| Space Shuttle Columbia:
Space Exploration
With Anthony R. Curtis
Editor, Space Today Online
Tuesday, Feb. 4, 2003; 11 a.m. ET On Saturday the Space Shuttle Columbia, carrying six Americans and Israel's first astronaut, disintegrated in flames over Texas. Officials have not yet determined the cause of the tragedy -- in 42 years of U.S. human space flight, there has never been an accident during the descent to Earth or landing. On Jan. 28, 1986, space shuttle Challenger exploded shortly after liftoff. What will the disaster mean for the future of the shuttle program, NASA and space exploration? Anthony R. Curtis, editor of SpaceToday Online, was online Tuesday, Feb. 4 at 11 a.m. ET, to discuss the Columbia tragedy and the future of space exploration. Curtis is a space analyst and historian and edits SpaceToday.org. He is also professor and chair of the Department of Mass Communications for the University of North Carolina at Pembroke. He has authored several books on space exploration. The transcript follows. Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Anthony R. Curtis: Good morning, everyone. We're having a warm spring rain here in North Carolina. I hope the weather is comfortable where you are. Thanks in advance for all of the good questions you are sending in!
--Tony Curtis
Rockville, Md.: Was it possible in any way (even if it was an improvised way) for the astronauts to do an EVA to inspect the damage to the tiles? If so, and visible damage was observed, would it have been physically possible to get the shuttle up to the higher ISS orbit, or keep it up in orbit long enough to be able to send a rescue shuttle up? Anthony R. Curtis: Columbia didn't have the capability to make such an inspection while up there on mission STS-107. They didn't have a robot arm in the cargo bay. They had no way to look at the bottom of the shuttle. Shuttle spacewalks generally have been confined to an area defined by the opened cargo bay.
The International Space Station was at a very different place in the sky. They didn't have the speed or fuel to maneuver to it.
Columbia was at the end of a 16-day flight. It could have stayed up only a few more days. It might have taken a month to get a rescue shuttle flight together and launched.
It seems not much could have been done.
Harrisburg, Pa.: The tiles that protect the space shuttle from heat need to be delicately put into place. To test they are firmly on, there is a suction test to see they remain in place. What I want to know is: does this test itself cause the tiles to then become loose? Anthony R. Curtis: I have not seen such evidence. However, with more than 100 flights completed by the fleet, it would seem that such an occurrence would have been noted before now.
Juneau, Alaska: 1. Was the Columbia crew advised of the insulation impact that occurred at launch? 2. Even if satellites might not be able to closely review the damage, was there some reason a space walk could not have been performed to check the site? 3. Even if the space shuttle only had a few days of supplies, could the crew have moved onto the space station? Could Russia have launched a mission even if U.S. could not? 4. Could missing tiles have caused others to rip off during descent? Anthony R. Curtis: Those are good questions.
Columbia didn't have the capability on this trip to make such an inspection. Spacewalks generally have been confined to an area outlined by the opened cargo bay. They didn't have a robot arm in the cargo bay. They had no way to look at the bottom of the shuttle.
A shuttle could have been sent up if one had been ready. The problem would have been the time it takes to prepare for flight. The next shuttle now at Kennedy Space Center was being prepared for launch on March 1.
Shuttles have no equipment to dock together. However, one might imagine a situation with two shuttles very near each other in orbit and some means of transporting astronauts from one cargo bay to the other without an actual docking or mechanical linkup of the orbiters to each other. That's only imaginary -- an academic discussion -- as a second shuttle couldn't be readied quickly for a flight. (They do have docking equipment for the International Space Station, which was unreachable elsewhere.)
Sending up a Russian Soyuz transport to rescue them would have faced the same problem -- the time it takes to prepare for flight. The Progress capsule, launched the day after the Columbia disaster, was an unmanned cargo ship aimed at the International Space Station. Seven astronauts could not have come down in it.
The International Space Station was at a very different place in the sky. Columbia didn't have the speed or fuel to maneuver to it.
We will have to leave it to the investigating commission to decide if missing tiles could have caused others to rip off during descent.
San Diego, Calif.: The Commission that investigated the Challenger disaster included a number of brilliant scientists that were not former or active members of the military or NASA. The new commission investigating the Columbia disaster seems to lack these independent distinguished scientists and therefore its findings will probably lack the credibility of the Challenger report. Am I the only one who has noticed this? I would appreciate your comments. Anthony R. Curtis: Yes, there were many distinguished folks on the Challenger commission. Sally Ride, the late Richard Feynman, and others. For the nation to come to a consensus on what happened this time with Columbia, such a blue-ribbon panel of known and respected people is needed again.
Oklahoma City, Okla.: There has been much discussion in the news of the re-entry dangers for the shuttle all caused by supersonic speed and heat buildup on the surface of the tiles caused by the friction of the atmosphere. No one has discussed why is the shuttle not subject to the same types of forces and dangers on takeoff (nothwithstanding the danger of the explosive fuel cells that destroyed the previous shuttle)as the tiles face in on the fuel cells and it is the cabin surface of the shuttle which is exposed to the friction?; and, why can't the shuttle just use more revolutions on re-entry, descending at ever slower rates of speed? Would this not result in less friction and heat? Anthony R. Curtis: Well, the time of greatest stress on the orbiter has been said to be during liftoff. There's a lot of what some astronauts have described as "shake, rattle and roll" going up, but there is a lot of that coming down, too. However, the extraordinary buildup of heat around the orbiter while entering the atmosphere at 12,000 mph or greater speed also is an extremely dangerous event.
If the shuttle were to skip along the top of the atmosphere, like a pebble on a pond, slowly sinking, it would take a very long time to slow down and heat still would have to be dealt with. When the shuttle was designed, that approach was thought to be not feasible and the plunge into the atmosphere we now use was chosen.
Newton, Mass.: How late in the ascent can the shuttle abort to Rota, Spain, or some other landing strip? It seems if tile damage is detected in the ascent, then aborting before orbit is reached is the only way to minimize the heat. Of course, the shuttle and NASA lacked the capability to detect in real time any damage in the ascent, in this case. Nevertheless, it would seem that NASA should test aborting as a safety measure and perhaps could incorporate real time sensors in the future. Anthony R. Curtis: The Moron Air Base is a U.S. Air Force not far from Rota. Back in 1984, it was earmarked as a Transoceanic Abort Landing (TAL) site for shuttle launches. It is considered to be an alternate when bad weather affects both low and high inclination launches.
If NASA used it as a TAL site in an emergency, it would take about half an hour for a shuttle to get there and land. First, the Shuttle would fly on up to about 350,000 feet where the main engines would cut off (MECO). The external tank would be jettisoned. A reentry program would take over. The orbiter then would enter the atmosphere on the normal reentry.
The problem in the Columbia accident was the possible damage to the orbiter was found later, not during liftoff. Thus, an abort during liftoff was not possible. Ground personnel routinely review film of blastoffs the day after a launch and that's when they spotted that insulation (or whatever it was) falling from the external tank. By the time they saw it in the film, the shuttle already was in orbit. From then, there was little that could have been done if they had known there was damage for sure. They studied the issue, anyway, and concluded it was of little consequence.
Washington, D.C.: They said three shuttles remain but I thought there were four -- if you include shuttle Enterprise, the oldest which still has its NASA designation OV-101. Anthony R. Curtis: You could count six shuttles altogether, with one never flown to space, and two lost in flight. They were:
Enterprise (prototype, never flew in space)
Columbia (first to fly in space, now lost)
Challenger (exploded during launch in 1986)
Discovery
Atlantis
Endeavour (built to replace Challenger)
Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour remain in service.
Washington, D.C.: At the end of the Reagan era and beginning of Bush one era there was a spaceship in development that could take off and land without booster rocket assist. This was supposed to be a passenger carrying orbiter, spacecraft, whatever you want to call it. This ship would carry ordinary paying passengers on the outer fringes of earth's atmosphere just barely into space. I can't remember if Lockheed-Martin, Northrup-Grumman or Boeing were involved but it looked exciting. But anyhow whatever became of the project in the 90s? Would you know? Anthony R. Curtis: You're correct in recalling that NASA had a transport vehicle program in the Reagan era known as NASP Orient Express. It was replaced by, or evolved into, other test models with designations such as X-33, X-34, X-37, X-38, X-43, 2GRLV and Space Launch Initiative (SLI). Currently, NASA's future space transport program is the Orbital Spaceplane (OSP).
Denver, Colo.: How can we get the media to change the way they report the program -- instill a sense of excitement about the space program and all the things we have accomplished? Advertise the collateral benefits in the medical field, agriculture, telemetry, etc. that have occurred because of the space program. It's a sad commentary when we pay "sports heroes" astronomical salaries and astronauts so litte as they are true heroes risking their lives for the benefit of everyone. Anthony R. Curtis: I certainly agree with your sentiment and I would like to see a time when everyone would share the strong attachment to space exploration that you and I feel. Unfortunately, that will not happen. We live in a pluralistic society with multifaceted interests.
In the past five years or so, I've noticed what I have felt to be an increase in interest in space and astronomy stories in popular media. I have thought of that as a good thing. I do understand, however, that news media look for the unusual. Unfortunately, routine shuttle flights are not unusual so they don't get much news coverage.
There are seven news values held by news media gatekeepers -- impact, timeliness, prominence, proximity, bizarreness, conflict, and currency. If a shuttle flight doesn't touch one of those values, it doesn't get covered. If it does, you see it on TV.
For perspective, I should mention that some astronauts earn $90k. That's a lot more than some Americans, but a great deal less than most of the "sports heroes" you mention.
Atlanta, Ga.: Moving forward, what is going to happen to the two astronauts and one cosmonaut in the (ISS) International Space Station and what are the chances of another space shuttle or spacecraft from the U.S. going into space within the next 24 months? Anthony R. Curtis: Back in 1986, at the time of the Challenger disaster, shuttles flew what we might think of as autonomous missions. They could go up and and down as needed and when ready. They also could accommodate the hiatus from 1986 to 1988.
Today, the shuttle fleet is both human transport and supply freighter for the International Space Station (the Russian Soyuz capsules share these roles). The shuttle managers have a larger responsibility today, and a greater need, to resume flying as soon as possible. It wouldn't surprise me to see another shuttle fly before the end of 2003. It depends on the extent of redesign required by the investigation.
Meantime, the two astronauts and one cosmonaut aboard the International Space Station have sufficient supplies to stay at least through June. More supplies can be sent up by Progress cargo ship (like a Soyuz).
You may recall that Vladimir Titov and Musa Manarov spent 366 days in space from December 21, 1987, to December 21, 1988, manning the Mir space station. And there have been many other long-duration flights by cosmonauts. For instance, Valery Polyakov total of 679 days across two trips to Mir.
I suspect the ISS would offer a more pleasant stay nowadays than Mir could offer back then.
Rockville, Md.: Statements have been made that using military satellite imagery or telescopes would not have shown the damage. Why is that? It seems that satellite imagery can see quite fine details on earth, was this a strategic decision not to retask an intelligence asset, or a physical limitation? Anthony R. Curtis: Actually, my understanding had been that there are some military telescopes on the ground that could see detail on the bottom of a shuttle. But, I'm not there so I can't say for sure.
Houston, Tex.: Two questions: About an hour ago on the BBC, I heard a brief reference to Israeli photos taken of Columbia in orbit that showed an obvious dent in the left wing. Do you know anything about this? Also, I have to suspect that the seemingly minor incident of the insulation impact right after liftoff would have seemed substantially more serious if analysts gave more thought to the possibility that the piece broken off the outside of the large tank was not just lightweight manufactured material, but also contained some proportion of ice. I am curious as to the time of year and weather conditions at all the previous launches that had roughly analogous insulation break-off incidents. I'd guess that, notwithstanding the super-cold nature of the fuel, the ambient temperature and humidity while the shuttle is sitting on the pad waiting to take off would have some effect on icing circumstances affecting the tank/insulation. If there is anything to this line of thought, it would pose an eerie and depressing parallel, of sorts, with the Challenger. Thanks. Anthony R. Curtis: You're ahead of me on that one. I have not heard of Israeli photos showing a dent. I imagine that story needs further investigation as to its veracity.
Washington, D.C.: On one of the Sunday morning talk shows I saw a Professor from U of MD saying that "no useful science has ever come from any of the experiments conducted in outer space." He went on to say that the space program is basically a waste of money that could be better spent somewhere else. What's your response to this? Anthony R. Curtis: I disagree. I am reminded of the research on this flight that might have brought breakthroughs in prostate cancer.
They had so much real research to do that they flew seven people so they could do lab work around the clock for the short period of 16 days the shuttle was able to stay up there. They divided the astronauts into "red" and "blue" teams. They also had to have a commander and pilot to keep the shuttle on station while the research was going on.
That space location is valuable because there is almost no gravity there, which permits experiments that can't be done in a heavy gravity environment, such as on the surface of Earth.
Anthony R. Curtis: My time is up. I appreciate all of the great questions this morning and am sorry I didn't get to every last one. See you next time!
--Tony Curtis
© Copyright 2003 The Washington Post Company | 
