The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped

A spacecraft is a metaphor of national inspiration: majestic, technologically advanced, produced at dear cost and entrusted with precious cargo, rising above the constraints of the earth. The spacecraft carries our secret hope that there is something better out there—a world where we may someday go and leave the sorrows of the past behind. The spacecraft rises toward the heavens exactly as, in our finest moments as a nation, our hearts have risen toward justice and principle. And when, for no clear reason, the vessel crumbles, as it did in 1986 with Challenger and last week with Columbia, we falsely think the promise of America goes with it.

Unfortunately, the core problem that lay at the heart of the Challenger tragedy applies to the Columbia tragedy as well. That core problem is the space shuttle itself. For 20 years, the American space program has been wedded to a space-shuttle system that is too expensive, too risky, too big for most of the ways it is used, with budgets that suck up funds that could be invested in a modern system that would make space flight cheaper and safer. The space shuttle is impressive in technical terms, but in financial terms and safety terms no project has done more harm to space exploration. With hundreds of launches to date, the American and Russian manned space programs have suffered just three fatal losses in flight—and two were space-shuttle calamities. This simply must be the end of the program.

Will the much more expensive effort to build a manned International Space Station end too? In cost and justification, it's as dubious as the shuttle. The two programs are each other's mirror images. The space station was conceived mainly to give the shuttle a destination, and the shuttle has been kept flying mainly to keep the space station serviced. Three crew members—Expedition Six, in NASA argot—remain aloft on the space station. Probably a Russian rocket will need to go up to bring them home. The wisdom of replacing them seems dubious at best. This second shuttle loss means NASA must be completely restructured—if not abolished and replaced with a new agency with a new mission.

Why did NASA stick with the space shuttle so long? Though the space shuttle is viewed as futuristic, its design is three decades old. The shuttle's main engines, first tested in the late 1970s, use hundreds more moving parts than do new rocket-motor designs. The fragile heat-dissipating tiles were designed before breakthroughs in materials science. Until recently, the flight-deck computers on the space shuttle used old 8086 chips from the early 1980s, the sort of pre-Pentium electronics no self-respecting teenager would dream of using for a video game.

Most important, the space shuttle was designed under the highly unrealistic assumption that the fleet would fly to space once a week and that each shuttle would need to be big enough to carry 50,000 lbs. of payload. In actual use, the shuttle fleet has averaged five flights a year; this year flights were to be cut back to four. The maximum payload is almost never carried. Yet to accommodate the highly unrealistic initial goals, engineers made the shuttle huge and expensive. The Soviet space program also built a shuttle, called Buran, with almost exactly the same dimensions and capacities as its American counterpart. Buran flew to orbit once and was canceled, as it was ridiculously expensive and impractical.

Capitalism, of course, is supposed to weed out such inefficiencies. But in the American system, the shuttle's expense made the program politically attractive. Originally projected to cost $5 million per flight in today's dollars, each shuttle launch instead runs to around $500 million. Aerospace contractors love the fact that the shuttle launches cost so much.

In two decades of use, shuttles have experienced an array of problems—engine malfunctions, damage to the heat-shielding tiles—that have nearly produced other disasters. Seeing this, some analysts proposed that the shuttle be phased out, that cargo launches be carried aboard by far cheaper, unmanned, throwaway rockets and that NASA build a small "space plane" solely for people, to be used on those occasions when men and women are truly needed in space.

Throwaway rockets can fail too. Last month a French-built Ariane exploded on lift-off. No one cared, except the insurance companies that covered the payload, because there was no crew aboard. NASA's insistence on sending a crew on every shuttle flight means risking precious human life for mindless tasks that automated devices can easily carry out. Did Israeli astronaut Ilan Ramon really have to be there to push a couple of buttons on the Mediterranean Israeli Dust Experiment, the payload package he died to accompany to space?

Switching to unmanned rockets for payload launching and a small space plane for those rare times humans are really needed would cut costs, which is why aerospace contractors have lobbied against such reform. Boeing and Lockheed Martin split roughly half the shuttle business through an Orwellian-named consortium called the United Space Alliance. It's a source of significant profit for both companies; United Space Alliance employs 6,400 contractor personnel for shuttle launches alone. Many other aerospace contractors also benefit from the space-shuttle program.

Any new space system that reduced costs would be, to the contractors, killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Just a few weeks ago, NASA canceled a program called the Space Launch Initiative, whose goal was to design a much cheaper and more reliable replacement for the shuttle. Along with the cancellation, NASA announced that the shuttle fleet would remain in operation until 2020, meaning that Columbia was supposed to continue flying into outer space even when its airframe was more than 40 years old! True, B-52s have flown as long. But they don't endure three times the force of gravity on takeoff and 2000*none on re-entry.

A rational person might have laughed out loud at the thought that although school buses are replaced every decade, a spaceship was expected to remain in service for 40 years. Yet the "primes," as NASA's big contractors are known, were overjoyed when the Space Launch Initiative was canceled because it promised them lavish shuttle payments indefinitely. Of course, the contractors also worked hard to make the shuttle safe. But keeping prices up was a higher priority than having a sensible launch system.

Will NASA whitewash problems as it did after Challenger? The haunting fact of Challenger was that engineers who knew about the booster-joint problem begged NASA not to launch that day and were ignored. Later the Rogers Commission, ordered to get to the bottom of things, essentially recommended that nothing change. No NASA manager was fired; no safety systems were added to the solid rocket boosters whose explosion destroyed Challenger; no escape-capsule system was added to get astronauts out in a calamity, which might have helped Columbia. In return for failure, the shuttle program got a big budget increase. Post-Challenger "reforms" were left up to the very old-boy network that had created the problem in the first place and that benefited from continuing high costs.

Concerned foremost with budget politics, Congress too did its best to whitewash. Large manned-space-flight centers that depend on the shuttle are in Texas, Ohio, Florida and Alabama. Congressional delegations from these states fought frantically against a shuttle replacement. The result was years of generous funding for constituents—and now another tragedy.

The tough questions that have gone unasked about the space shuttle have also gone unasked about the space station, which generates billions in budget allocations for California, Texas, Ohio, Florida and other states. Started in 1984 and originally slated to cost $14 billion in today's dollars, the space station has already cost at least $35 billion—not counting billions more for launch costs—and won't be finished until 2008. The bottled water alone that crews use aboard the space station costs taxpayers almost half a million dollars a day. (No, that is not a misprint.) There are no scientific experiments aboard the space station that could not be done far more cheaply on unmanned probes. The only space-station research that does require crew is "life science," or studying the human body's response to space. Space life science is useful but means astronauts are on the station mainly to take one another's pulse, a pretty marginal goal for such an astronomical price.

What is next for America in space? An outsider commission is needed to investigate the Columbia accident—and must report to the President, not Congress, since Congress has shown itself unable to think about anything but pork barrel when it comes to space programs.

For 20 years, the cart has been before the horse in U.S. space policy. NASA has been attempting complex missions involving many astronauts without first developing an affordable and dependable means to orbit. The emphasis now must be on designing an all-new system that is lower priced and reliable. And if human space flight stops for a decade while that happens, so be it. Once there is a cheaper and safer way to get people and cargo into orbit, talk of grand goals might become reality. New, less-expensive throwaway rockets would allow NASA to launch more space probes—the one part of the program that is constantly cost-effective. An affordable means to orbit might make possible a return to the moon for establishment of a research base and make possible the long-dreamed-of day when men and women set foot on Mars. But no grand goal is possible while NASA relies on the super-costly, dangerous shuttle.

In 1986 the last words transmitted from Challenger were in the valiant vow: "We are go at throttle up!" This meant the crew was about to apply maximum thrust, which turned out to be a fatal act. In the coming days, we will learn what the last words from Columbia were. Perhaps they too will reflect the valor and optimism shown by astronauts of all nations. It is time NASA and the congressional committees that supervise the agency demonstrated a tiny percentage of the bravery shown by the men and women who fly to space—by canceling the money-driven shuttle program and replacing it with something that makes sense.

Gregg Easterbrook is a senior editor of the New Republic and a visiting fellow of the Brookings Institution. Five years before Challenger, he wrote in the Washington Monthly that the shuttles' solid rocket boosters were not safe.

You still don't get it. The entire solar system has been explored robotically. Robotic satellites are a mature technology.

You seem fixated on the idea that you have to have human beings inside a capsule outside the earth's atmosphere in order to explore space. Inside a capsule, they are a waste of money. They are spam in a can.

Manned space flight is an anachronism. It's a 1940s concept. It's been superceded by the computer revolution, robotics, miniaturization.

So what would you have done when the Hubble mirror needed replacing 'out of the box'? Abandoned it so that we would have never gotten a single image?

Chickening out on technology the moment a problem occurs is a 1970's concept.

Your vision is the past, not the future.

A few buffs support spam in a can. It's irrelevant to space exploitation. There's no popular support for it. The Shuttle has a powerful lobby. Accordingly, the three remaining craft will launch until they burn up. Then there will be no more Shuttle. Eventually, the space station will be abandoned due to lack of funding. It's a boondoggle. It's functionless. It's irrelevant.

"The Hubble telescope could have trained on the Shuttle belly to look for broke tiles, etc. etc."

It would be very unlikely that Columbia could get withing a couple hundred miles of Hubble, so earth-bound telescopes would be more effective. Moreover, Hubble can't point at the earth (it would burn out the sensors) and that might also prohibit its use.

Last month a French-built Ariane exploded on lift-off. No one cared, except the insurance companies that covered the payload, because there was no crew aboard.

We have the technology to build robot race cars to zip around an oval track better than any human could. It will never be done though because no one will pay to see it. Things that interest humans always involve being able to imagine yourself there, up on stage. It's either that or nothing. It's either a space program that sends up the occasional human, or no space program at all.

As in education, law and economics, there are those that want the "mixed" government corporate approach. While not a total failure we know the Government is at best...a jobs program; as it is in any socialist or communist country.

If we're eally serious about exploring space, I say let's take the same approach we took in opening up the West. Let government extend the US Constitution into space by underwriting a system of property rights, common defense, and arbitration of disputes. Let private investors build and operate the wagon trains, and get full rights to any "gold" they may find.

I like manned space flight.. I want to keep it and with the way things are progressing I further think it's in our nations security interest to keep on top of space travel, exploration and technology..

The libs (and some libertarian types) are going to scream bloody murder to shut it down because:

1) It's so expensive. They will point to the deficit and cry poverty. (The libs would much rather use the money for social programs or to expand government here at home)

2) It kills people! I don't mean to be cold or anything, but SO WHAT?

It's not like these people were dragged kicking and screaming, thrown in the capsule and had the door welded shut.. They were adventures and volunteers, they went willingly. They are heroes and wanted the challenge.

I would go willingly right now knowing that there's a chance it could kill me. You have to go sometime and remember, planes, cars, trains, submarines and 5 gallon pails of water kill people also. It happens, there's risk inherent in everything. All you can do is try to manage it effectively, pray and hope for the best.

No need to end our space program over deaths we (and everyone else) knew would occour if we kept flying for long enough.

Man...

To each his own opinion. I will go with the frail little wooden boats that first ventured beyond the sight of land. Those men had a vision that was lost on the nay sayers. Those that remained behind in safety and comfort should in no way hinder those that are willing to risk all to see what is over the horizon.

When that happens man has lost his will to survive.

Do us all a favor. Drop the "spam in a can" and get a new line. That one is getting older than the 1940's technology you're crying about.

Finally something we can agree about, SoCal!

grumble, grumble......and congrats on a great season......grumble

"I still have my crumbling scrapbook with every flight (US and USSR), the names of every astronaut and cosmonaut, memorial pages for Grissom and Chaffee and White. I want men to go to Mars while I am still alive, and I am astounded that Tranquility Base lies abandoned."

I have similar sentiments. But taxpayers should not be forced to fund our sentiments.

Actually, most of the space program is private. I have DSS tv. That's private. I suspect that communications accounts for most of the space industry, and that's entirely robotic.

Right, after NASA and the Air Force paid for the R&D and all the tooling for the launch vehicles. There would have been no constituency for any NASA rresearch without manned spaceflight. Left just to private enterprise you would still have rabbit ears on your set.

SO9

We see things differently. NASA is an artifact of the Cold War. It has no function.

Commercial interests put communcations, navigation and land use satellites into orbit and DOD puts spy satellites. This is not a major sunrise industry but it is economically viable. If NASA goes out of business today, it will continue.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.