4 ms·

NASA advanced the science of software development. http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/06/writestuff.html http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/06/writestuff.htm

NASA advanced the science of software development. http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/06/writestuff.html http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/06/writestuff.html The shuttles were home to a number of successful scientific experiments. The shuttles launched and then repaired the Hubble Space Telescope, which helped reshape our view of the cosmos. That went well. The shuttle, back in 1983, saw the first US woman in space, inspiring a generation of girls (to perhaps take more of an interest in science, math, and physics). The shuttles deployed scores and scores of communication, military, and experimental satellites. And then there are all the improvements in our quality of life due to technologies made possible by the creation and maintenance of the space shuttles (not to mention the prolonged study of objects in zero gravity). If by "doomed" you mean had a 30 year life span and by "nothing well" you mean were wildly successful and inspirational from 1981 to 2011, then you are correct. Yes, there were problems, as summarized by Feynman who said "for a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." Like the Apollo missions, the shuttle team had to work with the technology available to them at the time. Could they have done better? Quite likely. Did the shuttles work well? Well enough for over 130 successful launches.

rbanffy 15y ago
> The shuttles were home to a number of successful scientific experiments. The shuttles launched and then repaired the Hubble Space Telescope, which helped reshape our view of the cosmos. That went well. An unmanned vehicle could have launched the Hubble for less money and without risk for human life. Of course, a vehicle should have taken humans up to repair the Hubble, but it could be a much smaller vehicle than a shuttle. > The shuttle, back in 1983, saw the first US woman in space, inspiring a generation of girls (to perhaps take more of an interest in science, math, and physics). I am quite sure a woman can fly a smaller spacecraft. > The shuttles deployed scores and scores of communication, military, and experimental satellites. For more money than unmanned rockets would. > And then there are all the improvements in our quality of life due to technologies made possible by the creation and maintenance of the space shuttles (not to mention the prolonged study of objects in zero gravity). All of them would be developed just the same, perhaps faster because there would be more money for more launches without relying exclusively on shuttles. > If "doomed" you mean had a 30 year life span and by "nothing well" you mean were wildly successful and inspirational from 1981 to 2011, then you are correct. Keeping them operational was a huge effort in denying its costs and the existence and/or preventing the development of more appropriate technologies for every role a shuttle can perform. The shuttle was doomed, from the start, to be a complex, fragile, dangerous and expensive vehicle. > Yes, there were problems, as summarized by Feynman who said "for a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." Indeed. I routinely have to quote him. > Like the Apollo missions, the shuttle team had to work with the technology available to them at the time. Could they have done better? Quite likely. Did the shuttles work well? Well enough for over 130 successful launches. The shuttle team worked miracles with the technology they were limited to. I do not question their competence. I question the rationality of keeping the shuttle fleet flying when it consistently proved to be suboptimal for various roles they were required to perform. The only reason to have a shuttle is to bring down a bus-sized object from space. Every other role can be performed by either unmanned cargo ships or expendable small capsules. The money spent on an unneeded fleet drained resources from other projects. Instead of a fleet of modular vehicles that could be tailored to the mission at hand, we ended up with a fleet of 70-ton reusable cargo holder. Don't get me wrong. It's a beautiful machine. I would have loved if it were cost-effective and if it has spawned a family of reusable spaceplanes. Unfortunately, this is not what happened.
- hugh3 15y ago
  Don't get me wrong. It's a beautiful machine. I would have loved if it were cost-effective and if it has spawned a family of reusable spaceplanes. Unfortunately, this is not what happened. Well, there's always the X-37B. Perhaps now that shuttle-type technology is in the hands of the USAF and away from the public eye they'll be able to do something interesting with it. Then again, maybe putting wings on a spacecraft is just a stupid idea whose pros fail to outweigh its cons.
- thangalin 15y ago
  The space shuttles have captured the imaginations of children for the last 30 years, as Apollo had before that. Massive crowds cram around Cape Canaveral for hours before a launch. The shuttles are impressive: lifting several humans and massive cargo into orbit. Would smaller vessels, sized like Space Craft Two, have held us equally engaged? Conjecture, but I doubt it. That the space shuttle fleet "does nothing well" is a harsh statement, and not true. The software that runs the shuttles, for example, was not just "done well", but is one of the most impressive pieces of software ever written. Millions of lines of code, very few bugs. The process to create the software is nearly as flawless as the software itself. Even if the fact that it had to be so complex misses the point (that a smaller system needn't be so complex), it is still an example of part of the shuttle design that was "done well". Humans can adapt to scientific experiments faster and better than any machines could have, even by remote control, in the 1980s. You simply cannot build a general purpose scientific experiment machine, launch it into space, and get results back. You would have to build specialty systems (such as the rather successful Gravity Probe B). Yes, each shuttle launch could have had its constituent goals carved into a dozen smaller vehicles and missions... yet would the overall price tag for a dozen smaller missions be any lower than a single shuttle mission? Perhaps. (Not having a single point of failure would be the largest benefit.) I think we're mostly on the same page. There are other ways to get space-bound. However, a sweeping statement that the creation and deployment of the shuttle fleet across 130 missions resulted in nothing of worth, nothing of value, or that the design does "nothing well" is a tad off the mark. It inspired. It sent people and objects into space. I agree that there were other, less expensive ways, that could have been less prone to failure. Even more, projects run over-budget and can still be considered successful, valuable, and "done well". (The Mars rovers, for example, were 300 million over budget. A roaring success and that was done exceedingly well.) Some design components of the shuttle were done well. Others, I wholly agree, were not.
berntb 15y ago
The Shuttle project promised launch costs in the $100s for a kilo. It failed with roughly a factor of 100. All the NASA money wasted could have been used better in doing something! Like space research -- or going to Mars. The shuttle project has probably delayed humanity living outside the atmosphere by decades. Hell, the shuttle's existence might literally have doomed humanity, if another dinosaur killer comes along... The only "good" thing with the shuttle, which makes people support it, is that it was a job program.

rbanffy 15y ago

> The shuttles were home to a number of successful scientific experiments. The shuttles launched and then repaired the Hubble Space Telescope, which helped reshape our view of the cosmos. That went well. An unmanned vehicle could have launched the Hubble for less money and without risk for human life. Of course, a vehicle should have taken humans up to repair the Hubble, but it could be a much smaller vehicle than a shuttle. > The shuttle, back in 1983, saw the first US woman in space, inspiring a generation of girls (to perhaps take more of an interest in science, math, and physics). I am quite sure a woman can fly a smaller spacecraft. > The shuttles deployed scores and scores of communication, military, and experimental satellites. For more money than unmanned rockets would. > And then there are all the improvements in our quality of life due to technologies made possible by the creation and maintenance of the space shuttles (not to mention the prolonged study of objects in zero gravity). All of them would be developed just the same, perhaps faster because there would be more money for more launches without relying exclusively on shuttles. > If "doomed" you mean had a 30 year life span and by "nothing well" you mean were wildly successful and inspirational from 1981 to 2011, then you are correct. Keeping them operational was a huge effort in denying its costs and the existence and/or preventing the development of more appropriate technologies for every role a shuttle can perform. The shuttle was doomed, from the start, to be a complex, fragile, dangerous and expensive vehicle. > Yes, there were problems, as summarized by Feynman who said "for a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." Indeed. I routinely have to quote him. > Like the Apollo missions, the shuttle team had to work with the technology available to them at the time. Could they have done better? Quite likely. Did the shuttles work well? Well enough for over 130 successful launches. The shuttle team worked miracles with the technology they were limited to. I do not question their competence. I question the rationality of keeping the shuttle fleet flying when it consistently proved to be suboptimal for various roles they were required to perform. The only reason to have a shuttle is to bring down a bus-sized object from space. Every other role can be performed by either unmanned cargo ships or expendable small capsules. The money spent on an unneeded fleet drained resources from other projects. Instead of a fleet of modular vehicles that could be tailored to the mission at hand, we ended up with a fleet of 70-ton reusable cargo holder. Don't get me wrong. It's a beautiful machine. I would have loved if it were cost-effective and if it has spawned a family of reusable spaceplanes. Unfortunately, this is not what happened.

hugh3 15y ago
Don't get me wrong. It's a beautiful machine. I would have loved if it were cost-effective and if it has spawned a family of reusable spaceplanes. Unfortunately, this is not what happened. Well, there's always the X-37B. Perhaps now that shuttle-type technology is in the hands of the USAF and away from the public eye they'll be able to do something interesting with it. Then again, maybe putting wings on a spacecraft is just a stupid idea whose pros fail to outweigh its cons.
thangalin 15y ago
The space shuttles have captured the imaginations of children for the last 30 years, as Apollo had before that. Massive crowds cram around Cape Canaveral for hours before a launch. The shuttles are impressive: lifting several humans and massive cargo into orbit. Would smaller vessels, sized like Space Craft Two, have held us equally engaged? Conjecture, but I doubt it. That the space shuttle fleet "does nothing well" is a harsh statement, and not true. The software that runs the shuttles, for example, was not just "done well", but is one of the most impressive pieces of software ever written. Millions of lines of code, very few bugs. The process to create the software is nearly as flawless as the software itself. Even if the fact that it had to be so complex misses the point (that a smaller system needn't be so complex), it is still an example of part of the shuttle design that was "done well". Humans can adapt to scientific experiments faster and better than any machines could have, even by remote control, in the 1980s. You simply cannot build a general purpose scientific experiment machine, launch it into space, and get results back. You would have to build specialty systems (such as the rather successful Gravity Probe B). Yes, each shuttle launch could have had its constituent goals carved into a dozen smaller vehicles and missions... yet would the overall price tag for a dozen smaller missions be any lower than a single shuttle mission? Perhaps. (Not having a single point of failure would be the largest benefit.) I think we're mostly on the same page. There are other ways to get space-bound. However, a sweeping statement that the creation and deployment of the shuttle fleet across 130 missions resulted in nothing of worth, nothing of value, or that the design does "nothing well" is a tad off the mark. It inspired. It sent people and objects into space. I agree that there were other, less expensive ways, that could have been less prone to failure. Even more, projects run over-budget and can still be considered successful, valuable, and "done well". (The Mars rovers, for example, were 300 million over budget. A roaring success and that was done exceedingly well.) Some design components of the shuttle were done well. Others, I wholly agree, were not.

berntb 15y ago

The Shuttle project promised launch costs in the $100s for a kilo. It failed with roughly a factor of 100. All the NASA money wasted could have been used better in doing something! Like space research -- or going to Mars. The shuttle project has probably delayed humanity living outside the atmosphere by decades. Hell, the shuttle's existence might literally have doomed humanity, if another dinosaur killer comes along... The only "good" thing with the shuttle, which makes people support it, is that it was a job program.