7 ms·

Dismantling the Space Shuttle Program

39 points by admp 16y ago

Chocobean 16y ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3po2gdQNgqk 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_s 16y ago
  Thank you. That was amazing.
BasDirks 16y ago
Open source it! Not happening, I know, but wouldn't that be sweet?
- mturmon 16y ago
  Doing so would be in violation of ITAR among other laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708
  - Joakal 16y ago
    Leading humanity to the stars has been limited in the name of national interest.
  - jrockway 16y 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 :)
    - mturmon 16y ago
      Har, har. You're right, the link does not tell the whole story -- it's hard to summarize the situation easily. See my comment to the similar question below.
  - caf 16y ago
    The designs for the Space Shuttle were publically available - the Russians started from them when building the Buran.
    - wooster 16y ago
      The CIA claims the Soviets were working from a rejected Shuttle design provided as part of an engineering misinformation campaign: https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/96unclass/farewell.htm https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intellig...
  - pbhjpbhj 16y 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?
    - mturmon 16y ago
      The level of scrutiny to get an approval to release any meaningful part of the Shuttle flight software would be almost insuperable. "Open-sourcing it" is utterly out of the question. However, this is not because there is secret communications tech on board. It's because any "space-based technology" is covered by ITAR, and the US government has signaled (in the case I referenced, and others) that the gloves are off. It's not just fining the companies concerned, it's filing criminal charges against the involved individuals. This has been true for some years now, and the crystallizing event was the Intelsat incident above, which caused a multifaceted furor that resists summarization. A case in point. I worked on a project to analyze ISS (space station) engineering data. We needed to look at the currents flowing through a motor on ISS that controls orientation of the solar panels. For publications released in the open literature, we were not allowed to label the axes on any of these motor currents. We were not allowed to have foreign nationals (such as, say, a Canadian grad student) working on the project. The point being, any information about space-based systems is covered by ITAR, and the standard of scrutiny is very high.
      - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
        I hesitate to say this but that sounds moronic. What, in your opinion, are they trying to achieve with this sort of "scrutiny"? Are they trying to stop Iran from developing a range of super-shuttles with lasers? Presumably they're now going to pension off all NASA staff to avoid them sharing such expertise (like which way round to wire a motor) with outsiders?
        mturmon 16y ago
        I suppose they're trying to limit Chinese technological competition, and to delay Iran's getting long-range missiles (to choose two examples). Legal solutions like ITAR are always coarse-grained, and the whole thing ends up looking silly because parts of it are silly.
michaelpinto 16y 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 16y 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 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.
  - arethuza 16y ago
    Exactly, and when there is a good commercial reason for going to the moon (or anywhere else).
    - randallsquared 16y ago
      I think there have been good commercial reasons for decades. The problem isn't inherent to the task, the problem has been legislative and regulatory uncertainty. The only way around that would be operating from a more open jurisdiction (difficult due to so many of your potential workers being banned from working with you due to ITAR) or having so much personal wealth that you can afford to take the risk, which is the path it seems to be happening on.
      - arethuza 16y ago
        "I think there have been good commercial reasons for decades" What commercial reason would you have for going to the moon at the moment?
sliverstorm 16y ago
Looking at this photo: http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/shuttle041311/s_d06_20112187.jpg 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 16y 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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsQXQGaasUg
  - scott_s 16y ago
    That picture is meaningful to me because of what it represents.
  - sliverstorm 16y 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 16y 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.
- jrockway 16y 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 16y 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 16y 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 16y 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.

39 points by admp 16y ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3po2gdQNgqk 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_s 16y ago
Thank you. That was amazing.

BasDirks 16y ago

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

mturmon 16y ago
Doing so would be in violation of ITAR among other laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708
- Joakal 16y ago
  Leading humanity to the stars has been limited in the name of national interest.
- jrockway 16y 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 :)
  - mturmon 16y ago
    Har, har. You're right, the link does not tell the whole story -- it's hard to summarize the situation easily. See my comment to the similar question below.
- caf 16y ago
  The designs for the Space Shuttle were publically available - the Russians started from them when building the Buran.
  - wooster 16y ago
    The CIA claims the Soviets were working from a rejected Shuttle design provided as part of an engineering misinformation campaign: https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/96unclass/farewell.htm https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intellig...
- pbhjpbhj 16y 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?
  - mturmon 16y ago
    The level of scrutiny to get an approval to release any meaningful part of the Shuttle flight software would be almost insuperable. "Open-sourcing it" is utterly out of the question. However, this is not because there is secret communications tech on board. It's because any "space-based technology" is covered by ITAR, and the US government has signaled (in the case I referenced, and others) that the gloves are off. It's not just fining the companies concerned, it's filing criminal charges against the involved individuals. This has been true for some years now, and the crystallizing event was the Intelsat incident above, which caused a multifaceted furor that resists summarization. A case in point. I worked on a project to analyze ISS (space station) engineering data. We needed to look at the currents flowing through a motor on ISS that controls orientation of the solar panels. For publications released in the open literature, we were not allowed to label the axes on any of these motor currents. We were not allowed to have foreign nationals (such as, say, a Canadian grad student) working on the project. The point being, any information about space-based systems is covered by ITAR, and the standard of scrutiny is very high.
    - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
      I hesitate to say this but that sounds moronic. What, in your opinion, are they trying to achieve with this sort of "scrutiny"? Are they trying to stop Iran from developing a range of super-shuttles with lasers? Presumably they're now going to pension off all NASA staff to avoid them sharing such expertise (like which way round to wire a motor) with outsiders?
      - mturmon 16y ago
        I suppose they're trying to limit Chinese technological competition, and to delay Iran's getting long-range missiles (to choose two examples). Legal solutions like ITAR are always coarse-grained, and the whole thing ends up looking silly because parts of it are silly.

michaelpinto 16y 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 16y 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 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.
- arethuza 16y ago
  Exactly, and when there is a good commercial reason for going to the moon (or anywhere else).
  - randallsquared 16y ago
    I think there have been good commercial reasons for decades. The problem isn't inherent to the task, the problem has been legislative and regulatory uncertainty. The only way around that would be operating from a more open jurisdiction (difficult due to so many of your potential workers being banned from working with you due to ITAR) or having so much personal wealth that you can afford to take the risk, which is the path it seems to be happening on.
    - arethuza 16y ago
      "I think there have been good commercial reasons for decades" What commercial reason would you have for going to the moon at the moment?

sliverstorm 16y ago

Looking at this photo: http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/shuttle041311/s_d06_20112187.jpg 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 16y 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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsQXQGaasUg
- scott_s 16y ago
  That picture is meaningful to me because of what it represents.
- sliverstorm 16y 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 16y 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.

jrockway 16y 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 16y 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 16y 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 16y 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.