CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER WRITES:

The risk of catastrophe for a commercial jet is 1 in 2 million. For a fighter jet, it is 1 in 20,000. NASA’s best estimate for the shuttle was 1 in 240. Our experience now tells us that it is about 1 in 50.

That is a fantastic risk. It can be justified — but only for fantastic journeys. The ultimate problem with the shuttle is not O-rings or loose tiles but a mission that makes no sense. The launches are magnificent and inspiring. But the mission is to endlessly traverse the most dangerous part of space — the thin envelope of the atmosphere — to get in and out of orbit without going anywhere beyond. Yet it is that very beyond — the moon, the asteroids, Mars — that is the whole point of leaving Earth in the first place.

We slip the bonds of Earth not to spend 20 years in orbit studying zero-gravity nausea, but to set foot on new worlds, learn their mysteries, establish our presence.

Yes. As Robert Heinlein said, once you’re in orbit you’re halfway to anywhere. It seems odd to get that far, and then stop, but that’s what we’ve been doing.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, Jim Pinkerton writes:

In the wake of the Columbia tragedy, the arguments of the pro-space constituency are strong, but not strong enough. If space advocates can’t bring themselves to make the most powerful arguments of all—that space is vital to human freedom, even to human survival—then their cause will falter as the soaring spirit of heroism and martyrdom fades, and as the counter-arguments of the cost-benefiting, bean-counting critics gain footing.

He’s right. Read the whole thing.