Missed Opportunity

Wordcast.com

Washington D.C., July 1, 2009

The U.S. media missed one of the biggest stories of the new millennium, but really, who’s surprised about that?  

Mainstream news has become increasingly vapid, and it was never more so, never more delinquent in its responsibilities, than during the frenzied, propagandistic run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

So what big story did the media miss?  Well, they covered the gory details about the tragic explosion of the Space Shuttle Columbia upon re-entry to the earth’s atmosphere on February 1, 2003, but in all the reporting afterward, no one questioned why the shuttle exploded.  We were told the technical reason: damaged tiles.  We were even told that NASA knew some of those critical tiles had most likely been damaged during launch.  But we were not told why the U.S. government decided not to attempt to repair the damaged tiles, or if that was not possible, to save the lives of the crew onboard.  Why did the U.S. government play the odds with the lives of the astronauts?

Well, let’s backtrack just a bit:  NASA and other agencies within the U.S. government had developed a plan to use a spy satellite to inspect the shuttle’s tiles for damage before reentry while there was still time to shape a rescue. The reason this plan was not affected and the parties responsible for not doing so were never called out or even questioned is in fact the real story.

So, the U.S. government had the technology to use a spy satellite to inspect the shuttle in orbit and decided against doing so.  It is also a fact that since the loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger in 1986 the executive branch of the US government was given the responsibility to make any such life or death decisions concerning the soundness of the space shuttles.

Why not use a spy satellite to inspect the shuttle? There are several possibilities.  First, the bulk of the spy satellites at that time were engaged in the buildup to the invasion of Iraq.  However, these satellites are not stationary and could have easily been “tasked” to take a series of high resolution snapshots of the shuttle, images that would have been proof positive that extraordinary action was needed to save the astronauts.

Then there is the need for the infamous “plausible deniability”. Once the government was certain of the damage to the shuttle tiles, action would have been required.  If you can claim you don’t know of any damage – even if that lack of knowledge is due to your own inactivity or lack of effort – you can deny responsibility for any ill effects stemming from such ignorance.

Had the administration had the courage to act decisively, what action could have been taken?  Well, this may have been the factor that led the executive branch to take a chance with the lives of those brave souls aboard the doomed spacecraft.   

The first possibility would be to try to transfer the crew to the ISS.  This option would probably have been rejected, though, because the orbits of the shuttle and the ISS were too far apart to allow for a transfer.

Well, then, what about launching another shuttle to rescue the crew?  That option would also be discarded because there was not time to safely do so before the Columbia shuttle’s life support or orbit failed.   

This brings us to the only viable solution, and it will be obvious to the cynical reader why this solution was also rejected.  Rejected not because of any mechanical or scheduling issue, but rejected because of politics and the U.S. administration’s desire to attack Iraq.   The only solution that would have saved the lives of the astronauts would have been to ask the Russians for help. The Russians maintain a rescue craft ready and waiting for just such an event. So why not ask?   Remember that the month the shuttle failed was also the height of the international discussion about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, and the U.S. and Russia were engaged in a political struggle in the UN over the U.S. invasion of Iraq.  Most often “what if” is a useless endeavor and a total waste of time, but in this situation it is demanded by both humanity and justice.

What if the U.S. had asked the Russians for help, or accepted Russia’s offer of help?    Imagine the whole world watching as the joint U.S. - Russian mission blasted off to save the international crew of the Columbia. Instead of setting the example of war and preemptive strike, here was a cosmic chance to set an example of co-operation between two nations that until a few years ago were engaged in a titanic struggle that drained both nations of resources and brought the entire world to the brink of destruction. What if in Israel the people looking up at the heavens as their astronaut was transferred safely to the ISS became an event so powerful that it was the catalyst for a lasting peace in the Middle East?  What if the people of India and Pakistan looked up as their daughter was transported to safety decided to put down weapons and embrace one another in the joy of the moment?

What if two epic former enemies, two nations whose animosity had for decades hijacked the safety, peace, harmony and comfort of the world, decided to come together in a grand gesture to save the lives of that international crew?  Like in Sir Arthur C. Clarke’s novel 2010: Odyssey Two, where the Russians and Americans had to work together to escape Jupiter before it explodes?  In the movie 2010, this effort to work together to save lives deterred World War III.

One can only imagine someone in the U.S. administration had read 2010, and decided not to risk peace on earth and goodwill to all.  The administration, we now know, was determined to have its ‘war’ with Iraq at any cost.  

Yes, the death of the seven seekers of truth was a great loss, but the missed opportunity for humanity was the real tragedy.