NASA prepares for new scrutiny
Michael Tackett
Issue date: 2/3/03 Section: News
- Page 1 of 3 next >
WASHINGTON (KRT) — Conceived in Cold War fear, nurtured by man-on-the-moon dreams, sustained by the promise of pioneering discovery and workaday space travel, NASA has always boldly orbited the intersection of triumph and tragedy.
NASA helped to fashion the mythic role of the astronaut as the hero in the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs, and sustained it by launching politicians, teachers and international colleagues into space on the shuttle, ever conscious of the fact that its program was tethered to public money and as such, to public interest. Few federal agencies have been more adept stewards of image.
But the fascination with shuttle flights — even after the Challenger disaster on Jan. 28, 1986 — had waned in recent years to the point that only CNN covered launches and landings as a matter of routine. Also diminishing was the easy sell of NASA’s budget requests on Capitol Hill, where the agency’s critics seem to be at least at rough parity with its champions. With the catastrophic breakup of the shuttle Columbia that killed its crew of seven Saturday morning, NASA again finds itself on the defensive. And all of its problems, old and new, financial and institutional, are in for a new round of scrutiny.
Already there are calls for President Bush to establish a presidential commission to investigate the accident, much like Ronald Reagan did after the Challenger exploded.
“Having a presidential commission with a person of stature heading it, like former Secretary of State William Rogers (chairman of the Challenger commission) will help provide answers,” said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the former chairman of the House committee with NASA oversight.
Robert Hotz, a retired aerospace expert who served on the commission with Rogers, agreed. “I guess you will have to, politically,” Hotz said, “just as (Reagan) decided NASA couldn’t investigate itself. I think the president will have to appoint a special commission to investigate.”
NASA helped to fashion the mythic role of the astronaut as the hero in the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs, and sustained it by launching politicians, teachers and international colleagues into space on the shuttle, ever conscious of the fact that its program was tethered to public money and as such, to public interest. Few federal agencies have been more adept stewards of image.
But the fascination with shuttle flights — even after the Challenger disaster on Jan. 28, 1986 — had waned in recent years to the point that only CNN covered launches and landings as a matter of routine. Also diminishing was the easy sell of NASA’s budget requests on Capitol Hill, where the agency’s critics seem to be at least at rough parity with its champions. With the catastrophic breakup of the shuttle Columbia that killed its crew of seven Saturday morning, NASA again finds itself on the defensive. And all of its problems, old and new, financial and institutional, are in for a new round of scrutiny.
Already there are calls for President Bush to establish a presidential commission to investigate the accident, much like Ronald Reagan did after the Challenger exploded.
“Having a presidential commission with a person of stature heading it, like former Secretary of State William Rogers (chairman of the Challenger commission) will help provide answers,” said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the former chairman of the House committee with NASA oversight.
Robert Hotz, a retired aerospace expert who served on the commission with Rogers, agreed. “I guess you will have to, politically,” Hotz said, “just as (Reagan) decided NASA couldn’t investigate itself. I think the president will have to appoint a special commission to investigate.”