Shuttle to Nowhere

[selenite0]

patgund sent me an article on the Columbia board's recommendations. The big one seems to be to "establish an independent Technical Engineering Authority" to decide whether the Shuttle can safely launch.

I don't think that's going to help a bit.

Driving my car in LA traffic is dangerous but I take the risk because the benefit (getting groceries, keeping my job, whatever) outweighs the risk. All good decisions get made that way, weighing the costs and risks against the benefits. NASA can't do that because there's no real benefit to most Shuttle flights.

Right now Shuttle and Space Station exist to maintain payrolls in specific congressional districts. They're not creating a base for further exploration or industrialization. Science capabilities have been stripped away until Columbia wound up doing high-school science fair experiments. Any satellite can find a cheaper ride than Shuttle. There's no mission left.

If there is a specific mission we want to do it's probably cheaper and quicker to start from scratch than to do it with the Shuttle. But that mission has to be something that justifies spending money and risking lives. Reelecting congressmen and keeping bureaucrats employed isn't worth it.

There is one benefit from flying the Shuttle that matters to a lot of people--as long it keeps going America has a presence in space, it hasn't retreated from the sky. That doesn't work for me. We had a hiatus in spaceflight in the 70s and started flying again. Saturn and Skylab were shut down so the Shuttle could be built. Now we're in the same situation with the opposite decision--Shuttle keeps flying and it sucks up all the money, talent, energy that could go into creating a better way to get to space.

Even with the small benefits Shuttle missions can have, we have to ask if they justify the price. NASA spends billions every year supporting Shuttle ops, whether it flies or not. It's too labor-intensive to ever be flown cheaply. It's too dangerous a design to ever be flown safely (that we've only lost two is a testament to how smart and dedicated many people at NASA are). This article lists many other design flaws that will eventually destroy a shuttle even if the foam problem is fixed.

It's time for the Air & Space Museum to build another wing and put a shuttle on display. The rest can be placed next to the Saturn V lawn ornaments. We have to clear the way for new systems. NASA should handle access to space like other agencies handle their travel needs--buy from a commercial supplier, and use more than one supplier so they're not hostage to a single-point failure. If we want to go Mars or to the Moon again, or even to have a space station that does useful work, the X-prize or the air cargo industry are better models than the Apollo program or military procurement.

If we do that there'll be some chance that humans will stand on the moon in my daughter's lifetime.

Comments

[patgund.livejournal.com]

Technically speaking, the Air and Space Museum has a shuttle on display - Enterprise. That being said, I'd like to see Endevour, (as the last of the series), placed on display next to it, with Discovery and Atlantis ending up in Flordia and Texas.

That being said, I agree with you. If it's so all-fired important to maintain a US presence in space while a shuttle replacement is built, licence the Soyuz design from Russia and use that as an interm solution. Otherwise, retire the shuttle until a replacement is built.

The problem I see is that the government enjoys their monopoly on manned space flight too much. It's going to take a successful x-prize winner to shake the public's view that manned space flight is only for governments - and it's going to take a visionary to build on the x-prize win to break the monopoly and open manned flight to commerce.

Side note: The Apollo 1 capsule and the wreckage of the Challenger were both placed in missle silos away from public view, as the attitude at that time was that displaying the remains would be offensive to the families of those killed. However, there's serious consideration being given to giving portions of Columbia to museums and others to use as "memorials". Have we as a society changed so much in the years between Challenger and Columbia ???

[celticdragonfly.livejournal.com]

Okay, hon - up to now I've been one of the "lot of people" you list. But I think you've converted me. Okay.

And yes, you were right in your earlier comment, you may piss off Tygerr with this - but I don't think he reads anything we write these days anyway.

[celticdragonfly.livejournal.com]

Hmph, the Enterprise wasn't a shuttle so much as a mock-up with a name plastered on it, grumble.

Personally, I think the idea of just licensing Soyuz would cause many, many American aerospace engineers to totally go plotz.

[patgund.livejournal.com]

Pathfinder was the mockup. The original plan was to rebuild Enterprise into a flight-capable orbiter - but by the time they finally got around to launching the silly things, it would have cost too much for what they would have gotten out of it.

Disagree

[meerkat1.livejournal.com]

I think the space program needs the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station if for no other reason than to keep people dreaming. It is the same reason dolphin and whales need SeaWorld to exist, even if it means a few of them live their lives in captivity. To keep new generations interested enough to care at least a little about a bigger picture.

We are a fickle spoilied selfish society, with no concept of long term goals or delayed gratification. Anything that stays out of sight for more than a few years will become so forgotten that it will never be funded again.

Rewatch that Chicago DVD... public memory and support are as fleeting fame.

What does need to change at NASA is the redtape. NASA needs to get some of that fire back, that drive to do something wonderful inspite of the quagmire that working for the government is.

And the "Press" needs to be thwacked upside the head, often. But that is a longer post than I have time to write.

[selenite.livejournal.com]

it's going to take a visionary to build on the x-prize win to break the monopoly and open manned flight to commerce

Yep. Though it could be Dana Rohrabacher or Sean O'Keefe as the visionary in addition to the entrepeneurs.

Have we as a society changed so much in the years between Challenger and Columbia ???

I think post-9/11 seven deaths are less of a shock then they would have been before.

We can't let the status quo go on

[selenite.livejournal.com]

I think the space program needs the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station if for no other reason than to keep people dreaming.

I think Apollo 13 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112384/) and Babylon 5 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105946/) have done more for keeping the dream alive than the past ten years of Shuttle missions. People dream of going places and doing things, not treading water.

We are a fickle spoilied selfish society, with no concept of long term goals or delayed gratification.

Hardly. No other country in history has built as many schools, given so much to charity, invested as much in new industries, or sacrificed as much to bring freedom to all.

public memory and support are as fleeting fame.

FedEx and UPS don't need public support because they make profits. We need access to space that pays its own way instead of depending on government charity handouts. Pure research has always gotten support for new projects but multi-billion dollar boondoggles with no return will always have scant support.

What does need to change at NASA is the redtape.

Not happening, at least without replacing everyone in the top five management layers and giving NASA a new mission so important that they're allowed to make mistakes pursuing it. Right now any mistake will end a career at NASA and that won't change while self-perpetuation is their only goal. The refusal to look for mistakes because finding one got the finder's career destroyed is what killed Columbia's crew. Adding another management layer, another 10-year plan, or another design study won't change that.

If nothing changes we're just going to keep going around in the same circles until we run out of Shuttles. By that time we'll have convinced another generation or two that space is just a government public works project and they're better off becoming lawyers than engineers. In the worst case we could find that the world has become too poor to try again and we'd squandered the opportunity to get to space forever. We have to try something else than what we did after Challenger. I think the best bet is to encourage competing private entities to fill the void. I'm open to other suggestions, but I read a whole bunch before settling on that one. I am certain we can't let the status quo stand.