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.
Not what I was trying to say. I think we need to go into space, however, for some missions, unmanned is much more practical and doable.
We all have that choice.
My right to either live or stay exists independently of my acceptance of the US Constitution. Otherwise, "acceptance" of the Constitution would be wrongfully coerced. The Constitution recognizes rights, it does not grant them. My right to life, liberty and property exists independently of the Constitution. Therefore, my right to own and reside on property supercedes any Constitution or national entity.
Today's news includes some comments about the left side of the craft heating up much faster than the right side and the autopilot trying to correct course. Now, I don't know if I'm understanding that correctly but I do know that the window for proper re-entry is rather narrow so I question how much any type of correction could have contributed to the problem.
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 am. I can't conceive any sensible plot to destroy the shuttle that wouldn't have been easier to accomplish during the lift-off phase as opposed to the re-entry phase. I've been to the cape and it is a highly secure piece of land that juts out into the Atlantic Ocean. I don't have any doubt that security was at its utmost after 9-11 and having an Israeli astronaut aboard. There's a definite military presence there. I don't know why any astronaut would want to die this way and I can't conceive why any of the remaining threesome would prefer to be stranded up there for who knows how long.
Now, if there was a mole screwing with the computers, I could see that very slim possibility happening but even that is just about as possible as me hitting it with a slingshot.
Are you suggesting Islamic terrorism or sabotage from another source (such as the nutty "Chinese are throwing meteors at them from the moon" idea somebody was floating)?
No. I have no choice. Wherever I go, I will be obliged to use facilities, services and whatnot paid for by stolen money (and not all of it via taxes).
The Constitution doesn't grant us any rights, but it does grant the Federal government certain latitudes, and taxation for the common defense, and welfare of the country.
You can't grant someone else any rights or powers you don't have yourself. Whoever granted the US government any rights or powers, must have legitimately had such rights/powers themselves. Since no one legitimately has the right to steal, no one could have granted any such right to the US Government.
It's necessary for the sort of society that we live in, not for the anarchism you believe in.
True enough. But that is not a valid moral justification. Two wrongs don't make a right. The ends do not justify the means. Those moral truths are necessary for the sort of society we ought to live in, but not for the collectivism in which you believe.
Off the top of my head: 1)Growing protein structures for new drugs. 2)Material Science which will lead to contstuction of micro devices at the atomic level. 3)Numerous advances in knowledge about the origin of the universe by Hubble et al. 4)Crystal research that will further the speed up and reduce the size of microprocessors 5)Research into the earths magnetic field and it's interaction with the sun. This understanding will further our ability to develop satellites that will be sheilded better to survive solar erruptions. I could list more.
Well I didnt add my normal caveat about Shuttle research, not space research in general so I will grant you Hubble and solar research (an area near and dear to my heart). However, I dont see points 1, 2, and 4 being of any potential value until Man has production capabilities in space. Mass production in space isnt about to happen in my lifetime and Im only 55. What have they found that they can use now.
Too bad NASA used a beta version for some of the Mars probes a year or two back.
Comprehension is obviously NOT one of your strengths........
Thank You...Come Again!!!!
redrock
No football...(I know I don't count the Pro-Bowl..)....maybe your remote is on the fritz....and your hemmoroids are killing you....
BUT....whenever we send up ANYTHING into space...we are exploring.
It may not always be 'glamorous'...or exciting...but it IS exploring how things work up there.
Now...in order to feel better....re-run the Super Bowl.....buy a new remote....and get some Preperation H....
You WILL feel better in the morning.
redrock
Well I hope you got your fill because thats all you will see for some time. The International Space Station is going to be abandoned and the shuttles wont fly again for at least two or three years. In the meantime, according to an article I just posted from the Wall Street Journal, a large percentage of NASA's workforce is going to elligible to retire in five years. Similarly, a large percentage of the major NASA contractors are also going to loose much of their workforce.
A different version of the same processor was used in the Saturn V, IIRC. Plus the AWACS uses one too. The AWACS one is called the 4 PI, in fact I think think the whole family is called that, by IBM(well the company was IBM until recently, I've lost track of what it is now). It's called that because architecturally it's essentionally two 360s. (You figure it out) The AWACS people refer to it as their "steam driven computer". It does the job, barely in some cases, and not so well in others, but it does it. Those too have fairly recently been upgraded.
BTW the B-52 uses 386s in the navigation system, mainly to drive the displsy I think.
You could walk on the side of highways, you could ride horses so that you don't pay gasoline taxes, you could climb stairs in tall building to protest the government fees on elevators, you could grow you own food to protest government meddling in food production, you could make your own clothes to avoid paying retail taxes, you could shut off your computer and leave the internet to avoid the taxes involved.
You have choices you can take, or you could bitch for the sake of bitching.
Even were I to do all the things you suggest, it would still be possible to validly accuse me of benefitting from taxation. Two trivial examples: national defense and police service (which at least theoretically reduces the crime rate, even if the police won't come when I call on them myself).
But the whole issue is non-sequitur. I am under no moral obligation whatsoever to avoid benefitting from theft by others. I am only required to refrain from performing my own acts of theft. There is no moral requirement to come to the aid of others, regardless of how wrongfully someone else may be treating them. Nor is there any moral obligation to right the wrongs committed by others. Such obligation rests entirely with those who do wrong, and with no one else.
I am no one's slave. I may choose to aid others, and to defend their rights, but only because I recognize that such action is in my self interest (which is generally the case). Failing to speak up for and defend the rights of others may be unwise, but it is not morally wrong.
If I actually thought that abstaining as much as possible from society so as to avoid benefitting from taxation (and all the other misdeeds that occur in the world) were the optimal way to fight against the evil of collectivism, I would do so. But I do not perceive that to be the case. I think anyone who took such a course would largely be ignored, and achieve nothing of consequence whatsoever.
I think those old flight computers comsume the same amount of power as a hair dryer or small oven.
I hadn't read that yet. If there was increased drag, and which would tend to go along with increased heating, on one side, then of course the autopilots (Those AP-101 "4 Pi" computers we were speaking of above) would try to correct for it, either with rudder and elevons, or with the reaction control system, maybe some of each.
I can't conceive any sensible plot to destroy the shuttle that wouldn't have been easier to accomplish during the lift-off phase as opposed to the re-entry phase. ... I don't know why any astronaut would want to die this way and I can't conceive why any of the remaining threesome would prefer to be stranded up there for who knows how long.
I don't understand this statement. No one is suggesting that one of the other astronauts did the sabotage if it was that. Some ground crew type or the janitor where ever they store the shuttle. I would agree that something during the ascent phase would seem more likley, but OTOH, it would take more damage to be catostrophic then, unless you blow up the external tank ala Challenger.
Now, if there was a mole screwing with the computers, I could see that very slim possibility happening but even that is just about as possible as me hitting it with a slingshot.
Probably less likely. There can't be many folks left who can program an AP-101, certainly I couldn't.
Are you suggesting Islamic terrorism or sabotage from another source (such as the nutty "Chinese are throwing meteors at them from the moon" idea somebody was floating)?
Sabotage is exactly what I am suggesting as a possibility, not necesarily a high probability one. Not rocks from the moon, which wouldn't be sabotage anyway, by the usual definition. Besides the earlier poster was not suggesting that the Chinese had thrown rocks at the shuttle from the moon, but that throwng rocks from the moon is in some ways better than having nukes. No radiation afterwards nor any radiactive fallout to irritate the neighbors of the target. It's a bit slow though compared to lobbing an ICBM, which is about a 30 minute affair.
I would think more than a hair dryer, maybe less than a regular oven, maybe like a toaster oven? I could could look it up at work, we've got the T.O. for the beast, but I don't think it's really worth the effort.
At one time, starting in the mid 70s, the B-52 had an AP-101 or similar in it as part of the nav system's "Automated Offset Unit".
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.