Is the current NASA mission worth risking the lives of our astronauts?
Fact and Comment
by Ben A. Taylor
In the wake of the Columbia disaster many Americans are asking, is the current NASA mission is worth risking the lives of our astronauts? While nothing can be said that will quite the bereavement of our fallen comrades, the answer to that question is dependent upon our reaction to that disaster.
If we forego self evaluation of our goals and dreams of the future exploration of space, then the value in the deaths of the Columbia crew won’t amount to much more than a footnote in our history. If, on the other hand, we realign the mission of NASA toward deep space, their deaths will have served us all.
True exponential leaps of technological innovation haven’t occurred since the Apollo missions. Sure we’ve experienced the natural evolution of technology over the past 30 years. Most are merely refinements of innovations that came during and in the wake of Apollo.
The way I see it, we’ve already perfected on the innovations and technologies brought forth during the Apollo era. When are we going to stretch our imaginations and shoot for the stars? Numerous technical obstacles stand in our way of sending astronauts to Mars and beyond. This is after all, where the stretch comes into play.
Personally, I believe there are few experiments accomplished in space that cannot be done on earth. I always get red under the collar when some NASA administrator is interviewed on national television. Invariably, NASA spokespersons try to justify these experiments as being scientifically important. While some are important, the majority are activities to fill the mission day.
They’re missing the point. Technological breakthroughs are not accomplished by merely being in space. It’s the difficult goal that spawns human ingenuity. For me Mercury, Gemini and Apollo were not about beating the Russians or planting a flag on our moon. The world knew what was on the moon before we started the planning phase. It was about pooling the collective technical skills of a country, designing countless technologies that would be refined later and brought to critical mass.
In my book, every cell phone, laser, hydrogen fuel cell, GPS, Very Large Scale Integrated circuit, and satellite dish ought to have a stamp that reads: “Brought to you by the Apollo Space Program.” If you really think hard about it, you’ll find that Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs did to these technologies what Microsoft has done in the area of Personal Computers.
From our earliest beginnings of a country, we have all been faced with obstacles. We’ve always pooled our resources and found solutions to even the most seemingly insurmountable barriers. Determination starts with a goal. Like Apollo the goal must be big. Our resolve must translate into a NASA budget large enough to get the job done.
Jim Lovell said it the best: What if Christopher Columbus discovered America and no one returned? When will Congress and the President commission an exploration worthy of lost life? The crew of Columbia and the American people await their answer.
 
Frisbees in Space
by Dr. Tony Phillips, NASA JPL
When Pete Rossoni was a kid he loved to throw Frisbees. Most kids do-it's pure fun. But in Pete's case it was serious business. He didn't know it, but he was practicing for his future career ä in space exploration.
Grown-up Pete Rossoni is now an engineer at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. His main project there is figuring out how to hurl spacecraft into orbit Frisbee-style.
The spacecraft are small-about the size of birthday cakes. "This wouldn't work with big satellites or heavy space ships like the shuttle," notes Rossoni. But a cake-sized "nanosatellite" is just right.
Nanosatellites-nanosats for short--are an exciting new idea in space exploration. Ordinary satellites tend to be heavy and expensive to launch. The cost alone is a deterrent to space research. Nanosats, on the other hand, can travel on a budget. For example, a Delta 4 rocket delivering a communications satellite to orbit could also carry a few nanosats piggyback-style with little extra effort or expense.
"Once the nanosats reach space, however, they have to separate from their ride," says Rossoni. And that's where Frisbee tossing comes inä.
Rossoni has designed a device that can fling a nanosat off the back of its host rocket. "It's a lot like throwing a Frisbee," he explains. "The basic mechanics are the same. You need to impart the spin and release it cleanly-all in about a tenth of a second." (The spinning motion is important because it allows the science magnetometer to measure the surrounding field and lets sunlight to play across all of the nanosat's solar panels.)
The ST5 nanosats are designed to study Earth's magnetosphere-a magnetic bubble that surrounds our planet and protects us from the solar wind. But their primary goal, notes Rossoni, is to test the technology of miniature satellites.
"We haven't done anything like this before," says Rossoni. Soon, however, the concept will be tested. A trio of nanosats is slated for launch in 2004 on the back of a rocket yet to be determined. The name of the mission, which is managed by JPL's New Millennium Program, is Space Technology 5 (ST5).
Can groups of nanosats maintain formation as they fly through space? Will their internal systems-miniaturized versions of full-sized satellite components-satisfy the demands of both the harsh space environment and critical science measurements? Is Frisbee-tossing as much fun in orbit as it is on Earth?
ST5 will provide the answers. Read about ST5 at http://nmp.nasa.gov/st5. Budding young astronomers can learn more at http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/st5/st5_tortillas1.htm
|
