Can We Now Truly Decide What We Want in Space?

The tragic destruction of the space shuttle Challenger and its crew drives home a message that was bound to come sooner or later: Exploration is dangerous, and always has been.

The exploration of space can be no different from that of any other frontier. In fact, it can be said that with all the dozens of manned craft that we and the Soviets have put into space, it is truly extraordinary that until now there have been only four other deaths--one when the Soyuz 1 capsule crashed in 1967 and three others when the Soyuz 11 capsule lost its cabin pressure during reentry in 1971. (In 1967 three American astronauts died when their Apollo spacecraft caught fire during a test on the launch pad.)

This does nothing to lessen the blow to the families and friends of those who lost their lives Tuesday. Nor does it lessen the shock to the national psyche. We have come to expect nothing less than perfection from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and our space program. But perfection in as complex an area as space technology is an impossible dream. Now we must wake up to the reality.

During the coming months there will be many words spoken and written about the whys and wherefores of the tragedy. There will be much second-guessing and many naysayers who will tell us that the manned space program is a waste of money, that unmanned craft can do as well. It is to be hoped that saner heads will prevail in the long run, as they generally do in this country. There is no reason for us to dismantle our space program because of one major mishap. To do so would mean that those aboard Challenger on Tuesday had died in vain. They were astronauts because they wanted the United States to lead mankind out into space. They knew the dangers and, like all persons of great visions and actions, accepted them with equanimity. The same with Christa McAuliffe. She was a teacher. She wanted to bring the children of this nation, and the world, into the adventure of space, and to humanize space for all Earthbound people.

There are hopes and dreams to follow. And, yes, there is danger that must be faced. But one does not shirk the test because of it.

Neither must this country. Now is the time for us to keep our heads and to look calmly at our space program and see what we can do to make it better. The first question that we might ask ourselves is: Do we know what it is that we as a nation are doing in space? Few people will be able to answer that question directly, mainly because there has never been a real national debate about why we should be in space and what we should do there. The National Commission on Space has found that, outside the space community, there are few people who understand the valid reasons why Americans must continue to explore space or else abrogate our leadership as a great nation. The commission hopes that its final report, to be completed in April, will help to put this point across. In the meantime we must hope that the debate that will follow from this tragedy will be carried on in a knowledgeable and thoughtful manner, rather than from and with emotions. As a nation we must come to grips with the manner in which we develop our technology. The shuttle epitomizes the best and the worst in our present methods. On the one hand, the shuttle represents a tour de force of design and engineering. The first vehicle in the history of man that could fly into space and return safely, landing like an airplane on a runway, then being used again. It is a stunning breakthrough.

At the same time, the shuttle is a compromise--built down to a price, not up to a standard. As such it uncovers the worst in the way in which we develop our technological programs. Originally the shuttle was designed as a two-stage, totally reusable spaceship. Both stages were to be manned--the first flying back to the launch pad on its own power while the second continued into orbit. The problem was that this design cost more. In 1972 Congress said to NASA, “It is too expensive; change it.” The result was a vehicle sitting on a long tank, with two large solid rocket boosters attached. Yes, it flew. But, no, it was not the best.

The question that we must ask ourselves is: Do we want less than the best for our astronauts? Can we afford less than the best? The answer, after Tuesday’s tragedy, must surely be no. Therefore, let us ensure that we do get the best. The best that our engineers have to offer. No scrimping because Congress thinks that this is what the nation wants. No cutting back on NASA’s budget. Just a firm commitment to continue into space with a steady, planned approach. That is what it will take. That is what the Soviets have already learned and what they are doing and have been doing for the last 10 years. Can we do anything less?