Rocket explosion should spark dialogue on role of space exploration
On Tuesday, the unmanned Antares rocket, built by private firm Orbital Sciences, exploded after lift-off in Virginia. The explosion is the first NASA-contracted accident since the agency cancelled its Space Shuttle Program and turned to the private sector for missions that include ferrying cargo to space stations. It launches into the public discourse the stability and efficacy of NASA’s funding and contracting with private firms. If a promising future of space exploration is to be had, missions and research need to be placed in the hands of NASA alone.
In 2011, NASA closed down operation of its Space Shuttle Program and began to reach out to companies such as Orbital Sciences and SpaceX to sign resupply contracts. Since few companies are currently capable of performing human flight into space, the United States pays roughly $70.7 million per seat to hitch a ride on Russia’s rockets. Many proponents of the privatization of space exploration seem to view contracting private firms as an investment that offers the opportunity to build more reliable and technologically advanced rockets and material.
Yet, as the explosion after lift-off from Wallops Island demonstrates, this approach can also have serious drawbacks. A once mighty force and symbol of American strength and power, NASA isn’t what it used to be. It’s hard to imagine the country that was the first — and only — nation to put a man on the moon now pays inflated dollars to its former space-race opponent.
Space exploration is the quintessential American form of might. Wielding influence and power, NASA was the mechanism through which the United States demonstrated to the world its true capabilities for success. Russia’s space exploration, for much of the latter part of the 20th century, has struggled in comparison to the success of the Apollo program. NASA has brought so much to a distinct American culture: images and audio recordings of Neil Armstrong on the moon, the first photo ever taken from Mars and awe-inspiring shots of far-out galaxies and stars that have been the backdrops of so many science fiction works. NASA has accomplished great feats, but now faces setbacks due to political maneuvering by both sides of the aisle. In particular, the Obama administration, which has expressed support of NASA, but has acted otherwise with proposals like the steep 2014 NASA budget cuts.
Though Orbital Sciences is currently facing immense issues after losing almost $300 million in market value due to the crash, the issue lies not in the companies themselves, but the fragmenting nature of privatization. Though competition promotes innovation, in such a complex and meticulously orchestrated operation like rocket launches, it requires a unified effort that builds on itself rather than rival companies battling for contracts and funding.
While the world battles the Ebola epidemic, the rise of ISIS and human rights violations all over the globe, space exploration is on the back burner in terms of priorities and funding allocation. People need to remember that space programs not only strengthen the United States on the world stage, but also create thousands of jobs. Rather than exclusively contracting private firms for various space missions, it would be advantageous for NASA to take the lead and control operations to continue a marvelous feat in human history.
Orbital Sciences’ rocket explosion shouldn’t be viewed as a defeat or step back in the field, but rather as an event that has catapulted the debate of space exploration back onto the world stage. The mission of the Antares rocket might not have been directly related to exploration, but its planned venture into the depths of space still draws attention back to the future of the industry and the need for it to move to the forefront once again. It is incumbent on NASA to helm the reins and continue to lead not only the United States, but also the world with its exploration of the final frontier.
Athanasius Georgy is a sophomore majoring in biological sciences. His column, “On the World Stage,” runs Thursdays.
Spacex will try to land its next booster on a floating platform. Eventually they will succeed and we’ll wonder why we ever threw away all that expensive hardware to begin with when all it really took to reuse it was 3 or 4 cheap legs and the will to design a control system to bring the things back. That one development is going to make space travel even more economical than the people who sold us the Space Shuttle ever dared to promise, and will lead to a vastly expanded manned space program. And one that may well become self-supporting. NASA will again have its glory days exploring farther out. Oh, and I think Elon Musk might just be wondering if he can find a way to implement a warp drive. lol
NASA’s own cost models estimated that it would have taken them 4-10 times as much money to replicate the capability of the Falcon 9 rocket. Spurred on by SpaceX’s success, ULA is now allied with Blue Origin and we’re seeing the first companies targeting the smallsat launch market emerge.
With the reality of flat spending for NASA, at best, the move to services-based contracting from cost-plus accounting was long overdue. Congress has made it abundantly clear they have no intention of raising the space exploration budget – as evidenced by their wholesale rejection of the President’s 2010 plan for the Flagship Technology Demonstrations Program.
The only way NASA will be able to move forward in exploration is to stop spending so much money on getting to orbit that there is little left to do anything meaningful once it gets there.
What you’re referring to as ‘privatization’ is simply a different way of handling SOME of the contracted work. NASA has always contracted work with companies like Boeing, Lockheed, (and earlier Martin Marietta, McDonnell-Douglas, and the like). It’s the method of contracting the work is what has changed FOR SOME PARTS of the program. Decisions based solely on Congressional Pork and unlimited budget overruns are no longer automatic with the newer method. Given the two shuttle accidents, Apollo 1, and numerous unmanned mission failures in the past, it’s seems a bit premature to state that the new method won’t work based upon only one incident.