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.
These people weren't even doing that. I'm not sure yet what they were doing and if their lives were spent on anything significant. The moon can't be colonized in any important way and Mars is too cold. One thing we've learned is there are physical limitations, we've learned there is no oxygen in those places.
Ok, Child of the Right, now you can say NASA kills more Jews.
You are a sick puppy, son.
Then those of you who want what the rest of us DONT may feel free to pass the plate amongst yourselves, and spare the majority of us your expensive hobby toward a condo on Mars.
Classic. The key to human colonization in space is finding the product/service that will pay the way. So far it hasn't been successful. Space Cadets, continue to wear your thinking caps.
Are we really spending all this money for some people to have an alternate place to live? I don't care where people want to live but I think all government spending should be to advance science. If we're looking for other "homes", then we can rule out the moon and Mars already with what we know, we can send robots out for now to other galaxies to find something humans could inhabit.
Communications satellites do not require visits by people. They are in geosynchronous orbit, much higher than the space shuttle or other manned craft in use today can reach. The constellations of low earth orbit satellites for mobile phone, e.g. the Iridium project by Motorola, turned out to be economically impractical. But they also don't require manned spaceflight.
Emotional crapola! For one thing we are not rebuilding the shuttle. We couldnt even if we wanted to. The technology no longer exists. We would have to go out and scavenge used parts bins, etc to find parts to rebuild with.
I believe we all well understand your view and your opinions. To me it seems to be money, mostly your money. In that vein, I have to agree, the government spends lots of money on ventures with which I cannot agree.. Space exploration and its attendant research and development is one in which "ALL MANKIND" will benefit, including you, therefore I see no rational argument against it on a dollar basis.
Accomplished more what? Science? It's arguably a draw, but the science performed by the astronauts could more easily have done without the astronauts.
But I can't yet go so far as saying we've actually been to Mars yet, because we haven't.
Now you're getting back to my question: what is space exploration for? In my response you quoted, I was talking strictly about the science. Here you are talking about the subjective experience of being on another planet, which is a completely different purpose with a different set of requirements. That's not to say it isn't a good or desirable purpose: as a matter of fact, it is.
We've sent a camera and a thermometer, etc., that's all...
That's a hell of a lot. That's what does the science, whether people are there or not.
I'm not an aerospace contractor but I lived in SoCal and worked in for a metal processing business from 1973-1988. We serviced hundreds of SST subcontracting customers employing a handful to hundreds of personnel in the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys, LA and the South Bay. Thanks to the SST program, businesses flourished enabling thousands to buy homes, send kids to college, and enjoy a secure lifestyle. Some made millions I'm sure but many many more made simply comfortable lives for themselves and their families.
The big primes are gone now or significantly downsized and/or consolidated, these bald black-suited bogeymen of the Op/Ed political cartoons, and if pornography is not the biggest business in the SFV now, I don't know what is.
I don't have a problem with women going on missions where necessary, but I have some difficulty calling women who leave their children for weeks and months at a time because they want to experience some kind of thrill "heroes". The true hero women are those staying home with their children or at least spending as much time as possible with them. It's not that the mothers on board have been killed, they abandon their children for weeks on end just preparing.
Make sure you don't miss him John.
Please read more carefully.
"An immediate focus of the investigation was possible damage to the protective thermal tiles on Columbia's left wing from a flying piece of debris during liftoff on Jan. 16.
It says possible damage. Where does it say when the flying debris came to the attention of NASA? All it says is that the debris flew on liftoff.
The space agency said the first indication of trouble Saturday was the loss of temperature sensors in the left wing's hydraulic system."
Those temperature sensors were lost during reentry shortly before the Shuttle disintegrated. There is no evidence that there was any damage to that wing before that point in time.
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.