|
You are viewing
Volume 41, Issue 3
September 30, 2003
To return to the current issue please click
here.
|
 |
September 30,
2003
Space for the shuttle
Ryan Bailey
Opinions Editor
On Feb. 1, 2003, the space shuttle Columbia exploded during its landing
approach, instantly killing all seven crew members. The Columbia Accident
Investigation Board, a committee formed to determine the cause and implement
necessary changes, has concluded that the incident was preventable, and
that it was caused mostly by negligence on the part of NASA technicians
and lack of organization.
Now, just as when the Challenger disaster shook America 17 years ago,
critics of the shuttle program try to persuade us to abandon the endeavor,
claiming that it is too costly both in tax dollars and American lives.
They question the significance of the benefits of the manned space program,
as well as its overall feasibility. They even assert that the technology
is too obsolete and impractical to continue with such a resource-intensive
undertaking.
But why was the space shuttle developed in the first place? Shortly after
the end of the Apollo program, NASA saw the economic and logistical benefit
of having a spacecraft that could enter orbit and be reused, instead of
the relatively disposable multi-stage rockets that they had used for years.
This reduction in cost and labor allowed many more missions than before;
and became a more effective method for sending objects into orbit, maintaining
them and safely retrieving them later.
This is what makes technology like the Hubble Space Telescope and International
Space Station possible. In fact, the shuttle is an irreplaceable element
of the space station's purpose. Without four or five shuttle deliveries
from Earth every year, the station will not have the hardware, food and
oxygen necessary to sustain the orbiting crew and allow them to conduct
their experiments. A score of countries around the world consider that
research important enough that they have contributed many billions toward
the station's construction and maintenance. Similar, shorter-term experiments,
like the 80 that went down with the Columbia and her crew, are performed
onboard the shuttles themselves.
Some would say that the purposes of manned space exploration are not worth
the price. But what would the late crew members of the Columbia have to
say to such critics? They were willing to devote their lives to such a
cause, and worked for many years for an opportunity to achieve what they
did. They witnessed the Challenger shuttle explosion just like everyone
else, and knew of the danger involved with rocket flight. But to those
seven astronauts there was a greater scientific purpose; and, more probably,
an even grander cause. They believed that this was reason enough for them
to risk their lives in manned space flight.
There is no reason for America to stop what we have begun. There have
been 247 people sent into space on the shuttle, on 113 missions. Two of
those missions have ended in tragedy. There will be setbacks in the opening
decades of exploring an inhospitable medium. We correct. We improve. For
over a year after the Challenger explosion, NASA examined and fixed every
problem they could find. It will happen again now, and future astronauts
will be many times safer. While I heartily agree that the 1970s technology
that we use to explore the universe is more than ready for an upgrade,
the principle of leaving the confines of our home planet remains the same.
Modern technology allows for the development of faster, safer, more cost-efficient
ways of sending more people and heavier cargo into orbit. As soon as reasonably
possible, we should take that next technological step in space exploration.
It will cost some money, and will require some sacrifices. But even then,
just as with the shuttle missions of the 80s and 90s and the rockets that
preceded them, the benefits that we as a species derive from growing beyond
our earthly confines will be immeasurable.
Back to Top
| Previous Page | Home
|
|
|
