Dismantling the Space Shuttle Program

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/04/dismantling-the-space-shuttle-program/100045/

by admp • 15 years ago

39 31 15 years ago

Chocobean• 15 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3po2gdQNgqk

I remember watching the episode of Top Gear where James May drives the new moon buggy, then sits down and talk about the old moon buggy.

[Kind of a spoiler] The old one, which served everyone so well, was left behind to collect dust on the surface of the moon for the rest of eternity. And then, he says, "But if you ask me, it's not half as sad a moon buggy that will never get up there at all." I tear up just thinking about it.

scott_s2• 15 years ago

Thank you. That was amazing.

BasDirks• 15 years ago

Open source it! Not happening, I know, but wouldn't that be sweet?

mturmon4• 15 years ago

Doing so would be in violation of ITAR among other laws:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708

Joakal• 15 years ago

Leading humanity to the stars has been limited in the name of national interest.

jrockway2• 15 years ago

I don't see the big deal about the link. Some private company's technology was stolen by the Chinese after that company blew up a bunch of Chinese citizens? If the technology was any good, the rocket would have gone up :)

caf• 15 years ago

The designs for the Space Shuttle were publically available - the Russians started from them when building the Buran.

pbhjpbhj2• 15 years ago

Are you sure? The space shuttle has classified secret communications tech on board?

According to your link Intelsat 708 had classified systems. I find it highly unlikely that the space shuttle has militarily sensitive secrets unless you're suggesting that the shuttle program itself was militarised?

michaelpinto2• 15 years ago

It breaks my heart that we didn't have a replacement lined up years ago. I fear it will take China landing on the moon until the US gets serious about funding NASA to do some hands on space exploration. Granted I'm happy that we live in an era when space science is booming, but getting humans off this rock more often shouldn't be that hard to do in the 21st Century...

Empact• 15 years ago

NASA's budget has been pretty steady at about half its boom-time moon-landing 60's budget for several decades. http://jeffreyellis.org/images/NASA_budget_history_2.png That's $15 Billion a year - not a ton of money when the shuttle costs a billion per launch, but I'll bet it's plenty in the hands of a more efficient organization such as SpaceX, with costs 1/5 - 1/10th as much.

arethuza2• 15 years ago

Exactly, and when there is a good commercial reason for going to the moon (or anywhere else).

robin_reala• 15 years ago

If you just want people to go into space then why does it matter if it’s NASA or China National Space Administration?

michaelpinto2• 15 years ago

I see a spinoff value with the technology: http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/

sliverstorm2• 15 years ago

Looking at this photo:

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/shuttle041311/s_d0...

I can't help but picture a storied old workhorse complicity plodding to it's demise. Just think of the places this thing has been! It's somehow a sad picture.

It's going to be dismantled (killed), 'made safe' (sterilized), and put on public display (put up in stocks). Outta go out with a bit more glory.

bonzoesc• 15 years ago

It's appealing to romanticize and anthropomorphize machines, but you really shouldn't. They only exist to suit the whims and needs of people, and any romance or feelings between man and machine are strictly one-way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsQXQGaasUg

scott_s2• 15 years ago

That picture is meaningful to me because of what it represents.

sliverstorm2• 15 years ago

First, thanks for posting that video again- I love that ad.

Second, of course I know they aren't alive. But if I derive some enjoyment from it, isn't that suiting my whims?

It's just more fun when I can reprimand my motorcycle for trying to throw me. Maybe I need a horse, but I can't swing that.

(Third, I agree with scott_s)

iwwr• 15 years ago

One of the great boondoggles of our history is finally wound down. The sentiment should not be nostalgia, but rage for all those wasted resources. Consider just the kind of unmanned probes that could have been sent out there.

jrockway2• 15 years ago

Wait until you hear how much the military costs. Just consider the kind of foreign aid we could provide if we weren't shooting injured civilians from billion-dollar helicopters.

The point is, the amount of money the space shuttle wastes is nothing compared to what the rest of the government wastes. Things get funded because they appeal to people -- the space shuttle is the reason NASA gets funded at all. Sending people to space is cool.

Retric• 15 years ago

Sending people to space is cool. But sending people AND stuff to space at the same time is simply a stupid waste of money. The Apollo program docked space ships launched from the moon. If the shuttle was designed for 8 people + air filters + some water and no cargo it could have added a lot more redundancy and with a better Mass to surface area ratio it could have returned to earth a lot cooler. They could have even added some air breathing engines and landed an airplane vs a falling brick.

We needed a 6-8 seat aircraft and built a 737.

mak120• 15 years ago

Can't help feeling a little sad. The same feeling when the Concorde was retired.

Its not sad that these awesome machines are being phased out. Machines/designs become old and obsolete all the time. But in this case, there is simply nothing better to replace it. It is as if this was as far as mankind could go and have to turn back.

Here's to hoping that some day there will something more ingenious that will be a worthy successor.

rbanffy• 15 years ago

This one was obsolete well before its first flight. Astronauts could be delivered to LEO with expendables for less money. Satellites and supplies to the ISS could be delivered without risking human lives and, again, for less money. By using expendables you would end-up building modular spacecraft, iterating designs and improving them on every launch. By using less money you get to build more expendables.

The shuttle is a beautiful machine, but it's even less practical than the Concorde. And many, many orders of magnitude more expensive.

Sadly, a Saturn/Apollo stack would be more ingenious and a worthy successor.

That said, the SRBs, the tank and the engines could be put to good use. I guess the tank could be adapted to LOX/Jet-1 and engines and payload could be fitted on it.

The orbiter is the problem.

Dismantling the Space Shuttle Program

Related Stories