SPACE SHUTTLE DELAYS TOO COSTLY (2-2004)

How much value does the government place on a human life? 

Apparently, the answer to that question depends on the job 
assignment of the person in question. 

I don’t want to appear insensitive. Nobody but insurance 
companies can put a value on a human life. But it seems as 
though the government will go to extremes to make some jobs 
safer, while purposely putting other people in harms way.

Take, for example, the soldiers that are keeping the peace 
in Iraq. Seldom does a week go by without a casualty. There 
have been more than 500 fatal casualties since the 
beginning of the war.

Now, compare the job of the soldier to that of a NASA 
astronaut. Over the last half century of space flight, only 
17 astronauts have died in the line of duty. 

NASA recently announced that the space shuttle fleet would 
not start flying again until next March. The Columbia 
disaster will have put the U.S. manned space program on 
hold for more than two years while NASA figures out ways to 
keep future astronauts safe.

Here’s what NASA plans to do about safety in the future.

It will always have another space shuttle on stand-by, in 
case there has to be a rescue mission. The space shuttle 
will not be allowed to enter an orbit that is not within 
immediate flying distance to the International Space 
Station. In fact, all the shuttle missions from now on will 
be to service the space station. 

In addition, there are numerous changes planned for the 
craft itself, including modifications of the wing and fuel 
tank. These changes are designed to prevent the type of 
malfunction that happened during Columbia’s reentry last 
year.

Keeping astronauts safe is a laudable goal, of course. The 
17 astronauts that have given their lives to further 
America’s space program were honored as heroes, and 
rightfully so. 

But NASA is bending over backward to make certain that 
future disasters in space are avoided. Tens of millions of 
dollars are being spent on shuttle improvements and 
emergency rescue plans. And the time lost while 
investigating the Columbia accident and then fixing the 
problem can never be recovered.

That’s not to say NASA should rush into launching another 
space shuttle before its flaws are fixed. It just seems as 
though the time and money spent on protecting the lives of 
a few dozen future shuttle astronauts is out of proportion 
to the amount of resources that are used to keep workers in 
other dangerous fields safe.

Many jobs in the government are dangerous. Police officers 
are put into harms way almost daily. Men and women in the 
armed forces who are in combat positions are constantly at 
risk. Rescue workers put their own lives in jeopardy 
regularly to save the lives of civilians who are in danger.

The point is, astronauts have a dangerous job – by its very 
nature. Like soldiers in combat, police officers on duty, 
and rescue workers doing their jobs, astronauts are always 
going to be at risk. And they all know the dangers when 
they sign up for the job.

If the same kind of precautions that NASA is taking were 
put into place every time a tank fails in battle, every 
time a rope tangles or breaks during a rescue attempt, or 
every time an airplane falls out of the sky, then nothing 
important would ever get done.

Certainly it is important to reduce risk as much as is 
practical. But NASA shouldn’t be in overkill mode to 
placate the politicians who fund it. 

Space shuttles have proven relatively safe, as space 
vehicles go. Grounding the fleet for more than two years, 
canceling a repair mission to the Hubble Space Telescope, 
and delaying construction of the International Space 
Telescope is too high a price to pay for making future 
flights potentially fail-safe, especially since safety in 
space can never really be guaranteed.