The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped

Time ^ | 2/2/2003 | Gregg Easterbrook

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

There's no support for a Shuttle follow-on program that would cost hundreds of billions to trillions.

Then you might as well say there's no support for continuing to fund the current Shuttle program.

How can it continue in its current state and continue to suck down hundreds of billions?

[Man of the Right]

The Shuttle should be terminated. Either the U.S. will do it or nature will do it for them in a few scores of missions.

[TomSmedley]

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.

Good advice. I'm also praying for such a turn of events, and would love to have grandkids pursuing their vocations for the glory of God on the moon, Mars, etc.

[RKV]

Look, I only got a 770 on my verbal GRE (the old one, not the new one), have an MBA and speak 2 languages other than english. I'll use it if it fits IMHO. Who made you the grammar monitor?

[Man of the Right]

Your point was the U.S. wouldn't sell Germany helium, which was true. Presumably if helium derigibles were commercially viable, they would have flown.

Like the Shuttle in particular and people in space craft in general, dirigibles were a dead-end technology. After the Hindenburg, its sister ship Graf Spee flew several PR and military recon missions before being scrapped. To my knowledge, no more passengers flew.

[Man of the Right]

Your point was the U.S. wouldn't sell Germany helium, which was true. Presumably if helium dirigibles were commercially viable, they would have flown.

Like the Shuttle in particular and people in space craft in general, dirigibles were a dead-end technology. After the Hindenburg, its sister ship Graf Spee flew several PR and military recon missions before being scrapped. To my knowledge, no more passengers flew.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

I still say dock the dang thing, put the crew onto the space station,

That was my initial thought as well on Saturday. But that was never an option.

• They did not have the fuel necessary to achieve synchronous orbit with the ISS, as it was in a much higher orbit.
• Columbia was not carrying the necessary docking apparatus to mate with the ISS.
• Even if it did have the right docking ring aboard, the Columbia was too heavy in its current configuration to dock with ISS without damaging both as it was carrying an extra 40,000 lb. space lab.

Still with 7 lives at stake, they should have tried something.
The phrase, "Failure is not an option" comes to mind.

[Cincinatus]

I'm truly astonished. The government should hire you to advise them on space policy, since you see things much more clearly better than virtually anyone else in the universe, let alone the benighted fools at NASA.

Sure wish we could all be as sure of things as you are.

[Man of the Right]

Re the budget: you've joshing me.

Read today's Journal. NASA has three times as many employees over 60 than under 30. The talent would have to be recruited, manufacturing capacity would have to be created from scratch, new technology and facilities created, people trained and the missions launched. The only value is lessons learned from Apollo. It would be extraordinarily expensive. It's not going to happen unless the Chicoms do it.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

After the Hindenburg, its sister ship Graf Spee...

The Hindenburg's sister ship was named the Graf Zeppelin.

The Graf Spee was a German battleship. Hardly airworthy.

Close...but no cigar.   =;^)

[Cincinatus]

I wouldn't josh a guy who is so obviously brilliant and well informed.

Do please continue -- it's good to be able to laugh again after the tragedy of this weekend.

[Man of the Right]

Gee thanks. I didn't scatter body parts over Texas over the weekend.

[Man of the Right]

If you want to explore other solar systems, by all means do so yourself, on your own nickel.

[TankerKC]

If the US wants a small manned spaceplane, and I think that is a useful goal, from a national policy standpoint, how about we use capitalism to our advantage?

Well, can't you see that capitalism already didn't work? From the article:

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.

The Soviet system (communism) recognized that their program was “ridiculously expensive and impractical”. But, the evil capitalist system used by the U.S., continues to make the wealthy contractors even more wealthy. </sarcasm>

Time doesn’t even recognize that NASA = Government.

[RKV]

As I stated quite a bit earlier in this thread I suggest we PRIVATIZE the business of space launch. I know a bit about BURAN and am not suprised the Sovs had problems with it.

[hopespringseternal]

Okay. This morning the WSJ says $30B 2003 dollars to build one prototype second generation shuttle. This for an agency with a $14B budget.

That is a worst case scenario spread over the next 18 years. You said "hundreds of billions to trillions." Well, which is it?

The key points the Journal makes are as follows: 1) The Shuttle failed to accomplish its mission, which was to launch commercial satellites cheaper than throw-away boosters. The Shuttle hasn't carried a commercial satellite since 1986 or a military satellite since 1990. Columbia was carrying the last planned scientific experiments. In 2001-02 10 of 11 missions carried parts for the space station.

The shuttle is an unmitigated failure with regards to its origional goals and should have been replaced ten years ago.

2) The science wasn't leading edge. Few experiments were published in scientific journals or lead to significant discoveries. Most of the experiments studied the effects of weightlessness for manned space flight.

The science was mostly busy work for the purpose of spending money that congress gives NASA, but refuses to let them do anything meaningful with.

3) Originally, the space station was designed to launch moon and interplanetary probes. Despite the fact the station has been scaled-back drastically and cannot perform this mission, it's already well over its $100B budget and wasn't expected to be completed until 2006 PRIOR to the Columbia disaster. Now the postponement is indefinite.

The station was originally conceived based on the shuttle's original design goals, which it fell pitifully short of. Subsequent redesigns reduced the station to fit what could be done with the shuttle. The current plan is to be flying shuttles by June, hardly "indefinite."

4) The three remaining Shuttles will be grounded, possibly for years, until the cause of Saturday's accident is determined and corrected. The fleet was grounded for three years after Challenger. Fleet age is 10-20 years. The fleet was designed in the 1970s based on a 1960s concept.

Again, the plan is to be flying by June. Work on a replacement should begin immediately.

5) Accordingly, the space station will be mothballed, possibly for years. The Shuttle is the only vehicle capable of building and maintaining it.

And again, the plan is to be flying by June.

6) A prototype second generation Shuttle would cost $30B. There's little support for it for the reasons mentioned above.

What reasons? You just assert that without anything to back it up. The $30B is a worst case scenario based on dragging the development out over 18 years.

7) Manned space flight -- Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and the Shuttle -- were conceived at a time when computers were the size of reefer truck trailers. Robots weren't an option at the time. They are now.

The first space missions were robotic. Ever hear of Sputnik and Explorer? We launched chimps, the Russians launched dogs. Do you think they piloted their spacecraft?

8) Only the Moon, Mars and the Asteroid Belt are within range of manned travel using rockets or are survivable by people.

And???

9) NASA has three times as many employees over 60 as under 30. Institutional know-how will be lost when this generation retires. The government can't compete for scientific talent, which is limited. Younger generations have other dreams. The world has moved on since the 1960s.

Who wants to go forward with 1960s technology?

10) The public doesn't know why the Shuttle program exists and doesn't care about manned space flight, by and large.

The public is scientifically illiterate and has no convictions either way. Their response will be determined by the way you ask the question. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[TankerKC]

As I stated quite a bit earlier in this thread I suggest we PRIVATIZE the business of space launch.

Just the point of my sarcasm. The article took the tone that the soviet communist system recognized a bad project, yet our "capitalist" system does not.

[jjm2111]

My impression of your first statement was that you thought the Germans were merrily using hydrogen (as lots of people think) with no regard for it's chemical volatility.

It seems my impression was wrong.

I don't know if the Hindenberg and the Graf Zeppelin were ever profitable from a commercial standpoint. (Graf Spee was a ship that got sunk by the Brits *during* the war).

While I agree that manned flights are costly and in large part a waste, I do believe there will be a point in the future where people go to space on a regular basis. We just need a vehicle that will get up and down cheaply w/out the stress of massive energy transferrences that are common with today's ships. (We also need a spacecraft the doesn't take months to prep).

[Man of the Right]

We're both speculating about the future. Let me pose this question to you, however. You're President of the U.S. or chair of the Senate and House committees with NASA oversight. Shuttle #2 has just blown up. You:
1) Fly the Shuttle again in June, 2003. Or
2) Appoint a blue ribbon commission to study the cause of the accident and propose a solution to a) restore the Shuttle to service only after the 2004 election so you don't risk a third incident and b) make sure everybody shares the blame for the inevitable third incident, which hopefully occurs in some other poor bastard's Administration.

No government program ever ends as long as the interest group that supports it retains the financial ability to lobby for it. Programs that end die a death of a thousand cuts as the lobby very gradually loses influence. (Examples: rural electrification, farm price supports). Manned space flight has the support of NASA, its contractors and communities, and a few space buffs. Since Apollo, aerospace has concentrated in the hands of a few diversified contractors--General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Boeing. They value NASA contracts but they're not a company maker or breaker. In general, NASA is a secondary or a tertiary business. Manned space flight hasn't captured the imagination of young people and young adults. It's a phenomenon of the Apollo generation, now reaching the age of adult diapers and directional signals on for 200 miles.

In real life, the Administration will wait a good long while to restore the remaining three shuttles to service. Development of a follow-on shuttle generation will be approved but construction will not be approved. Development will be stretched out. The vehicle may never be built. Or one may built rather than 4. NASA funding will continue to decline and will decline rapidly as a percentage of the federal government budget and GDP. No Presidents wants a Challenger or Columbia on his watch.

Example: manned bombers. 10,000 B-17s and B-24s each were built. 600 B-52s were built. 100 B-1s were built. 20 B-2s were built. Now, no single-mission manned bomber is under development or on the drawing board. It's been superceded by multi-mission aircraft, cruise missiles, and drones. Drones are the future. In the 1950s SAC was the most powerful element of the armed forces and a major political force. Now, its supporters are dead or in nursing homes.

[TomSmedley]

Privatizing war is pretty extreme,

Letters of Marque and Reprisal are constitutional free-market approaches to war fighting. A distant relative of mine, Samuel Smedley, inherited his dad's ship at the age of 16 -- and served as one of George Washington's contract pirates. In his first year at the helm, he "liberated" more tons of British shipping than any of his peers.