one for America's Space Program. That's what we pay him for.
The Shuttle is far from a perfect system. The decision to retire it in 2010 is based on a combination of the Shuttle's age and design, the need to complete the International Space Station (ISS), and the necessity of transitioning the NASA workforce and facilities to support the new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV). The longer we delay completing Discovery's test flight the less time remains to fly the remaining missions.
But until the CEV is available sometime after 2012, the Shuttle is the only system the U.S. has to send people into space. Even if the Shuttle was retired tomorrow, the CEV will not be ready much sooner. Americans should not be not comfortable with allowing six or more years to pass with only China and Russia having a human space flight capability.
Human space flight is an inherently risky business. Administrator Griffin, the crew of Discovery, and the men and women of NASA understand that fact. If Discovery's test flight fails to safely complete its mission, the Shuttle era will be over. If it succeeds, America's manned space program will be able to conduct a rational transition to the next generation space vehicle. Let's give NASA the chance to succeed.
I believe NASA will surpass the problems. They really did a fine job a year ago with testing repair options. The Media were all over the grounding when foam was caught flighing off the tank during launch. Here is a post on Gene Kranz's NYT op-ed (8/3/2005) about it here.
There are many nations that wish to surpass us in space. Does the "quit now" crowd really believe that abandoning the shuttle and International Space Station is the way to keep America the pre-eminent space-faring nation? Do they really believe that a new spacecraft will come without an engineering challenge or a human toll? The path the naysayers suggest is so out of touch with the American character of perseverance, hard work and discovery that they don't even realize the danger in which they are putting future astronauts - not to mention our nation.
I'm with Gene on this one. Space is America's "crown jewel." We are a Space-Faring nation. Why give it up and wait while other's surpass us?
No comments:
Post a Comment