On February 1, 2003 at 8:59 a.m. EST, the space shuttle Columbia disintegrated over the southwestern United States during reentry, a devastating end for the 28th mission of NASA's oldest space shuttle. All seven members of its crew were tragically killed, and the cause is still unknown.
Undoubtedly, the final few seconds of that tragic voyage will soon become the most scrutinized and most important seconds for the future of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), a government-funded program with technological implications reaching far beyond space or government to the private sector. Indeed, within findings of the Columbia accident investigators and the upcoming budgetary directives of Congress lie not only the future of the NASA program but also much of the future potential for technological innovation. However, as Congress begins to reconsider its spending on space research, in general, and NASA's proposed 2004 budget request of $15.4 billion, in particular, it behooves them to learn from the past successes of NASA, many of which lie far outside the realm of space innovation.
In the wake of the Columbia disaster, the future of NASA is, to say the least, tenuous. Many lawmakers, who will eventually decide the fate of the program, have begun to question the usefulness, purpose, and practicality of continuing manned space flights.
But, NASA's greatest contributions to our society may have nothing to do with space. Instead, many technological innovations which derived from the government-funded NASA programs of nearly 30 years ago when the Columbia shuttle was being designed, have now found patentable commercial uses and spawned entire modern high-tech industries.
Among the many derivatives of the space program include virtual reality devices, which today have found a niche in a wide array of applications from manufacturing to entertainment to surgery. Various other byproducts of NASA were made possible by a joint network of satellites begun by NASA and the US Military. These products include satellite television, satellite wireless phones, and global positioning equipment (GPS). In addition, various plastics, technologies like solar cells, biomedical sensors, sound-enhancing circuit cards, modern semiconductors, and the concept of computer chips have emerged because of the space program. Private, in-flight space research itself has produced novel products (e.g., better car parts, a new perfume, and disease-free seed potatoes), and have included various private industry partners including automaker, biotechnology, electronics, and pharmaceutical companies.
The paradigm of several decades ago revolved around a backward flow of technology involving private commercialization of innovations conceived by government-funded NASA programs. "The government doesn't patent these [innovations, but] … [their] programs allow you to … nurture these technologies, and there's no question that corporate interests benefit from that." But the modern space program's inflation-adjusted budget is only a fraction of what it was during the 1960s race to the moon, and NASA has basically been retrofitting old technology ever since. Moreover, to a much larger extent, NASA now draws on technology flowing from the other direction (i.e., technology designed by the private marketplace and adapted it to NASA's own needs].
Today, in the wake of the Columbia disaster, some NASA critics are calling for a dramatic reduction in spending on space, especially for manned missions. However, other critics, who take the opposite view, argue that the old method (which encouraged the indirect spin-off of expansive government-funded projects) provides greater public benefits, and thus the space program's budget should be expanded to rekindle that innovative process. According to one expert, "'We're benefiting now from what NASA did 20 years ago and 30 years ago …. If we stop funding the space program, will we still have the supply pipeline of things that are improving life, or will we be one of those places in the world that feels like the past?'"
A few months before the Columbia disaster, NASA unveiled a possible plan for a new type of space shuttle. The so-called orbital space plane, which could be built by 2010, would cost roughly $12 billion to develop and build. NASA has allocated about $2.4 billion from its existing $15 billion budget for research and development of the space plane through 2007, but Congress would need to fund an additional $10 billion to build the vehicle shuttle. According to one expert, "NASA should take "a very hard look" at the orbital space plane now that the shuttle fleet is grounded" because of the Columbia disaster. An expansive orbital space plane project might prove to not only be a safer, more cost-effective option than retrofitting the current fleet of shuttles, but it might also help kick start a new wave of 1960s-esque technological innovation, which could lead to innovations extending far beyond the space program. Indeed, based on past experiences, the vast potential for technological spin-offs appears to be an ample reason for our government to continue pouring money into NASA.
Fortunately, it seems clear that the mission of NASA will continue, and with it will come increased technological innovation. Indeed, its clear that "'[t]he cause in which [the crew of Columbia] died will continue,'" President George Bush noted following the tragedy. "'Mankind is led into the darkness beyond our world by the inspiration of discovery and the longing to understand. Our journey into space will go on.'"
