|
Videos
July 8, 2011 By Chad Vander Veen
Friday, July 8, marked the final launch for the Space Shuttle — a somewhat reusable space vehicle that was, and is, a marvel of technology. Yet in the wake of Atlantis’ liftoff all that remains is uncertainty about the once great American space program.
I’m no fan of the Space Shuttle program. It was shockingly expensive — reportedly $196 billion over 40 years — wasteful and largely without purpose. But the program’s failings are due as much to NASA policy as they are to Cold War politics. When the Space Shuttle was being designed it was intended to be a reliable way to transport astronauts and cargo into Earth orbit every few weeks. In fact, when the program was green-lighted in 1972, it was believed that 50 launches per year were feasible.
The Shuttle was originally intended to be one part of a larger space transportation system (STS) that also included a space station. In fact, Space Shuttle missions all bore the acronym STS, with today’s launch designated STS-135. When initially conceived, the Space Shuttle was indeed a truly reusable spacecraft. It would carry its own liquid propellant; it would have a jet engine for reentry, and it would be smaller than the Shuttle we know today.
Sadly, costs, politics and military demands changed the sleek, efficient vehicle that was planned into a clumsy, costly imitation. The Air Force, some say, is responsible for crippling the Shuttle before it ever flew. It wanted the vehicle to be able to both launch spy satellites and capture Soviet ones. The Air Force also wanted the Shuttle to be able to fly polar orbits, where it could better spy on the Russians. These demands meant several things: The Shuttle would now require a massive external fuel tank and a much larger cargo bay. It also meant a second launch facility would be needed to reach a polar orbit. And one was built at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California for $ 4 billion. The second site, however, was never used. These changes made the Shuttle far more expensive to launch, completely negating the possibility of weekly missions.
But the Shuttle did help bankrupt the Soviet Union. Desperate to keep up, Russia spent billions developing a Shuttle clone — called the Buran — though it never flew. Following the Challenger disaster in 1986 and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the purpose of the Shuttle became further muddled. Ferrying astronauts to the International Space Station would eventually serve as the Shuttle’s primary function. And when the Columbia was destroyed in 2003, the ISS became a mandatory stopover for the Shuttle so it could be inspected for damage. The Shuttle and the ISS had formed a symbiotic relationship, where each’s existence and funding depended on the other.
Still, the Shuttle had successes which shouldn’t be discounted. Launching the Hubble Space Telescope, for instance, likely wouldn’t have been possible had the original Shuttle design been built. And whatever your opinions on the value of the ISS, most of its components were delivered by the Space Shuttle. And perhaps the Shuttle’s most important accomplishment was — for a time — inspiring young Americans to dream of becoming astronauts, engineers and scientists. And that is what is so bitterly disappointing about President Obama’s space policy.
Last year, the president essentially killed off the Constellation Program, NASA’s next generation of manned space flight. Constellation was by no means perfect. Some would argue it was fatally flawed for borrowing so heavily from Apollo-era technology. Yet for a president who came to office in part by championing technology education, eliminating Constellation without offering an alternative does irreparable harm to U.S. space exploration. More importantly, Obama’s policy, which essentially defers space operations to private industry, has diminished one of America’s greatest exports — the belief that in America anything is possible.
It’s been nearly 40 years since the U.S. last set foot on another world. The Space Shuttle program, at best, caused space exploration to stagnate. It was expensive, mundane and occasionally disastrous. But to abandon the program with no vision for the future is far worse. If one day my son tells me he wants to be an astronaut, I suppose I’ll have to tell him to move to Russia.
You may use or reference this story with attribution and a link to
http://www.govtech.com/technology/Space-Shuttle-Was-Expensive-Deadly-and-Inspirational-to-All-Opinion.html
.jpg)
What is Big Data? What can it do for you? 
Discover the BI capabilities you already own.
Collaborative Justice: Transforming Criminal Justice Services Through Unified Collaboration
Cloud-Based Services Accelerate Public Sector Adoption of Video Collaboration
Move to Russia... OR join up with the American private companies attempting this. How is it any less magical?
One correction to your great article; the Soviet Buran orbiter flew once in 1988 for two complete orbits as a completely unmanned mission.
Thanks for pointing that out Mike. I should have noted that fact.
"Anything"used to be possible in America until November 2008. Why does the president of the USA feel obliged to work like thunder darn to knock the US down? Just think about the jobs that are going to be going by the wayside as a result of Obama's decision!! (Bet he had that decision back on July 8 when the nation hit a 9.2% unemployment rate! A SAD DAY FOR AMERICA and AMERICAN INNOVATION!
I would think republicans would be for the dismantling of a government program that costs billions. The private industry in this field is really picking up the pace, and they are doing and planning amazing things. That's a good thing right. That's were your son can go to be an engineer or astronaut. Also it was Bush who shut down the shuttle program. He forgot to mention that.
"largely without purpose" Wow. You're a jackass - and quite apparently not a student of science. I bet you're in support of them scrapping JWST as well? And for dismantling the Hubble? Largely without purpose ... I've never heard such an ignorant statement.
Sure the shuttle program was losing steam, and NASA policy isn't proactive in the least but to say that everything was "largely without purpose" is just so ... dick. Private industry will take the ball and run with it, and that's great, I'm excited for it but NASA's ultimate purpose has always been "Get us off this rock so the species can spread" - so we could survive after the solar system we know is gone. I doubt very seriously that will be the goal of the private sector. No foresight by this government I swear. I'm sorry I called you a jackass, that was a rash thing to do -- knee-jerk reaction.
Here's two I immediate spot that are worthless; this post and your existence.
It was shockingly expensive — reportedly $196 billion over 40 years — wasteful and largely without purpose. 4.9 billion a year. what are we spending a year in other countries on war and relief efforts that get america a bad name. at least nasa and the shuttle gave millions of people something to stand in awe of with the U.S. let alone the dreams of kids to be an astronaut. very sad that this is the last mission.
I stopped reading at "largely without purpose..." The author, if that what he wants to refer to himself as, is as clueless about the space industry as the fly I just swatted from my face. Without purpose? Sir, go read something other than spending your time writing something.
Additionally, a quick google of "Vandenberg Air Force Base" shows that the "never used" launch platform in California is regularly used - we launched some sort of spy satellite in January that at the very least made the back page of the national news. I agree with the tone of the article but the fact checking is atrocious or nonexistent.
"It’s been nearly 40 years since the U.S. last set foot on another world." No one has ever set foot on another 'world'. The U.S. landed on the moon. Care to try again?
I don't really mind the fact that 196 billion was spent over 40 years. Why don't you include documentation about all the discoveries by NASA that have made possible the development of many practical products. The war on terrorism has already cost us over a trillion dollars since 2001. 21 Billion dollars has been spent on the war on drugs so far this year. Here are a few of the more common things developed by NASA that probably wouldn't have if we didn't need them for space exploration: Scratch resistant lenses, memory foam, ear thermometer, shoe insoles, satellite communication, advanced lubricants, NASA technology has been used in breast cancer screening along with many other pieces of medical technology. Yes, these could have been made without space travel but there wasn't a necessity for them without space travel. They most likely wouldn't have been invented until much later if ever.
That's alright. I've been called worse. I'm glad to see comments from people who are passionate about the value of manned space flight.
Nobody in America wants the space program, inexpensive as it is when compared with, well, just about anything we pay for (I'd be interested to see what the health care bills for congress and the senate were for the shuttle program's lifetime) because they do not equate NASA with cell phones, cable tv or those neat pictures that let you see where hurricanes are and where they're going. NASA's crucial failing has been in not claiming credit where it's due and by so-(not)-doing properly explain their place in the scheme of things. Now we have a space presence courtesy of foreign nations. Well done that government, well done that poplace. Maybe when American Idol gets interrupted they'll take notice. This generation of Fotysomething Americans can be proud that they have educated their children to expect less for their money and worsening standards. When I was growing up the perceived wisdom was "we work to make the world better for the next generation", as in better education, better health care, better standard of living. The important one in this specific case is "education". The American public hasn't got one with respect to NASA. Consider this: It is a Bad Thing for seven astronauts to fly on a thirty year old design with oodles of cargo space, but a *good* thing for only three at a time to fly on a 45 year old design (that we don't own). Consider also: These private companies will require Tax Payer Dollars in one form or another to develop their "solutions" (which they won't be giving the taxpayers any sort of cost-break thank-you on), and the cost overruns that typically accompany any government project (especially aerospace) are always sourced back to the private industry contractors doing the work. One only look at the shuttle for a clear example of this.
I think that private industry will step in and pick up parts of this program and make bundles of money. They already have with Tang, adult and infant diapers, etc.
Since I was a kid in Florida watching the space ships launch, I thought that NASA and space exploration was something the USA was doing to expand the God-given capabilities and infinite imagination of mankind. Of course, if our vision of the future is portended by such fiction as Star Trek and Star Wars, we will continue to have military might be a major motivator. Have we lost our desire to go where no man has ventured?