Exploration is Risky Business
In the wake of the Columbia tragedy,
second-guessing and hand-wringing about NASA's
future has filled the airwaves, newsprint and
cyberspace. Reporters ask inane questions like
"Should the space program continue to use human
astronauts or fly unmanned missions only?"
Speculation abounds over human errors, political
decisions or fiscal concerns that could have
contributed to or caused the shuttle accident.
There are many to whom the fingers could point.
During the 1990s, the budget for the shuttle
program was reduced by 40 percent. A troubled
Columbia mission in 1999 prompted President Clinton
to give more money to the shuttle program, but
President Bush later proposed major cutbacks in
spending on safety programs.
Nevertheless, in-flight glitches fell from an
average of 18 per flight in 1992 to approximately 5
per flight in 2000. Part of this might be
attributable to the fact that many of the shuttle
program's operations were privatized in 1996 in a
joint venture between Rockwell International and
Lockheed Martin, dubbed the United Space
Alliance.
I can't help but wonder—as I often
wonder about every "big" news story—how
much of this brewing controversy is being generated
by the media. No matter how many statistics one
quotes, no matter what bureaucratic skeletons one
drags from the closet, the simple fact remains that
space exploration is dangerous business. Each and
every astronaut who has volunteered to be hurtled
skyward knows how risky it is. Each one knows they
could be blown to bits on liftoff, suffocate in the
cold vacuum of outer space, or perish during the
landing sequence—yet still they go.
Columbus lost nine ships during his four
voyages, including his flagship, the Santa
Maria. Captain Cook lost his life during his
South Pacific expedition. We seek the boundaries of
new frontiers despite the risks,
knowing the risks, accepting the
risks. To act surprised when accidents happen, to
question whether we should continue to explore, to
try to find someone to blame when the expected
comes to pass, is simply short-sighted.
And I'll go even one step further: it's
disrespectful to those seven heroes who lost their
lives nine days ago. They
gave their lives for a better tomorrow. The only
way to honor that sacrifice is to continue on in
the same brave spirit in which they took their
final voyage.
[I just received an email which quotes
the brother of Columbia astronaut David Brown, and
confirms what I wrote above: "When I asked Dave at
Christmas what he would want me to say if he didn't
make it back, he said the program must go on. He
said 'I accepted this risk when I took the job,
just as I did when I became a Naval aviator.'"
—Ed.]
Development note: I've
noticed that this site doesn't look like it should
in Netscape Navigator. Rather than waste time
jury-rigging it to look right in a
soon-to-be-obsolete browser, I'll just add the
cliché "This site best viewed with Internet
Explorer."
©2003 Michael
Strickland ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
|
|
