For every failure in the space program, there have probably been a dozen successes. Some Mars orbiters had issues, but several have been on orbit now for years, returning some incredible information and imagery. The Mars Rovers were only supposed to last about 90 days on the surface of the red planet; they actually lasted more than 6 years. Hubble launched with flawed optics, but it was still the clearest view we had ever had of deep space — even with the flawed mirror. And thanks to the space shuttle program, its astronauts, its training regimen and the many support engineers, techs and others on the ground, Hubble was upgraded several times on orbit, always extending and improving its view. Hubble recently passed a milestone — its millionth image. It was originally slated to operate for 10 years; Hubble has now been exploring the universe for 21 years. NASA even launched the Deep Impact mission a few years back, which successfully slammed into a comet while its own mother ship and Hubble observed the resulting plume to determine what comets are made of. Deep Impact amounted to hitting one bullet with a smaller bullet across the vastness of space, but the team pulled it off. Cool stuff, and all in the post-Apollo era. From Cassini to Voyager to the Chandra and Spitzer telescopes, NASA’s successful mission portfolio is astounding. And the technology developed first for space and then applied across nearly every aspect of modern life is unmatched.
Maybe I’m biased because I’m an incorrigible Hubble-hugger who wanted to work for NASA since I was a kid (and I got to, for about 8 years), but the space program’s golden era didn’t end with Apollo in my mind. It continued in fits and spurts, as complicated and risky endeavors tend to do. Failure is always an option when what you’re doing is hard, it takes time and patience, is very complicated, requires hundreds of thousands of man hours to figure out, and depends on the fallible human mind. NASA has had its share of failures, but the successes more than outnumber them in my opinion.We have learned to take its successes for granted while failures tend to generate the headlines. That’s just the way things are.
I do think there’s a chance that with the final shuttle flight, we’ve introduced so much uncertainty into the future of space flight that the entire enterprise is at risk now. Getting humans to space and back again is not like riding a bicycle — you can collectively forget how to do it. Those jobs lost won’t come back easily, for the simple reason that much of the expertise will wither away.
Whatever President Obama is doing to NASA, it is not reform. It could turn out to be a boon, but could also turn out to be a slow death. We’ll see.
Beautiful post. It sure sounds more like a slow death down here on planet Earth than any kind of boon. I hope it’s the latter.
I’d personally like to see NASA split into regulatory and research arms. One to regulate commercial spaceflight much like the FAA does for air traffic. The other to continue the research successes Bryan mentioned. I never worked for NASA, so I will defer to his greater knowledge. But without shortsighted politicians and nearsighted administrators, I think we’d be a lot further along than we are now.
Actually, NASA doesn’t need to get involved in regulation at all. The FAA does handle launches now, and could easily handle orbital coordination too (currently handled by a combination of NOAA, NASA, and the DoD). There’s a lot of work being done in this area now as a result of the spaceports set up by various states and the private flights being pursued by Rutan, Musk, and Bigelow.
Tell the engineers and workers being displaced right now to stay close to their phones and Web access – as soon as Obama is sent packing, the next Republican president will start to restore the space program to its’ rightful place in America, and they’ll be back doing what they do best.
This isn’t just the end of an era; this is the end of what my generation has felt was a part of our identities as Americans. And with all due respect to NWBill, this is not something that we can just start up again in 2013 – it may take another generation.
The crazy thing is, the Space Shuttle works and the three Orbiters have many flights left in them. They were designed for 100 flights and the three we have have done 25 to 39 flights. They could keep flying and keep the crews employed. Isn’t that the kind of “shovel ready” job all the Keynesian stimulus was supposed to be stimulating?
Reagan – He won the Cold War without firing a shot.
Obama – He lost the Space Race without firing a shot.
What few people realize is the intrinsic value that NASA and the shuttle gave this country. As a direct result of this agency and it’s programs we have the digital information world we live in now. Technologies that were developed for NASA programs made possible the technology boom that we’ve enjoyed for the last 50 years. Having worked in the aerospace world in R&D I had a unique view of what was being developed that has a direct impact on our every day lives today. Without those who dared to dream of what could be, we would not be as fortunate today. The fact that the current administration fails to see this is the biggest tragedy of all. So the cost of NASA & Shuttle although large in number was very small interms of human existance. The cost in human life was huge but everyone forgets that every person who lost their lives on shuttle boarded thrie ship with the knowlage that death was a distinct possibility but volunteered with pride and excitement to go. We do them a great dishonor by ending the shuttle program without the next logical step in place to replace it. Shame on Obama and the Democrtatic congress who failed them.
I grant NASA has an important role in space R&D. They are irrelevant in space operations, and the sooner they get out of the operational end of it, the better. Tell the private sector where you want to go, and how much you’re willing to pay to get there.
I was an engineer on the shuttle program for about 5 years (’97 to ’02) working at Rockwell/Boeing. I was not involved in the development of the shuttle vehicle during its heyday, but I did design a few pieces of hardware used on later missions.
The shuttle was a truly impressive piece of engineering. But like many aerospace projects, it turned out to be too costly to justify its intended function. The shuttle program should have been terminated 15 years ago, since the shuttle’s launch cost far exceeds that of unmanned launchers. But NASA kept the program alive because shuttle funds were also used to keep various NASA facilities (GRC,MSFC,etc.) open. It is easy for getting congressional budget approval for a program like the shuttle.
One of the more clever things that NASA managers did to ensure continued funding of the space shuttle, was to configure most of the space station payloads such that they could only be launched on the shuttle.
While I hate to admit it as an engineer, the only real result of NASA’s 30 year shuttle program was to keep a bunch of very smart engineers and scientists gainfully employed.
Having said that, there is still a very valuable function for NASA to fulfill. NASA should go back to its original mandate of basic aeronautics research, making commercial/civil air travel safer and more economical. Most people don’t appreciate the fact that currently you are statistically safer flying on a US commercial aircraft than you are sitting in your own home. That’s the type of impressive results that NASA should pursue, and not some multi-billion dollar space travel boondoggle.
Yep. I will never forgive NASA for crashing the DC-X, and not picking up the program again. Flying X vehicles, of various styles, not just the politically popular one, is what NASA should be about.
The shuttle to me will always remain a committee-designed boondoggle and space exploration’s most notorious widowmaker.
It was originally intended to be two fully-reusable winged stages, but in the name of economy the design was perverted and some very important rules of thumb violated (uncontrollable, roman candle solid boosters on a man-rated vehicle, no viable escape system, no air-breathing engines for landing maneuvers, etc.)
The solid boosters and the disposable fuel tank both bore bitter fruit over the years. The orbiter has to be all but completely disassembled and put back together after every flight and was in every way more expensive than just keeping Von Braun’s dear old Saturn booster up and running.
I’m with James F. Oberg that the only reason the ISS came into being was to give the shuttle a raison d’etre. I have yet to hear of anything of real significance coming out of that tin can assemblage.
NASA and the Space Shuttle demonstrated how Federal Bureaucracies become bloated, self-serving (Pournelle’s Iron Law), slow, wasteful and, ultimately, at odds with their original purpose. The Space Shuttle combined bulk lift with man-rated safety – kinda like building an 18-wheeler with the technological (hand-built) sophistication of a Maserati, but with more safety features than a Volvo. It was an amazing piece of technology, but very expensive, in every sense of the word. Kept a lot of well paid people in Florida and California employed, at great cost.
The Shuttle should have been, and was originally intended to be, an interim measure lasting perhaps 10 years; a bridge between disposable rockets and the fully-reusable airliner-style launch vehicles that will be essential to the commercialization of space. Much was learned from it, but Congress can seldom commit to a long-term plan.
IOW – Gaia doesn’t blossom into space until the Free Market provides the mechanisms. Which is why Mars is a dead end. Robert Zubrin needs to answer the question, “What product will be produced on Mars, and then sold for profit on Earth?”
The real answer is that space IS the place. Free, limitless energy; free abundant materials and freedom from gravity (except when, and at what level, you want it).
I’ll refrain from reposting my extended comments at the other article
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/07/08/now-that-were-done-with-the-shuttle-program-lets-reform-nasa/
but I’ll summarize thus: people forget that NASA’s main job is not space exploration, per se, but rather to do the long-term research and development that private industry cannot afford and to develop technologies for the U.S. aerospace industry. NASA should be (and should have been for the last 30 years) concentrating primarily on the development of the fully reusable launch vehicles and other technologies necessary for private industry to work in and take commercial advantage of space, e.g. Rutan and Bigelow. Yes, NASA is in charge of space exploration, e.g. Voyager, the Mars Rovers, et al, mostly by default. However the end goal of all of this is to – or should be to – provide U.S. companies with the tools and knowledge that they need to compete in the world market.