Blog
Hindsighting the Space Shuttle program
Bill Schweber
5/12/2011 7:06 AM EDT
Hindsight is apparently one of those things which separates humans from other animals: as far as we know, they don’t have next-day meetings to discuss how the previous day's hunt went. Being human, though, we do like to look back, assess, and analyze.
These reviews usually fall into one of two broad categories: as a learning experience (what did we learn, anticipate/not anticipate, do smart/not-so-smart, and react properly/incorrectly) or an opportunity for grandstanding and finger-pointing by pseudo-experts who really haven't got a clue (why didn’t you anticipate 'x', how could you have not known about 'y', shouldn't you have done 'z'). As engineers, we try to focus on the former, of course.
The end of the Space Shuttle program this year is a good opportunity for hindsight and review. First, some basic statistics about the fleet of five shuttles (now down to three, due to the loss of Challenger in 1986 and Columbia in 2003):
- Flew 135 missions
- Made 20,000 orbits of Earth
- Carried 363 people (some multiple times)
- Burned 660,000 pounds of solid fuel and 45,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen per minute at peak thrust
- Accelerates to 17,500 mph in 8.5 minutes
- Cost 14 astronaut lives
- The longest mission lasted 17 days.
Before we assess the Space Shuttle program, let's get the tragic loss of two shuttles and their crew members out of the way. Despite planning, precautions, and attempts to anticipate and minimize risk, there is no avoiding the reality that rocketry, space flight, and their associated activities are risky business, and everyone knows that. If you want a guarantee that nothing will go wrong--and if it does, no one will get hurt--you might also be interested in a bridge in Brooklyn I own and can sell you cheap.
Looking back to the origins of the shuttle program, it was presented as a low-cost, relatively simple, largely re-usable, frequent "taxi service" to low-Earth orbit. Reality was, of course, quite different, with each flight a challenge of pre-flight logistics, maintenance and upkeep issues, and an extraordinarily complex "flying" machine. [Some Apollo-program engineers, such as Homer Hickam (author of the autobiographical book Rocket Boys, later made into the movie October Sky), maintain that the basic design of a manned shuttle strapped to the side of the booster, rather than the top, was inherently flawed and foolish, and extremely dangerous.]
Where to start?
- Was the original proposal unrealistic because it was tailored to meet politically correct and attractive-sounding goals?
- Or was it actually a lack of true understanding of what such a program and vehicle would really require?
- Was the basic concept of a vehicle that could be used in orbit, but also land on its own like an airplane (or flying brick, some have called it), fundamentally too much of a compromise?
- Did the program spur many basic or applied technologies, much as the Cold War and the Apollo program did?
- Was it worthwhile because it kept so many scientists, engineers, and other skilled staff employed, and added to the overall skill set and knowledge base?
- Did it consume resources (mostly money) that NASA could have used for other space programs, or even successor craft and programs?
- Did it inspire young people to consider technology careers, rather than hoping to become sports stars or rappers?
This list of questions can go on much longer. Certainly, the shuttle did not accomplish many of its original goals. But it also did things that were not on its agenda, such as the complex repair of the Hubble Space Telescope with that incorrect lens construction (there's another long and sad story) which required developing a deep understanding about the challenges of doing real work in space, well beyond doing earth-science data acquisition from a convenient platform way up high.
The answers to questions on the value of the program are complex, not simple black-and-white, and it is probably too soon to have the needed broader perspective and retrospective understanding. But it is not too early to at least start thinking abut it.
What questions would you add to the list? What are your thoughts on the good, bad, and even ugly of the Space Shuttle program, in terms of the various perspectives and priorities? ♦
|
|
|
|
|
s_anode
5/12/2011 9:38 AM EDT
Did the space shuttle become such a huge dollar an jobs program that it was extended long beyond it was technically justified?
Did this block or delay developement of other less expensive launch systems?
Is there any justification to the adage that the space station was built so the shuttle would have somewhere to go?
Sign in to Reply
JLS
5/12/2011 7:36 PM EDT
These appear to be questions asked in a way that look for a specific answer, as in the second category in the article. Any time you analyze with an agenda, you get the answers you want, not the truth.
Sign in to Reply
Sheetal.Pandey
5/14/2011 1:46 PM EDT
Space shuttle program is the most risky and expensive program. But I guess the people who get into space shuttle program understand the risks involved. The article covers all good and relevant questions.
Sign in to Reply
resistion
5/14/2011 7:51 PM EDT
This is a big blackeye for US. Now US has to hitch a ride with the Russians to the space station, until some private company re-develops the shuttle. Now the big goal is Mars or asteroid, by rocket.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110513/ap_on_sc/us_space_shuttle_q_a
Sign in to Reply
Robotics Developer
5/14/2011 8:20 PM EDT
I would like to know what projects were canceled or not started due to the resources being used on the shuttle program. As a taxpayer, I wonder if the cost was worth it? Could we have sent a manned mission to Mars if we had not done the shuttle program? Could we use (or could we have used - past tense now) the shuttle program to "clean up" the orbiting trash that will continue to endanger future space craft in or near earth orbit?
Sign in to Reply
resistion
5/14/2011 8:47 PM EDT
For almost four decades, it was useful at least in the cold war for American glory. But now the overdue fiscals and cold war adversaries have caught up.
Sign in to Reply
Battar
5/15/2011 2:11 AM EDT
We would have got far more return on investment if NASA had concentrated solely on unmanned missions, using robotic craft and telemetry. There is hardly any worthwhile space research that actually required a human in space and can't be achieved with remote sensors, - faster, cheaper, and safer.
Sign in to Reply
agk
5/15/2011 9:45 AM EDT
Batter I also think in your line. Risking lives is really not pleasant especially to their kith and kin. if and only to learn what happens to the human body mind health system when that is placed in space needs astronauts to travel.
Sign in to Reply
Shallowford
5/16/2011 10:18 AM EDT
What can be done to streamline validation of man-rated equipment? It's shameful that NASA was out buying used and outdated 8" floppy drives for replacement shuttle hardware because they were the only ones approved. Astronaut Mike Mullane said in "Riding Rockets" that the shuttle computer was so lacking in capacity that only the launch software could be stored liftoff. The mission software and re-entry sequence had to be transferred from an astronaut's laptop computer after orbit was achieved.
I understand the needs for and costs of proper validation but using 40 year old computer technology that is 35 years out of production carries its own risks. Our space program has relied on the "space truck" for too long and appears to have lost the ability to develop new systems. Orion might have been a financial sink hole but at least it was something new.
Sign in to Reply
twk
5/16/2011 5:49 PM EDT
I am saddened by a number of the comments above that belittle one of the worlds most significant achievements with political opposition and the age old saw about loss of life. Those good men who gave their lives in that endeavor and the loved ones they left behind knew full well what they entered into and did so with an attitude that I am afraid very few these days are able to understand. That attitude caused similar good men to sail due west from England for the first time, caused them to find out what was in the interior of the African continent, and caused them to dig a ditch across some pretty miserable terrain called panama. Without that willingness, bravery, boldness, or whatever you wish to label it most of the good things we take for granted these days would be missing or harder to enjoy.
The politics of today have very nearly stopped such honerable endeavors because so many diverse and devicive interests will not allow anything but their personal pet ideas go foreward. cost and danger are the common stopping issue and are also the common hallmark of the best history can show us.
We are protecting ourselves, and spending our resources on things that encourage and support those who do nothing to the extent that our very civilization has begun it's decline. We are by our politics and economics bringing progress itself to a halt.
I look back with satisfaction and forward with dispair and personally hope I can enjoy the rest of my time here before life deteriorates to far.
Those who will propose anything negative about that piece of history better be proposing something much better or butt out.
Sign in to Reply
fdunn
5/17/2011 12:51 PM EDT
I think we should have had an alternate to the shuttle BEFORE retiring them. Having no means of transporting cargo and men into near space is a political gamble.
Sign in to Reply
Qzz
5/23/2011 8:24 AM EDT
I concur!! Anything new never works as advertized right away. There is a learning curve.
Also the shuttle has/had the ability to retreave space hardware. Do any of the new systems have this capability?
Sign in to Reply
resistion
5/17/2011 9:42 PM EDT
I think the only way forward now is to launch many more unmanned probes to Mars to see how far it is from being habitable, and help us determine if there is any way to adjust. We would need this information to help prepare for a manned mission to Mars anyway.
Sign in to Reply
Jose_engineer
5/18/2011 1:08 PM EDT
This is coming from a former disillusioned 10 year NASA employee, and have a drawer full or technical award to prove it:
We are now having to pay the Russians to get people into orbit, and supply our very, very, expensive Space Station
If you can put a positive spin on this situation, you are truly a master of the art!
Sign in to Reply
Neo1
5/20/2011 1:02 AM EDT
I still remember the first shuttle lift off when I was akid and awe that caused in me thousands of miles away watching on TV. It was such a motivational thing to witness in science. It made my nerves twitch in exitement and I held my breath as the magnificent silvery thing slid out of the huge cloud of smoke at liftoff.
I would argue that it has done it's part in our understanding of the outer space and gave valuable lessons for how humans can work in outter space. It may have burned a lot of $$ but that was not by design but in its course it certainly has made science popular and many a kid take up higher studies in science.
Sign in to Reply
LAZER
5/26/2011 12:16 PM EDT
Amen to this!!!!
Sign in to Reply
LiketoBike
5/25/2011 11:16 AM EDT
I would have liked something a little different from the shuttle, but I vastly prefer the shuttle to nothing. It was not the best engineering answer (cheaper, dumber boosters would have been better, in my opinion, or SSTO, or other cheaper approaches). And given the loss of the ships and crews, it may not have been the best political answer. But it fired a DREAM (does anyone remember the film "The Dream Is Alive" that came out right after the Challenger explosion? If you have not seen it, GET IT.) I wanted to GO. If a thing is worth doing, it is usually not risk-free (like settling America and digging the Panama canal as mentioned by twk). (Even getting an engineering degree is not risk-free...after all, you might not find a JOB...)
Sign in to Reply
tomkawal1
6/8/2011 4:36 AM EDT
That's ridiculous that NASA did not have successful build of the old shuttle replacement for decades.
Sign in to Reply
RalphSH
6/9/2011 3:55 PM EDT
Bottom line: We don't have an SSTO. We do not have any real lift capability that is man-rated. People in space are what sells the program to the public. Without the political support, robotic research become 4th tier.
As for those who query about the risk - we know the risk. Would you turn down a shuttle ride, even now? The short America-Centric answer is "No guts, no glory". There's no price tag on that - our people risk their lives every time they go out.
The other long term component - we need people off planet in a viable, sustainable environment - if we don't have an off-planet colony, first nicely tailored bioplague, and humanity is toast. This Plague Day is either tomorrow, or today and we just don't know yet. The NIH had the smallpox genome on-line for years, and only pulled it off in the last few years. How many copies are out there? And we can build a virus from the DNA fragments. It's been done. If it's tweaked, then any vaccines are probably not useful. Vaccine creation times are what, 6-12 months?
If a tailored plague is too esoteric for anyone, if Yellowstone blows, humanity is also in trouble. The last major event, written about in SciAm, opines that 80,000 years ago, only a handful of survivors survived a massive climate change from volcanic effects, if I remember correctly.
We *might* see a dinosaur killer asteroid before it hits.
How likely are the last two in the next 100 years? Not terribly likely. The first one is a near certainty. We have plenty of nihilistic loons globally to make this happen.
Sign in to Reply