Two days after the Columbia disaster, experts from Duke and around the country are offering their opinions on what went wrong and, more importantly, discussing the future of human space exploration.
Experts say there is no question that the disaster has forced NASA to reevaluate its priorities as it faces scrutiny from all sides.
"The reduced shuttle fleet is going to be out of business," said Robert Richardson, a member of the University Board of Trustees who has served on a NASA task force. "I'm quite confident they will have a very thorough review of what went wrong and try to repair it."
Wayne Christiansen, professor of astrophysics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, added similar sentiments and expressed confidence that human exploration in space will continue. "The space program is going to go on. I think that what will almost certainly happen, as happened with the Challenger before, is that there will be a major study to look at what went wrong."
Specifically, Christiansen raised safety concerns and speculated about contingencies. He elaborated on the block of foam that hit Columbia's left wing during the launch and possibly inflicted fatal damage.
"This is going to lead to some major self-study by NASA. [If the Columbia had been damaged], there was no way from orbit that the astronauts could get outside to see any damage, and number two, there's nothing they could do about it anyway," Christiansen said.
Christiansen said that even if the astronauts had concluded that the shuttle was too damaged for re-entry, there were almost no alternatives. He emphasized that there was no rescue possible for a stranded space shuttle. "The space station is up there as well, and they have three astronauts there, but [Columbia] didn't have enough fuel to reach that possible haven."
Christiansen said that in order to confront these dangers, "There needs to be a significant redesign of the space shuttle."
Christiansen's voice is not alone in calling for a fundamental rethinking of space transportation, turning to a safer, redesigned space shuttle or an entirely new vehicle.
After the 1986 Challenger disaster, Professor of History Alex Roland, who worked as a NASA historian in the 1970s, expressed serious doubts about the feasibility of the shuttle.
"I discovered that the shuttle program was functioning under an unsustainable economic model," he told The Herald-Sun of Durham Monday. Now, Roland's criticism of the shuttle has not diminished. "Sixteen years later we still rely on the shuttle, with no replacement in sight."
Many agree, however, that development of more viable modes of transportation should be a top priority. "If we're going to stay in the business, the first thing to do is to look at more cost-effective forms of transportation," said Richardson, who is also vice provost for research at Cornell University.
The lynch pin of the debate resides on the International Space Station, which is orbiting earth. NASA had scheduled the shuttle Endeavor to rendezvous with the station in March to bring home the crew of three, but now the mission seems unlikely.
With added supplies sent by Russia Sunday, the ISS crew could presumably remain in space until June. At any point, however, NASA could evacuate the station's crew via the Soyuz lifeboat docked to the station. The ISS theoretically could remain mothballed as an unmanned observatory for a period of months to years. However, the future role for the station is uncertain.
Roland advocated redesigning the ISS as an unmanned platform, saying that we should just "visit it periodically."
But the idea that the space station should be converted raised concern for other experts who suggest that the station requires scientists aboard to be useful. "It's my strong opinion that the real purpose of the space station from the start is to promote the abilities of human beings to go into space and to promote the necessary science and technology to further it," Richardson said.
Ultimately, experts maintain a general hope for the future of space travel and the prospects of human exploration.
"This will be a major quantitative change in terms of trying to make this a safer process," Christiansen said. "Do I think that this is going to lead NASA to turn away from the space program? The answer is no."
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.