Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Saturday

Interview With Nick Fuhrman, Randy Avera

Aired February 08, 2003 - 16:50   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


CAROL LIN, CNN ANCHOR: The Columbia tragedy raises the question again whether human space flight is really necessary and worth the risk. So joining us to talk about that question, CNN space analyst Randy Avera and CNN space policy analyst Nick Fuhrman. Good to see both of you. It's been a very, very busy week. Let me start with you, Randy. The most basic question, why is it that humans need to actually go in space to do the work?
RANDY AVERA, FORMER NASA ENGINEER: Humans have the observing capability to make real-time decisions that computer programs don't. Programmed robotics have a limit, but there should always be a blend of the unmanned vehicles as well as the manned vehicles. Space work is a blend of a variety of tools, just like any other work.

LIN: Well, why not develop the technology to simply do it remotely? They can do so many things remotely at the International Space Station and the shuttle from NASA headquarters. So?

NICK FUHRMAN, SPACE POLICY ANALYST: I think the Space Station would be pretty quiet without people on it. And the reason they're there is to try and learn what it's going to be like to live in space for longer and longer periods of time. I think the exploration of space is part of our heritage or genes. Our kids are taught in school about Vasco da Gama and about Magellan. And when we look down the road 100 years, not 50 years even, but 100, 200 years from now, you think about people extending life and work beyond the gravity, well, where we are here on earth, and that isn't possible without the Space Station and the work that goes on there.

LIN: I mean, Randy, is it your position that it's unimaginable to not have manned space flights? It seems almost in this technological age that it's more of a romantic notion than it is a practical one.

AVERA: As I've said in my writings, that from the time we were in a crib, we wanted to know what was just beyond the crib and then what was just beyond the door and what was outside. It's human nature to explore, and the question is not should we explore, it's who is going to do the exploring.

And people that I've worked with, we certainly want to be on the forefront of that. And we can start that by looking at the NASA charter and the Space Act of 1958 and other acts associated with space flight, like in 1989, the Commercial Space Act. We need to do a national review and have a consensus of the taxpayers, we need a consensus of the Congress and the president. The administrator's going through a very tough time right now, but remember, Sean O'Keefe is just the NASA administrator. He's being handed what he has to execute, and we need to come as a nation to support the administrator of NASA to make these tough choices.

LIN: Nick, is there actually any sort of debate on Capitol Hill? You were a staff member on a subcommittee in the House.

FUHRMAN: There is a debate and there will be a debate about the manned versus the unmanned program. And that is a good, healthy thing.

LIN: What are some of the arguments that you're hearing?

FUHRMAN: Well, I think people say, if you're building a space station, for example, to use, you know, for people in space, that that's sort of a circular argument. If we didn't have to put people in space, we wouldn't need a space station, and we can spend our money here on earth. That's really where a lot of it comes from.

But if you think about our own planet, which is where I think people are in this debate, you look at Mars. What we know about Mars is not a whole lot, but we do know it was probably a vibrant, living planet like Earth some time ago. So if we don't go there with robots and maybe later with people to see what happened, we may miss understanding what's happening to our own atmosphere and our own Earth.

And so there's a lot of reasons. You don't have to be a Greenpeace fanatic or a "Star Trek" aficionado to realize that one day we may have to leave Earth, and that's just a matter of survival.

LIN: Do you think that Congress is going to give the budgetary increase to NASA as it's been requested? It doesn't sound like much, but I guess in dollars and cents, it's a lot of money. But I think an increase of, what, 3 percent?

FUHRMAN: I think that goes without really much debate. The question is will NASA receive the kind of funding that it needs to build a new space transportation system that's inherently simpler. You know, we're learning a lot about the shuttle. It's a very intricate flying machine. Randy knows everything there is to know about how it's put together. And it's the best we have.

But now, you know, do we want to get a leg up in space, we're going to have to look for a space shuttle or a space system that can transport people and cargo that is just inherently simpler and inherently more safe.

LIN: And Randy, what...

AVERA: It's really been about 35 years since the United States took a blank sheet of paper and a pencil and, from scratch, designed the next generation vehicle and carried it all the way through, not only to manufacturing, but to flight after flight after flight, where we're about 35 or 45 years overdue on that. LIN: It's so funny when you hear about the mechanics of the space shuttle Columbia. It sounds so antiquated and so fragile a system.

FUHRMAN: It's magnificent. I mean, on a per pound basis, it's the most cost effective spacecraft ever built, you know. Every satellite, telecommunications satellite, satellites that take pictures cost well over $25,000 a pound. And the space shuttle came in right at $25,000 a pound. It's a miracle of engineering.

LIN: All right, well, hopefully, it will continue at some point that we'll see manned space flights once again to the International Space Station, because Lord knows, it needs it.

FUHRMAN: We don't want to take our dreams from our children because of what just happened.

LIN: All right, well, the investigation does continue. Thank you very much, Nick Fuhrman, Randy Avera, appreciate your time.

AVERA: Thank you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com







Aired February 8, 2003 - 16:50   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CAROL LIN, CNN ANCHOR: The Columbia tragedy raises the question again whether human space flight is really necessary and worth the risk. So joining us to talk about that question, CNN space analyst Randy Avera and CNN space policy analyst Nick Fuhrman. Good to see both of you. It's been a very, very busy week. Let me start with you, Randy. The most basic question, why is it that humans need to actually go in space to do the work?
RANDY AVERA, FORMER NASA ENGINEER: Humans have the observing capability to make real-time decisions that computer programs don't. Programmed robotics have a limit, but there should always be a blend of the unmanned vehicles as well as the manned vehicles. Space work is a blend of a variety of tools, just like any other work.

LIN: Well, why not develop the technology to simply do it remotely? They can do so many things remotely at the International Space Station and the shuttle from NASA headquarters. So?

NICK FUHRMAN, SPACE POLICY ANALYST: I think the Space Station would be pretty quiet without people on it. And the reason they're there is to try and learn what it's going to be like to live in space for longer and longer periods of time. I think the exploration of space is part of our heritage or genes. Our kids are taught in school about Vasco da Gama and about Magellan. And when we look down the road 100 years, not 50 years even, but 100, 200 years from now, you think about people extending life and work beyond the gravity, well, where we are here on earth, and that isn't possible without the Space Station and the work that goes on there.

LIN: I mean, Randy, is it your position that it's unimaginable to not have manned space flights? It seems almost in this technological age that it's more of a romantic notion than it is a practical one.

AVERA: As I've said in my writings, that from the time we were in a crib, we wanted to know what was just beyond the crib and then what was just beyond the door and what was outside. It's human nature to explore, and the question is not should we explore, it's who is going to do the exploring.

And people that I've worked with, we certainly want to be on the forefront of that. And we can start that by looking at the NASA charter and the Space Act of 1958 and other acts associated with space flight, like in 1989, the Commercial Space Act. We need to do a national review and have a consensus of the taxpayers, we need a consensus of the Congress and the president. The administrator's going through a very tough time right now, but remember, Sean O'Keefe is just the NASA administrator. He's being handed what he has to execute, and we need to come as a nation to support the administrator of NASA to make these tough choices.

LIN: Nick, is there actually any sort of debate on Capitol Hill? You were a staff member on a subcommittee in the House.

FUHRMAN: There is a debate and there will be a debate about the manned versus the unmanned program. And that is a good, healthy thing.

LIN: What are some of the arguments that you're hearing?

FUHRMAN: Well, I think people say, if you're building a space station, for example, to use, you know, for people in space, that that's sort of a circular argument. If we didn't have to put people in space, we wouldn't need a space station, and we can spend our money here on earth. That's really where a lot of it comes from.

But if you think about our own planet, which is where I think people are in this debate, you look at Mars. What we know about Mars is not a whole lot, but we do know it was probably a vibrant, living planet like Earth some time ago. So if we don't go there with robots and maybe later with people to see what happened, we may miss understanding what's happening to our own atmosphere and our own Earth.

And so there's a lot of reasons. You don't have to be a Greenpeace fanatic or a "Star Trek" aficionado to realize that one day we may have to leave Earth, and that's just a matter of survival.

LIN: Do you think that Congress is going to give the budgetary increase to NASA as it's been requested? It doesn't sound like much, but I guess in dollars and cents, it's a lot of money. But I think an increase of, what, 3 percent?

FUHRMAN: I think that goes without really much debate. The question is will NASA receive the kind of funding that it needs to build a new space transportation system that's inherently simpler. You know, we're learning a lot about the shuttle. It's a very intricate flying machine. Randy knows everything there is to know about how it's put together. And it's the best we have.

But now, you know, do we want to get a leg up in space, we're going to have to look for a space shuttle or a space system that can transport people and cargo that is just inherently simpler and inherently more safe.

LIN: And Randy, what...

AVERA: It's really been about 35 years since the United States took a blank sheet of paper and a pencil and, from scratch, designed the next generation vehicle and carried it all the way through, not only to manufacturing, but to flight after flight after flight, where we're about 35 or 45 years overdue on that. LIN: It's so funny when you hear about the mechanics of the space shuttle Columbia. It sounds so antiquated and so fragile a system.

FUHRMAN: It's magnificent. I mean, on a per pound basis, it's the most cost effective spacecraft ever built, you know. Every satellite, telecommunications satellite, satellites that take pictures cost well over $25,000 a pound. And the space shuttle came in right at $25,000 a pound. It's a miracle of engineering.

LIN: All right, well, hopefully, it will continue at some point that we'll see manned space flights once again to the International Space Station, because Lord knows, it needs it.

FUHRMAN: We don't want to take our dreams from our children because of what just happened.

LIN: All right, well, the investigation does continue. Thank you very much, Nick Fuhrman, Randy Avera, appreciate your time.

AVERA: Thank you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com