A Generation Lost In Space…
Reader Bill "NoStar" Kalles points to this USA Today article about NASA, who are always the last to figure it out:
The space shuttle and International Space Station -- nearly the whole of the U.S. manned space program for the past three decades -- were mistakes, NASA chief Michael Griffin said Tuesday.
In a meeting with USA TODAY's editorial board, Griffin said NASA lost its way in the 1970s, when the agency ended the Apollo moon missions in favor of developing the shuttle and space station, which can only orbit Earth.
"It is now commonly accepted that was not the right path," Griffin said. "We are now trying to change the path while doing as little damage as we can."
The shuttle has cost the lives of 14 astronauts since the first flight in 1982. Roger Pielke Jr., a space policy expert at the University of Colorado, estimates that NASA has spent about $150 billion on the program since its inception in 1971. The total cost of the space station by the time it's finished -- in 2010 or later -- may exceed $100 billion, though other nations will bear some of that.
Whole thing here.
Tangs for the memories, you magnificent bastards. And sleep well, Hayden Rorke, thou art avenged.
The Elvis of Aerospace, X-Prize Champeen Burt Rutan, inveighs against NASA here.
I mock the agency that was lifting p.r. ideas from The Simpsons here.
NASA battles a teenaged girl fighting for Gus Grissom's spacesuit here.
Grissom's widow calls NASA "a bunch of thieves" who have "disgusted and dismayed" her here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Julian,
I LOVE that shirt.
I have a Gil Thorp t-shirt that is the same color. I can't say that it looks that good on me though.
oops. wrong thread.
I blame the politicians more than NASA. Left to their own devices, officials at NASA would probably have done more probes/rovers/telescope missions - missions with real scientific value. But between Texas and Flordia politicians wanting photo ops with astronauts, and various other political forces, NASA ended up receiving some messed up marching orders.
So I see a lot of references to the 14 lives lost on the shuttles.
That always pisses me off. WE ARE FLINGING PEOPLE INTO SPACE ON GIANT ROCKETS! Does anyone actually realize how complicated and over the top that is?
That was 14 people in 114 shuttle launches.
Yes, we were very, very lucky during the Mercury (7 flights), Gemini (10 flights), Apollo (11 flights, 3 deaths), Skylab (three flights) stuff before.
Basically the shuttle program had a similar casualty rate to all of our previous space endevours, except that it was almost 4 times as many launches.
The USSR by contrast had many more deaths in their early programs (that are known, it was the USSR after all), and a similar number of launches.
But even Rutan's two flights each included a period where the pilot was barely able to maintain control of the craft, and neither of his launches went as high as most of the Mercury flights. Private spaceflight will still be a while reaching the NASA flights of the 1960's.
The shuttle has been used for a lot of things that would have been much more costly to do without it. A lot of research has been done, a lot of satelites have been captured and repaired.
Now was all that worth the money? Obviously that's something that can't simply be answered, and obviously is a constant source of argument, especially here. But implying that because 17 people have died in the US Space program that it should never have happened is stupid.
Mith,
The space shuttle by being reuseable was suppose to be more economical than one-use capsules. The fact is, it was more expensive (and more dangerous) than if we had used Apollo type capsules for the human cargo, Atlas-Agena's for the large non human cargo and had them link up in space.
Disposables would also have allowed for greater flexability for implimenting newer technologies. I wouldn't feel safe driving a 30 year old car across country, much less a 30 year old shuttle into space. Face it, Shuttles do a lot more than nickle and dime you to death.
NASA ended up receiving some messed up marching orders.
Aren't these scientists supposed to be able to resist political pressure? Isn't that part of a scientist's integrity? I don't have a clear answer in my own head, but I would love to think the career employees have some fundamental leverage to control the direction of their department.
I think there was the same problem in the intelligence community vis-a-vis Iraq.
I think there is the same problem at the patent office sometimes.
I guess my basic issue is what degree of responsibility (if any) do professional government employees have when they get bad marching orders?
....the Fed's & NASA have spent over a Trillion Dollars on their space program since 1957 --- so what was the economic "Opportunity Cost" of that spending spree, that is now finally recognized as waste ??
What 'else' could have been done with that trillion ?
A congress full of politicians made those space-spending decisions -- who (by name) should now be accountable for such massive blunder ?
It needs to be said.
Amanda Bellows was hot.
Carry on.
The Pope:
"Aren't these scientists supposed to be able to resist political pressure? Isn't that part of a scientist's integrity? I don't have a clear answer in my own head, but I would love to think the career employees have some fundamental leverage to control the direction of their department."
NASA administrators are generally not scientists -- engineers at best, and their appointment to administrative posts says much about their actual talents and abilities.
It is generally not in the best interest of federal bureaucrats to tell congress to get stuffed.
"Scientists" (astronomers) generally hate the manned space program because unmanned probes are return much more data per dollar spent than does human exploration of space.
"I guess my basic issue is what degree of responsibility (if any) do professional government employees have when they get bad marching orders?"
The manned space program has always been about publicity and gamesmanship (formerly with the Soviets). If the orders are internally flawed the bureaucrat can tell the press -- at his own risk. If the overall mission concept is flawed, he has little choice but to implement or resign -- there's always someone else who wants that nice office overlooking The Mall in DC.
CooperJ and Joe:
What we got was the first manned moon landing. This is our place in history, perhaps the greatest achievement of any civilization, so far, and nobody can ever take that away from us.
It's not a matter of whether scientists can withstand pressure. If the money is allocated to build a shuttle component in a House Committee Chair's home district, no amount of independent thought will redirect that money to a cheaper unmanned probe.
thoreau's got a point -- a large part (probably the bulk) of the problem lies in Congress.
Take ISS -- it's nothing like originally designed. Why? Because every year the budget comes up for review, and every year Congress screwed with it. We were building it alone to hold 5 people, then we were building it with international partners to hold 7, then with the Russians too but to hold 5. Or worse -- we're building the Crew Compartment. No, the Russians are. Nope, we're building it but the Russians are launching it. Nope, they're building it, launching it, but screwed it up so we're fixing it. Now it's fixed, but we're not going to launch it, so the crew is now 3....
Everytime you redesign the damn thing, every time you toss part of it to a new country or business, it costs money and time. A LOT of money and time.
Anything as complicated and technically challenging as ISS was going to cost more and take longer to build than predicted -- that's a given. But having Congress redesign it every year (and then, of course, not allocate money to the very expensive process of redesign, retest, and reintegrate the changes) balloons the cost and the time spent dramatically.
The Shuttle was a mistake -- materials science was not then (and still is not) good enough for what the specs call for. Don't get me wrong -- the stuff they make the TPS out of is amazing. But it's way too expensive, complex, and brittle for a single-point-of-failure system. Ablation is a much better choice.
I think NASA's new designs are a step in the right direction. New rockets (getting rid of the falling debris problems) with ablative entries (simpler and less prone to failure) based on pre-existing technology (the shuttle stack). Cheaper, faster, and safer than starting from scratch.
Aren't these scientists supposed to be able to resist political pressure? Isn't that part of a scientist's integrity?
Well, you see, that's why Griffin denounced the International Space Station selection process in 1993, when Al Gore's committee overruled the technical advisors and went with the ISS design we've been building. When he says "Had the decision been mine, we would not have built the space station we're building in the orbit we're building it in," that's not hindsignt BS; it's what he'd been saying all along.
But the scientists and engineers don't get the final say at NASA. The politicians do. Which is the best reason to shut down NASA, even with the first competent director in years.
what degree of responsibility (if any) do professional government employees have when they get bad marching orders?
They either follow them or they quit. Sure they can say they're bad marching orders, but they can't change the orders. Just like any other organization.
RE: the comment software
"Whaddya got in there, a couple of hamsters blowing smoke rings, ferchrissakes?"
Three dirty little secrets of the space program:
1) The shuttle was an administrative/political solution to an engineering problem that didn't exist. As pointed out by Nostar, disposable vehicles are cheaper and more flexible. The shuttle was politically appealing because the politicians could say that they were saving money by mandating reusable vehicles. The shuttle was appealing to NASA administrators because it required a big commitment from congress -- once started, the shuttle program couldn't be cut-off as easily as more modular programs.
2) The ISS is a total boondoggle. The real purpose of the ISS was to keep Russian space scientists employed with US money so they wouldn't go to work for China, N. Korea, Iran, Iraq. In this sense, it was a success.
3) In addition to the "white" civilian space program (NASA), USA also has a "black" (intelligence) space program whose size and scope are unknowable. There are a limited number of high-end aerospace contractors who work on both programs, often incestuously so. It is advantageous to the contractors to be able to spread R&D costs between the civilian and military programs. Example: it is not coincidence that the Hubble Space Telescope looks exactly like a KH series ("keyhole") reconnaissance satellite.
As Anonymous said, the politicians are firmly in the driver's seat. That's why the shuttle design had to accommodate Air Force specs for cargo capacity, which required downgrading of the range to stay within the budget.
Back in the nineties when he was still halfway interesting to listen to, I recall Rush Limbrain saying that John Glenn's shuttle excursion was payback for some favor he did for the Clinton administration. The details of said favor escape me (I believe it had to do with Glenn voting against something)...anyone remember the story behind the story?
Pursuant thoreau, obviously the worst place for the most difficult technological endeavor in history is in the pockets of some unholy alliance of politicians and what amount to bureaucrat scientists. To think there's a sacred line between Washington politics and life-risking "space exploration" that magically protects the questionable integrity of the already foolish proposition known as men in space is the height of folly.
More importantly, unless you count sheer egomania, there is no such thing as valid, meaningful space exploration (and so we, naturally, content ourselves under the current asinine administration with going back to the moon.)
Pursuant Mith's JFK-like emoting about the glories of space (space is hard vacuum and nothing more, folks) there simply is no benefit to zero-gravity research that even begins to justify the risk and cost of traditional NASA projects.
What constitutes valid space exploration? Find an Earth-like world and then find a way to terraform it. Assuming the impossible physics and economics could be hurdled, which they cannot, there is no such world in our solar system. Do we really think Mars is inhabitable? And that it would serve as a justifiable second chance for humanity if it were?
To support such lunacy, I hope humans are willing to devote the entire GDP of the planet for the next 100 years to space. If not, we'll just keep playing these ego games with our children's property.
NASA is simply pork looking for a place to happen. It always has been and by the incontrovertible laws of physics and of human nature, it always will be.
Jim,
"...John Glenn's shuttle excursion was payback for some favor he did for the Clinton administration...anyone remember the story behind the story?"
This is possible, but we will probably never know. It seems that Limbaugh would have said that, regardless.
The rumor in the space enthusiast community was that this was a Democratic party payback for Glenn having been grounded after his first spaceflight -- they didn't want to risk losing him in an accident once he'd been accorded hero status.
3) In addition to the "white" civilian space program (NASA), USA also has a "black" (intelligence) space program whose size and scope are unknowable.
At first I thought you were leading up to a comment about "the old Negro Space Program."
http://www.negrospaceprogram.com/
(Hilarious Ken Burns parody, previously discussed here but worth mentioning again.)
Left to their own devices, officials at NASA would probably have done more probes/rovers/telescope missions - missions with real scientific value. But between Texas and Flordia politicians wanting photo ops with astronauts, and various other political forces, NASA ended up receiving some messed up marching orders.
More generally, it's a matter of the difference in interests. On one hand, you have scientists who just want to study celestial bodies and who have no interest whatsoever in humans going into space. On the other hand, you have people who want to actually get...humans into space.
The obvious solution? Lump their interests into the same organization and make them have to fight each other for funding! Yay.
I'm all for letting NASA keep sending up probes and telescopes, as long as they stay completely out of the way of private space travel. Of course, if that pans out, researchers will probably abandon NASA at some point and just pay a private company to loft their equipment.
Unless China or Russia drastically improve their manned space program, I don't see any long term political will to expand the US space program. With the war on terror and Reconstruction II in the Gulf Coast, NASA will always get the short end of the deficit spending stick.
How many people here want to bet that this new proposal to return to the moon will bite the dust within a couple of years, much like Bush Sr.'s plan to return to Mars before 2020 a couple of years back?
How many people here want to bet that this new proposal to return to the moon will bite the dust within a couple of years, much like Bush Sr.'s plan to return to Mars before 2020 a couple of years back?
I am reminded of the story of the politician asking a NASA employee if the Mars rover would land close to the site of Armstrong's small step and giant leap.
How many people here want to bet that this new proposal to return to the moon will bite the dust within a couple of years, much like Bush Sr.'s plan to return to Mars before 2020 a couple of years back?
There is a fairly persuasive argument that the only thing that made the moon landing happen was that the policy goals of young, popular, and assassinated president* became untouchable for a few years. Yet still the steam started coming out of the space program by 1967.
* Note that this in no way advocates anything. Besides, the president who proposed returning to the moon is neither young nor popular.