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 therea 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 flightand 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 membersExpedition Six, in NASA argotremain 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 restructuredif 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 problemsengine malfunctions, damage to the heat-shielding tilesthat 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 constituentsand 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 billionnot counting billions more for launch costsand 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 accidentand 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 probesthe 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 spaceby 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.
The author has learned little from history and surely never takes time to let his mind wander into the future. The man is to damned busy wringing his hands and whining.
But it wasn't that and the author does make a few good points. We should not be depending upon 1970s technology to take us into space for the next 20 years! We should be developing a new generation of orbiters that utilize today's technology. During the past 20 years the advances in computer and materials technology has been phenomenal. A run-of-the-mill laptop computer today has more computing power then the original Space Shuttle had on its first launch in 1981. We should be moving forward, not treading water with the same old technology (even though the Space Shuttle has been "modified" over the years to take advantage of some of the newer technologies).
BTW, I don't think the Space Shuttle is unsafe at all. I agree with you that manned spaceflight is dangerous and will be for the forseeable future. Anybody going into space willingly assumes those risks. I think the 98.2% success rate of the 113 Space Shuttle flights is a record that NASA can be proud of. But we must move on.
Letting your mind wander into the future is not a defense of cowardly politicians and PR bullshit artists being allowed to cripple a technical and engineering program so we lose wonderful heroes like this crew.
A very good editorial cartoonist at the time published a cartoon which depicted several horse-drawn Conestoga wagons with nobody in them. People were instead standing behind the wagons, which were ostensibly pointed westward, and the cartoon was captioned, "Fearful of the unknown, the early pioneers launched unmanned wagon trains to explore the American West."
I wish I still had a copy of that cartoon because my description doesn't do it justice. But it was beautiful, and it really hit home. Space exploration is all about man reaching for the stars.
I don't know if they're proud or not.
But I do know that they have designed a program around a failure rate of 1/100,000 whose empirical failure rate is 1/75.
There is no engineering or production capability that has been created or is planned to back up a complete loss of orbiter fleet every 300 missions.
I grieve for our heros-we can't spare people like that.
But I spit on the politicians and PR artists who have allowed the STS program to become what it is-no, not allowed it to become-demanded that it become what it is.
People, please-honor our heroes but don't mix that up with defending their bureaucrat masters.
You're making the same mistake that NASA has made: equating the Shuttle program with the Space Program. The Shuttle should be ditched because it is standing in the way of progress in space.
Everyone would be eating sushi and speaking Japanese, if this smarmy little coward had been in charge after Pearl Harbor.
We didn't stick with biplanes and conventional explosives after Pearl Harbor, we developed jets and nuclear weapons. We didn't rebuild the Arizona, we built the Missouri. That's the real spirit.
We need to continue with exploration of space -- but we also need to get the pioneers, then the settlers, out into a true space station and Moon colony. The restrictions that the military holds on NASA, while necessary in part, are also the main holdback to Mankind's future in space. Were NASA in charge of the Western Expansion of the US we'd all be stuffed along the Atlantic/Pacific seaboards, still exploring the interior. Expensive? Yes; but Penny wise/Pound foolish, as there are many capitalistic opportunities known that can currently be sent off-Earth that will lead to even more.
Privatize Space Access.
Brilliant!
"Five years before Challenger, he wrote in the Washington Monthly that the shuttles' solid rocket boosters were not safe."
What a numbnuts. This is like me saying that someone is going to die from a heart attack today. Even a broken clock is right at least twice a day!
How is it socialist to think it might be better to send robots than parents of small children into space?
So what are the chances of W taking a Kennedy-like stand on this, proposing a new mission and direction for NASA?
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.