Wayne Hale explains why we should shut down the Shuttle.
Everything he says is true–much of the infrastructure and support contractors for the system are already gone. That’s why it will be very expensive to resurrect them to the degree necessary to fly past 2010. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible, but as I wrote in my PJM piece, we have to decide how much ISS is worth to us. And if we want to keep the option open, and as least costly as possible, we need to stop terminating those suppliers and destroying tooling immediately. It’s probably a prudent thing to do, until the next president can make a decision.
Keeping the 8.4 m tooling would also make Jupiter/DIRECT easier. As you know, a last mission to deliver the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer could accelerate Shuttle retirement.
Someone remind me — what is the space station for? What new scientific or technological insights has it yielded?
I’m serious. Not enough press coverage is devoted to these questions, so I’m in the dark defending ISS. Do we now know enough to put men in a tin can on the way to Mars for two years? Have we got a better handle on radiation damage to spacecraft structures? Better information on reliability of life support system components? Surely there is a track record of technical reports from ISS experience….
BBB
Someone remind me — what is the space station for?
Its purpose is to continue the flow of federal funds. Anything else is just transparent rationalization.
That’s oversimplified, Paul. There are many ways of ensuring the flow of federal funds.
The purpose of the space station is to maintain the flow of federal funds into certain states and congressional districts, and to maintain the facade that we are accomplishing something useful in space, and are world leaders in that field. The latter also allows us to avoid having a serious national discussion on what, if anything, we should be doing in space and how to best accomplish it.
But as I said in my PJM piece, we may be approaching a breaking point at which such a discussion is finally unavoidable.
I bet we may already be past the breaking point, for political reasons. Enough damage has been done that when the full cost of reestablishing a supply chain becomes apparent Congress will balk. They cry foul and shout, but they won’t pay. That’s my guess. Even the above stated “benefits” of the ISS won’t justify that expense.
It’s actually going to be very interesting to see how the body politic responds. We have sunk many tens of billions of dollars into ISS, and it carries a great deal of national pride. This is arguably the greatest crisis in the space program since Sputnik, when all of the contradictions and foolish policy decisions of the past half century finally become exposed.
We have sunk many tens of billions of dollars into ISS
So you want to send good money after bad? No thank you!
It carries a great deal of national pride
It does? Compared to the X Prize, for example? It’s true that Americans are generally proud of NASA, but that pride has a vague character. As in, whatever NASA has been doing lately, we’re proud of it.
Besides, is national pride an important government objective? It’s clearly important for China, which mortgaged the farm for the Olympics. It’s clearly important for Russia, which is taking Georgia apart to prove its might. But for the US? Surely national confidence is more important than national pride. Pride goeth before a fall. In any case the libertarian answer is that neither national pride nor national confidence fits well with limited government.
when all of the contradictions and foolish policy decisions of the past half century finally become exposed.
Then the government should wear egg on its face and let the private sector go its own way. Hey, there’s an idea: Privatize the shuttle and the space station. Put the hardware up for auction and spend tax money on it no more. Maybe Scaled, XCOR, and Armadillo can make good use of the parts. Or maybe Boeing and LockMart can make good use of the parts; after all, they built them. As long as they’re willing to pay instead of be paid.
So you want to send good money after bad?
No.
The subject of this post is not about what I want. It’s about the political realities of what will likely happen. But then, you wouldn’t know much about political realities. Perhaps you should simply refrain from comment.
But then, you wouldn’t know much about political realities.
Sure I do.
“In 2010, the Space Shuttle — after nearly 30 years of duty — will be retired from service.” — George Bush
There’s the political reality for you. And Bush should be applauded for it.
There’s the political reality for you.
That’s no longer a political reality. In case you haven’t noticed, George Bush will no longer be president in half a year. Someone else will decide.
“The purpose of the space station is […] to maintain the facade that we are accomplishing something useful in space, and are world leaders in that field.”
Oh, I disagree–I think we are leaders in that field.
Rick, some games have winners and losers. Others just have losers. I don’t think what NASA is doing in space these days counts as “leading”, even if no one else is playing the game.
If the US is the leader in space, ISS certainly isn’t evidence of it. We couldn’t build it without Russian help, and in a couple years, we won’t be able to access it without them.
The real US leadership in space is coming from the people who are actually working to get the cost of access down, a goal that NASA has given up on.
To really pick on your theme Rand, from 2010 to roughly 2014 (maybe later), we will have control of ISS from the MCC. We can only get crew there (from any country) via Russia. We can get supplies there from ESA, Russia, or JAXA. So while we continue to employ thousands to monitor, control, and provide maintenance engineering; we otherwise can easily be shutout of ISS.
It will be very interesting how the American people take that reality.
This is arguably the greatest crisis in the space program since Sputnik
And, tellingly, much the same kind of pseudo-crisis of perception and self-esteem. Even as the R-7 took Sputnik to orbit, US ICBM capability was matching (and would soon surpass) that of the USSR. We would soon start out (and stay) well ahead in surveillance satellites. Space was not then and is not now even close to being strategically decisive. And however warm and proud memories of the space race make us feel, it’s hard to argue that the course of geopolitics from 1969 to the collapse of the USSR was changed much by the Apollo triumph.
The impending Gap is testimony to bipartisan neglect, bad planning and lame execution going back many years. But do we really have to get our Jockeys in a knot about Made-in-the-USA access to ISS as a “crisis”? Or is it just space fans seeking again the elusive Magic Motivator that could make everybody else care (briefly) as much as we do?
Space was not then and is not now even close to being strategically decisive.
True only if you mean human spaceflight. It should be obvious that our GPS, communications and spy satellites are a huge strategic asset.
…it’s hard to argue that the course of geopolitics from 1969 to the collapse of the USSR was changed much by the Apollo triumph.
Except in the sense that matching our manned space program contributed to the ruinous expense of trying to match our technological accomplishments in general. Think of how much money the Soviets wasted on Buran, for instance.
Man, Rick C made a great joke and nobody caught it!
He said:
“The purpose of the space station is […] to maintain the facade that we are accomplishing something useful in space, and are world leaders in that field.”
Oh, I disagree–I think we are leaders in that field.
In other words the US is the world leader in maintaining the facade that we are accomplishing something useful in space.
Pretty subtle, Rick!
Yours,
Wince