A thought on Columbia
2003-02-03 07:31 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mdlbearThe investigators will, in all likelihood, come up with a pretty good idea of what caused the shuttle to disintegrate on reentry. The sensor readings and computer readouts all point to problems with the tiles on the left wing. They may even be able to determine whether the tiles were damaged on liftoff, or whether the cause was further back: a design flaw or maintenance problem.
But they're unlikely to finger the real problem: the shuttle is a disastrously flawed, obsolete system that should have been replaced a dozen years ago. We knew this when Challenger exploded. We knew it even before that. From the moment of Columbia's first launch, we should have been designing her ultimate replacement. We should have learned what was good about the shuttle design, what was bad, and above all what problems were built in because of budget limitations, engineering expediency, and political ideology.
By now we should have had a fleet of commercial, single-stage-to-orbit vehicles -- possibly even laser-launched cargo carriers -- that would have made space travel as routine as air travel. Instead, NASA chose to spend what little money Congress gave them on "cutting-edge" (i.e., impossible) projects like the aerospace plane, while putting obstacles in the way of any possible commercial programs, instead of funding anyone with a better way to get into space.
One can hope that this time will be different, that we will honor our gallant dead by working to replace the dangerous machine that killed them. But I'm not very hopeful.
But they're unlikely to finger the real problem: the shuttle is a disastrously flawed, obsolete system that should have been replaced a dozen years ago. We knew this when Challenger exploded. We knew it even before that. From the moment of Columbia's first launch, we should have been designing her ultimate replacement. We should have learned what was good about the shuttle design, what was bad, and above all what problems were built in because of budget limitations, engineering expediency, and political ideology.
By now we should have had a fleet of commercial, single-stage-to-orbit vehicles -- possibly even laser-launched cargo carriers -- that would have made space travel as routine as air travel. Instead, NASA chose to spend what little money Congress gave them on "cutting-edge" (i.e., impossible) projects like the aerospace plane, while putting obstacles in the way of any possible commercial programs, instead of funding anyone with a better way to get into space.
One can hope that this time will be different, that we will honor our gallant dead by working to replace the dangerous machine that killed them. But I'm not very hopeful.
Re:
Date: 2003-02-03 11:29 pm (UTC)