Up, up, and away

Cheers and some groans to Alexander Rose for his review of the state of NASA's programs ("Giant Leaps . . .," Feb. 28). His conclusion is right on: We are going to have to build a starship with airplane economics. But I disagree with his assessment of President Bush's Vision for Space Exploration.

There are two things you need in order to make access to space routine and leadership in space secure: cheap, reliable transportation and somewhere to put your stuff when you get up there. Space exploration is still looking for the equivalent of the Boeing 707, which revolutionized air travel. The Shuttle isn't safe enough and cannot be made safe enough. And in 1993, NASA took the over-designed Space Station Freedom and converted it into a disaster, the International Space Station. The ISS is a disaster because its transportation system is expensive and inadequate and its infrastructure is far too expensive for its results.

Bush's Vision for Space Exploration will solve these problems if executed correctly. It terminates the Shuttle program in a planned fashion and caps our commitment to the ISS, retaining plans to utilize it while allowing our partners to handle most of the transportation.

The third leg of the Vision is the development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle. That's the part NASA has to get right. Can they do it? Can they design a cheap, rugged, reusable starship? Can Mr. Rutan or Mr. Musk? I sure hope so. If not, we won't be going to Mars in 2030. Maybe we're not destined to. America was discovered in 1492, and in 1803, when Jefferson sent Lt. Lewis on his way, we still didn't know that the Rocky Mountains existed. Getting around the universe might take that kind of time.

Joseph P. Kerwin

Houston, Tex.

COPYRIGHT 2005 National Review, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning