Was the Space Shuttle worth it?

Topics related to manned space missions

Moderator: clayton

Post Reply
User avatar
Dick Jacobson
Posts: 1397
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Cottage Grove, MN

Was the Space Shuttle worth it?

Post by Dick Jacobson »

Two articles in the July 18/25 Aviation Week attempt to tackle the question of whether the $175 billion that we spent on the Space Shuttle was worth the cost. One article is by John Shannon, Space Shuttle program manager, the other by former NASA administrator Michael Griffin.

I would summarize their conclusion as: no conclusive answer is possible. We gained priceless technology and knowledge, accomplished great things including the ISS and Hubble, and built a corps of thousands of talented employees who made the system work as well as it could. Yet we fell far short of achieving the reliability and low cost that was (unrealistically) expected. As Griffin says, we should regard the Shuttle as a step along the road to human spaceflight, not a final answer. We need to follow up by applying the knowledge we gained to developing capabilities for spaceflight beyond low Earth orbit. Unfortunately, there are currently no firm plans for doing this.

Another article in the same issue, by Aaron Shenhar of Rutgers University, states that we should draw four lessons from the Shuttle Era: (1) Don't skimp on early engineering and testing. The Shuttle's budget was cut at the very beginning and NASA was forced to prematurely adopt a design that turned out to be full of engineering nightmares. (2) Listen to the engineers. They are most attuned to the potential problems, yet they usually lose out to the politicians and executives when the big decisions are made. (3) Aggressively identify all potential problems at the very beginning. This was not done with the Space Shuttle, and it was much later that we learned where the real problems were hidden. (4) We should regard NASA as a national treasure, and give them adequate funding to do what no other organization in the world can do. As a nation, we need to regain the ability to manage mega-projects like the Manhattan Project and Apollo.

I would just add my opinion that, if we are resigned to inadequate funding for NASA, then we should depend as much as possible on private enterprise and foreign governments to support low-orbit spaceflight, while NASA develops capabilities for deep space exploration. As a specific destination, my vote would be to develop a permanent manned base at one of the lunar poles to investigate the water resource. I believe this would be a long-term project that would stimulate great public interest and support.

I'm encouraged when I read all the comments of people who are dismayed that the U.S. has lost the ability to orbit astronauts. This means that people really care about human space flight and, I hope, will continue to support it with their tax dollars.
30-inch homemade Newtonian with periscope
20-inch homemade equatorial Newtonian with periscope
14-inch homemade equatorial Newtonian
10-inch Newtonian that folds flat
6-inch Russian Maksutov-Newtonian on Vixen equatorial mount
Too many small scopes and binoculars to mention
johnkra
Posts: 207
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:20 pm
Location: Minnetonka

Re: Was the Space Shuttle worth it?

Post by johnkra »

I do believe that the Shuttle was worth the money and the risks involved.
Most ambitious projects like that have many unknowns and the people that put their lives on the line when humans are involved accept the dangers. It does require a national effort and that is more than just the engineers.
I am not so sure the Manhattan project was well managed. After all, the deep dark secrets were going east right out the front gate about as fast as they were being created.
Apollo was a race, so that had a different motive and it "managed" to get a few key people killed as well.
And, the current Webb instrument is way late and way overspent and is threatening funding for other astrophysics programs.
I doubt the huddled masses would be inspired and motivated by a lunar water search. It would take too long and interest would wane, unless maybe the search could be linked to new fishing spots.
By deep space I hope what is meant is probes, not humans. At this point humans are centuries away from possessing the capability and technology of getting elsewhere. Probes are what we do best. The thing about probes is that they are sort of quietly launched at not too much cost, then it is out-of-sight, out-of-mind until after a few years, culminating in a short period of spectacular discoveries that even distract the public, however briefly, from their own myopic trivial pursuit in the digital world.

M73 KJ0P
User avatar
Dick Jacobson
Posts: 1397
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Cottage Grove, MN

Re: Was the Space Shuttle worth it?

Post by Dick Jacobson »

The authors never seriously tried to answer whether the Shuttle was "worth it" in the sense of a cost-benefit analysis. This would be extremely difficult. How do you put a dollar value on things like technology, knowledge, inspiration of young people? One way to look at it is to note that we spent roughly $1000 per taxpayer over a period of 40 years. Do I think my $1000 was well spent? Absolutely! I've followed the program with great interest, pride, and horror (twice). It's been an interesting part of my life and I'm keenly interested to see what follows it.

You make a good point regarding the Manhattan Project and Apollo. I guess any mega-project has its problems but these two were overall successful. The author was just questioning whether our country still has what it takes to accomplish things like Apollo and the Manhattan Project. I think he was being overly negative. As long as we are unified behind a clear goal, we can do it. I think that's what's missing right now in regard to human space travel.

I see the lunar water resource as being hugely important to the future of humans in space. It's kind of like discovering a new continent, sinking a well, and seeing if there's any water. This pretty well determines whether you can live there. We tend to think that we can easily overcome any obstacle in space, and maybe that's true in the long term, but as a practical matter right now a water resource is essential. If there is usable water on the Moon, at least a modest human settlement might be practical. If not, moon bases would probably be very tiny and extremely expensive to support. Mars is an attractive goal for human settlement since we already know that it has vast amounts of water frozen beneath the surface. I think the gradual construction of a moon base would be a fascinating long-term project that would interest many people.

As for humans in "deep space", I simply meant beyond low Earth orbit. Sending humans to the stars, based on the physics and technology that we know about today, seems so immensely difficult that I have trouble imagining it.
30-inch homemade Newtonian with periscope
20-inch homemade equatorial Newtonian with periscope
14-inch homemade equatorial Newtonian
10-inch Newtonian that folds flat
6-inch Russian Maksutov-Newtonian on Vixen equatorial mount
Too many small scopes and binoculars to mention
johnkra
Posts: 207
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:20 pm
Location: Minnetonka

Re: Was the Space Shuttle worth it?

Post by johnkra »

Dick:

Very well thought out and put, for sure.

M73 KJ0P
User avatar
Dick Jacobson
Posts: 1397
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Cottage Grove, MN

Re: Was the Space Shuttle worth it?

Post by Dick Jacobson »

For an interesting alternative "spin" on the Shuttle, check out this article: http://discovermagazine.com/2011/jul-au ... ce-shuttle. The author says the Shuttle was a total failure from the beginning and it should have been cancelled after the 1986 Challenger disaster. Instead, it became a bottomless money pit that absorbed funds that could have been better spent on other programs. We became too emotionally attached to the Shuttle to do the right thing. We were extremely lucky to get 133 successful flights out of the system.

I don't disagree with his facts. I remember the Challenger accident well and I shared the widespread attitude of "let's fix the problems and get it working again". Even after Challenger, the Space Shuttle seemed to represent the way of the future, not the old-fashioned Apollo type capsules. He may be right that we would be farther ahead today if we had cancelled the Shuttle in 1986.

Interestingly, the Space Shuttle had a near-brush with cancellation not long after Challenger. On the 30th flight, the nose cone came off one of the solid rocket boosters and heavily damaged Discovery's heat shield. During re-entry the aluminum skin of the orbiter started melting. It survived only because the worst damage happened to occur in an area that had extra reinforcement. If Discovery had been destroyed on only the fifth flight after Challenger, the program would most likely have been shut down.

I would call the Space Shuttle a "successful failure". Technology advances as much by failures as by successes. We learned many lessons from the Shuttle. The final big lesson, from the Columbia accident, was that a piece of foam insulation can smash a seemingly strong carbon fiber panel. There are many big mistakes that we won't make again thanks to what we learned from the Shuttle program.
30-inch homemade Newtonian with periscope
20-inch homemade equatorial Newtonian with periscope
14-inch homemade equatorial Newtonian
10-inch Newtonian that folds flat
6-inch Russian Maksutov-Newtonian on Vixen equatorial mount
Too many small scopes and binoculars to mention
User avatar
Ron Schmit
Posts: 1294
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 12:41 pm

Re: Was the Space Shuttle worth it?

Post by Ron Schmit »

Dick:

Interesting points, but I'm a bit confused.
Interestingly, the Space Shuttle had a near-brush with cancellation not long after Challenger. On the 30th flight, the nose cone came off one of the solid rocket boosters and heavily damaged Discovery's heat shield. During re-entry the aluminum skin of the orbiter started melting.
Five flights after Challenger, was the 30th flight of the program, but that was flown by Columbia. I don't remember ever hearing about one of the SRB nose cones coming off and damaging an orbiter. Could you tell me where that information is from?

Back to your question of "was it worth it?" I would state that it COULD have been. I think we spent too much for what we got. That's not to say we shouldn't have tried. I would submit that the problem that always plagued the shuttle was that with it, all of our eggs were in one basket. A basket with wings that could maneuver at Mach 25, withstand the heat of reentry, and land at the correct end of a 10,000 foot runway, all while maintaining a sea level atmosphere for it's crew. What we DIDN'T have was a big dumb booster. It wasn't sexy, it wasn't complex, you couldn't ride it... It would just lift payload. That's what we needed.

Had they maintained something like a Saturn V or 1B, to lift payload into orbit, a lot of the pressures to the schedule could have been alleviated. Many times, the shuttle was sent up with one task - deliver a payload to orbit. You didn't need a crew (nor all that comes with that option) to deliver it. By delivering payload, NASA (or a commercial partner) could have created a revenue stream to supplement the shuttle program. My favorite pre-STS designs, were based on a heavy lift vehicle with one of the payload options, being a space plane for a manned crew. Not very different from the X-20 DynaSoar. That way, this flight you lift payload, next flight you lift payload, oh, this time we put the X-20 on top and send a crew to repair a satelite, next time we lift payload, lift payload, lift payload, shuttle crew to the ISS, lift payload... etc.

I am (was) a big believer in the Constellation Program and wish we had done that FIRST. It was the perfect solution, for the '70's. Develop shuttle hardware, morphing in Apollo technology (which is essentially, the Orion vehicle); the solids advance to the Ares 1, the Apollo CSM on top; the SME's developed and tested in the Ares V; it all comes together in the STS.

That would have given us all the elements and diversified our program for the most efficient and effective use of the fleet. Metaphorically, we went right down to the Ferrari dealership with all of our money and bought a 599 GTO, when we should have instead stopped to pick up a Smart Car, a big pickup truck, and a minivan for much much less.
User avatar
WilliamWood
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 12:00 am
Real Name: William (Bill) Wood

Re: Was the Space Shuttle worth it?

Post by WilliamWood »

Dick Jacobson wrote:...if we are resigned to inadequate funding for NASA...
NASA funding has actually increased. That is not the problem. As much as I respect Charles Bolden, I (sadly) have to say that I think what is missing is leadership. It's not all Bolden's fault. Congress is right in there. But regardless of blame, NASA is floundering.

Apollo astronaut and former Senator Harrison Schmitt recommends dismantling NASA (http://www.americasuncommonsen​se.com/blog/2011/05/25/46-​space-policy-and-the-const​itution-4/). He proposes that science missions (such as our much-discussed JWST) go to the NSF where they can properly compete for funding priority; Earth atmospheric and lunar missions go to the NOAA; and manned spaceflight would go to an entirely new agency, the National Space Exploration Administration (NSEA). The NSEA's charter would be to:
Provide the People of the United States of America, as national security and economic interests demand, with the necessary infrastructure, entrepreneurial partnerships, and human and robotic operational capability to settle the Moon, utilize lunar resources, scientifically explore and settle Mars and other deep space destinations, and, if necessary, divert significant Earth-impacting objects.
Increasingly, I am in agreement with Schmitt. The reason I think his proposal would be more successful than NASA's present (lack of) direction is that if we choose to create a new agency like the NSEA with such a clear mandate, it would be because we as a nation had agreed that focused manned presence in space is justified on the basis of national and economic security. If we do not agree on this, then we should cede leadership in manned spaceflight to Russia and China right now.
MaryB
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 10:09 pm

Re: Was the Space Shuttle worth it?

Post by MaryB »

Why not revamp NASA instead of recreating an entire new agency? I would think it would save money. I think the shuttle was well worth it from many aspects. National pride, proving that we could operate a reusable ship even if it turned out to cost more than anticipated. A shuttle redesign is in order, smaller, main use would be small emergency cargoes and crew transport to not only low orbit but into higher orbits for deep space missions.
User avatar
Dick Jacobson
Posts: 1397
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Cottage Grove, MN

Re: Was the Space Shuttle worth it?

Post by Dick Jacobson »

I think Harrison Schmitt's idea has a lot of merit. Dismantling NASA doesn't mean abolishing all the activities it carries out, it just means getting rid of the top ranks of administration. A lot of NASA's activities naturally fit into the activities of other agencies. As space activities gradually become more routine, there is no need for a single huge organization to manage everything. NASA was involved in developing the first communications satellites but now it's a totally private business.

My impression is that NASA has a tremendous amount of technical competence but its management abilities leave a lot to be desired. I suppose that results from the tendency to get promoted based on your technical abilities. Being a good manager requires a lot more than technical competence. Maybe I shouldn't pick on Bolden, but how does being an ex-astronaut qualify you to be a manager? [edit added] I just came across a news item that referred to "General Bolden". If he's a retired general then this changes the whole picture and I retract my criticism. [/edit] His predecessor, Michael Griffin, was a brilliant rocket engineer but had trouble getting along with people. Griffin's predecessor, Sean O'Keefe, was an accountant and an excellent manager from everything I've read, but he had the horrible misfortune of being in charge when Columbia broke up, and then he made the bad decision to cancel the final Hubble repair.

I think a slimmed-down and tightly focused organization like the proposed NSEA would be beneficial, as long as it can avoid NASA's managerial problems. Of course all the existing NASA managers, government employees, will fight like crazy to save their jobs.
30-inch homemade Newtonian with periscope
20-inch homemade equatorial Newtonian with periscope
14-inch homemade equatorial Newtonian
10-inch Newtonian that folds flat
6-inch Russian Maksutov-Newtonian on Vixen equatorial mount
Too many small scopes and binoculars to mention
User avatar
WilliamWood
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 12:00 am
Real Name: William (Bill) Wood

Re: Was the Space Shuttle worth it?

Post by WilliamWood »

MaryB wrote:Why not revamp NASA instead of recreating an entire new agency?
I think a large part of the impetus for Schmitt's idea is that NASA has become an unworkable organization. It is beyond revamping. It needs to be replaced. As he says:
  • To organize and manage the start-up of NSEA, experienced, successful, and enthusiastic engineering program and project managers should be recruited from industry, academia, and military and civilian government agencies.
  • NSEA must be given full authority to retire or rehire former NASA employees as it sees fit and to access relevant exploration databases and archives.
  • An almost totally new workforce must be hired and NSEA must have the authority to maintain an average employee age of less than 30. (NASA’s current workforce has an average age over 47.) Only with the imagination, motivation, stamina, and courage of young engineers, scientists, and managers can NSEA be successful in meeting its Cold War II national security goals.
  • Within this workforce, NSEA should maintain a strong, internal engineering design capability independent of that capability in its stable of contractors.
Also, clearly separating science missions from missions that pertain to national & economic security (by having them managed from completely different organizations) would enhance the ability of the NSEA to focus on missions that from a purely pragmatic point of view must have the highest priority for the country. It's important to realize, I think, that this is coming from the one and only scientist to have walked on the moon himself. He does not have a grudge against science.

See: http://www.americasuncommonsense.com/bl ... tution.pdf
User avatar
Dick Jacobson
Posts: 1397
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Cottage Grove, MN

Re: Was the Space Shuttle worth it?

Post by Dick Jacobson »

I finally read part of Harrison Schmitt's document. He has some interesting ideas though I don't agree with everything. I agree that we need something like his proposed National Space Exploration Administration composed of young, highly motivated people at the peak of their abilities. Maybe they need to have a strict no-exceptions retirement age somewhere in the 40's. People would join NSEA in the full knowledge that this was only one phase of their careers. The mission of NSEA would be to work on the most difficult leading-edge problems in space exploration. If an urgent problem arose, they would solve it as quickly as possible. When there were no urgent problems, they would work on science and engineering projects to advance the frontiers of knowledge. One example might be figuring out a way to get a probe into Europa's ocean.

I think that what ails the space program right now is that there is no sense of urgency. In the 1960's America felt an urgent need to beat the Soviet Union to the moon. Since then, no comparable motivation has arisen. I believe that most Americans think of space exploration as a mildly interesting activity that deserves some taxpayer support but not a heavy commitment.

I can think of several events that could occur in the near future that would really light a fire under space activities.

(1) Space debris could reach a tipping point where it started growing exponentially, turning near-earth space into a garbage dump that destroys satellites and kills astronauts. According to a report that I just read, this may already be happening. The study found that even if we strictly adhere to all debris mitigation procedures, we will fail to stop the growth of debris. We need to start actively cleaning up orbital space ASAP.

(2) A giant solar flare could score a bulls-eye on Earth, causing devastating damage to satellites, power grids, and our entire electric/electronic infrastructure. This happened in 1859 when the only damage was to the telegraph lines. It is certain to happen again.

(3) An asteroid could be found to be on a collision course with Earth. Speculative, but it certainly will happen some time in the future.

(4) An all-out arms race in space might break out. Schmitt seems to think we are on the verge of Cold War II with China. I'm not so sure. I believe that China has some very serious problems coming in the next decade and is unlikely to be as big a threat as the Soviet Union was. But who knows?

(5) Global warming might go totally out of control, making it urgent to do something to reduce solar radiation falling on the Earth.

(6) We could discover life somewhere in the Solar System, igniting interest in an aggressive program of exploration.

(7) We might discover some extremely valuable mineral resources making it profitable to send mining equipment and maybe astronauts into deep space.

If any of these events occur, it would be extremely valuable to have an organization like Schmitt's NSEA available to respond quickly.
30-inch homemade Newtonian with periscope
20-inch homemade equatorial Newtonian with periscope
14-inch homemade equatorial Newtonian
10-inch Newtonian that folds flat
6-inch Russian Maksutov-Newtonian on Vixen equatorial mount
Too many small scopes and binoculars to mention
Post Reply