| What Goes Up |
3 February 2003
|
NASA Loses Astronauts, Shuttle, and Purpose
Shortly before landing on Saturday, the Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated over Texas with the loss of all seven crewmembers. Their deaths are mourned across the globe, and the word "heroic" has been used more times that one can count. Even so, the period of investigation and reflection that lies ahead must answer the most fundamental question "What is space for?" To date, NASA has failed to answer even badly.
During the Cold War, the Space Race existed as yet another field in which capitalism could compete with communism to prove which system was superior. "Our ex-Nazi scientists are smarter than your ex-Nazi scientists," summed it up. Then, America made it to the moon, and the Soviets decided coming in second wasn't worth it. So, they went for endurance records. The Mir space station was the result. And having achieved the moon, the Americans decided a reusable spacecraft was needed, but NASA never said why.
A space station only makes sense as a base of operations for far off exploration. Most of the science done in orbit is of marginal value and certainly doesn't justify a boondoggle like the International Space Station. Most space research can be done with robots, as NASA has done with some success (and a few blunders) on Mars.
Rick Husband, Michael Anderson, David Brown, Kalpana Chawla, Laurel Clark, William McCool and Ilan Ramon died at the very end of a space mission that is part of an overall scientific program that lacks focus and grand purpose. Their memories will be best served if NASA can establish solid reasons for manned missions and pursue them with the intensity they deserve.