NASA's Change of Course Traces to Columbia Tragedy

(Feb. 2) -- On Monday, the White House moved to pull the plug on NASA's $119 billion plan to replace the space shuttle program, the Constellation, deeming it too expensive. But for all the debate that decision has set off, the outcome was set in motion seven years earlier, when the Columbia was destroyed during re-entry, costing the lives of all seven crew members and the viability of the shuttle program itself.

Columbia, the inaugural vehicle in NASA's shuttle program, was one of its most frequently used: First launched in April 1981, it flew 28 times before its final, fatal mission on Feb. 1, 2003. The shuttle's left wing was damaged during launch, but the craft made it into orbit, where its international team of astronauts performed 16 days of scientific experiments documenting the effects of spaceflight on animals. Upon re-entering Earth's atmosphere, the damaged wing overheated, leading to the shuttle's disintegration.

Like the destruction of the Challenger before it in 1986, the loss of Columbia was a national tragedy captured on live TV and viewed by many in the hours and days after it occurred. It also led to a federal investigation that uncovered systematic organizational failings within NASA.

But the investigation board in the Columbia case went further, declaring that it had "no confidence that the space shuttle can be safely operated for more than a few years based solely on renewed post-accident vigilance."

Acting on this conclusion, then-President George W. Bush unveiled his own "Vision for Space Exploration" less than a year later, calling for the retirement of the shuttle fleet by the end of 2010 and the creation of new spacecraft that would take Americans back to the moon and onward to Mars. About $9.1 billion has already been sunk into the project.

Now the Obama administration has decided to pull the plug, unveiling entirely different plans for spaceflight in its 2011 budget.

The new proposal would increase NASA's funding by 1.5 percent ($18 billion over the next five years) but directs that the money to be used on climatological research, robotics and longer-term plans for a heavy-lift rocket. Meanwhile, about $6 billion is being set aside as incentives for the development of private spacecraft capable of ferrying NASA astronauts to and from the International Space Station.

As the Washington Post's Joel Achenbach notes: "Going commercial with a human crew would represent a dramatic change in the way NASA does business. Instead of NASA owning the spacecraft and overseeing every nut and bolt of its design and construction, a private company would design and build the spacecraft with NASA looking over its shoulder."

Predictably, the plan to privatize is not without its vehement detractors, as Amy Klamper of Space News explains: "House and Senate lawmakers from the three states home to NASA's lead human spaceflight centers unleashed a barrage of criticism in advance of the Feb. 1 release of Obama's 2011 budget request."

Lawmakers from Florida, Alabama and Louisiana -- all states home to relatively secure jobs in the space sector -- contend that the White House's proposal would be an economic and political blow to the country. They point out that the shift will almost certainly put many Americans out of work, while other nations such as China and India continue to ramp up their own burgeoning human spaceflight programs.

The budget proposal has also spurred debate on the Web, particularly between conservative writers. According to Jeffery H. Anderson at the National Review Online, the announcement "that the Obama administration plans to scrap funding for voyages to the moon and to Mars shows how low President Obama's horizons truly are."

But others are cautiously optimistic about the president's vision for the future of human spaceflight.

"By decade's end, those who are wailing about the end of U.S. dominance in space are probably going to forget they ever thought that way. A revolution is coming in manned space flight, and thankfully, NASA is finally getting out of the way so that it can happen," blogger Rick Moran said.

Ultimately, as Discover magazine's resident astronomy blogger Phil Plait points out, the future of space travel isn't up to the president anyway: "This must pass Congress first. I honestly don't think that will happen. For one thing, too many Congresscritters have too big a stake in NASA to let go."

In either case, the thing most writers agree on is that the destruction of the Columbia was a watershed moment in the history of American space travel: All the decisions being made now regarding NASA's future are a direct repercussion of that fateful day on Feb. 1, 2003.

As Rand Simberg wrote for the New Atlantis last year, before the budget request was finalized: "If it had not been for the Columbia disaster in 2003, NASA would have continued to launch space shuttles uninterrupted and to build the [International] Space Station, which would likely have been completed by now. Perhaps once the station was finished, policymakers might have looked around and wondered what NASA should do next."

True/Slant's Miles O' Brien argues that what's needed now is a long-term vision for viable space travel, removed from the budget process. "Space cannot be planned in two- or four-year cycles," he writes. "Let's hope this time, we take the long view – aim for the stars – and follow through. We owe the crew of Columbia nothing less than that."