Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped
Time ^ | 2/2/2003 | Gregg Easterbrook

Posted on 02/02/2003 6:15:31 AM PST by RKV

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.


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: columbia; disaster; feb12003; nasa; spaceshuttle; sts107
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 561 next last
To: Beelzebubba
We're all confusing defending space exploration AT ALL with defending space exploration by NASA. Not the same thing.
241 posted on 02/02/2003 9:00:03 AM PST by Hawkeye's Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: RKV
If..we,as a Nation, do NOT rebuild the shuttle...or,even better, build BETTER spacecraft....then 7 brave men and women....just died for nothing.

redrock

242 posted on 02/02/2003 9:02:24 AM PST by redrock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redrock
"If..we,as a Nation, do NOT rebuild the shuttle...or,even better, build BETTER spacecraft....then 7 brave men and women....just died for nothing."

Spending hundreds of billions on an obsolete dangerous pork project won't bring them back, and won't honor them.

Let's dedicate the unmanned exploration of the universe to their memories, and make them the last people to die in space.
243 posted on 02/02/2003 9:04:38 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
I don't know Howlin, judging from all the whining and hand wringing on this thread, I can't see how it would mean much.

I'm sure some around here might even feel threatened by it.

244 posted on 02/02/2003 9:04:52 AM PST by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Man of the Right
Man...

Dollars??? I will say I am very satisfied that in those days and in the present, men of stature always appear to lead the way. I have great respect for such men.

245 posted on 02/02/2003 9:05:45 AM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Man of the Right
Re: Ed Asner?
American deaths in the Homeland in 2003:
NASA: 6
Al Qaeda: 0.
Do the math.

Actually, I am sad to say, there were 7 aboard the Columbia. I find your math is as fuzzy as your thoughts.

Is shame in your vocabulary?

Evidently not, Mr. Asner.

246 posted on 02/02/2003 9:05:48 AM PST by sonofatpatcher2 (God Speed Columbia Seven)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis
That is based on current technology. We have to develop faster means of traveling in space.

Bravo again. Are we developing faster means of travelling in space? No, we are not. There is effectively no budget for it. Almost everything not pertaining to the Shuttle and the ISS has been cut to the bone. See what I'm going on about?

247 posted on 02/02/2003 9:06:09 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: tricky_k_1972
It is less expensive when you consider that you are not just servicing th Hubble, the shuttle does many jobs that no other ship can currently do.

Like what? I dont mean to besmirch the astronauts but what jobs has the shuttle done other than the Hubble repair that offer any reasonable value for the expense that was involved? Most of the science performed is done because they can, not because its needed or valuable. Its a work for geeks welfare program.

248 posted on 02/02/2003 9:06:50 AM PST by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: sonofatpatcher2
Actually, I am sad to say, there were 7 aboard the Columbia.

But then, the Columbia wasn't in the Homeland when it broke up. So the correct score is 0-0.

249 posted on 02/02/2003 9:09:38 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: RKV; All
Flame all you want, but Im really not sure what purpose the shuttle really serves anymore.

First Woman in Space.

First Black in Space.

First Asian in Space.

Equal rights for everyone. So who has not had a ride yet?

First Homosexual in space?

250 posted on 02/02/2003 9:11:34 AM PST by expatguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RKV
the argument of robotic space research vs manned spaced vehicles research is like the argument of using computer to perform drug development research instead of going thru the tedious, expensive human trials...

could drug safety be fully evaluated using computer models without ever using a single piece of living tissue - maybe - but would any living life forms ever wanna take a pill that's has the certification of safety certified by computers but not human trials..should be interesting..

big goals are never cheap...big tasks are never easy...big dreams are never for the timid...aren't the kind of spirits that defines who we americans are?

name the top 3 symbols of the united states -

the flag, the eagle, and somehow i bet the space program couldn't be much further from the third...
251 posted on 02/02/2003 9:11:35 AM PST by Mollygal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RKV
The shuttle program will continue. But heads WILL ROLL as a result of Columbia's loss. From what I have gathered, a piece of debris falling from the exterior tank appeared to impact the shuttle's left wing on launch, and though means exist (powerful cameras) to inspect the surface of the shuttle from the ground, it was decided not to employ those cameras this time. Why?

This shuttle did not visit the Space Station, which would have subject it to the scrutiny of aditional pairs of eyes and cameras, nor did Columbia have on board the Canada arm it could have used to inspect itself, nor were they outfitted with the proper equipment (spacesuits, tethers) to conduct a spacewalk to check for damage.

In short, Columbia was allowed to FLY BLIND with respect to damage it may have had.

252 posted on 02/02/2003 9:11:36 AM PST by Fitzcarraldo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
As a believer, and one who does not compromise on creation vs. evolution, I can simply point to the scientific community who are sold on evolution and eat their three squares thinking their grandfather was a monkey and their great grandfather was a pool of sea scum. Aside from that lunacy...

Science is all about evolution. NASA is all about science. Can anyone point out where this conclusion might be false? I dont think so, since NASA has no interest in creation.

I don't mind the benefits of sceince in health, but I dont think any space program can do as much good for us as a good missile-defense program, at least in this stage of history.
253 posted on 02/02/2003 9:11:38 AM PST by Righter-than-Rush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: TomB
The more they need to see it, IMO. We need to continually be reminded what we're all about.

Just look at McGavin's post.

254 posted on 02/02/2003 9:13:15 AM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: TomB
Whoops:

McGavin's post right here

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/834390/posts?page=72#72
255 posted on 02/02/2003 9:14:17 AM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Hawkeye's Girl
But even then ---what is the purpose of sending a mother of young children on this kind of mission? Now we can study the effects of becoming an orphan? Or what the lack of having a mother around when the mother left young children in the care of others for weeks at a time for training? Too much political correctness in all this.
256 posted on 02/02/2003 9:15:51 AM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Righter-than-Rush
WHY WASN'T THE FLIGHT ABORTED AFTER THE DAMAGE WAS KNOWN? The shuttle was still well inside the atmosphere at the time the wing was damaged. Assuming he had this information in time, the flight director should have aborted the flight, had the crew jetison the tank and boosters, and glided back to Kennedy. What good are safety measures if theyre not used? Of what value are contingency plans against such danger if they are not called? How much money would it cost to delay the flight due to potential damage, compared to pushing the flight through and living with the risk? Such a risk of losing heat tiles, etc. is not a risk I would take.

Of course, rocket scientists are smarter than me. I simply have a gift of common sense.
257 posted on 02/02/2003 9:16:39 AM PST by Righter-than-Rush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
>>But even then ---what is the purpose of sending a mother of young children on this kind of mission? Now we can study the effects of becoming an orphan? Or what the lack of having a mother around when the mother left young children in the care of others for weeks at a time for training? Too much political correctness in all this.>>

The answer is rhetorical, of course. Modern women have pushed for such things, so now there is no complaining aloud from such women. It has been said all along about feminism that modern women are fighting for something and against men. They will not be pleased with what they win.
258 posted on 02/02/2003 9:19:35 AM PST by Righter-than-Rush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Name one bit of important science performed by NASA that could only have been performed by a human in space. We'll see how it stacks up against Pioneer, Voyager, Mariner, Magellan, Galileo, Ulysses, Hubble, Compton, Chandra, weather satellites, GPS, COBE, Viking, Sojourner, Clementine, NEAR, LDEF...I could fill a page like this, but you get the point.

Hate to dissagree with you, but I think you are comparing apples to oranges here. The question is not whether the breadth of experiments is equal, but the depth. My question would be, which of the missions to the moon have accomplished more, the unmanned missions in the 60's and 70's or the manned ones?

Unmanned missions to Mars have done a tremendous amount of valuable research, including some that could not have been done or needn't have been done by men. But have we really been to Mars yet? Are there not some things we can only find out by having a human being standing on the soil? If not, then humanity is less than machinery in the big picture...

Obviously, the bulk of the heavy lifting in space will be robotic. But, frankly, there are some advantages to having a human being THERE, whereever "there" might be. And I agree that the STS certainly isn't the way to accomplish this (the jack of all trades is the master of none). But I can't yet go so far as saying we've actually been to Mars yet, because we haven't. We've sent a camera and a thermometer, etc., that's all...

259 posted on 02/02/2003 9:19:54 AM PST by Charles H. (The_r0nin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Righter-than-Rush
WHY WASN'T THE FLIGHT ABORTED AFTER THE DAMAGE WAS KNOWN?

First of all, we still don't know that there was any damage at all.

Second, they didn't notice the bit of foam falling until they analyzed the film after the fact. The Shuttle was in orbit by then.

260 posted on 02/02/2003 9:20:05 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 561 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson