The Folly of Our Age. The space shuttle.

National Review Online ^ | today | John Derbyshire

[Rodney King]

The Derb has opened up a can of worms here. The "spend any amount of money on space for national pride" crowd will go nuts. I am just relaying the story, so please don't throw your ham radios, comic books, and D&D regalia at me. Live long and prosper.

[Rodney King]

bump

[2banana]

14 deaths in 113 flights

The Apollo missions had an even higher death to flight ratio...

[NautiNurse]

...and Spain should have never fronted the money for Columbus to explore either...

[Red Badger]

Ordered by a bureaucracy,

Designed by a bureaucracy,

Built by a bureaucracy,

Tested by a bureaucracy,

Approved by a bureaucracy,

Operated by a bureaucracy,

Maintained by a bureaucracy,

Why is it so big and expensive?............

[Strategerist]

The "spend any amount of money on space for national pride" crowd will go nuts.

Actually the crowd that will go nuts are the crowd that feels emotionally threatened by the idea that unnmanned missions are infinitely more cost-effective.

[Rodney King]

...and Spain should have never fronted the money for Columbus to explore either...

Spain made great riches off of the deal. We landed on the moon and decided not to claim it. Big difference.

[Strategerist]

...and Spain should have never fronted the money for Columbus to explore either...

Ferdinand and Isabella didn't front Columbus several billion dollars to circle around in the water in sight of Cadiz doing osteoporosis experiments.

[Rodney King]

Actually the crowd that will go nuts are the crowd that feels emotionally threatened by the idea that unnmanned missions are infinitely more cost-effective.

Yeah, good point.

[Alberta's Child]

He's got an interesting perspective, for sure. I used to be a very serious amateur astronomer when I was younger, and even in the 1980s there was a lot of frank discussion about the practical value of the space shuttle program. In purely financial terms, the economics of human space travel -- especially when you're talking about an orbiter that is not much more than a glorified airplane (the shuttle is more of a "high-atmosphere orbiter" than a "spacecraft") -- doesn't make a lot of sense.

The basic problem is that the weight of a human crew and all the necessary life support systems drastically reduce the ability of the shuttle to carry large payloads. Imagine getting out of bed one day and deciding to walk ten miles to a food store -- just so you can buy enough food to give you the energy to walk home. That's sort of what we're dealing with here.

[NautiNurse]

I am just relaying the story
We landed on the moon and decided not to claim it. Big difference.

It appears you have more opinion invested in the story than just relaying it.

[Semper Paratus]

The Space Shuttle was conceived as a cheaper way to get materials in orbit to build Space Stations.The Space Station program is now in moth balls but the 30 year old designed vehicle to build them lives on.

[LIConFem]

"...feels emotionally threatened by the idea that unnmanned missions are infinitely more cost-effective."

Since when is "cost-effective" one of the main goals of science and exploration?

[strider44]

He presents some valid points. I guess it comes down to believing humans can ultimately leave the Earth and "colonize" space. If so, we have to start somewhere. Yes, much money is wasted. How much money is wasted on social programs now? Billions? Trillions over the past 50 years? Personally, I'd rather see that money going towards space exploration. (I am a military pilot and have often dreamed of flying the Space Shuttle). So I guess I am living proof of some of the authors points. Plus, as a Heinlein fan, my dream-engine was turned on after 2 pages of Starship Troopers...

[Rodney King]

It appears that you are not going to back off of your faulty analogy between the space shuttle and Columbus's voyage.

[megatherium]

Robert Park (a University of Maryland physicist) rips the manned space program apart in his book Voodoo Science. Highly recommended read.

[Alberta's Child]

The Space Shuttle was conceived as a cheaper way to get materials in orbit to build Space Stations.

I don't think that's the case at all -- an unmanned rocket is the cheapest way to move payloads into orbit. If anything, the shuttle was conceived as a more effective way to get human labor into orbit to built space stations.

[The Great RJ]

I agree the shuttle is the proverbial horse designed by a committee, but as a whole the US manned space program has reaped many benefits that we take for granted. Technologies developed for the space program gave us home computers, cell phones, CT scans, improved cardiac monitoring in hospitals, more fuel efficient and lower maintenance cars etc.

What plagues the US space program today is politics and bureacracy. Back in the early days engineers drove the program toward clear goals, i.e., putting a man on the moon. The Saturn V rocket was an engineering marvel that functioned flawlessly thanks to Warner Von Braun and his engineers.

[lOKKI]

I don't have a problem with the argument that machines can do things more efficiently and cheaper in space than men.

I do have a problem with what seems to be a current American fetish - the over-valuing of a single human life.
Ya - sure, every human life is precious, but there are endeavors in which the risk of loss, or the actual loss of human life are worthwhile. Generally these endeavors are things that will improve the lot of a larger group of humanity.

However, America has forgotten the idea of worthy sacrifice.

If the argument is to be made that machines are more effective and cheaper to operate in space, make it without resorting to the emotionalism of "someone might get hurt".

How many men did Magellan lose (before his own death) when he sailed around the world?

[doc30]

You are right, and I think the space shuttle / space station relationship is far more circular. We need the space shuttle to help build space stations. We need space stations as a destination for the shuttle. Billions more are needed to support 1970's technology (space shuttle) so the inexpensive programs that return a lot of interesting data get the chop.