An examination of what could have been done to save the crew of the shuttle Columbia had the damage been noticed early in the flight.
I thought this was a really interesting look at the process of planning a shuttle mission.
"the means" here being funding. Although the allure of manned space exploration appeals to every ounce of my being, it may be wiser to wait it out and reduce costs and risks. Private companies (we're looking at you, Musk) are shaking up the playing field for the better, no doubt, but they are by definition profit-oriented entities. Yes, this will reduce risk and cost for future manned missions, but let's not forget one very important thing... private companies have no incentive to fund science for the sake of science, hence why we will always require government grants to progress humankind's knowledge base. Sure, capitalism dabbles in science, but only if there's a product and profit to be gained. Perhaps another question to ask ourselves is "How relatable are current NASA undertakings to the average citizen, or (an even scarier question) to policy makers?". Kepler's recent unveiling of 700+ extraterrestrial planets is relatable enough, but MMS's attempt to solve magnetic reconnection? James Webb's potential contributions to our cosmological theories? Not so much. Manned spaceflight is simple, and exciting. Also, in a lot of instances, sending up a probe or telescope with instrumentation will result in better science than a crew of humans, and it damn sure cuts back on collateral damages in the event of malfunction. As for the mentioned lack of leadership and direction... what? Just because you don't know who runs the headshed at NASA doesn't mean there isn't quite the hierarchy of functional management and many projects in various phases of development. Yeah, we're not shuttling people into space currently, primarily because we defunded the shit out of the program. Accidents like Columbia and Challenger certainly don't help the case, and there were definitely many instances where people adorned their "management hats" when they should have put on their "engineering hats". But what do you expect, Bill Nye to head up NASA? The people actually running the show typically have far too much on their plate to give a damn about PR. Besides, where are we going to get the money from to finance a decent public outreach program? The industry is currently feeling the economic crash of 2008, there's about a five year delay for it to really propagate through the science and education sectors. One thing I will definitely knock NASA for is its rampant conservatism. We're flying technology that was developed in the 70's and 80's, just because there is an ever so slight risk of new technology failing. "Legacy" status granted to already flown technology is upheld on this stupidly high pedestal that actively stomps out the next generation of space instrumentation. The article was certainly thought provoking though, and generally well researched.As an agency, NASA simultaneously represents the best and worst of the United States of America—it is responsible for some of the greatest engineering achievements in the history of humankind and has accomplished a long list of goals originally deemed impossible. At the same time, the agency is also crippled by a lack of direction and leadership; it has gone from being an organization capable of putting human beings on other worlds to an organization that lacks even the means to put them into low Earth orbit without assistance.
So here's the reality of the situation: The NRO has a budget of about 33 billion dollars. 15 of that is black and difficult to discern. 18 of that is public and subject to the bread and circuses necessary to convince America that "space exploration" is worth the cost of maintaining a rocket fleet. You know this 18 billion as "NASA." Sputnik provided Eisenhower with the impetus he needed to use spy satellites instead of U-2 flights (highly recommended if you can find it). The Mercury and Gemini program were, in many ways, cover for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory... and the absolutely stultifying number of Corona launches. The only reason the Space Shuttle exists is for the KH-9. The NRO was adamantly opposed to the space shuttle - its erstwhile main customer - because they'd have to redesign all their satellites to sit sideways. However, Hans Mark performed a complete 180 turnaround while head of the NRO and said "if you're going to build it, it must be big enough to be useful" - the NRO's proposal for the shuttle was 40% larger than NASA's civilian wing. People forget that the NRO built a military launch pad for the Shuttle out at Vandenberg. People forget that between '82 and '92, fully a quarter of the Shuttle's payloads were classified military missions. And people forget that when the Challenger exploded, it left the NRO without any heavy launch platform right in the middle of Reagan/Gorbachev SDI paranoia - thus the development of the Delta IV Heavy, the rocket the NRO had wanted since 1971. And once they had their big rocket, they didn't need a shuttle any more. There's a reason NASA kept trying to kill the shuttle - one of their main customers and, frankly, their raison d'etre didn't need it any more. So the budget NASA is left with is the budget that can actually defend itself - unmanned science and things academia will help pay for. The shuttle was never a good idea, and it was pushed well past its useful life in pursuit of civilian payloads that only exist as pork barrel (lookin' at you, ISS). I watched the Columbia launch live; I watched it come down live. I'm a big fan of manned spaceflight. But at the same time, I recognize that the shuttle was irrelevant the minute it rolled onto the hangar and that the Columbia and Challenger deaths were, in many ways, about keeping up appearances.
First, thank you for your well-researched response, complete with hyperlinks. The actual story of America's space program is certainly different from what's "common knowledge". My own opinions of these "defense" projects is rather muddled. They have contributed to America's current (but dwindling) status as chief superpower of Earth, and laid down the roots for future successes, many of which we all benefit from technological spin-offs of today, but also contributed to the ramping up of tension between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. I wasn't alive during the cold war, but this doesn't excuse my current ignorance on the subject. Sadly, one of the best documentaries that I've seen on the subject is "The Right Stuff", released in 1983, years before declassifcation of these projects. The movie even comes off as a clever bit of pro-American propaganda... not that I mean to belittle the commendable achievements made by our early manned spaceflight programs. At present, it seems so distant into the past that no one gives a damn what happened 30+ years ago, regardless of how dependent America's current space prowess is upon these once cryptic military programs. The (necessary?) interplay between military and scientific achievement will continue to frustrate me, of that I can assure you. It's just too complicated, with too many smokescreens and politics. If only we could all just lay down our weapons, come together as a species, and focus on progress... Brb, getting labeled as a commie.
So The Right Stuff is TOTALLY not a documentary. Tom Wolfe's book was fast'n'loose with the truth, and the movie is fast'n'loose with the book. Watch "Astrospies" as linked above. It'll take you an hour. You have to keep in mind that the whole thing is a sleight of hand - civilian space programs are all about military space programs and always have been. William E Burroughs wrote a great book on the NRO and its impact on foreign policy years before the NRO's very existence was declassified - when he was interviewing Hans Mark about a hypothetical NRO, he was interviewing the guy in charge. It's fun to read these days because everything discussed in it now has a wikipedia page... but the perspective is still a virtually unknown one. I was not only alive during the Cold War, I was living in Los Alamos, NM. I'm well aware that my opinion (and perspective) is definitely in the minority. You're new here. This link may be relevant to your interests.
Heh, yeah, I'd figured that The Right Stuff was a little... generous... with its depictions. The way information has been historically controlled and distributed vs. today's relative free-flowing bonanza (classified stuff aside)... I take these things for granted. The internet is arguably the most important technology of our species to date, neolithic revolution aside. White Sands, huh? Say no more. ;) Thank you for your time, I really appreciate it, I will definitely be perusing the literature in your red-pill thread. Good day to you!
Speaking as someone who regularly attends launches at Vandenberg, don't begin to think things are open nowadays. According to the Washington Post, there are half again as many Top Secret clearances in the United States as there are residents in Washington, DC. Just keep that in mind.
PSA: This is a great article, and I'm glad that other people appreciated but it's much more worthwhile to engage in something beyond saying that you liked the article. I don't want to sound like an ass, but saying that you like the article is effectively accomplished by sharing it. There's no need to post a comment, that's just redundant.
No problem, I hope I didn't come across as an ass or anything. Also, was checking out your website and saw that you play guitar and all that fun. That's awesome, I play as well!
I loved the depth that was gone into, but I also liked the even-handed discussion of the content:
My telling of the rescue's story is not intended to criticize or damn NASA for its actions, nor am I attempting from a position of historical privilege to second guess the decision-makers who to this day must live with the grave consequences of the choices made.