|
|
The geopolitics of space
SEVEN ASTRONAUTS plunged to their deaths as the space
shuttle, Columbia, broke up re-entering the Earth’s atmosphere on 1 February.
Speculation as to the cause is rife. The latest idea being pursued by Nasa (the
US National Aeronautics and Space Administration) is that a hole in Columbia’s
left wing acted as a conduit for plasma – in this situation, gas superheated (by
friction between the craft and molecules in the atmosphere) up to 3,000 degrees
Fahrenheit, or 1,700 centigrade, about one-third of the Sun’s surface
temperature.
A series of sensor failures and erratic readings began at
8:53am when the shuttle was over California, travelling at 23 times the speed of
sound. At 9:00am, all communication ended. The shuttle was then about 207,000
feet above ground, travelling at 18 times the speed of sound. A couple of
minutes later, Columbia could be seen breaking up in the clear blue sky above
Texas and Louisiana. The six Americans and one Israeli on board had no chance of
survival.
Nasa has set up what looks like a stooge inquiry, drawn from
the military and Nasa itself. After complaints in Congress, a former chairman of
McDermott International (a military contractor), was added. Bart Gordon, the
leading Democrat on the House space subcommittee, was unimpressed: "I’m afraid
this won’t pass anybody’s smell test of independence". (New York Times, 13
February)
The space agency is sensitive to criticism. In 2002, when a
Nasa panel warned of potential safety problems due to underfunding, five of its
nine members and two consultants were removed. A sixth member, Bernard Kauderer
(a retired three-star admiral), quit in disgust.
Debris has been found in California, Arizona, New Mexico,
and across Texas and Louisiana, so it is early to expect any firm conclusions.
Nonetheless, there is a lot of pressure for a speedy resolution. Nasa does not
want its three remaining shuttles grounded for long.
When George W Bush made his memorial speech, he recommitted
his administration to manned space travel. Nasa’s budget for 2004 has been
increased by 3.1% to nearly $15.5 billion – with $3.97 billion for the shuttle
programme, up from $3.2 billion in 2002. Fifty million dollars will be provided
for the investigation.
In general terms, however, Nasa’s budget has remained static
for over a decade: "It is a story of seesawing budgets, political infighting and
radical policy shifts, all carried out against a backdrop of ever-falling public
interest in space exploration". (New York Times, 9 February)
The rivalry between the United States of America and the
former Soviet Union spurred on the space race after the second world war. Each
wanted to beat the other to the next stage: the first artificial satellite in
orbit (Sputnik I, 1957), the first manned space flight (Yuri Gagarin, 1961), the
first man on the moon (Neil Armstrong, 1969)… It was an integral part of the
cold war between the two antagonistic superpowers. After the race to the moon,
the next frontier – a manned mission to Mars – was, and remains, a long way off.
Public interest lessened with every moonwalk. And the Soviet
Union was en route to a cataclysmic economic and social collapse, unable to
sustain the challenge.
The shuttle programme was an attempt to reignite people’s
interest during Ronald Reagan’s presidency (1981-89). Under Bill Clinton
(president from 1993-2001), the International Space Station took shape, built by
American and Russian technicians: former enemies in a new-found East-West
cooperation. It was also a way of stopping Russian rocket scientists selling
their services to ‘rogue states’.
Both projects have been an immense financial drain for
dubious scientific gain. The cynicism is reflected in the media: "It is an open
secret that the only real purpose of the International Space Station is to
provide a reason to keep flying space shuttles". (Paul Krugman, International
Herald Tribune, 5 February) Thomas Mallon (a writer of fiction and essays on
space travel) commented: "Two generations of Americans now associate the shuttle
almost exclusively with grief and setback". (New York Times, 5 February)
The Columbia disaster could impact on the International
Space Station. There is even a danger that the 200-ton station could fall to
Earth. It travels 244 miles (390 km) up, orbiting the world every 90 minutes,
gradually sinking all the time. Each shuttle and Soyuz visit lifts its orbit.
But the annual budget for Rosaviakosmos (Russian Aviation and Space Agency) is
$266 million – 2% that of Nasa and half that of India. The Russian space vehicle
manufacturer, RSC Energia, subsidises its losses by making vacuum cleaners; it
could not easily increase its spacecraft output. Some commentators doubt that
the Soyuz missions could cover for the potential loss of shuttle flights.
Allowing the space station to hurtle to Earth would be a PR catastrophe.
US space policy has zigzagged, riding the highs of
enthusiasm, the troughs of despair and indifference. After the Challenger
shuttle exploded soon after launch on 28 January 1986, all hell broke loose.
Nasa tried to cover up fundamental flaws in the shuttle’s design, precipitating
a major shake-up of its organisation. Upgrades cost more than $1 billion and
officials boasted that it took a million signatures to certify a shuttle ready
to fly.
Under Clinton, Nasa brought in private contractors to cut
costs. In 1996, responsibility for the shuttle fleet was handed over to United
Space Alliance, set up by Rockwell International and Lockheed Martin. Nasa gave
operators $6 million in bonuses for every flight that stayed up for its full
mission, with penalties if it did not. For every dollar slashed from the budget,
the company received 35 cents. Workers were laid off then re-employed on a
part-time basis, without benefits.
In July 1999, during a Columbia launch, a small pin broke
loose, rupturing three cooling tubes and shutting down its main engines. Serious
wiring problems grounded the fleet for months: "Years of deep budget cuts in the
shuttle programme – cuts that had shed more than 10,000 engineers, technicians
and quality control employees – were potentially imperilling the lives of
astronauts". (New York Times, 9 February) In 1988, 49% of the shuttle budget
went on safety and performance upgrades, by 1999 that was down to 19%. The 1999
near-miss jolted the Clinton administration to pump in new money and employees.
Despite his recent rhetoric, Bush has sought more cuts. By
April 2002, Nasa had cancelled three safety upgrades, including a plan to switch
the shuttle’s auxiliary power unit from highly flammable fuel to a safer
electrical system. Unless the Columbia investigation scuppers the plans, the
shuttle is expected to remain in service largely unchanged until 2020.
Putting human beings in space is expensive, dangerous and
inefficient. We are heavy, bulky, need to breathe, eat and get back home. From
an objective viewpoint, it’s not worth it. The most significant gains have been
made by unmanned vehicles and satellites: meteorological and environmental
observation, the 1970s Voyager missions, Mars robot, Cassini Saturn probe, etc.
But here, as in all walks of life under the twisted logic of
the capitalist, profit-driven system, rational decision-making is not to be
found. This cutting-edge technology could be used for socially useful purposes,
including astronomical research. Today, however, Nasa’s space missions project
US global dominance. Military applications of satellite technology are
constantly refined. The inclusion of foreign astronauts is part of international
diplomacy. And it promotes domestic, ruling-class propaganda. One of the
astronauts killed in the Challenger explosion was Christa McAuliffe, a
schoolteacher, an expendable item on the ledger, sacrificed on the US patriotic
altar at a time when Reagan was severely cutting school funding.
Manny Thain
|