Space Shuttle

For those who are just coming into adulthood and anyone else coming into awareness of the first moon landing, they will obviously be doing so after the fact and getting most of their information from secondhand sources. They also might tend to judge historical events by modern terms, or at the very least, think in anachronistic terms when it comes to prior aeronautic endeavors. In particular, the supposition might be made by those individuals that the space shuttle program was always in effect since the first rocket NASA sent into space. Nevertheless, this line of thinking would be erroneous. Manned space shuttle missions did not start until the 1980′s, and so distinctions must be made between the spacecraft of the past and the forms of space travel of newer generations, especially with NASA’s announcement that 2010 would mark the last year that any space shuttle missions would take place. Thus, in looking both forward and back, we must consult our dictionaries and other reference books as to what differentiates the soon-to-be outmoded shuttle technology of today from more general rocket technology as interpreted by scientists and romanticizing writers alike.

One element of a rocket that may cause it to be thought of as not necessarily equivalent to a space shuttle is the manner in which it is used. An object may qualify as a rocket if it employs combustible materials that, with the combination of energy, produces gases that act upon its and propel it through the air with decided velocity. Rockets under these parameters may come to encapsulate space shuttles, as this explains their movement through space, but devices that are much simpler and more accessible can also satisfy the definition. Very simple tubes full of powder and lighted by a short fuse can be considered rockets, or those contained in terrestrial weaponry. Quite simply, a rocket does not have to go into outer space to be labeled as one.

As for what elements go into the construction and operation of a space shuttle and why not all rockets may be considered space shuttles, this mode of space travel is characterized for particular structural features. A space shuttle consists of three major parts. Of course, the orbiter is a critical component, as it is the piece of the shuttle that is in all cases reusable and houses the astronauts through the launch, re-entry and everything in between. As for what is responsible for creating the necessary for thrust to escape Earth’s gravity, there are two other components included that either detach from the orbiter or are otherwise expendable. Two solid rocket boosters propel the craft and drop off, and an external fuel tank also is part of the equation and is filled with liquid propellants. So, anything used prior to the late 70′s and beyond would be considered a rocket, and anything since, thus far, would be filed under “space shuttle”.
++

Space Shuttle Program

While many instances of NASA launch may be immediately memorable to the American citizen who has lived through the Space Race and into the modern age, one of the most prominent would have to be the Apollo missions designed for lunar landing and analysis. However, in terms of being a space shuttle launch, to insist that, say, the Apollo 13 mission was just that would be to commit an error. While we might think the terms interchangeable after almost 30 years of manned space shuttle launch events – after all, time may cause one to forget – not every rocket launched by NASA has been a space shuttle. In fact, the first manned space shuttle did not take off until the 1980′s, well after Neil Armstrong’s world-famous romp on the surface of the moon. The space shuttle program is merely a subcategory of the general NASA launch heading.

Including non-operational flights, the space shuttle program has been in gear for even longer than 30 years. Using the Enterprise model of orbiter, tests were conducted in the late 70′s to get a feel for how the space shuttle performed when attached to a space shuttle carrier and later in missions of free flight. It was not until the premiere space shuttle launch of the Columbia class in 1981 that an actual NASA launch of a space shuttle with engines (and thus the physical ability to leave Earth’s atmosphere) was realized. Since that beginning, over 100 space shuttle launches have been tallied by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The missions have had a variety of durations. Of course, some barely got off the ground and some never made it back to the Earth, in the case of the Challenger and Columbia disasters, respectively, but others have lasted close to a fortnight or longer.

Just as soon as some of us are becoming familiar with the idea that the space shuttle program has not been in place since the start of manned missions to space, we must look ahead to a new brand of NASA launch and new challenges. While it may have garnered the attention of some, it is likely unknown by a majority of Americans that the space shuttle launch program will be ending after 2010. The last space shuttle launch is scheduled to take place in September of this year; of course, the actual date is subject to change as mechanical errors and weather conditions incompatible for flight can delay the time of launch from Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The purpose of these remaining flights essentially is to provides modules and other materials to add to the International Space Station until shortly before its scheduled completion. Going forward, as noted, this will not be the end of the NASA launch. New manned spacecraft are envisioned to coincide with new destinations such as Mars and new missions, namely colonization attempts.

The space shuttle program, meanwhile, will continue to be remembered. While the disasters of 1986 and 2003 may stick out like sore thumbs, the image of the space shuttle with all its components is an enduring one.

Space Shuttle Challenger

There are certain critical moments in American history that leave a permanent mark on the minds and memories of the people who witnessed it. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, people could close their eyes and still vividly picture sights of men and women jumping out of the World Trade Center towers to their death. Those who saw live coverage of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy or heard soon after the fact still probably remember exactly where they were and what they were doing. This kind of flashbulb memory also applies to the failed launch of the Space Shuttle Challenger in January of 1986. Of course, the Challenger disaster is notable for the very public and very sudden loss of multiple human lives. In the popular use of the word, the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger mission was an American tragedy, and seven good people were lost in its disintegration.

Unfortunately, the real tragedy surrounding the events of the Challenger is that the cause of the problem was probably preventable, and at the very least, the decision to launch was definitely preventable. In physical terms, the failure of the spacecraft as a whole was prompted by an initial failure of the O-ring seal on the shuttle’s solid rocket booster. From there, hot gas leaked to the outside and affected the attachment of the booster, which would lead to structural problems with the external tank of the Challenger and the eventual breaking apart of the space shuttle. Challenger team officials later would concede that prior to the launch of the spacecraft, there were concerns about certain conditions on the day of the launch as well as lack of included emergency safety procedures. Regarding the conditions for launch, on the day of the Space Shuttle Challenger mission, temperatures were at or below freezing, and even though the performance of the O-ring under such stress was considered questionable, the launch was still allowed to proceed. It also seems that NASA was a little overconfident when it came to precautions taken for the Challenger. There was no reliable backup should the O-ring fail to seal, nor were there any ejection seats in place, so even if crew members did survive the launch, they would not have survived the craft’s fall into the sea.

Aside from what we learned about the physics of NASA spacecraft, we also learned a great deal about the psychology of the event and the dangers of too little information. The Challenger fiasco served as another powerful reminder of the nature of flashbulb memories, but also gave us insight into how an entire organization can be primed into putting aside their better judgment (regarding the O-rings) for the sake of leadership’s insistence on deadlines, or more generally, the failure of people to take individual responsibility and act while as a member of the group. Furthermore, the absence of information was not only dangerous to the sanctity of the Space Shuttle Challenger mission, but also NASA’s reputation. Their silence on the nature of the failure prompted inaccurate theories by the media in the following days, obscuring the true nature of the failure for generations to come and reflecting poorly on those who decided to proceed with the launch.

Space Station

The mold for the space station was broken with the creation and use of the original Mir in the 80′s and 90′s. Previously, space stations had not seen continuous use to a great extent, but the idea that Space Station Mir saw at least one person living in it on end for almost a decade was an inspiration for other space complexes to follow. This enterprise, while an achievement of science, unfortunately did not wholly reflect the sense of global community the sciences in their purest form aim to promote, as Mir was distinctly a Soviet-/Russian-run construct.

The International Space Station, meanwhile, is a credit to its name because its continued construction has only been possible through the cooperation of several nations. While economic realities may have greased the proverbial wheels of this agreement, the fact remains that the Space Station is a byproduct of funding from the American space program (NASA), as well as contributions from the governments of Russia, Japan, Canada and the European Space Agency. The International Space Station is quite possibly the most expensive item ever made, costing its international patrons billions of dollars. Certainly, it is the largest object, space station or otherwise, to be placed into orbit, so much so that it may actually be seen with the naked eye. The International Space Station is arguably more pointed in its aims, too. While space station missions of previous decades (with the notable exception of Mir, which did allow for visits from American spacecraft) seemed as much a means of perpetuating the Cold War as a means of extending our understanding on life in space, the ISS is operating from under a different political climate, and its studies on physics in microgravity and biological changes in space are of heightened import.

It should be noted the International Space Station is not without its detractors. As discussed, the costs inherent in its construction and operation, neither which have ceased, are considerable, and will likely be repaid in the years to come after it is decommissioned. The numbers what they are, to be fair, it is hard to put a price on the scientific discoveries that are occurring year by year aboard the Space Station. Nevertheless, one must wonder about the practical applications of this research. The operation of the International Space Station creates somewhat unique conditions for life, ones that life as we know it on Earth can’t adequately approximate. Therefore, the data collected aboard the ISS is best used as a model for future space travel and colonization attempts, which will involve considerable sums in themselves. Extended occupations of space are truly exciting, but judgments should be made on the necessity of such research as part of a cost-benefit analysis.

Space Travel

Space exploration is a popular subject for science fiction writers. Often, the setting of the story will involve a distant date in the future that is hard for most to contradict as plausible, and capture the wildest fantasies of those who follow the story. Of most interest here, the workings in the plot will often be shaped by the space travel of man to likewise distant worlds which are also inventions of the writer’s yet equally impossible to disprove. While some predictions of future worlds have already failed to come to fruition with the passing of the deadline years predicted in their works, others have yet to be verified or refuted. At present, though, space exploration is a risky business, and most of the information we have collected from our own solar system is not the result of manned space travel but rather the data collection of unmanned probes. There are a number of challenges facing humankind’s transit through outer space today. Below are some of these difficulties:

1. Difficulties of repairs – Previous manned space exploration missions have had their share of problems with needed repairs and failed launches. At worst, spacecraft have failed to get off the ground and people have died; for example, the Challenger disaster occurred in less than two minutes after the initial firing of the rocket boosters. Even in cases where disaster has been avoided, though, it was lucky that the distances traveled were not of considerable length. For space travel missions of considerable distances, there is a great risk that something could go wrong with the spacecraft, but that the crew will not have the necessary resources to fix the problem from space, and it is not as if the craft could easily turn around and come back home.

2. Costs – Federal governments and private investors alike have talked about space exploration and colonization of bodies in our solar system in the near future. However, this would be fiscally feasible for only a select few. Space travel, at present, is immensely expensive, and even short trips would conceivably set the spender back millions of dollars. Certainly, manned exploration of space is a luxury.

3. Sustainability of life – There is not a wealth of past precedence for the continual habitation of space. The Space Station Mir has given the world hope that colonization of space is achievable through a small sample size, but space travel of a extended duration may have significant deleterious effects based on radiation levels and cosmic rays. Furthermore, long-term space exploration is dependent on stable living conditions, which are also subject to system failure.

4. Inadequacy of technology – To travel outside our solar system and reach other galaxies, significant speeds would have to be produced. At current rates/methods of propulsion, however, most people would not survive a supposed intergalactic trip. The distances are simply just too far for even relatively short journeys.

Manned space travel as represented in movies and other media may yet be achievable. Realization of some wild sci-fi fantasies in our lifetime are unlikely, though. With some people continuing to doubt man has even landed on the moon, humans have a lot of work to do before that point.