Note: This is a sidebar. To return to the main story, click here.
Since only rich nations can afford manned space exploration, we should think about how the enthusiasm to send one person to Mars could be affected by attitudes in the wealthy world toward risk. Paradoxically the more risk-averse our society becomes, the more people seem fascinated by it. Modern politicians routinely use the public’s ever-increasing focus on fear and danger to manipulate opinion. We relish the chance to observe dangerous activities from a safe distance—watching hazardous sports or a frightening movie, playing violent computer games, looking at a survival competition on television or sitting in the grandstands at a NASCAR race. While Internet video clips may give the impression that many people engage in risky behavior, we go to great lengths to shield children from hazards while ever smaller percentages of our fellow citizens seem inclined to personally take part in anything that might lead to injury, pain, or death.
NASA has long played down the risk of manned spaceflight, which has promoted public indifference. NASA named its reusable transport a “Space Shuttle,” a wimpy title reminiscent of a bus or subway train. Considering its history, a more appropriate name might have been the “Widow Maker.” The Shuttle has given rides to teachers, Arab sheiks, and even a seventy-seven-year-old politician, supporting the mistaken impression that any ordinary person can travel into orbit. Riding onto the sky on a roaring pillar of fire is presented as routine, like boarding a vacation cruise ship. Once in space, the laughing, relaxed crew poses for photographs wearing Hawaiian party shirts.
Astronauts no longer seem to be the hell-raising bad boys with the right stuff recruited for earlier programs, adventurous men one might expect to need professional help taming their colorful private lives. On the contrary, the Space Shuttle crew has advanced degrees and excellent public speaking skills. Lockers in the spacecraft stock cosmetics so, after landing, crewmembers can walk down the stairs looking none the worse for spending days vomiting in zero G. The public has lost interest in a program where it looks like ordinary people are paid to have fun on trips that appear no more hazardous than an amusement park roller coaster ride.
NASA has far more astronauts (ninety or so) than will ever be needed for the small number of Space Shuttle flights. As a consequence, they cram as many as possible into that dangerous vehicle. Keeping all these folks trained is a substantial industry unto itself. When astronauts retire from NASA they usually take management or consulting positions at the very same aerospace contractors that feed off the space program. Over time, those contractors have become overstaffed with ex-astronauts in high positions. Is the background for a person who was selected to be an astronaut the best criteria for an aerospace business manager? Probably not, and this may be one reason the industry seems to lack imagination.
After the Columbia disaster I spoke to a top official in the Space Shuttle program and asked why NASA didn’t fly those risky vehicles in an automatic mode without any crew on board. It would be easy to do. He said the American public would never continue to support NASA if astronauts weren’t in the picture. I told him the public was so bored with NASA they didn’t even know the names of any astronauts!
James C. McLane III is an engineer in Houston, Texas. These days he works in the oil and gas industry on tasks quite different from his previous career in NASA’s Manned Space program. Previous articles by him have appeared in The Space Review and Harper’s.
