Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped
Time ^ | 2/2/2003 | Gregg Easterbrook

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.


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: columbia; disaster; feb12003; nasa; spaceshuttle; sts107
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 561 next last
To: RKV

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!!!


61 posted on 02/02/2003 7:18:11 AM PST by JudgemAll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dark Nerd
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.

62 posted on 02/02/2003 7:18:15 AM PST by RKV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Man of the Right
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.

63 posted on 02/02/2003 7:18:36 AM PST by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: RKV
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.
64 posted on 02/02/2003 7:19:43 AM PST by NoControllingLegalAuthority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
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.
65 posted on 02/02/2003 7:20:51 AM PST by Man of the Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
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.

66 posted on 02/02/2003 7:23:11 AM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim
Sounds like General Nivelle in World War I.
67 posted on 02/02/2003 7:23:49 AM PST by Man of the Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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?

68 posted on 02/02/2003 7:24:26 AM PST by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
Supporters of the Shuttle are the folks who learn nothing from experience.
69 posted on 02/02/2003 7:24:34 AM PST by Man of the Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RKV
I presume that somebody who proposes retiring a failed '60s technology is a Luddite.
70 posted on 02/02/2003 7:25:12 AM PST by Man of the Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Man of the Right
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.

71 posted on 02/02/2003 7:25:26 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: americafirst
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.
72 posted on 02/02/2003 7:27:31 AM PST by Man of the Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Man of the Right
Your analogy is suspect.
73 posted on 02/02/2003 7:28:19 AM PST by Tijeras_Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Man of the Right
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).

74 posted on 02/02/2003 7:28:24 AM PST by Timesink (I offered her a ring, she gave me the finger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Man of the Right
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)

75 posted on 02/02/2003 7:28:39 AM PST by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: RKV
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


76 posted on 02/02/2003 7:28:42 AM PST by Mr. K (all your (OPTIONAL TAG LINE) are belong to us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
"Space exploration is all about man reaching for the stars."

That is very well said.

77 posted on 02/02/2003 7:28:52 AM PST by Sam Cree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RKV
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.
78 posted on 02/02/2003 7:29:26 AM PST by Man of the Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Man of the Right
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".

79 posted on 02/02/2003 7:31:04 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: americafirst
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.
80 posted on 02/02/2003 7:31:38 AM PST by Man of the Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 561 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson