Washingtonpost.com: Live Online

On Saturday the Space Shuttle Columbia, carrying six Americans and Israel's first astronaut, disintegrated in flames over Texas. While all of the details are yet unknown, officials are piecing together the last moments and possible causes of the shuttle's 28th -- and the shuttle program's 113th -- flight. In 42 years of U.S. human space flight, there has never been an accident during the descent to Earth or landing. On Jan. 28, 1986, space shuttle Challenger exploded shortly after liftoff.

Washington Post reporter and columnist Joel Achenbach will be online to talk about the tragedy of Columbia, exploring space and how we go on from here on Monday, Feb. 3, at noon ET. Achenbach has written about the space program both for The Washington Post and in his book, "Captured by Aliens: The Search for Life and Truth in a Very Large Universe" (Simon & Schuster, 1999).

The transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Joel Achenbach: Hello!
Thanks for joining the chat today, throw any and all questions my way and I'll do what I can to answer them and will be honest about what I don't know, which is a lot, bordering on "everything." Fire away....

Arlington, Va.: Hi, Joel! I teach 8th and 9th graders, and today we're discussing the Challenger explosion as a national -- and personal -- tragedy, and its effects on our perceptions, thoughts, and emotions on space travel specifically and mourning as a nation in general. I was in 8th grade myself when the Columbia tragedy occurred, and that day is my equivalent to the "where were you when Kennedy was shot" or the "where were you on Dec. 7, 1941" questions of previous generations. I've been thinking and discussing with my students the personal significance of this recent event, and I've been thinking about the place that this tragedy, post-9/11, will have in their collective historical consciousness. I personally think that it will be quickly dismissed and forgotten by this generation of teens. Any thoughts?

Joel Achenbach: Good question. The Challenger was probably more shocking and bewildering than this -- we knew, this time (because of Challenger) that such a thing could happen. I was driving down biscayne boulevard in my mercury comet when i heard the guy on the radio, capcom houston or whatever, say "Obviously a major malfunction," and that whole day was truly horrifying, especially the images of the explosion...more on this in a sec...

Joel Achenbach: To continue on that: The Challenger flight had a lot of hype because of Christa McAuliffe, we KNEW an astronaut, but this time hardly anyone knew the 7. This weekend, working on the stories, we got to know them, and the tragedy has, for me personally, grown as they've become more real, and it's become more clear what terrific people they were.

Helena, Mont.: Joel, it is great to see you back on-line, but not under these tragic circumstances. I thought the Rogers Commission really whitewashed the Reagan White House's role in sending up the Challenger in sub-freezing weather. Do you see any reason why the Columbia investigation will be any more forthcoming?

Joel Achenbach: Initial indications are that NASA will be more forthcoming, because there was so much criticism of the last investigation. But I'd like to see, ASAP, more explanation of the analysis of the insulating foam hitting the wing, and why it was deemed inconsequential. Who are the people who analyze these things? What was their thinking? (Not that this was necessarily the problem.)

Alexandria, Va.: Where the heck have you been? I know you're not wearing your funnyman hat today, but you've been missed.

Joel Achenbach: I fell into a black hole, called Book Leave.

McLean, Va.: Joel,

It seems to me that what NASA and indeed our entire efforts in space lack the "vision thing." What is our ultimate goal in space? Right now I think its diffuse and lacks focus, thus the public is ambivelent to the effort, and only pays attention when tragedy occurs. Do you agree and what do you think the vision for our efforts in space should be?

Joel Achenbach: I've always thought that the Space Age dream of going to the stars was romantic, in the best and worst sense. Yes, a great aspiration, but not terribly realistic. Space is stunning but harsh; get beyond low earth orbit and you're vulnerable to lethal radiation; Mars is the next obvious place to send humans but it's at bare minimum 34 million miles away. The mars society folks would argue that point, and I agree in general that we need grand goals. The space station as far as i can tell hasn't captured public imagination, particularly, but maybe someone out there can tell me otherwise?

Washington, D.C.: A few questions:

Why are you doing this chat (I'm assuming NASA is not your regular beat)? Do you have an interest in the space program?

What was your reaction to hearing about Columbia, and how was it different from Challenger?

Joel Achenbach: I have an interest in the space program. I've written a book that deals with the history of the space program, in part. I've covered shuttle missions, john glenn's flight, science at nasa, dan goldin's retirement etc., and wrote two stories this weekend. Also they asked me to do the chat so I said yes. When i heard the news Saturday i got that momentarily trembly feeling -- shocked.

Richmond, Va.: Joel, I just want to thank you, Guy and your fellow writers for this morning's piece on the shuttle's mission. It was truly one of the few, truly lovely homages I've read -- to the mission, the seven astronauts and their final trip home.

washingtonpost.com: Hard Work, High Spirits (Post, Feb. 3, 2003)

Joel Achenbach: Thanks! The whole staff worked hard through the weekend for sunday's and monday's papers, i hope readers check it out, including some excellent pieces in the style section this morning.

Bethesda, Md.: People need to stop whining about the Columbia shuttle tragedy. These were volunteers from the highest socioeconomic strata; they knew the risks they were undertaking. We're talking about seven lives here, not the seven times seventy times seven hundred innocent lives that will be taken on our invasion of Iraq. If we're going to treat the lives of the innocent Iraqi citizens and our disproportionately lower-class U.S. soldiers so callously, then we need to call a spade a spade and forget about the Columbia astronauts the way we have already forgotten about so many others.

Joel Achenbach: Thanks for sharing that viewpoint, though I must admit that fatigue causes me to be confused by it: Are you saying that because the seven astronauts weren't socioeconomically disadvantaged this somehow affects how we should feel about this? Also it seems you believe this is a numbers game. It's certainly true that more people die routinely in pileups on the interstate, and way many more die in plane crashes, and of course in wars. But I don't think this is about a body count.

Northern Virginia: Do you think that this event will cause ordinary people to reconsider our investment in space trips?

I've read about a NASA critic that questions the cost-effectiveness of the "science" gained by Shuttle missions. Every time the shuttle blasts off, he says "there goes another university." At $100m a pop, he's right, it seems hard to justify these missions on purely scientific grounds.

Of course, human space flight provides us with non-scientific benefits, such as national pride and a sense of collective human achievement. And kids know it's cool.

Now that more adventurers have died, it seems like some of those psychic benefits might not be all they're cracked up to be, either.

Do you see any serious rethinking of the whole space program?

Joel Achenbach: The space program will go on because, as I think was noted in an op-ed piece in the paper today, it ultimately has a military component. The high ground. China has its own burgeoning space program and wants to send astronauts to the moon. Our military capabilities are now intimately dependent on satellites and space platforms. There is zero chance that the U.S. will turn its back on space. The CIVILIAN program obviously is in for rough times.

Philadelphia, Pa.: Does the entire space shuttle program make sense? Should we seriously consider starting over, and figure out what's the best, most cost-effective way to achieve our space goals?

Joel Achenbach: There's an excellent piece in today's paper on the failure of the shuttle program to achieve its goals -- ran on the front page (by jeff smith and joe stephens). It talks not only about the ongoing safety concerns prior to the disaster saturday but the original purpose of the program and the disappointments along the way. The shuttle was supposed to go up 20 or 30 times a year, now they struggle to launch it four times. The space station itself is arguably a boondoggle, an orbiting white elephant. So in the process of reviewing the Columbia breakup i'm sure people will ask these questions...

Arlington, Va.: Why haven't we sent people to the moon for over 30 years? I've always thought that the major miracle was not sending people to the moon but the fact that we could watch live.

Joel Achenbach: We sent people to the moon to show Russia what-for. Once we did that, why go back? People lost interest even during the apollo program.

Vienna, Va.: Come on, NASA. No possibility of terrorism? Get serious. While this disaster was, more likely than not, an in-flight breakup due to overstress and loss of the heat tiles, to come out and say that terrorists could not have done it is an insult to one's intelligence -- ESPECIALLY with an Israeli Air Force pilot on board. Every Palestinian and Islamic terrorist organization on earth, including bin Laden's, must have been looking for a way to bring this thing down. And the scary thing is, we still don't know what kind of sophisticated weapons they might have (even laser ones that radar and conventional detectors can't pick up).

Joel Achenbach: Well, it could have been an alien death-beam from Pluto but in general you go with the most likely explanation.

Weston, Fla.: Hello Joel, you and I corresponded in the past. I used to work in the classified world of military space programs attached to the Intelligence Bureau of the State Department. The following comment is lengthy, but it goes to the heart of the immediate policy discussion that needs to take place.

In the late '70s and early '80s the shuttle program was billed as a cheaper way of getting to orbit that would permit "going to work in space." There were to be tens of launches a year, at costs in the dozens of millions of dollars per launch. Now costs per launch are approaching $500 million with seven or eight launches per year (there are a small number of additional number of classified military/intelligence missions launched out of California).

At the same time, a deliberate decision was quietly made, over the vigorous objection of the Air Force, to make the shuttle the sole vehicle for launching many national security missions. (The shuttle payload bay was precisely sized to carry what was at the time our most critical and capable reconnaisance satellite.) We deliberately decided to put all our eggs in one basket; we threw away many of the other baskets.

The shuttle was supposed to be 99.99 percent reliable (meaning we would expect to lose 1 shuttle in 1000 flights). We have now lost two in about 110 flights, which is only about 98 percent. Reliabilty is now only 5 percent, 1/20th, of what it was billed. This kind of reliability is unacceptable.

I think we need to separate thinking about manned flight (which probably should continue) from the shuttle program, which probably should be cancelled. It is more expensive per pound to orbit than using expendable launch vehicles, it is more dangerous than expendable launch vehicles, it permits fewer launches per year, and it is an inelegant and needlessly complex system. The Challenger clearly, and the Columbia probably, were lost due to the complexities and risks of putting an orbiter, with the awkward conceit of being half an airplane, in an ungainly position next to solid rocket boosters, an external tank that seems to shed ice and parts that damage the orbiter on launch, and the wheels that serve no purpose other than to land and whose complexity and weight would be far better used for something else, using large parachutes to gentle the landing.

Joel Achenbach: Interesting points and i'll let others weigh on this, lots of questions and comments coming in, let me post them.

Alexandria, Va.: First, Joel, I'm glad to see you still at the Post. I really enjoyed the Washington Post magazine article on the Potomac. I keep a copy on board for guests to read.

The descent from orbit is the third riskest part; the launch is first, and the actual touchdown splash down, earth landing part is second. But that might now become the object of debate.

The shuttle is basically a lumberous high temprature brick that flies real fast.

The entire design of the shuttle hull is for the descent/landing phase. the best we can do right now is give the pilot one risky shot at it.

But for that to work requires a very high degree of component reliability and interdependence. The primary part is the heat shield tiles, and then the frame that holds them in place. All it takes is a little more hot stuff to get in, then anticipated, and the frame starts to go. this is the end of the ride, called "losing one's feathers."

The only thing I wish this mission had done was to dock at the space station and inspect, as a matter of routine, the hull.

They might of found something. And then could have waited until it could have been repaired. While it would have strained the supplies, we might have avoided a disaster.

We might also fit the hull with strain/damage sensors that indicate a compromise of the hull.

Joel Achenbach: But could they have repaired the shuttle in space? Does the shuttle carry spare tiles??? I wonder what would have happened if they took a space walk and visually inspected and saw a flaw. What then? Might have been an apollo 13 moment -- duct tape to the rescue.

Washington, D.C.: Do you think it’s possible to give the Columbia astronauts a fitting memorial WITHOUT building a honking big structure at Arlington Cemetery? Those of us with family buried at Arlington feel spit on every time one of these national tragedies (Pan Am 103, Challenger, etc.) snowballs into a McDonald's Arches memorial. Arlington has very modest headstones and they are identical. It’s a great honor. Having a memorial that says you’re better than the next guy takes the whole cemetery down a notch.

washingtonpost.com: Do the PanAm 103 memorial or the Challenger memorial fall into "McDonald's Arches" territory? Pan Am 103 Lockerbie Cairn Memorial
Challenger Memorial

Joel Achenbach: I didn't know people felt the cemetery had gone down a notch -- you learn something every day.

Orono, Maine: One question I haven't seen answered is this: were these astronauts basically doomed from the time that debris fell off the shuttle at lift-off?

I know NASA said it didn't think any major damage had been done, but if find out the agency is wrong, what then?

Is it worth asking the question of whether SOMETHING could have been done -- like docking the shuttle at the space station and finding another way to send the astronauts home? Or is that kind of after-the-fact questioning pointless?

I guess what I want are questions -- and answers -- that move us forward. But, it seems so hard to know which ones do that.

Any thoughts?

Joel Achenbach: This is exactly the story i'd like to see us do: Who analyzed the problem of the debris, what was the thinking, what COULD have been done, etc., as you point out. Remember that with Challenger (and i take this from foggy memory) there was abundant warning inside NASA that the solid rocket boosters were dangerous and that launching in the cold was potentially disastrous. so i wonder how many people knew in advance that this might actually happen.

Baton Rouge, La.: This may seem a callous question, and I apologize to anyone who is offended. But what, statistically, would people consider to be an "acceptable" level of risk for the shuttle program? After all, tradeoffs are made in things like auto design: if all cars were built like Hummers and had a maximum speed of 10 mph, there would be far fewer accidents. But because of cost and practicality, we don't do that, even though we know it means more people die in accidents. In the case of the shuttle, two of about 113 missions have ended in tragedy. Obviously everything possible must be done to avoid more loss of life, but how should we feel about the safety record overall? I know that if an activity held a 2 percent chance of ending in tragedy, I wouldn't participate in it. But then, that's probably why I'm not an astronaut.

Joel Achenbach: Astronauts have to have ice water in their veins to do what they do, imagine sitting on the launch pad knowing what's about to be ignited. fyi, the problem is also budgetary: These spaceships cost billions to build and only 5 have ever flown, you could argue that the failure rate is 40 percent, since 2 of 5 were destroyed.

Arlington, Va.: Joel,

I don't know who I should be telling this to, but the Post's coverage of this event has been outstanding. The combo of these chats, main stories, background analysis, has been really supurb. How does a newspaper like the Post (which is not exactly science-heavy most days) turn on a dime and put out coverage like this?

Joel Achenbach: I'll take full credit.
Actually, the spate of tragedies in the last couple of years seems to have made team-coverage big-story journalism more common around here -- sad fact in a way.

washingtonpost.com: Safety an Issue Since '90s (Post, Feb. 3, 2003)

Rockville, Md.: Joel, first off great to have you back. I've always been a big fan of our space program but I've got to start to wonder if these guys really know what they're doing. We've had these shuttles for 20 years and not to have the ability to do an in flight damage assessment of the tiles seems ridiculous. It still amazes me that after each mission we have to re-glue tiles onto the orbiter. I know if planes crashed two out of every 113 flights there wouldn't be much of airline industry.

Joel Achenbach: And there may not be much of a shuttle industry after this. Actually the shuttle is necessary (as i understand it) to building the space station, but this will probably accelerate the next generation of launch vehicle.
The glueing of the tiles is strange, isnt it? I stood underneath Columbia about 15 months ago, when it was being upgraded and rehauled, and it's amazing how complicated it is, not just the tiles but all the wiring and tubes etc., which i mentioned in sunday's story...

Fairfax, Va.: Why is no one -- or almost no one -- seriously considering terrorism here?

With an Israeli Air Force pilot on board, can you think of a more lucrative target for Palestinian/Islamic terrorists?

Joel Achenbach: I dont think Osama has a weapon that can hit an object moving thousands of miles an hour FORTY MILES above the surface.

Forest Glen, Md.: I have not heard anyone state whether or not the crew knew of the fallen insulation and possible tile damage on liftoff.

Do we know if they were involved in the discussions on whether or not the tiles were damaged in the first few days after the launch?

Joel Achenbach: We need to find that out.

University Park, Md.: NASA has long seemed to be an agency in search of a mission -- a reason for existance. It's long past time for a serious, national dialogue on the space program and its value to science. We can't afford to waste any more money or human life on a program merely because it is perceived as "cool."

Joel Achenbach: Our story today talked about all the experiments aboard: I was impressed by the number (80) and the scientists I spoke to seemed to think that this was a great platform for basic research -- physics, materials science, biology, etc. That said, I can't analyze the value of that compared to terrestrial science and whether it's worth the money. On the larger question of whether we do it because it's "cool," the answer is no, we do it because the government has a vested interest, militarily, long-term, in funding an active aerospace industry. (Right?)

Louisville, Ky.: Joel,

Great to have you back in the world of online chats, even if the circumstances are so tragic.

Longtime shuttle critic Gregg Easterbrook has a pice in Time where he wrote that the shuttle is a white elephant that could have been replaced years ago with a more durable, nimble and technologically advanced "space plane."

His claim is that the shuttle has been kept on life support by the military-industrial complex -- contractos such as Boeing and the United Space Alliance, which would not exist without the shuttle -- in order to keep the largesse rolling. Is this a credible claim or is it too simplistic?

Joel Achenbach: Ah! Just saw this. Easterbrook is a smart man and I am sure he's right at some level. As I just stated moments ago (see how AHEAD of everything i am), the military-industrial interests play a role here. Others can decide to what degree that's good or bad. AS for the space plane, they looked at one for years, and it cost a fortune. They dropped it finally.

Silver Spring, Md.: As covered on the Diane Rehm Show this morning, Columbia was carrying a small fuel load on this scientific flight -- far insufficient to reach the space station, which flies in an orbit both higher and at a different angle to the equator than the Columbia's.

At the same time, I do believe there needs to be an initiative at NASA to provide space flight crews the basic tools to effect some self-repair. No ship leaves a dock without tools and spare parts, yet the shuttle always flies with the assumption of 100 percent reliability of all parts. Like the new class of Air Force fighters, I think the next class of space flight vehicles needs to focus on standard parts, low maintenance costs, and quick repairs.

Joel Achenbach: Good points. The shuttle has too little margin for error; it's inflexible, complicated, customized.

Washington, D.C.: Can this tragedy be related to the Bush administration's farming of development to private contractors, thus comprimising safety, and communication of complex concerns?

Mike Richards

Joel Achenbach: Read our story on that in today's paper: By Greg Schneider and Ariana Eunjung Cha.

Washington, D.C.: As feedback to comments regarding the focus of the space program, personally, I believe its extremely important to continue the space exploration, but not for reasons like finding a new, such as Mars as previously commented.

If you visit http://www.nasa.gov/find/HP_FLB_Feature_01.html, it discusses a discovery they have made in which the earth has been found to reside within a thin cloud bubble from a SuperNova. There are other clouds out there which could damage the earth, or even destroy it, if we ran into one, and there are some on the way. Space exploration is the only way to discover the risks our planet faces and still have time to figure out a plan.

Joel Achenbach: Um, just for scheduling purposes: Are we going to run into this death cloud this week. Because I have plans Thursday.

Virginia: Joel --

In response to an earlier poster, some NASA guys over the weekend said that the shuttle does not carry replacement tiles because, although astronauts can spacewalk, they cannot get under the orbiter: there are no handholds and the remote arm won't reach that far. Just FYI. Thanks.

Joel Achenbach: Whatever happened to using tethers, like on Lost in Space?

washingtonpost.com: All of The Post's coverage of the Shuttle Columbia disaster can be found in our Special Report.

Boston, Mass.: Hi Joel, nice to "read" you again, your columns this weekend were very touching.

I think NASA has a serious PR problem, as evidenced by Northern Virginia's comments about justifying these missions on scientific grounds.

So many common things we use today are the result of past NASA research, a few, if I recall correctly: bar codes, cordless tools, smoke detectors, and of course satellite and imaging technologies.

Do you think it would help with public perception of the importance of the space program, if people were more aware of the actual benefits we reap in the long run?

Joel Achenbach: Good point, but do you think those technologies would NOT have appeared without a space program? We always hear that Teflon came from the Apollo mission -- but why do i suspect that we'd have Teflon even without Neil and Buzz? And Velcro, too...

Silver Spring, Md.: Vienna brought up a good point -- I wouldn't make jokes about Pluto "death rays."

We absolutely cannot dismiss terrorism on this one, even if NASA did. Two years ago, I wonder what kind of jokes you would made about four hijacked airliners all at once heading toward targets in D.C. and New York.

Joel Achenbach: Of course everyone considered terrorism -- but it didn't look like it, there's no evidence for it, it's not necessary to invoke it as a significant probability, it feeds public fear unnecessarily, and the responsible thing for the government and the press, too, is to talk about what probably happened, and given that re-entry into the earth's atmosphere is a KNOWN danger, that this is something that is known to be possible, the terrorism angle got, i think, an appropriate dismissal.

Washington, D.C.: On Arlington Cemetery: special memorials are “McDonalds Arches” because it’s tasteless and garish to exalt the status of your death above others [note to WP: metaphor]. Veterans groups oppose these memorials. Consider that soldiers who liberated Europe from the Nazis have a simple stone marker, and some of them were four star generals.

Joel Achenbach: Good point.

Rocket Scientist: Joel,

As someone who has worked in this business for many years, I'd like to correct a few mistaken impressions:

- Contrary to the message of a previous post, there has NEVER been a shuttle launch from the West Coast. The original plans calling from military launches from Vandenberg AFB were cancellled after 51L (Challenger).

- As Ron Dittemore explained yesterday, even if the crew was aware of a problem with the tiles, there would be no way to save the vehicle. There is no way to repair the tiles on-orbit. The space station (as a result of Clinton administration meddling) is in an entirely different orbit and is impossible to reach from the orbit used by STS-107. This mission did not fly the RMS ("robot arm") so there was no way to position a camera to even view the undeside of the orbiter.

As far as the ongoing debate over the value of the shuttle and human spaceflight in general, others have written at length and more eloquently than I, but it's clear that we will continue. People who argue for purely robotic missions do not understand how scientific and engineering research is performed -- the ability of a trained individual to conduct research, analyze results, react to the unexpected and modify the experimental protocols in real time is invaluable.

The entire NASA budget, shuttle and station included, consumes less than 1 percent of the federal budget. To say that we can't afford this is as absurd as turning eliminating all museums, symphony orchestras and any other endeavor that rises beyond the strictly utilitarian. To say that we should avoid all risk is an insult to the memory of the crew.

This tragic accident has shaken everyone in the space program, but we will mourn, learn what went wrong and go on. That is part of what makes us human, and what makes be proud to be an American.

Joel Achenbach: Thanks for sharing these thoughts. On the need for humans in space: Rick Weiss had a piece Sunday in our paper on that exact point. I remember that years ago it seemed fashionable to talk about how much better it would be to do our solar system explorations entirely robotically, especially since Voyager and Viking were so successful (and more recently Pathfinder, Galileo, etc.), but there is no tool invented as good as a human hand with a mind behind it...

Washington, D.C.: How does a reporter balance the need to get the best info quickly and a few tear-jerker peices while still respecting the privacy of the family?

Joel Achenbach: Some family members actually want to talk. They're proud of their loved one. It's therapeutic to share the grief. So while a reporter shouldn't be a jerk, I think it's acceptable to contact a family and ask if anyone wishes to talk.

Los Angeles, Calif.: Hi Joel,

I have a question (and rant) for which there may be no answer: Is the population of the United States too stupid to exist?

I ask this because of questions that have been asked of you and several of your on-line associates today.

A majority of the questions asked, especially about safety, in flight-repairs, budget, etc., have already been asked and answered if people would take the time to use their brains and READ and/or LISTEN.

Surely, more information will come out and draw a better picture, but I think these types of questions, and the great question of should humans be in space, beg the issue of the intellectual horsepower of today's society.

Just looking at questions about comparing the shuttle and the Middle East, or what benefits are brought to the rest of society by investments in the space program, makes me wonder what has happened to the pioneer, can-do spirit of America. Are we so consumed with lattes and Mp3s that we expect everything to be spoonfed to us?

Want to know what benefits are the result of the space program (e.g., impact resistant autoglass, cellphones, CAT scans, MRIs, VELCRO)? Get on the same Internet that you use for any number of other reasons and check it out.

Usually, I'm a live and let live, speak your mind kinda guy, and have ignored the increased dumbing-down of America's public intellect, but the last couple of days have really brought home how far we've fallen.

Now, as a supporter of the manned space program, I disagree with those who question its use. That's their right to do so. BUT, if someone's position is against the program, I ask for at least a cogent argument rather than issues of Iraq, or those who still hold to the whole fake moon landing thing.

For heaven's sake, our citizens are starting to sound like the random foreigners interviewed on the street this Saturday who opined that the disaster was a sign from above, and that the Russians do space better because their astronauts don't die (false), and that NASA fakes the whole thing anyway.

We owe to the astronauts, and the very essence of the country to get off of our intellectual duffs, make a statement, and take a personal interest in the world around us.

And, get back to space travel as soon as possible.

Joel Achenbach: Thanks for the rant! I didn't know that all these questions had been answered, though: I think they're fair questions and the people in MY CHAT are not stupid, thank you. They might be ignorant in the extreme but they're not dumb.

Bethesda, Md.: Is it conceivable that terrorists could have infiltrated NASA, or tampered with the shuttle prior to launch, or even shot something quietly at a wing while it was on the launch pad, without our being aware of it?

washingtonpost.com: Joel, what's security like at NASA, particularly near the spacecraft?

Joel Achenbach: It was the tightest security they'd had in a long time, because of Ilan Ramon.
Since 9/11 the shuttle has been carefully guarded: Its an obvious terror target. No system is foolproof but trust me, there are a huge number of people who go over that orbiter with a magnifying glass -- they have grounded these things for tiny cracks.

Louisville, Ky.: There has also been a certain amount of angst generated by talk of an "escape pod" or some vehicle that the astronauts could have used to escape the shuttle as it was breaking apart.

In all that discussion, no one has mentioned the constraints I'm sure the astronauts would be under to use such a device. Given that they are flying in a multi-billion vehicle, the decision to eject is not a simple one. What if they eject and it turns out the shuttle was not in serious danger -- how do their bosses react to that?

Also, the preliminary data seems to indicate that the shuttle was in trouble around 10 minutes before it broke apart. Would that be enough time for the astronauts to evaluate the situation, make the decision to eject, then get unstrapped and into the escape pod. Plus, what kind of G forces would they face trying to get to the escape pod?

Joel Achenbach: I thought there was only about a 7-minute warning of something wrong and then it was just a sensor showing an elevated temperature -- by all accounts the crew had little sense of peril until the very end of radio contact.

Washington, D.C.: I thought you were smarter. The government has been frightening people with terror warnings about three times a week for the past 18 months. Now something happens that could politically harm the war on terror, and the adminsitration shoots it down because we can frighten people. Wake up and smell the rocket fuel, Joel.

Joel Achenbach: Washington: I used to be smarter, its true. But there is no evidence of terrorism. Nothing. Nothing at all. Zip. Zilch. Tell me one teeny-tiny thing to indicate otherwise.

Orono, Maine: So, the answer to the question appears to be that the astronauts WERE doomed pretty much from the start -- if what we are being told about there being no way to save them is correct.

That seems to me to make the question of what they were told -- and what Mission Control knew -- even more important.

Joel Achenbach: Right: Are they downplaying the level of concern prior to re-entry.

Charlotte, N.C.: Another product of space exploration: the advanced fibers used in firefighters' turnout gear were first developed for space suits.

Joel Achenbach: Another good point. The chat time is almost over, i'm going to post some of these comments, hang on...

Rockville, Md.: In regards to the poissibility of docking at the space station, it was never a possibility on this mission for several reasons, all of which ahve been covered in NASA's detailed briefings:

1. Columbia lauched at a different orbital inclination than the space station orbit, and did not carry sufficient fuel to alter it's orbital inclination to match (a VERY fuel-expensive maneuver).

2. Columbia did not carry a station docking ring and so could not have docked to the space station even if it could have reached it.

3. Columbia was the heaviest of the remaining orbiters -- too heavy to carry a useful payload to the ISS's orbital inclination and altitude. I don't know, but I doubt if Colunbia could have reached the station even if it DID lauch into the same orbital inclination.

As for an "Apollo 13 moment" -- there is no way to EVA (spacewalk) beneith the Shuttle wings -- no handholds or teathers. Also, there are no replacement tiles carried on board -- and nothing carried on board has the thermal properties required to substitute for tiles.

Sadly, taking all these facts together an "Apollo 13" moment was never in the cards.

Joel Achenbach: Thanks for all this interesting data...

Boston, Mass., again: Interesting question (would these technologies have been developed without the space program?).

It would be fascinating to look at number of dollars to the space program, and resulting patents which were developed into useful, perhaps ubiquitous, products, and compare this to number of research dollars to universities, etc., and the resulting patents etc. and compare the returns on investment.

I guess I worry that any cancelling of the space program moves those dollars into tax cuts rather then feeding it back into our national research community, which I believe would greatly impact us 10, 20, 50 years down the road.

Joel Achenbach: Friends, note the point this reader makes in the final graph: Just because you cut funding to the space shuttle wouldn't mean that money would go to some university physics department or the NSF.

Northern Virginia: This is Northern Virginia replying to Boston's comment on my comment.

The space program clearly has scientific benefits. But a top-50 research university only needs $1 billion for a "forever" endowment. If since 1980 we had invested the Space Shuttle money into building more universities, we'd now have about 150 more UCLA's, UVA's and SMU's. I think they might have given us more smoke detectors, etc.

Joel Achenbach: Isnt it simplistic to think that the money would go to building new universities?

Conspiracy Theory run amuck: I actually heard someone say that it MUST have been a terrorist attack -- the shuttle, carrying an Israeli broke up over Palestine, Tex.

Puh-leez.

Joel Achenbach: Precisely.

Ashburn, Va.: Call me a perfectionist, but I tend to consider a vehicle design that fails catastrophically 1 out of 56 uses a complete engineering disaster. I mean, you basically sneeze on the thing and it blows up. To quote Han Solo, "Space flight ain't like dusting crops, boy," and I'd agree, but can't NASA develop a slightly better vehicle than the shuttle?

Joel Achenbach: Would you have said that, though, a few days ago, when there had been one failure in 112 flights?

Herndon, Va.: My question to Joel is, why is there such media importance given only to people who died on the space shuttle? Why is the same media importance not given to the people in military who are giving their lives every day?

Joel Achenbach: A fair question. I agree with what a space buff told me this weekend: That space plays a special role in our national consciousness. But these are things that we have to think about, what's the right level of coverage, when is it too much or not enough, how can we be fair to others who give their lives for some noble cause.

Bent Hatchet, Utah: Maybe I'm naive about these things, but one remarkable part of the story that I don't think anyone has mentioned is this: all of that debris fell out of the sky, and none of it apparently -- landed on anyone.

The explosion was a tragedy for all of those involved -- and a setback for the space program. But given that this happened over a heavily populated area, shouldn't we feel a bit fortunate that things didn't turn out far, far worse?

Joel Achenbach: It fell over east texas: The Thicket, i think they call some of that area. My guess is that, statistically, it was unlikely that anyone would be hit.

Washington, D.C.: Teflon -- I agree it's a great thing. An engineer at DuPont invented it in the 1930s. Nothing to do with the space program.

Joel Achenbach: See that's my point, exactly. I'm right again.

Arlington, Va.: Is the failure rate 40 percent (2 of 5 craft) or less than 2 percent (2 of 100+ trips)? The latter is a risk worth taking. I'd go, and knowing the risks, if I'm part of the 2 percent, don't cry for me.

The nation overreacts. Will we be as concerned when a stray bomb kills seven children in Baghdad next month?

Joel Achenbach: I guarantee we will cover that stray bomb...

Greenbelt, Md.: Hi Joel, I haven't seen anyone ask about a potential effect on the space station if the shuttle program is grounded for long: lack of orbital reboosts that the shuttle provides periodically. (The large cross-section of the station and its relatively low orbit cause its orbit to decay fairly quickly.) Any word on how long we can go without a reboost? I wonder if the Soyuz can do something in that regard, but I suspect not.

By the way, keep up the good work. I'm with the National Capital Area Skeptics (and a flight software engineer at NASA-Goddard) and really appreciate your reality-based take on matters of interest.

Joel Achenbach: I dont think the station is in danger of falling to earth without a shuttle reboost SOON, but clearly there has to be a shuttle flight at some point to give it the boost. Not sure the timeline.

Joel Achenbach: Ok, we're out of time. Thanks everyone who joined in and offered so much insight. Keep those cards and letters coming.
See you down the road...Joel

washingtonpost.com:

That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.

Stay Tuned to Live Online:
Post Magazine: 'Performance of Their Lives', 1 p.m. ET
Sports: The Chat House, 1:30 p.m. ET
Travel Talk, 2 p.m. ET
Politics: The Budget & Performance, 2 p.m. ET
Rob Pegoraro: ISP Directory, 2 p.m. ET
Weather Warriors: NBC4's Bob Ryan, 2 p.m. ET
Weather Warriors: WUSA9's Topper Shutt, 3 p.m. ET

Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters.

Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com. Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.

Automatically Update Page | Get New Responses | Submit Question



	<img SRC="washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/redesign/adv_discusssion.htm" width=125 height=110 border=0>