PUTTING A HOLD ON SHUTTLE LAUNCHES IS UNWARRANTED (2-2003)

To say that last Saturday’s space shuttle accident was a 
tragedy is not up for debate. Everyone agrees that it was a 
tragic event. I, along with the rest of the nation, mourn 
the loss of life and I empathize with the astronaut’s 
families.

I also whole-heartedly support NASA’s full investigation of 
what went wrong and why. An independent investigation is 
also warranted.

But with all due respect to those seven brave souls who 
gave their lives for the sake of exploration, and to their 
families, I do not agree with NASA’s decision to put the 
space program on hold until after their investigations have 
come to a conclusion.

Let’s examine the Columbia disaster from a different 
perspective. It was only the third time in more than 40 
years of space travel that U.S. astronauts were killed as a 
result of the space program.

The first disaster was the Apollo 1 fire on January 27, 
1967 that killed three astronauts before they ever left the 
ground. They were killed when a spark ignited an oxygen-
enriched capsule that they were using for training 
purposes. 

An investigation took more than a year, putting the Apollo 
program on hold until it was determined what happened and 
how to prevent it from happening again. The investigation 
was certainly warranted, as was the delay in the program, 
because Apollo flights had never gotten underway. Apollo was 
still in the experimental mode.

The next fatalities of the space program came when the 
space shuttle Challenger exploded during liftoff on January 
28, 1986 – nineteen years almost to the day after the 
Apollo 1 fire.

This time, NASA’s investigation yielded a design flaw. 
Fixing it required more than three years. All shuttles were 
grounded the entire time.

At the time, the shuttle program was only about five years 
old and still somewhat in the experimental stage. NASA 
could have decided to continue the launches while their 
investigation was going on, but the fact that the space 
shuttle literally exploded without warning pointed to a 
possible design flaw. So putting future launches on hold 
until the flaw was discovered and fixed was prudent.

Now, 17 years hence, but at precisely the same time of 
year, NASA and America have endured a third space tragedy. 
And like the first two, this one demands a complete 
investigation. 

However, there have been 113 space shuttle missions over a 
period of more than 21 years. Space travel, by definition, 
is inherently dangerous, as all exploration is. And all the 
astronauts that volunteer to go on these missions know that 
the risk is somewhat greater than the drive to the launch 
pad.

When an airplane crashes, there is invariably an 
investigation. But airlines continue to fly their planes, 
because it has been proven to be a generally safe method of 
travel. Sometimes accidents happen. 

With more than 100 flights, the space shuttle has proven to 
be relatively safe, as vehicles of exploration go. Given 
that only two of the 113 missions have resulted in tragic 
loss of life, the odds that any particular mission will 
fail in the same way are only 1.8 percent.

Given that astronauts are by nature explorers, and most 
explorers are risk-takers, most astronauts would accept 
those odds as reasonable. NASA should continue its shuttle 
launches and let each individual astronaut decide if the 
risks are too great. Most would not hesitate 
to climb aboard the next shuttle, even if it launched prior 
to the completion of the investigation into Columbia’s 
break-up.

The space program is too important to endure another 
lengthy delay, especially now that other countries may have 
to postpone their participation in the International Space 
Station until our flights start again.

The loss was tragic, and a brief delay in the launch of the 
next scheduled shuttle mission may be warranted. But if 
NASA’s schedule is delayed by years or even several months, 
the caution would be out of proportion with the risk.