Deutsche Presse-Agentur August 9, 2005
Discovery lands safely, but doubts linger over future
By Mike McCarthy
Washington, Aug 9 (DPA) The first US shuttle mission in more than two years came to a successful end Tuesday with Discovery's touchdown, but US space officials face tough questions about the future of the shuttle programme and manned flight.
Discovery landed at 1211 GMT at Edwards Air Force Base, California, essentially marking the beginning of the debate at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) about the best way forward.
Bad weather had forced a one-day postponement of Discovery's return, and forced NASA to relocate the landing to California.
NASA had previously planned to retire the space shuttle fleet by 2010, but stubborn problems of foam falling off the external fuel tank and other safety threats forced the agency to again ground the remaining fleet.
Falling debris on liftoff damaged heat-shielding tiles and caused Columbia to break up during re-entry in February 2003. NASA acknowledged that the problem has not been adequately addressed and decided to halt any new flights, after a piece of insulation fell off the fuel tank during Discovery's ascent but did not strike the craft.
As NASA moves forward to resolve the foam issue so it can continue flights, it will also examine the viability of the shuttle concept and evaluate future vehicles for carrying astronauts into orbit.
NASA will have to look at the likelihood of resolving the falling debris problem, the feasibility and cost effectiveness of future shuttle missions, other budgetary constraints and the time lag between the final shuttle flight - if it hasn't already occurred - and the timetable to get a new ship, called the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), up and running.
The concern is that a lengthy gap in manned space flight could diminish interest in the concept all together.
However, the best current analysis is that it will take two to three years after the shuttles are retired to have the CEV in place, unless spending is accelerated, said Valerie Neal, a space history curator at the Smithsonian Institute's Air and Space Museum.
'Having a long hiatus in human space flight really spurs no one's interest,' Neal said. 'People want to see space flight as active and vigorous.'
NASA engineers have already begun reviewing the cause of the falling debris during Discovery's takeoff and evaluating potential solutions. The agency has not ruled out sending Atlantis up in September, though the launch window is closing.
Despite all of the 'gloom and doom' surrounding the shuttle programme, now magnified by media coverage, Discovery's mission was largely a success, meaning that NASA will try to keep the fleet and won't move to retire the shuttles sooner, Neal said.
'I think we owe it to the hard work that has already been done on this mission to take another look at the problem of the foam and see if it can be better understood before putting the final nail in the coffin,' she said.
Meanwhile, NASA is journeying back to the future for the design of the CEV, which is based on the capsule model still used by the Russians. By placing the astronauts in a capsule on top of a rocket, falling debris is no longer an issue. The larger model has been designed for unmanned flights to carry cargo into orbit.
'As long as we put the crew and the valuable cargo up above wherever the tanks are, we don't care what they shed,' NASA chief Michael Griffin said. 'They can have dandruff all day long.'
NASA believes the concept will be more efficient and cost effective than the aging shuttle fleet and more applicable to the needs of manned spaceflight.
'You just have an enormous amount of people who are dedicated to taking care of the shuttle,' said John Pike, a space analyst at Globalsecurity.org. 'They have been working on the shuttle now for a third of a century.'
The CEV will be 'less expensive and safer for the crew', Pike said.
Experts believe the capsule system will be at least 10 times as safe as the shuttle.
Another significant benefit to the CEV is that it fits in nicely with President George W. Bush's vision for using the moon as a base for possible human spaceflight to Mars. The shuttle provides no benefits for working on the moon, because without an atmosphere its wings are ineffective.
'If your main purpose is the moon, then a capsule makes eminently good sense,' Pike said.
One of the downsides to the capsule is that it is not as sexy as the shuttle and might also give the impression that NASA, rather than advancing technologically, is moving backward.
'The main argument against it is that you would be looking back to the future and embracing the past,' Pike said.
NASA's biggest challenge, however, could be with securing enough money from Congress to both keep the shuttle fleet active and build the next generation of vessels to carry man into space.
'Where are you going to find enough money to fly the shuttle and enough money to replace it?' Pike asked.
© Copyright 2005, Deutsche Presse-Agentur GmbH
