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.

>>it is a safe bet that we are planning long duration missions in the future (moon, mars, permanant space station, etc).<<

the only thing we're planning is free medical care for illegal aliens and free drugs for millionaires.

Don't forget to tape Bachelorette.

While I agree, I wonder if it is profitable yet. Sometimes the state needs to subsidize projects with vision which are not yet profitable in the private sector, IMO.

Columbus wouldn't have sailed to the New World if it hadn't been for Queen Isabella's funding.

I believe it was almost 150 years before the New World started to return some minor products and profits back to the colonising states, and even then only by force and cruelty.

If you will recall, NASA vehemently opposed the 'purchase' of a seat on a round-trip to ISS, even though they went through all of the requirements for qualification, and even then NASA forbid access to the 'American' side. I'll admit to being somewhat ambivalent about that scenario; [can't remember the guy's name-LOL] but the underlying attitude from the US bureaucrats was pitiful and demeaning to the whole enterprise.

Great ideas being passed around here for mankind's future, but the socialist leanings of our leaderships make me fear for the type of future our far descendants will inherit. Privatization and Capitalism seem to be very, very low on their agendas.

A comment like this would be valid if it was found that the cpu was incapable of doing the job

The market for radiation hardened electronics is so small that it's a low priority for the chipmakers. You can't just put a CPU that was designed for a Video Game into a manned, or even unmanned, space vehicle and expect it to survive very long at all in the space environment. Once the military and NASA drove the semiconder industry, but those days are long long gone. I used to work for a company that was both a major "chip" maker and a defense electronics company. We couldn't get the other side of our company to build a floating point signal processing chip, until they were approached by a company that wanted to use it for commerical products, then they got on the stick and built the thing, just too late for us to incorporate it into our design. The military and NASA (and commercial space too) are always behind the technology curve, at least when it comes to electronics. I suspect the same dynamic exists in other areas. The chip makers and others would just as soon not deal in the "government" market. Too much red tape, too many superfoulous requirements, and not enough profit potential. Most of that is due to "oversite" functions that are there to ensure that the "greedy" contractors don't cheat the government and do the job "right". Some of that is due to DoD and NASA internal attitudes, but much is also due to Congressionally mandates. In turn some of that is due to the "one customer many suppliers" (well OK a few suppliers these days) nature of the business. Commericalizing space wouldn't help that all that much, because you'd just go from one customer to a very few, and have many of the same requirements.

He's just making the argument that NASA should be shut down for the purposes of more social spending.

Yeh and if they ever did it, the recipiets would never even notice the miniscule increase in the spending on "social" programs, if any of it got to the final recipients that is. You think the NASA bureacracy is bloated? Take a look at HUD, HHS, or the Department of Education. NASA has at least put people into space, DoEd hasn't educated a single kid.

"I hold that all taxation is theft."

U.S. Constitution
Article 1
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Them thieving Founders!!!

NASA should be leading the world with high technology, not using 8086 based computers for critical functions.

The shuttle's five flight computers do NOT use, nor have they ever used Intel 8086 processors. The 8086 was introduced in 1979, two years before the first shuttle launch and after most of the flight code had been written.

The Shuttle uses specially built IBM AP-101 flight computers whose architecture has been around since at least the very early 1970's. I believe their instruction set is similar to old IBM 360 mainframe computers. Over the years the AP-101 has been upgraded to newer versions that contain more memory and features, but it still retains essentially the same instruction set.

Replacing the flight computers with Intel Pentiums would serve no benefit, as not only would all of the flight code need to be rewritten and retested, but the computers would have to be requalified for long-term reliability.

Having once worked on the Shuttle flight code, I can tell you that NASA can't exactly release a beta version and hope that its customers finds the bugs like Microsoft does with its Office products.

I suggest you move to wherever it is where everyone consents to everything a government does every time.

I guess the fact that that document, written by those "someones" has led this nation to become the zenith of human development leaves you cold.

One last thing, quit paying taxes...it can be done.

Then, stop using our highways, quit expecting protection by the Armed Forces and the police, don't call the fire department when your house is burning with your kids inside, and don't expect anyone to show up to help you the next time a tornado rips your town apart.

I would like to know why this decision wasn't reversed once it became evident that this was an ongoing problem.

Can you imagine the outcry, from certain quarters, when it was discovered that NASA was using the dreaded, ozone hole causing, freon, {/sarcasm} when the rest of use must make do with toxic and not very effective substitutes, especially in our auto A/Cs.

I'm playing devil's advocate here rather than trying to discuss science with you (I'm no engineer)

I am, although not an aero or structural type.

but how can we know how much stress these spacecraft can take going up and down repeatedly before the prospect for a critical failure occurs? Maybe we found it out yesterday.

We cant' know, but the troops at NASA and Whoever bought Rockwell, (Boeing I think) can and probably do. I suspect that the problem was either some damage from the debris that hit the wing on liftoff, or something else entirely. I find it curious that the first and mostlly only indication of a problem was loss of sensor data and not preceeded by any kind of overheating indication, and occuring just at the critical time of re-entry, Although loss of data was followed by some apparently ambigous indications of structural overheating. Very strange. I for one am not ruling out sabotage regardless of what officialdom has said, based entirely on something they pulled out of where the sun don't shine.

I'll leave that argument to the libertarians (of whom I am not one.) Rothbard and/or other libertarians besides arguing that law enforcement should be private have also made cases I have read for privatization of defense. I am not expert and the libertarians on FR could possibly illuminate this (if they aren't stoned on marijuana.)

When someone mentions privatization of ANYTHING, the left goes off the deep end to scare people away from ANY privatization.

Privatizing war is pretty extreme, and you know that is extreme. Privatizing other government endeavors is certainly not unreasonable for anyone except Dems, who need to make sure government grows its monopolies rather than relinquishes any of them.

I understand that RA, but that wasn't my question. In general, all other things being equal, would a human on board been able to rescue the probe? The reason I ask is to endeavour to show that there really is no replacement for the human brain.

I am not sure which probe you are referring to, however, I think that a mix of manned and unmanned is what is needed.

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.