They're back

NASA's quest for space travel returns it to its roots

By Broward Liston, Globe Correspondent, 9/16/2003

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - In the 1970s, NASA traded its Apollo space capsules for a new generation of flight vehicle that promised bigger payloads, more passengers, and smoother landings. Now, months after the second major space shuttle disaster, NASA is reconsidering the cone-shaped spaceship that first took man to the moon.

Motivated by the need for a disaster-free space program and believing the capsule design may make more sense for deep space exploration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is giving serious consideration to launching capsules again by the end of the decade, according to several members of Congress and officials at the space agency.

``We need to field a system that does not require an inordinate amount of [research and development], and it must be a system that is not overly expensive to develop, operate and maintain,'' said Representative Dave Weldon, (R-Fla.), a member of the House Appropriations Committee who represents a piece of Florida's space coast. ``My study of space policy and history have led me to consider the conclusion that an expendable capsule system akin to the Apollo command module may be the best way to do this.''

Any new capsule would look very much like the ones etched in the memories of anyone over 40 - cone-shaped with a pointy top and heat-shield bottom. The computers obviously would be better, the materials somewhat lighter, and the design modified to shoehorn in six or seven astronauts instead of the three-passenger limit of earlier versions.

Though they may be a throwback to the past, capsules make sense as the space vehicle of the future, according to Brian Chase, director of the National Space Society.

``Everything but the last 10 or 15 minutes of flight supports a capsule design,'' he said.

Talk of redesigning the vehicles, like everything else related to space travel, took on new urgency after the shuttle Columbia disintegrated over Texas seven months ago. Last month's findings by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board added new impetus.

The 13 board members were unanimous that NASA should not just supplement the remaining space shuttles but replace them as soon as possible using existing technology - not some mythical breakthrough that board chairman Harold Gehman dubbed an ``unobtanium.''

NASA's winged spacecraft program has fallen into that category since 1996, when the Clinton administration lifted a Nixon-era ban on research money for new launch technologies. There were plenty of ideas, but no viable designs.

So, NASA faces an option: Build another winged orbiter that is small enough to launch atop a new generation of rockets but offers no real safety advantage over the shuttle, or return to a capsule-shaped ship, which cannot land on a runway, but has a proven abort system and a much better safety record.

The choice has not been made, but before Feb. 1, and the horrifying image of Columbia breaking apart, the smart money would have been on a new winged orbiter.

Now, with lessons learned and the hope that capsule designs will enable NASA to pursue its long-held goal of returning to the moon and beyond, there is a growing interest in resurrecting the capsule within the agency, among Congressional watchdogs and even inside the astronaut corps.

``There's clearly a lot of interest in the capsule design. When you look at whether we should develop a winged spacecraft or a capsule, the opportunity to do things beyond Earth orbit weighs very heavily,'' said Michael Kostelnick, the retired Air Force major general who is now the number-two official in NASA's spaceflight office. ``We're in a very interesting time, trying to see where the program should go, and people are starting to ask what happens after the International Space Station.''

Some at NASA want the next project to be a lunar base that could be manned or left empty at will. A space shuttle, which flies in low-Earth orbit, hits the atmosphere at about 5 miles per second, but couldn't withstand the greater speeds of a translunar or other deep-space reentry. A capsule could.

Capsules also avoid the shuttle's major safety hazard. Back in the 1970s, NASA found it could save money by launching the winged orbiters vertically, like rockets, rather than horizontally, like airplanes. This created an ungainly, lopsided and off-balanced configuration that requires the orbiter to roll over on its back after liftoff, riding underneath the fuel tank as the entire stack. This one decision led directly to the loss of both Challenger and Columbia: In both cases, the orbiter was moving upward in the direction of a problem created by the fuel tank.

Capsules do not have this problem because they were meant to launch vertically. The fuel tanks are always below them. As tests of the Apollo system proved, a small escape rocket mounted on top of the capsule is capable of flying the crew out of harm's way if the rocket blows up.

No one at NASA is saying it is time to retire the shuttles altogether: Many heavy pieces of the space station still need to make it into orbit, and the shuttle is the only vehicle now available that can carry such a big payload. But the space agency's plans to fly the three remaining shuttles another 20 years may not survive the current round of Congressional hearings.

And if they do continue to fly, it might be without astronauts. NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe told Congress last week that NASA is looking at ways to launch the shuttles and operate them robotically, while launching crews separately in either a capsule or space plane.

``It's a not a major leap,'' he said, ``to make [the shuttle] autonomous, to launch it unmanned.''