The Dallas Morning News August 10, 2005
NASA ponders shuttle's future
By Bruce Nichols
HOUSTON – Now comes the hard part.
With Discovery safely on the ground in California, NASA must concentrate on a persistent problem with fuel tank insulation coming off in pieces big enough to damage shuttles during launch – an issue that has again grounded the fleet.
If the agency can't fix the foam problem quickly and cheaply, the shuttle program could be "in very serious jeopardy," said U.S. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., chairman of the key House Science Committee, who says he still supports the program.
A nearly flawless landing Tuesday ended a mission that had been planned for 12 days but was extended to 14 because bad weather prevented landing at the preferred site, Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
"We've brought Discovery back in great shape. It looks fantastic," said the mission commander, Eileen Collins, after piloting the 100-ton space glider to a pre-dawn touchdown at Edwards Air Force Base in California.
NASA officials hailed the mission's success in delivering tons of supplies to the International Space Station and testing new ways of monitoring the health of the shuttle and repairing it in orbit. "It's a great day," said shuttle program manager Bill Parsons.
But questions from supporters and critics may have overshadowed what NASA proclaimed a success.
The loss of a 0.9-pound, hat-shaped piece of foam, and two other significant pieces, during the July 26 launch of Discovery were a setback for NASA. The agency spent two years and at least $1 billion trying to eliminate the problem, which doomed Columbia and its crew of seven in 2003.
A host of outside analysts said the shuttle program faces a troubled future if the problem can't be solved quickly.
Another delay, in the wake of the 2 ½ years already lost after the Columbia disaster, raises some serious questions, not only about the shuttle but the space station, said space policy analyst John Logsdon.
Among them: How much more money are Congress and the White House willing to spend on the shuttle? What are the alternatives to the shuttle for finishing the International Space Station? Can Russia keep sustaining the space station with Progress and Soyuz vehicles?
"All of these are tough questions with no clear or easy answers," said Dr. Logsdon, space policy director for George Washington University.
NASA critic John Pike, of Globalsecurity.org, a defense Web site with a space component, expressed skepticism about reports that a one-time repair may have caused the most recent insulation loss. The suggestion was that if the foam loss resulted from a one-time mistake, not a broader problem, shuttles could resume flights sooner than later.
"That sounds convenient," Mr. Pike said. "The issue is going to be how long it's going to take to fix it and how expensive that fix is and whether the whole process passes the smell test or not."
Space historian Alex Roland of Duke University dismissed NASA's assertions of a successful flight.
"NASA called the Discovery flight a great success. This suggests that any shuttle flight is a success if the astronauts don't die," said Dr. Roland, who advocates stopping the shuttle program and moving on to develop the next vehicle. "This flight was a failure, an embarrassment, and a clear indication that NASA cannot guarantee the safety of a crew aboard a shuttle."
Mr. Boehlert said that many things about the mission were a success and that NASA is on the right track in grounding future flights and moving to fix the problem. And the White House and congressional leaders such as House Majority Leader Tom DeLay continued to express support.
Mr. Boehlert said that he thinks NASA might be given more time to get flying again and finish the space station and that President Bush's 2010 date for retiring the shuttle "is not a hard and fast date."
Investigation of the new foam loss has just begun. No one could say Tuesday when it would be fixed or when the next shuttle would fly. Atlantis is still scheduled for launch in September, but some analysts predict the launch will be put off until at least March.
"I don't want to guess," said NASA Administrator Michael Griffin. "We're going to try as hard as we can to get back in space this year. But we're not gonna go until we're ready to go."
Mr. Griffin said Discovery's mission gave tank builders something they'd never had before – a closely monitored test flight.
Officials had nothing new to report on efforts to solve the nagging foam problem.
Teams from NASA and Lockheed Martin, which builds the tanks in New Orleans, were investigating. The effort is headed by International Space Station program manager Bill Gerstenmaier, who was awaiting his first report.
In Houston, re-entry flight director LeRoy Cain said he was pleased with the landing. He supervised the effort that in 30 minutes brought the shuttle from 17,500 mph, 220 miles up in space, to a full stop on the dry lake-bed at Edwards.
"Lot of happy people. Lot of happy faces," Mr. Cain said.
Mr. Cain was leading mission control during the ill-fated re-entry of Columbia, which broke up over Texas as it headed for a Florida landing on Feb. 1, 2003.
"It's a great tribute to the Columbia crew that we're flying again," said Mr. Cain, recalling the seven astronauts who died. "I know they would be proud of us."
An official survey of damage to Discovery hadn't been completed, but astronaut Charles Camarda told reporters at Edwards that Discovery was "one of the cleanest" shuttles ever, despite the tank foam loss.
And there was at least one sigh of relief on board when Discovery passed the point where Columbia broke up in the skies over Texas.
Pilot Jim Kelly said he was watching the same sensors that indicated early trouble aboard Columbia. "I had that display up to watch it longer than I normally would," Mr. Kelly said of monitoring guidance control jet firings. "I was specifically watching that to see if there were any warning signs."
The damaged heat-shield blanket, the subject of discussions of a possible fourth spacewalk, appeared not to have suffered additional damage during re-entry, Ms. Collins said. There had been concern that it might fly off and damage the shuttle during re-entry.
"It didn't look to me like there was a significant change on entry, but it's hard for me to answer that question totally," she said, noting that detailed inspections of Discovery weren't complete.
The preferred landing site for shuttles is Kennedy because it saves money and about a week's time in turning the space ships around for the next launch.
But weather forced wave off of both opportunities to land in Florida on Tuesday, making California the next stop.
That was about the only disappointment, Mr. Cain said.
There were virtually no other failures. Aboard the shuttle, a sensor on a steering power unit defaulted to backup. So did a port on a cockpit display. On the ground, a runway light and microwave system failed briefly.
"We never really got to the point where we lost anything more than redundancy," Mr. Cain said, "and nothing of significance."
Staff writer Todd Gillman in Washington, D.C., and Ben Goad, a reporter with the Riverside Press-Enterprise, contributed to this report.
© Copyright 2005, The Dallas Morning News Co.
