The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped

Time ^ | 2/2/2003 | Gregg Easterbrook

[JudgemAll]

And should I add that I am sick and tired of leftists criticising America and our good programs only to ask for more money into PUBLIC EDUCATION!!!

[RKV]

As in many engineering enterprises, the cost and schedule estimates are off. Sometimes you have to experience these realities to learn from them. It is my hope that the lessons that we draw at least contain the following... 1) we know from history that exploration has a pattern of transitioning from a state sponsored enterprise to privately sponsored, and this is a good thing 2) risk and reward need to be linked for market economic efficiencies to work 3) we are way past the point when the gov should specify the technology, its time for the private sector to go to work

Just my 2 cents.

[TomB]

Publishing a quote like this is silly. To the degree that exploitation of space makes economic sense, robotic vehicles are doing it.

It is only silly to you because it makes your position sound so weak.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

The end of the space shuttle could be the beginning of far better and safer space vehicles. Look at airplanes in the 1920's and then what they became twenty years later. We need dramatic evolution in space flight. NASA used to be a pioneering effort. It is now a jobs and contracts protection racket. Let's continue to pioneer with new vehicles and stop wasting lives and big bucks on patching up the old Model T.

[Man of the Right]

We don't need spam in a can to orbit satellites. Never did. If you think the loss of a $10 billion vehicle and seven lives every 75 missions is acceptable when satellites can be launched at a fraction of the cost and no loss of life using disposable boosters, then fly the Shuttle yourself on your own nickel.

[FITZ]

You've got to send people up there sometime.

Why? Why can't we develop better robots? To me we could be exploring better technology and send that into space instead. Let people get their thrills bungie jumping or something else.

[Man of the Right]

Sounds like General Nivelle in World War I.

[TomB]

We don't need spam in a can to orbit satellites. Never did. If you think the loss of a $10 billion vehicle and seven lives every 75 missions is acceptable when satellites can be launched at a fraction of the cost and no loss of life using disposable boosters, then fly the Shuttle yourself on your own nickel.

OK, we have no shuttle, and launch the Hubble Space Telescope with an unmanned booster.

We then find out the mirror is flawed.

How do we fix it?

[Man of the Right]

Supporters of the Shuttle are the folks who learn nothing from experience.

[Man of the Right]

I presume that somebody who proposes retiring a failed '60s technology is a Luddite.

[js1138]

The Space Program isn't on his radar screen. The White House janitor supervises NASA.

That was last week. The moon landing program was the result of some boondoggle that needed a political fix.

[Man of the Right]

The B-2 is a 1970s technology. Manned bombers are being replaced by robots. Even with the aviators lobby, there will be no manned weapons platforms well before mid-century. I agree with your premise, only the trend has moved well beyond one- and two-seat aircraft.

[Tijeras_Slim]

Your analogy is suspect.

[Timesink]

The notion that you need spam in a can to exploit space is so lacking in vision, it brings me to tears.

Have you ever stopped to consider that these people wanted to go? They weren't ordered to do so by their governments. They dreamed of going into space, and fought like hell to land a coveted shot on the shuttle. For the most part, mankind WANTS to go into space, even if we can't easily draw up a plan that makes it look cost-efficient.

I'm not wedded to the space shuttle design, nor do I think every single venture into space must be manned. But until the robots become sentient and the ACLU starts sending in the trial lawyers to give them "rights" (as long as they're all programmed to vote Democratic), there are still plenty of things worth doing in space that would require humans on board. We just need to have the balls to start a more challenging project (no pun intended).

[TomB]

I presume that somebody who proposes retiring a failed '60s technology is a Luddite.

While we're at it, let's ground all our B-52s

(early 50s technology)

[Mr. K]

The design and deployment cycle is much longer than the time that technological advances are being made in the computer age.

Some of this cant be avoided- there is a saying: "In the life of every product there comes a time when you have to shoot the engineers and begin production..."

but we need to move faster

[Sam Cree]

"Space exploration is all about man reaching for the stars."

That is very well said.

[Man of the Right]

Assuming the Hubble wasn't a boondoggle, the original Hubble could have been abandoned and replaced orders of magnitude over had there been no spam in a can in space.

[js1138]

The notion that you need to have spam in a can to exploit space is a 1940s Sunday matinee concept. Technology and the world have moved on.

That's true of life in general. Heck, why not hunker down, board up your home, except for a small opening for receiving internet ordered stuff, delivered by robot. You can even reproduce by FexEx.

Come to think of it, Isaac Asimov wrote a book about it, called "Robots of Dawn".

[Man of the Right]

I agree with you, but I go farther. Clearly, the concept of spam in a can in space is an artifact of the 1940s-1960s. It's an anachronism due to deeper understanding the value of space and its limitation and technical advances--computers, sensors, improved communications, robotics, miniaturization.