May 16, 2011
Why I’m Not Sorry to See the Space Shuttle End
Blogger Sarah brought NASA-mission-themed cookies to the office last week (photo by Molly Roberts)
Just a little while ago the Space Shuttle Endeavour lifted off into space from the Kennedy Space Center on its last mission, the second-to-last mission for any Space Shuttle. Like many people I watched the liftoff (from my computer at home) and was a bit wistful to see space exploration as I have known it since my childhood nearing its end. But I have to say, when I think about the end of the Space Shuttle program, I’m really not that sorry to see it come to a close.
Oh, it’s not that I’m not a fan of space exploration (I even made NASA-space-mission-themed cookies last week for my office), but the Space Shuttle never lived up to its original concept, and it’s been sucking up a lot of money over the years, money that could have paid for even more discoveries than have already been made.
When the Space Shuttle was conceived in the 1960s, before we had even landed on the Moon, proponents were making claims that a reusable space vehicle, one that could land like an airplane, could be cheaper to operate on a per-launch basis and could launch as frequently as once a week. But the reality was far different.
The Space Shuttle is expensive: Putting people into the unnatural environment of Earth’s orbit is never going to be cheap, but the shuttle is particularly costly. One analysis of the program pegged the cost per mission at $1.3 billion (I’ve also seen estimates of $1.5 billion), enough to fund almost 3,000 research grants at the National Science Foundation or pay for a big chunk of a spacecraft like Cassini that will be producing data for decades. Another way to look at this is the cost per kilogram of getting something into space: The shuttle averages about $10,400 per kilogram of payload while the Russians pay only about $5,400 using their Soyuz spacecraft. We’re overpaying for the service when it’s delivered via shuttles.
The Space Shuttle launches infrequently: Those dreams of once-a-week launches were quickly dashed by reality. Once-a-week became twice-a-month became less than once-a-month. It took months to turn over a Space Shuttle for its next mission, and frequently launching people, science experiments and satellites into low-Earth orbit has been impossible.
The Space Shuttle is not reliable: Shuttle launch delays are frequent and costly (good luck to anyone planning to go to Florida to watch the last liftoff next month). But even worse is the rate of catastrophic failure, about 1 in 65. My memories of the program are not the trip to the Kennedy Space Center my family took when I was a kid; they are of the images on TV of the Challenger and Columbia disasters. Space exploration is never going to be risk-free, and if we’re going to explore our solar system and beyond, bad things will happen—just as they did for early Earth-bound explorers. We still need to decide as a society whether or not this is worth the risk.
When I was making the cookies for work last week, I realized how little our greatest space science has depended on the shuttle. Out of the five missions, only Hubble had depended on the Space Shuttle program, and it didn’t have to—its replacement, the James Webb Space Telescope, won’t. And without the shuttle program draining NASA’s limited funds, perhaps even more and better science will happen in the coming years.
Replacing one-time-use rockets with a reusable spacecraft is still a good idea, but we’re just not technologically ready for this. Our imaginations are far bigger than our abilities. That might seem like a sad realization, but it’s not. All it means is that we will keep inventing and striving to reach our sci-fi dreams, and that journey is a truly fascinating one.
(Think I’m wrong? That’s what the comment section is for.)
Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.
16 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
My main issue with the shuttle program is that it is a means of ferrying people and supplies to the International Space Station. No one has shown me yet any important scientific experiments that have been conducted there (except, perhaps, on the physiology of people who stay in space for a long time). I’ve heard about school classes sending seeds, tadpoles, or whatever to see how they grow in weightlessness, but I’ve never read any results of these or more significant experiments. Have there been journal papers about ISS experiments? The shuttle is linked to ISS, so what is the purpose of ISS?
“Putting people into the unnatural environment of Earth’s orbit is never going to be cheap”
Earth’s orbit is around the Sun. When a spacecraft is put into orbit around the earth, it is called Earth Orbit (non possesive)
I believe the Shuttle design was compromised by budgetary considerations, these compromises being the root of it’s operational problems. The Shuttle being grounded would not be a problem if the (now cancelled) Constellation project followed shortly thereafter. Faced with the current reality, now is the time for a more elegant solution to the access of low earth orbit, for example , I suggest the Reaction Engines Skylon, as revolutionary as the jet engine advancing over the prop.
I must acknowledge the role of the shuttle in the Hubble repair missions. But, NASA’s previous administrator would have let Hubble die, because he lacked confidence in the shuttle. Anyway, for the cost of the shuttle program, we could have made a backup Hubble, ready to launch if the first one failed.
Harvey Leifert:
It is true that not many research papers have been published based on ISS experiments thus far, but this is because it can take five years or more from the start of an experiment to the publishing of results. A few weeks ago, some very interesting research papers were published based on experiments conducted around the 2005 period (while ISS was still undergoing heavy construction). There are many, many more experiments going on aboard ISS at the moment, since assembly is almost complete, but it will probably be 2015 before we actually see the results of them.
Most ISS experiments are extremely complex to understand, but a great, informative website is NASA’s “A Lab Aloft” blog, which can be found at http://blogs.nasa.gov.
The ISS’s purpose in the post-Shuttle era is to conduct experiments that can benefit Earth, and demonstrate much-needed technology/systems needed for beyond Earth exploration.
[...] “Why I’m Not Sorry to See the Space Shuttle End,” at Smithsonian.com. This morning (May 16), the second to last NASA Space Shuttle launch blasted off from Cape Canaveral, with the final launch, STS-135, planned for launch in early July. With the Shuttle Program ending, many people think that it’s the end of NASA’s manned spaceflight program. But the reality is that it’s quite the opposite: Not only will manned spaceflight continue, but NASA is also receiving a budget increase. The reality is that the Space Shuttle is simply being replaced by safer and more efficient means. So what’s next? [...]
Nice attention seeking by being different to the majority. None of your “arguments”, as short and poorly researched as they were, showed a lack of understanding.
I’d go as far as to say you’re being unpatriotic, as you are by default happy to be handing over the money to Russia instead.
I hope the thousands of amazing workers losing their jobs don’t get to see this childish blog post of yours.
But I’m sure you’ll only be allowing those comments which praise you on here.
The problem is not with the space shuttle , it’s with the failure of government oversight at the Executive Branch…no one at NASA is being held responsibile,,,no accountability. see: nasaproblems.com
It pains me to read a comment like “I know they send tadpoles and seeds” from school children via NASA to grow. ISS has been mostly a great success, and so has the space program in the United States. I love Russia but I have to say this, I do not know if their desire to let out the true prices of their space program is so pure, since they have seem to have a strong desire for a military presence in space, via the Almaz project. Anyway NASA conducts and delivers many experiments:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/List.html
It is sad to see any mission series end, lets all just hope for bright thing in the future for NASA. We as Americans should be least concerned with the amount of money used going into space vs what we are spending elsewhere… I don’t even want to go there!
You’re Not Sorry? Be Careful What You Wish For.
Sarah, while you’re entitled to your opinion, the content of your article represents a careless mix of 20% fact and 80% misinformation, personal bias, ulterior motives, naivety, deeply flawed due-diligence and irresponsible journalism. It would be easier to simply characterize your article as “stupid on steroids”, but I wanted you to understand specifically the toxicity your article injects into the readership and why the aims in your article serve to poison our Nation’s efforts in space in the future.
NASA is not perfect, not any more than your Smithsonian organization is or any U.S. agency or any human created organization in our country or the World. The Shuttle was developed, sized, purposed, and used to accomplish a very specific mission – to transport large, heavy International Space Station components, modules, payloads, and crew to the LEO environment. That it has done that successfully. Its mission and purpose completed. And now the Shuttles are headed for retirement.
Instead of applauding that, you instead chose to whine, moan, and reminisce about a prior idealized fantasy where the Shuttle was to be the reusable, easy, weekly cheap airplane-like flying machine. Nonsense. You whine that the “reality was far different” – confusing 1960’s dreams on one hand with 1980’s realistic mission decisions on the other. Wistful you are? Study the facts. Get real.
You say the “Space Shuttle never lived up to its original concept”. Is that your concept? Perhaps more a daydream? A wanted hallucination? Or something that ties to reality and realistic missions? Not.
Yes, the Space Shuttle has “…been sucking up a lot of money over the years,…” Is it somehow hard for you to understand that getting massive systems up on-orbit is not a cheap endeavor? You contend that the money spent on the Space Shuttle “could have paid for even more discoveries than have already been made.” (Poor sentence clarity, but I get your message.) Money for discovery can be directed to any number of realms – space, biotech, environment, social causes and more. Apparently you just have preferences for money to move elsewhere.
You might want to keep in mind, the Space Station was just completed, so it is in fact premature for you to moan and whine about the cost and volume of discoveries made on-orbit versus what could or might be done elsewhere on Earth with that same money.
You complain that “The Space Shuttle is expensive: … particularly costly.” Costly compared to what? Taking a cab to the Smithsonian in DC? Is your fixation on “cost containment” only? What about value creation for a given cost, have you considered that? Did you simply “wish” for space travel to be super cheap? Just because it’s more fun? You make statements, but offer no basis for them.
You suggest in your article that the funds used to build and operate the Space Shuttle might have been more appropriately or effectively used to “fund almost 3,000 research grants at the National Science Foundation or pay for a big chunk of a spacecraft like Cassini that will be producing data for decades.” Somehow, this seems more effective and useful to you? Fine. List just three (3) major breakthroughs (breakthroughs that saved large number of lives or powerfully impacted the U.S. economy, or helped specific citizens or industry ) that NSF has provided or would provide given the funds in question. Ditto for the Smithsonian.
It’s always fascinating to see a science article that is written with strong influence vectors and agendas, as though you have been appointed head of NASA, Congress, EOP, OMB, and Appropriations, all in a blink, then able to shift funding from one agency and effort to another: NASA to NSF. Why not zero out the Smithsonian budget too and re-direct it to NSF? Oh that’s right you have ties there.
You complain about the Shuttle costs at $10,400/kg versus the Russian costs of $5,400/kg. You then declare we are “overpaying for the service”. We all understand the differences in the economics between the two countries, yet you complain about this? Why not go further and have China do it for $2,000/kg? The Shuttle was designed and purposed to move ISS modules to LEO. It did that.
You whine that the “Space Shuttle launches infrequently”. Ridiculous. You wanted weekly launches? For what? Did you expect to jump on the Shuttle and collect frequent flyer miles? Your complaint is nonsensical. Then you complain that the infrequent launches create an “impossible” backlog of people, science, experiments, and satellites? Consider taking a pill to help with your bizarre expectations.
You then move to push the dagger in to the program by declaring the Space Shuttle to be “not reliable”. We all know the Shuttle has issues, limitations, risks, and probabilities of failure, we all knew that from day one. With that as a given, you decide to stamp it with an “unreliable” mark? Oh please. The Shuttle is enormously complex and you make it out to be as cheap and as simple as a rubber-band balsa airplane.
Moving deeper, you drive your toxic dagger in and twist it with glee and a tear – bringing up Shuttle disasters and fatalities – to drive your position home. You mystically conclude your paragraph with “we need to decide” (how deep) “whether or not this is worth the risk”. Given your wording, the children cry, the adults shudder, the politicians coward. Quick! Kill the program! The risk is too great!
Were you overcome by oven fumes as you made cookies? Saying: “ I realized how little our greatest space science has depended upon the shuttle.” Again, the Shuttle’s main purpose was to enable the International Space Station (ISS) to be built. And now the ISS is complete. And it is the ISS (not so much the Shuttle) that is the National Laboratory on-orbit, where research breakthroughs and discoveries can be made. It is only now in 2010/2011 that marks the beginning of ISS utility. For you to complain about lack of science outcomes from the ISS now, is like whining that your unborn child hasn’t graduated from MIT yet. Ridiculous.
So now you think “And without the shuttle program draining NASA’s limited funds” , that costly Shuttle is done, ended, toast. Now, magically “more and better science will happen in the coming years.” – from other agencies with redirected monies? Of course you aside the fact the ISS was JUST completed. You aside the fact that Shuttle was purposed to make the Station, not be the lab. And you think more and better science will occur elsewhere – NSF, etc. At which point your agenda is truly transparent – you simple wish to see funds moved away from a human spaceflight effort to an unmanned one, or from NASA altogether to your favorite agency(s), NSF, or where ever.
Your closing statements I found most telling and applicable: “Our imaginations are far bigger than our abilities.” Were you looking in the mirror? I found your imagination (or would that be hallucination?) to be very much that way. As though you skipped past the “better, faster, cheaper” construct and went directly to the “its magically and easy, instantly gratifying and free” mode.
Your closing sentence is lofty, ungrounded and amorphous, to the point of being comical, hence comment is simply not worth the attempt.
Your article is nostalgically and wistfully self-serving. Uninformed. Pitiful. But worse, toxic.
Shame on you.
There are teams of scientists and researchers, of engineers and missions specialists that have strived, starved, burnt the candle at both ends and spent every nickel they’ve had to develop useful, realistic, valuable science and genuine outcomes of worth using the Shuttle and the Space Station.
From ignorance, or underlying agenda, you cleverly dismiss their efforts as – too costly – too unreliable – too infrequent – too devoid of what you want – not cheap enough or easy enough. Shame on you.
If you succeed with your toxic ways, you may be just one more of the poisonous ones, with pen in hand and some Smithsonian sanctioning, that succeeds in killing truly breakthrough science and outcomes of great value to the citizens and industry of our Nation. Shame on you.
So you read this, and think, ah I’ve been “shamed”. But then you take offense and counter attack. Yes?
Your likely attack would be to say, “Well then how will you cut costs or be faster or more reliable or more handy and aligned with my dreams?” Or if your sharp you might think and say “Well then, what of value is possible to see from these space missions and activities in the future? What would be superior to giving all of that money to NSF and the Smithsonian and other friends?”
If so, the answer to those questions would be – the potential science and product and value outcomes are enormous. New vaccines. New antibiotics. New cellular products (think peptides and amino acids). Totally new, high tech materials (take a look at LiquidMetal). New manufacturing processes. New stem cell technologies. New high nutrient natural / organic plants. New imaging and technology products that are of direct use and value to environmentalists, ecologists, farmers, aquaculture, climate specialists, land managers, mining firms, energy firms. In the 10’s of Billions. 100’s of Billions in value – to citizens, to fed/state governments, to academia, and to industry.
Perhaps the gang on the Hill will read your Smithsonian article and somehow agree with you. They’ll kill the funding to work the science and research that Shuttle and ISS enable and the United States will see the death of space leadership in the U.S. Your toxicity will have prevailed. Then we can watch other smarter, more aggressive, more fiscally powerful nations assume space leadership – like India, Europe, Japan, and China. Was that your intent?
If you wish, we can award you with the “Stupid on Steroids” cupie doll. Other identical dolls are readied for some others on the Hill, depending on what they do with respect to space and this Nation’s future initiatives in space. Little does anyone know, that in ways, we are at war. A silent war. An economic war. And guess who’s super smart – the Japanese, the Indians, even Europe (finally), and China. You see: While we are being fat, dumb, stupid, and bureaucratic, they’re being wicked smart, fast and shrewd. Not just in space, but in products, goods, raw materials, exports, productivity, and the creation of wealth. What are we good at? Spending money. What are they good at? Being productive, creating value, and making money.
We’re fast to spend $3 Trillion on an Afghan war – to what value end? But we’re lame in funding the technologies (including NASA’s) critically needed to ensure our survival. Yes, if anything, NASA is severely under-funded. (Of course, your wish is instead to throw their resources to NSF and the gang.)
Your naivety and toxicity is one more example of what will take our country down.
What? You didn’t realize all of this? You didn’t see it? Perhaps you skipped doing your homework before writing this article? Oh, did the space-costs bother you? If you only track costs and ignore value outcomes, you’ll never understand the process or see the result.
I urge you to think about what you have written. In your article you said: “When I was making the cookies for work last week, I realized how little our greatest space science has depended upon the shuttle.”
That’s equivalent to saying: “When I was making cookies for work last week, I realized how little my cookie making depended upon my oven…. Or my mixer…. Or my car to get the cookie dough.
Or perhaps you could say: When I was writing this article on “Why I’m Not Sorry To See The Space Shuttle End”, I realized how little homework and fact finding I could do prior to writing an article on the worthlessness of the Shuttle. Shame on you.
-
“Given your wording, the children cry, the adults shudder, the politicians coward.”
Cower, Franq…cower.
Good rant though, spot on.
[...] scientific experiments are fun, but do they justify the hefty price tag of the shuttle program? Probably not. Some might say the program’s greatest scientific achievements relate to the satellites that [...]
The STS never failed to deliver the goods – first satellites, and then the ISS. The two accidents were from the external rockets and the fuel tank replacements that were down designed to save money. That’s what happens when its about the money and not the science. Now that wait is about politics.
Why is this nation spending millions and millions of tax payer dollars to keep the “old crap” in the Smithsonian “for future generations”? Ah! that sounds soooo mean to want to throw away humanities treasures of the past!
All of us have something we will regret on not promoting or saving or creating! We all have different priorities, and that is what makes us all correct in our desire to see the monies and the efforts spent wisely, but when someone on the staff of a prestigious institution, flings mud, publicly, on another institution I find it appalling. Your superiors should force you to refrain from using the Smithsonian as a platform. If you need to denounce NASA & the SST, do it on your own in the “Letters to the Editor” seciton of your local newspaper. By the way- just how old are you Sarah? Not very wise for whatever age you are.
Many people here are complaining about the cost of the space shuttle program, Approx. $196billion over 40 years —- hmmmmm…. How many trillions did Obama’s stimulus package waste without accomplishing anything!!!!!!!
Franq Li
What a waste of time it must have been for writing such an obtuse response to a blog post? Your vitriol over someone’s opinion is misplaced and unhealthy. Get a grip, will you please? I just wish I could get the time back I used to read those 2000 words of junk.