Overlooked in last week’s discussion of the NASA budget was a statement by The Planetary Society on its solution to the agency’s budget constraints. The society’s solution boils down to a single statement: end the shuttle program now. Simple, yes, but fraught with problems. What about domestic politics? “Starting other programs earlier, such as the Mars-related heavy lift launch development can mitigate economic dislocations.” And the international implications? “Instead of the partners being asked to wring their hands and deplore American attitudes, let’s ask them to join with us to develop international solutions and programs to advance our human space-flight ambitions, as well as their own.”
There is, of course, a grain of truth to all this: the shuttle program, and to a large extent the station program as well, constitute a pair of millstones around the neck of NASA: they are the programs that are keeping NASA from spending more on science and exploration programs. Yet to think one can simply wave a magic wand and have the shuttle program go away is a bit naive. In addition to entrenched political and business interests, there are issues like workforce retention and infrastructure that would have to be addressed by any plan to shut down the shuttle program early. Would international partners be willing to spend significant additional money to find alternate means to launch and assemble their station components—assuming such alternatives are technically feasible? Or is the US willing to go it alone on the exploration plan, at perhaps a higher cost down the road?
It’s easy to see how compelling the notion is of ending the shuttle program now, rather than in 2010. What’s more difficult is to see is the path needed to carry out that notion, and just how effective it would be in the long run.
We should immediately cancel the Space Shuttle program. Money from the shuttle program will then be used to accelerate the development of the Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle. The
HLLV can be used to launch and complete the International
Space Station much more rapidly than can be done through prolonging
Shuttle operations. Instead of basing our space policy on fear of international problems & fear of domestic political problems, NASA & The White House should work with the Congress & our international partners to find satisfactory solutions to these problems.
In the past there has been no stronger defender of the Shuttle program than I, but here and now I basically agree with the Planetary Society on this, although I disagree with their implicit views on the relative importance of automated science versus human exploration. It’s time to end the Shuttle program. We should have ended it at the politically opportune moment right after the last Shuttle launch. If there are any serious problems on the next launch, that would provide another opportunity to do the right thing.
The lift capacity of the EELVs is about twice what each of the remaining modules weigh, so it is ridiculous to be spending $5+ billion a year to launch four modules and their support equipment. $5 billion a year for five years should pay for a lot of modifications to both the Station hardware and / or the EELVs, the latter of which would be useful later on.
I would still prefer to stick with the EELVs (and Falcon-9 if SpaceX ever manages to launch anything), but the political necessity for keeping the Shuttle workforce employed does argue for pushing forward a heavy lift launch vehicle.
These require hard decisions, but I thought that was what this Administration was supposed to be good at. While I do think the Planetary Society is wrong about how important automated planetary science is, it is just dumb to alienate a major constituent that up to now had been more-or-less on our side.
— Donald
“The HLLV can be used to launch and complete the International Space Station much more rapidly than can be done through prolonging Shuttle operations.”
No it cannot. The current plan is to finish ISS construction by 2010. There is no way that an HLLV can be built and flown by that time. Plus the payloads would have to be modified. This also assumes that the payloads can be modified. And unless you know that for sure, you cannot assume it.
What the “shut down the shuttle now” crowd does not recognize is the degree to which political support on human spaceflight is based upon the existing momentum. Shut shuttle down suddenly without transitioning, and much of the political support may simply evaporate and not transfer to a new program.
Tom, the shuttle is a bad design, they are all getting older, and they all have to be flown more often now that only three remain. If NASA goes ahead with 19 shuttle launches between now and the end of 2010, then I can just about guarantee that there will be at least one more loss of crew and vehicle. One more lost shuttle will mean the end of any political support for the shuttle program, and probably the end of political support for NASA.
Ed: One more lost shuttle will mean the end of any political support for the shuttle program, and probably the end of political support for NASA.
I am undecided about my opinion on this. While it may be true, history suggests otherwise. We have recovered from each Shuttle accident and moved on, and, in fact, political support for human spaceflight has increased throughout the Shuttle period. I think it more likely it would accelerate the push for a fresh start with something resembling the VSE.
Also, the United States is unlikely ever to completely abandon human spaceflight while geopolitical adversaries like China are entering the field.
Also again, check out my Op Ed piece scheduled for the 6th March Space News. If we are really going to do this — send humans to the planets — we’ve got to be prepared to take risks that will result in loss of life. We cannot explore the moon at all, let alone affordably, with absolute safety. Realistically, we probably cannot do it with “fairly good safety.” If we mean to explore the moon and Mars with astronauts, a lot of people will die doing it, and pretending otherwise is only burying our heads in the sand.
— Donald
It is such a travesty. The shuttle isn’t even flying, and even the head of NASA calls it a big mistake, but supposedly there is still no way to cancel it because of entrenched interests.
It’s like the teenage routine of panning TV while watching it all day. “God, this show sucks. Why do they put this stuff on television? They oughta shoot the producers…”
> The society’s solution boils down to a single statement: end the shuttle program now.
Hardly a single statement, Jeff. I’m surprised you’ve fallen for this political spin. The Planetary Society does not want to end the Shuttle program now or any time in the next 40 years. It wants to retire one *part* of the Shuttle system — the only component that has not caused a fatal accident — and continue operating the rest of the Shuttle hardware in new and even more expensive configurations (CLV and SD-HLV).
That is what the Planetary Society recommended in its report, “Extending Human Presence Into the Solar System,” which was coauthored by Mike Griffin before Griffin took command of NASA.
The ESAS architecture *is* the Planetary Society architecture. They got exactly what they wanted, implemented by one of their own as head of NASA, and now they don’t like the results, which were entirely predictable.
“Those that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind.”
Keeping the shuttle and not flying it is like paying farmers not to grow crop. How long can you pay farmers not to grow crop before folks wonder if the farmer is farming? How long can you have a rocket ranch not launching and still consider it a rocket ranch?
Why put 7 sardines in a shuttle when one or two can deliver cargo? UPS and FeDex delivery trucks usually have one driver – maybe a backup is sleeping in the back but I doubt it. I guess airlines need co-pilots. Six or seven astronauts in a shuttle? That reminds me of endless college jokes about how many does it take from a certain campus to screw in a lightbulb.
I vote two lemon drops per lemon, and then either run the ranch or sell the farm. Take 2/7ths the current risk and get on with the show. The lemon drops are all that matter. Nobody cares about the lemons. (an unlearned Apollo 13 lesson, incidently.)
Why put 7 sardines in a shuttle when one or two can deliver cargo?
There’s this little thing you’re forgetting called “station assembly”…
Donald, I don’t doubt for a second that people will die in space. I know that risk is a part of it. But, there is such a thing as a stupid risk. Was I the only one who found the “Shuttle is still an experimental vehicle” excuse to be a load of crap? I guess they can’t admit (although Griffin came close) that it is a badly-designed vehicle.
I think one more shuttle accident will create the impression in Congress that the people working for NASA are incompetent. The people working at NASA today aren’t the ones who put man on the moon; they’re just sitting at their desks.
Although support for the manned program may have risen after shuttle accidents twice before, I’d say that NASA has pretty much used up its Mulligans.
Replace the space shuttle with a Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle that takes in excess 10 billion to develop and throws away 5 SSMEs at a time? That’s brilliant!
Prepare for greatness NASA!
Very good issue to start a discussion Jeff. I am struck by the illustrative response of space advocates. It says more about our community than anything else. Basically, a bunch of whining by those who don’t understand (or those who do and then stick their heads in the sand) what really is driving space policy.
Yes, the Shuttle should be ended sooner. Yes, it is a HUGE waste of money if you judge it based on core space policy objectives. But ending of the Shuttle is not going to happen, short of another catastrophe.
Foreign policy ALWAYS trumps space policy. Because of this, what we call our nation’s “space policy” is an really an extension of foreign policy.
Why did we do Apollo?
Why did we bring the Russians into the Space Station to create ISS? Why do we have an ISS program? (Remember, it was one vote from cancellation before they were brought in.)
Why do we have ITAR?
Why do we have ISNA?
It is clear that the only thing saving the Shuttle is our commitments to our foreign partners. End of discussion.
Since the dominance of foreign policy over space policy is a reality, I suggest that we spend more time thinking about how to turn foreign policy objectives into an asset, rather than whining about things we can’t change.
– Nemo2
PS — BTW, this is from somebody who thinks that starting the Shuttle was one of the worst real SPACE policy decisions ever made. It was not driven by foreign policy. The government decided it wanted to design, build and operate a truck, and promised to fly 50 or more times per year, and to operate it at very low cost. And the American people in the 1970s did not say a darned thing about it. Socialism at its finest.
And the American people in the 1970s did not say a darned thing about it. Socialism at its finest.
Yes, one of the reasons that Apollo was such a disaster for our prospects for opening up space. It established a false paradigm in the minds of the American public of how space programs work, and how space is properly developed.
Nemo2: Since the dominance of foreign policy over space policy is a reality, I suggest that we spend more time thinking about how to turn foreign policy objectives into an asset, rather than whining about things we can’t change.
I fully agree with your points here. It has already helped us. If you believe that the existance of a space station is essential to getting commercial space transportation on a stable footing — as I do — than recall that the only reason we still have a space station is foreign policy.
— Donald
Jeff,
Great discussion-starter, as usual.
Those who would use EELV or HLLV to launch Station modules forget one little detail. It’s called rendezvous and docking. You can’t just throw 20-ton objects towards the ISS. SOmethign has to take it the last mile. The Shuttle does this itself, with a human pilot. There is no magical robotic space tug that can move Kibo or Columbus or truss elements around.
We should fly the Shuttle to finish ISS. As quickly as possible. Then put the orbiters in a museum.
– Jim
Hello, Jim,
Recall the European company — an American company before ITAR — now called Cone Express. Launch one of the Station modules or trusses and pay them to adapt their tug designed to support comsats past their shelf lives to maneuver the module within reach of the arm. Or, pay the Russians to dock a Progress or (preferably) a Soyuz with extra tanks, and maneuver the module within reach of the arm. Or, develop something from scratch. We need a space tug; this may be an appropriate time to develop it.
The point is, $5 billion over five years should pay for one hell of a lot of innovation. Right now, it certainly isn’t getting the Space Station completed. If there are any signficant problems with the May launch, or if it gets delayed significantly beyond that date, this would be politically opportune time for for a new strategy.
— Donald
> SOmethign has to take it the last mile. The Shuttle does this itself,
> with a human pilot. There is no magical robotic space tug that can
> move Kibo or Columbus or truss elements around.
Jim, you forget that the Russians have done unmanned docking of space station modules. But let’s accept that human pilots are advantageous, if not strictly required — that advantage is not unique to the Shuttle. If NASA shut down the Shuttle, they could put part of the savings into incentives for private industry to develop a piloted space tug.
> We should fly the Shuttle to finish ISS. As quickly as possible.
Why? The current NASA budget plan shows no funding for ISS operations after 2015. Do you think NASA should finish it just so they can shut it down? If not, what do you think NASA should do with it? (More importantly, what do you think NASA *will* do with it?)
“Meeting international obligations” is not sufficient justification. Even NASA has acknowledged that paying off the international partners would cost far less than finishing ISS.
Has anyone done a study of shutdowns of similiar programs by the government, and the effect of that shutdown on that field? The supercollider, SST, and several military systems come to mind. I know the comparisons would not be exact, but seems like it would give us a glimpse of whether a shutdown would be as beneficial (or as dire) as some argue.