6 ms·

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 ho

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.

rbanffy 15y ago
Think about it: if the shuttle program were canceled when it became clear that it would not provide low-cost space access, there would be money for a lot more launches, more launch vehicles (big cargo, small cargo-and-crew, small cargo without crew). By now, the ISS would be 5 times its size with a dozen scientists working there. We could even have established a permanent moon colony (a radiotelescope on the far side is a nice idea). That would also inspire generations of new space scientists. The successes of the shuttle program were, indeed, impressive, but the failures were equally baffling. Let's hope, the next time, reason prevails over politics.

rbanffy 15y ago

Think about it: if the shuttle program were canceled when it became clear that it would not provide low-cost space access, there would be money for a lot more launches, more launch vehicles (big cargo, small cargo-and-crew, small cargo without crew). By now, the ISS would be 5 times its size with a dozen scientists working there. We could even have established a permanent moon colony (a radiotelescope on the far side is a nice idea). That would also inspire generations of new space scientists. The successes of the shuttle program were, indeed, impressive, but the failures were equally baffling. Let's hope, the next time, reason prevails over politics.