|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Remembering the Crew of the Space Ship Columbia
Aired February 3, 2003 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello, everyone and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville. In the aftermath of the Columbia tragedy, there is tremendous sympathy for the families of the astronauts and for all of those at NASA who are mourning their colleagues while searching for answers and wondering about the future of the space program.
We've lined up the experts so you can get some of your questions answered today. Questions like, what went wrong, and could it have been prevented?
And we're going to start now with CNN Space Correspondent Miles O'Brien, who has been covering this accident since it happened, and Miles is joining us from the Johnson Space Center in Texas with the latest word from NASA -- Miles.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN SPACE CORRESPONDENT: Arthel, we heard from folks involved in this investigation, NASA, specifically headquarters. We heard from the head of human space flight, we heard from the man -- one of the men in charge of quality -- excuse me, Safety Assurance for shuttle missions. And more than anything, what they were trying to do today was give the public a sense that this was a full and comprehensive investigation, that it was well organized, that there was good consultation between all these federal agencies, kind of an alphabet soup that is involved in all of this, and that it was moving on in an orderly way.
And the reason that's significant to point out is that 17 years ago after Challenger, it was anything but that. It was really disorganized. It was mayhem, there was a sense that NASA stonewalling, was hiding something.
We're getting the sense of a very public investigation as one of the NASA people said earlier, perhaps the most public investigation of an accident of this nature -- not that there has been an accident of just -- of this nature -- but of an accident ever. So that's good news. We're going to be able to see this, and all of us as citizens of this country can make our own determination if we feel that putting human beings in space shuttles in the future is worth the risk. Just to give you a sense of where the investigation is right now, still awfully early, and we really want to resist getting too far out on the limb of speculation.
But we do know that -- during the last five, six minutes of Columbia's flight, there was a tremendous amount of heat buildup indicated in sensors all along the left side, in the rear flap called the elevon, in the left wheel well here, and in the left fuselage. As that was happening simultaneously, for some reason, that orbiter wanted to go to the left, indicating there was some kind of drag going on here. It was trying to compensate by tilting the wings back to the right.
All of that is consistent with something going wrong with this heat shield under here. Some the 27,000 ceramic tiles that are there to protect the aluminum orbiter from the 3,000 degree heat of reentry.
Aluminum can withstand, perhaps, up to about 350 degrees. So you really have to have those ceramic tiles in place in order to protect the orbiter as it comes in. The question is, how did those tiles, if that is the case, how did those tiles come loose or become knocked off? There is a lot of focus on what happened 80 seconds after the launch of "Columbia." We know a piece of debris fell off the external fuel tank that is attached to the orbiter at that time, struck the bottom surface of the left wing. Was that a coincidence, or is it possible this is a complete red herring, or is that the smoking gun?
Way too early to connect the dots on that, but we can tell you right now, that event is being looked at very closely right now -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: And Miles, every body is wondering if, in fact, the crew had any idea that there was a potential problem, could they have done something? I know they had to have special training, which they did not, to go onto the International Space Station, and also special gear, which they did not have, if you could talk about that for us.
O'BRIEN: Yes, the truth of the matter is that the engineers knew about that piece of debris hitting the bottom of the wing, and that was not unusual to see debris coming off that external tank. As a matter of fact, from the absolute first mission of Columbia back in 1981, they've seen this happen, foam and ice knocking off that tank as it goes uphill, as they say, causing superficial damage to those tiles. So based on that body of knowledge, they looked at this latest one, sort of ran it through the analysis that they could give it, and bear in mind all they're doing is looking at pictures. It is not a quantitative analysis, it is qualitative. It is a fair amount of supposition, looking at some good camera work, and through all of that, they determined that this was probably just like they had seen before, which is to say damage which will probably require some attention after landing, but nothing that would cause the loss of the vehicle and crew.
Now, the next step is what you referred to. If they had determined that there were so many tiles that were knocked off, or there was something critical there that would have caused that kind of a failure, they had absolutely zero options with a crew in orbit. There is no such thing as a tile repair kit. Each of these tiles is unique, 27,000 of them. You can't carry 27,000 spares into space, and it would be very hazardous to attempt to try to attach them, really impossible to do that in space. So they did not know for sure, and secondarily, if they knew, they had few options.
NEVILLE: Miles, could they have devised a different reentry path?
O'BRIEN: Well, we asked that question yesterday. Could they have possibly tilted it down in a different way, tilted it up? You know, this gets kind of complicated. You have to think of it as skipping a stone on the lake. If you skip it a little too flat, it might skim too far, and eventually it might even skip off and continue onward. If you go in too deep, there's a big splash, and that would imply with the shuttle that it would come in too hot.
Somewhere in there is kind of the sweet spot, and what NASA tells us is that they already do fly that sweet spot because they're thinking of reusing that vehicle. Could there have been a special reentry? It's unlikely they could have come up with anything better than what they did.
NEVILLE: OK. Miles O'Brien, thank you so much for bringing us all the information out of NASA. Listen, we're going to go to break right now, but as we do, we want to remember the space shuttle's Columbia's astronauts, and we'll be back in a moment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He put himself into everything he did with a full heart, and whatever was necessary to achieve his goal, he was willing to do that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Today on TALKBACK LIVE, we're answering your questions about the tragedy of the Columbia space shuttle, and we want to get those questions in -- 1-800-310-4CNN or e-mail us at TALKBACK@CNN.COM. The talk continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back, everyone.
We are talking about the shuttle Columbia tragedy. With us is CNN space analyst, Dr. Norm Thagard. He is a former NASA astronaut. He's a veteran of five space flights. Also, Roger Pielke, a director of a center for science and technology policy research at the University of Colorado in Boulder.
Dr. Thagard, it's very early in the investigation, of course. But given what we now know, what do you think went wrong?
NORM THAGARD, FMR. ASTRONAUT: Arthel, when you have observations, you always try to formulate a hypothesis that fits them, and it seems like the hypothesis that there was some damage to the heat protection system, and increased drag and finally breakup of the vehicle is what it appears to be.
NEVILLE: Roger, what's your theory? ROGER PIELKE JR., UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO: Well, like everyone else, I'm watching the very public nature of this investigation and I have every confidence that NASA is leading us in the investigation and soon will have an answer for us.
NEVILLE: I mean, there's so many questions and so many people are coming up with their own theories and speculations at this time. We were talking to Miles O'Brien earlier, Dr. Thagard, about the fact that, if in fact the crew had any idea that this could have been a fatal mishap that took place, that they could have maybe gone on to the international space station, but they need to have proper training as well as the proper gear to make something like that happen.
Tell us a little bit about that. I mean, that's why everybody is asking why couldn't they get off or why couldn't something have been done?
THAGARD: If you're going to do something like change your orbit and in this case go up to the international space station in a different orbit, you're going to need quite a lot of propellant because it takes a lot of energy to do it. It's unlikely. Of course, I don't know the details of it, but I would say it's probably unlikely that Columbia had that capability. And also the business of repairing tiles if you knew some were broken was actually practiced and planned for at some early point in the shuttle program but finally discarded as not being a reasonable thing to do.
NEVILLE: Why not?
THAGARD: Because you would have to be under the vehicle somewhere where there is no good way -- astronauts out on space walks have heavy gloves. They really need handrails or some means of transporting themselves to the site. Most of them would be under the vehicle. The chances are you'd be more likely to do more damage than you would to correct the existing damage.
NEVILLE: We want to go ahead and get our audience very involved in this. A lot of questions coming in.
Now sharing e-mail with you, coming in right now from, Joe.
"Once the shuttle is starting its re-entry, if they notice that the temperature is rising like it did in Columbia's case, can the astronauts abort and proceed back into orbit?"
THAGARD: There's no way to do that. You just don't have the energy for it. In fact, think about what's happening. The shuttle uses the engines and the propellant it has to slow down. And the whole point of that is just to lower the low point of your orbit half a world away so that you start hitting the upper atmosphere. It is the friction with the atmosphere that allows you to dissipate all of that energy and come back and land. You just don't have any fuel on board enough to get yourself back into orbit at that point.
NEVILLE: Another question from Todd. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Given the importance of these tiles, there's 27,000 of these heat tiles, and the importance of them, if we miss one knowing that the entire space shuttle can go way, we can lose the astronauts, isn't there a better way that we can determine that one of the tiles is malfunctioning or in this case dropped off?
THAGARD: If that question is for me, let me just say that NASA's already looked at this business of losing tiles, and I don't think anyone believes that the loss of any single tile anywhere is going to cause the loss of the vehicle. You've got to lose more than one. You need this -- people talk about is a ripple effect. So we anticipate that maybe something in a while will happen with individual tiles but you need to lose more than one.
NEVILLE: About how many? Because there are 27,000.
THAGARD: It would vary. It would depend where on the vehicle you were talking. Some areas are going to be more sensitive than others.
NEVILLE: Right. Right.
Roger, do you want to jump in there?
PIELKE: The tiles are an issue that goes back several decades. I believe the first application of tiles to the shuttle Columbia took something like something like 350 man years. So, NASA has a tremendous amount of experience developing, using and working with these tiles and I'm sure many of these contingencies have been discussed inside the agency.
NEVILLE: Jay.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There was information that the crew was aware of a fairly large defect in the wing. I just heard for the first time they were aware of that. I believe they communicated two days ago. Did they communicate at all that they were very worried that this was a serious situation? I know there's been statements that they didn't feel it was life threatening but was there any communication that they were I don't want to say scared but really worried?
NEVILLE: Dr. Thagard?
THAGARD: I don't know. I haven't heard about that communication but I -- and I wasn't there but speaking as an astronaut that flew five times, I doubt the crew was terribly concerned about it. Had they been concerned about it you would have heard a lot more communications than anything I've heard to this point.
NEVILLE: I know that you explained, doctor, that there's no way to repair the tiles while in orbit, but if the crew happened to have been aware that there was a problem, again, what could have happened -- I understand they could not have been taken and put on to the international space station, but is there anything that could have been done, had they known? THAGARD: I don't think and maybe someone else would have more knowledge with specifics of that flight would like to comment but I don't think at that point there were any alternatives. The space shuttle has an unlimited ability to stay in orbit. They were already at 16 days which starts to approach the max that the shuttle can substance. You've got to come home. You can't get to the international space station. Even had you thought there were a defect that needed attention or posed a concern, you still would have had to enter and you just would have tried to take every precaution you could.
NEVILLE: So, Roger, it seems like there should be a better backup plan then?
PIEKLE: Well, NASA has for many years -- let's not forget the space shuttle program turned 31 years old just last month since President Nixon first approved it in 1972. And there were many alternative designs that were looked at, discussed and it was determined that the space shuttle that we now have represented the best compromise of safety and effectiveness. So these questions have come and gone in the program for many years and what we see now is the program and vehicle that NASA thinks is the most safe and effective that it can operate.
NEVILLE: Now, of course, investigators as well as volunteers are spread throughout parts of Texas and Louisiana, searching for pieces of debris that once made up the space shuttle Columbia.
And CNN's Mike Brooks joins us now from Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.
Besides NASA, who else is involved in this investigation?
MIKE BROOKS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Arthel, there's a number of different agencies that are involved in this investigation. You had the NASA mishap investigation team that consists of about a hundred different people from a number of different agencies -- the National Transportation Safety Board, the FAA. But it is run by NASA and overseen by NASA.
Now, you have also the independent Columbia Action Board. They are the ones that actually put out a paper after everything is done with, and will come up with the final results of the investigation. Within that, eight-member panel, you have the United States Air Force, the U.S. Navy, the Department of Transportation, the FAA and one senior national official NASA official. And then throughout the state of Texas and Louisiana, you also have other state and local agencies that involved assisting the Federal Emergency Management Agency on trying to locate the different debris in the two states.
NEVILLE: And, Mike, we're familiar with seeing crime scene investigations on T.V. and the news.
How does it differ, this sort of investigation?
BROOKS: Well, this is an investigation and everything that they're finding is considered to be evidence. As you know, they're find debris. There over thousand debris fields throughout the state of Texas. And there are about 27 sites here in the state of Louisiana. And all of these are considered to be crime scenes, because if you will because of the potential evidentiary value, the pieces of the shuttle, the debris that's there that is considering evidence.
So, they're treating it as such. They're photographing it. They're taking global positioning -- positions of exactly where that piece was found. So investigators can go back. And they might be looking for that one little, "oh, wow" piece, if you will, that could make the difference in this investigation.
NEVILLE: So a lot of similarities, actually?
BROOKS: Very, very much so.
NEVILLE: Yes. Yes. Mike Brooks, thank you so much.
As we go to break right now, we remember the astronauts who died in Saturday's disaster on board the space shuttle Columbia.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's what he dreamed of doing most of his life. That's what he said he goes to do. That's what he sacrificed to do and that is what he did. It was not really a dream to him it was a future reality to him. That's how he looked at it. And we knew that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that's what he would do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back. We're talking about the shuttle tragedy and the future of the space program. I want you to tell me if you think future space flights should be unmanned? It's the question of the day. You can call me at 1-800-310-4cnn or e-mail me at talkback@cnn.com.
And with us from the Kennedy Space Center is CNN's Gary Tuchman. Gary, I know you've been out there talking to the families and everybody their and the communities. I wonder how do the families feel about the future of the space program if.
GARY TUCHMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Thousands of tourists have been here since Saturday. We're at the astronaut memorial area where all the astronauts have died in service of their country are on the wall. People have been coming to deliver flowers and candles to this memorial area here. And virtually everyone we've spoken with here when we ask them do you think the space program should continue, do think the space shuttle program should continue, they don't always say yes, they say yes very quickly.
Obviously, these a large number of space enthusiast who come to the Kennedy Space Center. But the people here who we talk to are very saddened, think it's terrible what happened, cry when they come here but strongly feel the program should continue.
NEVILLE: Interesting. And Gary, if you can stand by for me one moment there, I want to bring Roger Pielke back into the discussion. As you know, next year the president plans to put an additional $500 million into the space program, into NASA, bumping that budget to 15.47 billion.
Do you think this is the way to go?
PIELKE: I think one of the most dangerous steps we could take now is to return very quickly to business as usual. The United States has supported human space flight for four decades at a rate of hundreds of billions of dollars. The space shuttle has shown that it is a very risky technology. We've lost two vehicles in 113 flights. We should only be surprised if the U.S. decides not to pursue human space flight, but that doesn't mean it's not fair to start asking difficult questions such as, should we have seven people on one flight exposing all of those people to loss?
Should we be moving away from the space shuttle more than originally planned? Where is the space station taking us to?
There's a whole lot of questions that simply can't be addressed by this or that increase in the budget process. And very soon when we're done mourning, which this is a terrible nation tragedy, we're going to have to start asking these very difficult questions.
NEVILLE: And, Dr. Thagard, we'd love to hear your response to that.
THAGARD: Well, I don't think at this late point in the shuttle program that you would seriously consider rebuilding another shuttle. It is time to start looking at new technology, and new vehicles that perhaps be cheaper in operation and even safer and the shuttle. And I hope that is what would happen following this.
NEVILLE: I want to go back to the Kennedy Space Center right now.
Gary, what are the people doing there today?
TUCHMAN: Well, a couple things are taking place here, Arthel. First of all, right here we have condolence books. There are three condolence books that have been placed on the table. As you can see people come up to the condolence books and write their thoughts. These ultimately will go to the family members of those who perished in the space shuttle.
Giving example of what people are saying -- I don't want to interrupt anyone here, but here it says "Soar with the angels and god speed," next, "god bless you for your sacrifice." A lot of religious references to help give comfort to the families. Also I want to show you some of the notes that people are leaving, take you over here to where are the flowers are, the U.S. flags, Israeli flags have been left here. I noticed a short time ago a 15-year-old girl wrote a poem. It was actually faxed here. I'll read you the bottom lines of the poem. It says, "Columbia's astronauts were set free. Seven astronauts went to space but ended up in a different place, a place called heaven, a perfect place for the seven."
So that's what people are doing here. They feel comforted when they come here, and they hope in exchange they're offering comfort to the family members who lost their loved ones. You can see right there a picture of the seven Columbia astronauts. Their names will soon be added to this huge black granite wall at the Kennedy Space Center -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: Gary Tuchman, Thank you so much.
And Roger Pielke, I want to thank you for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.
PIELKE: Thank you.
NEVILLE: Again, as we go to break, we remember the astronauts who lost their lives on board the shuttle Columbia.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She died after she got to see what she had been dreaming for years now. She had been working towards that goal of getting up there for years, and I'm thankful she at least got to do that. And I wish I could have actually had a chance to hear back from her what it was like. I'm going to miss her.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(NEWSBREAK)
NEVILLE: And we are talking about the future of the space program in the aftermath of the Columbia disaster.
Joining me now is Derek Pitts. He is chief astronomer at the Franklin Institute's Fels Planetarium in Philadelphia.
Welcome, sir.
DERRICK PITTS, ASTRONOMER: Thank you.
NEVILLE: If you could tell us, what were the Columbia crew members doing in space?
PITTS: The Columbia crew members were working on a rather large batch of microgravity experiments. The idea was to take advantage of the microgravity environment to try to figure out whether or not gravity could either enhance some particular process or change some particular process either in a beneficial or in a negative way and in this way be able to make that application to processes here or Earth.
NEVILLE: And what sort of, again, kind of -- that's the whole point here on Earth. What sort of practical applications, if you will, can be borne out of such research?
PITTS: Well, it ranges everywhere from electronics, out to medicine to practical applications of materials used in automobiles or in aircraft and aviation. All sorts of things. Whether it be ways in which to look inside the body or ways in which to miniaturize electronics.
Many times there are even things that turn out from work that's been done in space that isn't even directly related to what happened there. Sometimes what doesn't work well in a particular experiment on board space shuttle or space station can even make things work out better here on Earth in a particular process.
NEVILLE: Now, can any of this stuff be done, any of this research be done with unmanned shuttles?
PITTS: Well, in fact, what we always try to do is to figure out which experiments are going to work best in what environment. There are many, many experiments that don't work well on space station or on space shuttle because of the fact that there's a tremendous amount of vibration on either one of those spacecraft. So, those kind of things don't work out very well and they work better on a separate platform in orbit around the Earth or perhaps visiting another planet.
So what is always looked at as part of figuring out which experiments to use is which ones are going to be able to use gravity as the vector that's changing in the experiment rather than any of the other things. So always tied to the gravity portion of the experiment.
NEVILLE: OK -- so -- but, you know, again, we have to ask, is the scientific research gained up there in space worth the program?
PITTS: Well, that's a really good question.
When you look at the kind of science that's being done on board, the fact of the matter is we probably could do most of that here on Earth. So it actually adds upping being more than just the kinds of science and experiments that have been done today. Certainly, there are benefits that come back from that, but doesn't really warrant the $14 billion that's spent on these programs for NASA in general to do work that could actually be done here on Earth.
The environment does present us with a very special kind of environment if there's anything that we might be able to explore that takes advantage of microgravity, then those are the ones that could be done in space either manned or unmanned.
NEVILLE: Now, Dr. Thagard, bringing you back into the conversation, of course the research has been -- is more aggressive than when you first went up in space. And do you think that the scientific knowledge gained is worth the program?
THAGARD: Well, I think the consensus is that it is and it has been. On my 1992 space lab flight we had 55 experiments on board. On the Columbia flight I believe the number was up to 80. If you ask the investigators and on that '92 flight, I think our investigators were from about 12 different countries, they would say yes. We do things that, in space, those experiments, because in most cases that is the only place -- that environment is the only place that you can perform the given experiment.
NEVILLE: Well, of course, there is a new CNN/"USA Today" Gallup poll out discussing this. Should the U.S. continue the space shuttle program? And 82 percent of the people asked said yes and only 15 percent said no.
And then regarding this maintaining manned flights, 73 percent said yes and then a 22 percent said to just concentrate on unmanned missions.
And again, if I can Derrick back in here and to give us even more ideas -- concrete ideas and examples of what goes on in space and how it translates down here. Something that we can all relate to.
PITTS: Well, I think the most direct benefits that we can all relate to, from experiments done on board space station or things that just come out of the space program in general, we can go immediately to medical science and look at the various technologies like MRI or CT scanning of the human body. Those come directly from the space program.
NEVILLE: Really? How so? Expound on that.
PITTS: Well, experiments first done in the space program allowed those technologies to be brought directly to the general public so that those technologies first employed in space exploration, even looking at the structure of the air frame to check for fatigue in the metal and so on and so forth could then be applied to the human body. So we can get a much much clearer picture, a much more detailed picture inside the body, much better than X-rays. So there's one very clear application.
And probably the other one that is most directly connected to people is the use of miniaturized electronics. If you have a cellphone or a laptop computer, or any of those things which we all now consider to be indispensable, those miniaturized electronics also come directly out of the space program.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you for that answer.
And we are going to take a break right now. And as we go to break, we continue our tribute to the shuttle Columbia's astronauts.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) at the beginning when people started learning a little bit about space. Before that ,we were only flying airplanes but not about the space shuttle and flights outside the atmosphere. So a lot of people, most of the people, don't understand even at that time as to what it actually mean.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I can't believe it's happened. I was so happy for him it was -- he was at the top of his life.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: Memorial for Columbia's astronauts will be held tomorrow at 1:00 Eastern, and CNN will be carrying that live.
Payload specialist Ilan Ramon was Israel's first man in space. His wife said Ramon was such an optimist, he didn't even write a will.
We're going to go to Jerusalem where CNN's Kelly Wallace is joining us live. Kelly, if you can tell us how the people of Israel are remembering Ilan Ramon.
KELLY WALLACE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Arthel, this country has been grieving now for the past two days. We've been reporting that Israel really viewed Colonel Ramon's liftoff as a ray of hope after months and months of sadness in this country, lots of violence. So can you imagine this tragedy hitting the country very hard. Everywhere you have been going over the past few days, people are talking about it, they are grieving. There is no real memorial, though, right now.
There's a notice at the home of Colonel Ramon remembering him as a hero and someone who should be blessed and remembered, but until they find remains in the traditional Jewish religion faith, they won't be able to have a traditional burial. So that what they are waiting for and hoping it happens very quickly.
NEVILLE: Colonel Ramon had a wife and four children.
How are they holding up, Kelly?
WALLACE: Well, his wife spoke out for the first time and as you said, she remembered her husband as an optimist, someone with a smile on his face, someone who never talked about death. But then also a really powerful moment. She's recalling the words her 5-year-old daughter, Noah, said after liftoff, she said "I've lost my daddy." So Roanah (ph) Ramon saying that perhaps her youngest daughter knowing something bad could be happening when the rest of the family was just delighted with joy that Colonel Ramon was really living out a dream -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: Kelly, we have an audience member here who is from Israel and would like to say some special words.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I just wanted to share with you, first, we offer our condolences to all of seven astronauts. And we really want to emphasize the hope and how much proud we were of Ilan Ramon and his contribution, being the first astronaut in space. It lifted everybody's spirit, all the Israelis that are in America and in Israel and people are truly grieving and mourning his loss.
NEVILLE: And I'm going to jump in there. Thank you for those special words.
And Kelly, you heard our guest mention the word "pride." I'd imagine there's a lot of pride and proud feelings floating in the air over in Israel.
WALLACE: A great deal, arthel. And, you know, this story received front page coverage. Every newspaper, every Israeli television station broadcasting the liftoff. A lot of Israelis didn't really know about Colonel Ramon until that liftoff. So, it was getting a lot of attention as the first Israeli to travel in space.
But this country again so used to dealing, unfortunately, with tragedy is vowing to move on. Already the Prime Minister Ariel Sharon saying someday soon down the road another Israeli will make his or her way to space. So people saying they will fight on, move on hopefully in space again but always, they say, remembering Colonel Ramon -- Arthel
NEVILLE: OK, Kelly Wallace, thank you so much for joining us.
And the shuttle tragedy, what went wrong?
The experts answer your questions when we come back. As we go to break we continue paying our respects to the Columbia astronauts.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The last time I saw Dave, we were in Canaveral just before he was to -- before he was -- the shuttle was to launch. I said to him, Dave, I'll be thinking of you every minute, and he gave me a great big kiss. And I know that he wants this program to continue.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back. We're taking your questions now about the future of the space program in light of Saturday's space disaster. We are still joined by Dr. Norm Thagard, former astronaut. And Derrick Pitts, chief astronomer at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia. And, Chris, your question is what?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, my question is about the future of the development of the space program travel. The technology, as you said, is 30 years old and I'm wondering if there are new developments being made right now and what those developments are, if they are being made.
NEVILLE: Who wants to take that?
PITTS: I'll be happy to answer a little bit on that. There have been a number of possibilities advanced for an advanced space vehicle that might be able to perform some of the same work that a space shuttle currently does.
None of those projects really has come very far beyond prototyping and only one on the commercial side has had any flight progress at all. The difficulty, of course, is that you have to come up with a system that can do all the things that space shuttle currently does. So even in the future we'll still have to solve the same problems of launch and reentry, being able to carry so much payload up, being able to bring the spacecraft back safely and turn it around for use again.
So even if we were to start working on something now, if we threw billions of dollars at something starting today, it would still be at least five to seven years down the road before we would see anything flying. At that point we'd still have to make sure for humans to travel in.
NEVILLE: Dr. Thagard, would you like to add anything to that?
THAGARD: I agree with Derrick. A new system would take time to develop. It would also be costly and maybe it would be cheaper over the long run that an shuttle.
But the shuttle's ability to take huge payloads into orbit and to then bring back a large mass from orbit, that's an enormous advantage. In the Russian program, for instance, for all the value of their MIR space station in conducting science, they always had the huge disadvantage that they could only bring a very limited amount of the results back to Earth. It was a real boon to the programs on the MIR station when the shuttle was able to go up there and dock and bring back the results of the experiments conducted over months and years.
NEVILLE: OK, Dr. Norm Thagard and Derrick Pitts, thanks so much for joining us here on today TALKBACK LIVE.
And when we come back, "Our Question of the Day," should human space flight continue?
Again, as we go to break, we are remembering the crew of the space shuttle Columbia.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He did not die in vain that this will go on. The space program will go on. I thought President Bush really did a magnificent job making the statement to that effect today, that they should not die in vain. I was very impressed with that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: It is time for "Our Question of the Day." Should unmanned missions replace human space flights? E-mails coming in right now I want to share with you.
Greg in Boston says, "To think NASA should halt unmanned space travel is absurd. The whole Columbia crew would've wanted to see out commitment to science go on and continue space exploration." Thanks, Greg.
And Al in Canada says, "Manned space flight should be allowed to continue when the technology has proven itself to be safe."
We are out of time right now. Thank you so much for watching. I want to remind you that the NASA news conference is coming up at 4:30 Eastern. I'm Arthel Neville, join me again tomorrow for more TALKBACK LIVE. "INSIDE POLITICS" is up next.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|
