The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped

Time ^ | 2/2/2003 | Gregg Easterbrook

[Orion78]

I thought the idea of the Space Shuttle was to create a recyclable space vehicle so I don't totally agree when people say the space shuttle is "too old". For as complicated and expensive of a machine as the Space Shuttle, it only makes sense to recycle it. I realize you can only recycle something so many times, but I don't think we should scrap the Shuttle Program or build a bunch of new ones until we determine that age was cause rather than the object that hit the left wing durring take off. I am no rocket scientist, but any object, even ice, hitting the leading edge of a space shuttle wing (one of the most critical surfaces durring re-entry) should at the very least be visually inspected with a space walk.

[Orion78]

Sadly, I think you are right.

[AmishDude]

Of course, Easterbrook uses other sources. Don't we all?

Uh, ... well, ... we usually give credit. ... Maybe this explains it better: (wav or mp3)

[FLCowboy,]

How did Time Magazine become such an expert? One day after the tradegy, and they know it all regarding where we should go in the future with the space program. These bleding hearts make me sick. Why don't they simply lament about the African AIDS epidemic, or the Iraqi people's plight under the harsh rule of Hussein, or some other meaningful bleeding heart purpose. Leave the weighty issues to those who know what they are talking about.

[Osage Orange]

You wrote:

"NASA is killing more Americans than Al Qaeda.

What??? I'm not sure how to respond to that statement. Do the numbers 911 not mean anything to you..Surely you aren't trying to make a joke? Gad man...in my eyes you aren't "Right" about this...you are very, very wrong.

The best we can hope for, is that after all five crash, the program will end. Essentially, that's what happened to hydrogen dirigibles after the Hindenburg. "

What the heck!?!?!?! "The best we can hope for...is for them to all crash"????? That's the BEST...that you can hope for????? Forgive me friend...but that's just plain sick.

[P-Marlowe]

Can anyone think of anything more dangerous and daring than what the Wright Brothers did?

Without risk there is no reward.

There may be some valid reasons for ending the Space Shuttle program, but mere danger should not be one of them.

[Jael]

Even worse, I just found out that the insulation project and removal of freon was headed by Marshall Space Center, In Huntsville Al.

[Dave S]

Just as FDR allowed the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor to get the U.S. into the war against Hitler. More recently, the government sat on its hands and allowed the 9-11 hijackers to plan and carry out their calumny as the justification for the subsequent domestic legislative initiatives and war on terror (now Iraq) with which we are all familiar.

You lost all credibility with me. Why don't you go back to John Birch Be Me or some other looney tunes group.

[dark_lord]

Well, there are clearly several problems here.

(1) NASA has been taken over by the bureaucrats. There are now more dead weight paper shufflers looking to advance their careers on the government dollar than there are scientists, engineers, and technicians.
(2) The workforce is aging. Not enough young people with vision work there. (Related to point one in my opinion. People who want to see real space research, as well as see a human presence in space, are deterred by the ugly, do nothing NASA bureaucrat culture.)
(3) The long term goals are missing. We were supposed to be on Mars a long time ago. Politics intervened and spent the money elsewhere. Greedy contractors looking to feather their own beds helped to kill the dream.
(4) The shuttles are archaic, old technology. There was a fundamental error made in "freezing" our technical platform so early on in the technology development process.
(5) There are dozens of alternate launch technologies that could/should be studied. But pure capitalism won't do it. Someone who has to invest billions with a possibility of no return will put the money elsewhere, thank you. Those who want private enterprise involved must still understand that govenment money will have to fund it. Realizing that, we need to break that money free of NASA.

These are only a small number of the problems. As for solutions?
(a) I would re-engineer the old Saturn boosters but with modern material science and engine technology as one answer.
(b) Re-fund the "space plane" but assign the contracts to private contractors. (This would also provide a short term boost to the economy as it hired engineers that have recently been being laid off.)
(3) Fund research into some more "far out" scenarios. For example - can ground based high intensity pulsed lasers (powered by a nuclear power plant) propel an unmanned launcher by aiming at water ejected from rocket nozzles? Can an underground tunnel, proceeding up through a mountain, use electromagnetic capability (think magnalev, using continuous acceleration in a tunnel evacuated of air) to accelerate and launch unmanned vehicles? Can the "hobbyist" lifter technology be scaled? I sure don't know, but I do know that if you beat your forehead against a wall and tell a doctor it hurts, he will tell you to stop doing what you're doing. We need to try something else, preferably several other "somethings".

In any case, these guys are on their way. I guess we can futz around, piss the money away, and then hitch rides with them. Time will tell whether we need have our kids learn Chinese if they are going to the moon.

[El Gato]

Air Force Material Airlift Command

?? Would that be "Air Force Material Command" (AFMC) (the old Systems and Logistics commands commbined) or "Air Mobility Command" (What was once called "Military Airlift Command" (MAC) and before that Military Air Transport Service (MATS, I think I've got the words correct). Another choice would be "Air Force Space Command".

[Zebra]

I agree with a lot of things in your post but believe that a number of crucial objectives remain. Principal of these is space-based intelligence and military support for terrestrial operations and defense. The next arms race will almost certainly occur in space (it is, in fact, occurring), as technology that allows for the killing of satellites (with hit to kill or EMP technologies) or disruption of communications will allow terrestrial superiority.

We cannot abandon the space program. We can and must make it as safe for manned activities as possible. This means constant oversight, inquiry and, when avoidable disaster occurs, accountability.

[Dave S]

with Columbia, you are talking about a split-second decision to try a pre-orbital abort, which is very risky in itself.

Wrong. Mr. Dittemore (sp?) yesterday said that he himself was among the group that reviewed the videos of the launch to assess the possibility of damage to the tiles. They had 2 weeks to abort the re-entry.

You are wrong because you are talking about something totally different. A pre-orbital abort would have been on take off prior to reaching orbital altitude. You are talking about re-entry after two weeks in space. Two very different things.

[Torie]

LOL. You are a pretty good counter-puncher. Easterbrook is pretty good at referring to sources, and I assume he does so extensively in his books. But he was writing for Time. Just like the Saltonstalls (or is it the Chafees?) only speak to the Lodges, and the Lodges only to God, here Easterbrook is speaking only to Time, with Time only speaking to God. Time has that Olympian self confidence, that if it publishes it, one need not refer to other mere mortals for authenticity. That would be looking down, when Time looks only up.

[Dave S]

The timid....and the cowards WILL stay home and let everyone else...(or their current 'wet dreams' of robotic exploration)...but some humans WILL explore space.

Explore space? Doing experiments on fungus growth in zero gravity? Sounds like a high school science competition, not exploration. If they are doing the explorer bit they would be at least flying to Mars if not landing there rather than doing experiments of such dubious value.

[El Gato]

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

It was in the sensibile atmosphere at the time. I'd say that put it in US airspace. Unless you dont' think Texas is part of the Homeland. (and if you don't, them's fighting words :) ). Besides there were only 6 Americans on board, which much as I hate to defend MoR, that's what the original post said,"More Americans", of course he had to qaulify that to 2003 after the fact. Take the last 20 years and Al Qaida comes out way on top.

[Dave S]

If we cede the moon to them we loose any protection from our military dominance of the world. They can sit back and use mass drivers and hurl rocks at us and there wouldn't be a d@mn thing we could do about it, no missile defense system would be able to stop them. With the moon as a safe harbor it would not matter to them how many nukes we have.

Do know how stupid that sounds? If not, you really are as ignorant as you seem. It would take days for a launch from the moon to arrive at the Earth. Within an hour, China would cease to exist and a few days later so would the moon base.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Isabella invested with the realistic hope of increasing her wealth, not to inspire the masses whose taxes were taken for a mission."

What Isabella expected to gain from Columbus's voyage is no different than the expectations from the exploration of space. The possibilty of vast, untapped mineral deposits is as real for Mars, Venus, and even the Moon, as it was for the New World. BTW, are you suggesting that European monarchs did not tax their subjects?

"And the new world would not have long remained undiscovered in the free market of exploration."

LOL!

I claim this New World for José!?

No sir. It was then very much the same as it is today...governments will control space exploration, and claim the planets they colonize. I don't see Bill Gates financing an expedition to claim Planet Microsoft.

"Why not develop huge undersea colonies? That would inspire *some* people. Why don't we spend *your* tax dollars on such an inspiring goal?"

Why not?

Or do you believe that the human spirit of adventure and exploration is gone from us?

[AmishDude]

LOL. You are a pretty good counter-puncher.

Know your enemy. -- Sun Tzu

Well, probably Sun Tzu, what do I know? I never read Sun Tzu. Anyway, I know how you think by now. It's easy to engage in a good -- if contentious -- conversation with you.

You seem to be a fan of his work. I wonder if this is an example eerily similar to Republicans getting an op-ed in the New York Times. The Shuttle program is a pet project of Easterbrook (which, frankly, is a topic that makes him a bit hysterical) and Time takes the opportunity to use a well-respected journalist through whom they can speak.

and the Lodges [speak] only to God,

Hey, if there's something you need me to pass on, let me know. After all, mathematics is the language of the Almighty.

[Dave S]

Evidently Time forgot to check with Congress - who supports NASA - and so does President Bush. This is just the usual Time hit piece. Democrats are so afraid that some of OUR money will be used for space exploration, and not for their pet projects. That's why x42 cut the funds year after year, and thereby kept NASA from developing a new shuttle design

Are we a little paranoid these days? What if we took the money being wasted on shuttle flights to conduct science fair experiments and play like we're exploring and put it into research to go to Mars within fifteen years. That would mean we had a real objective and were not just pissing away good money after bad on welfare for geeks.

If a new Shuttle is needed so badly to conduct important research, blah blah, what is this important research? I would like to know two specific things of value that the Shuttle flights have accomplished over the past twenty years? Come on, you must have one or two, other than providing full employment to rocket scientists and technicians in Florida, California and Texas. Of what benefit have these flights been? How has the public benefited? Someone out there must have at least one.

[Physicist]

It was in the sensibile atmosphere at the time.

Hey, if he can move the goalposts, so can I. How many people have been killed by NASA, today, in my living room? Why, none.