The space shuttle program: stunning success or dismal failure?

Posted By Stephen M. Walt Tuesday, March 22, 2011 - 12:50 PM Share

Explanatory Note: A couple of weeks ago, I read a news story about how museums around the country were competing to exhibit the retired space shuttle Discovery, after its long and supposedly distinguished career. That's not surprising, of course, as having a shuttle on display would undoubtedly be a big draw for a lot of museums. What troubled me was the suspicion that future museum exhibits would depict the whole shuttle program in laudatory terms, instead of treating it as an foolish diversion of national resources. Space policy isn't really my thing, however, and I said to myself: "You know, you'd need a rocket scientist to write this properly!" Fortunately, I have one available: my father. He's a geophysicist who spent much of his career designing satellite packages and interpreting the data they produced, so I asked him if he'd be willing to contribute a guest post on the topic. Here's what he sent in. -- S.M.W.

By Martin Walt IV

Recent news columns have commemorated the retirement of the Space Shuttle orbiter Discovery. It is indeed noteworthy that this vehicle experienced some 39 launches and traveled 150 million miles in near-Earth space. This achievement was made possible by the imaginative engineers and scientists who conceived the Shuttle program and developed the necessary technical innovations. Recognition must also be given to the dauntless flight crews -- both military personnel and civilians -- whose courage and dedication were outstanding, especially those astronauts who volunteered to fly after two orbiters were lost in accidents that revealed serious weaknesses in the hardware and in NASA's managerial culture.

NASA and amateur space enthusiasts portray the Shuttle program as a resounding success, but a more sober appraisal of the program's impact leads to a much less favorable verdict.  The Space Shuttle was expected to provide inexpensive and reliable access to space for a multitude of missions. It never came close to achieving this goal. In retrospect the goal proved impossible due to high refurbishment costs, program delays, and the inappropriate use of humans where robots would have been better. To promote shuttle use and spread fixed costs over many flights, the Expendable Launch Vehicle (i.e., disposable rocket) programs were discontinued, so that all civilian missions could be diverted onto the Shuttle.  Yet instead of being inexpensive, a single launch required approximately $1B.  Schedules were compromised by endless delays and by the inspections needed to verify that the complex machinery was ready to transport humans safely. NASA underestimated the time required to service the orbiters between flights, and the launch frequency never approached the advertised rate, leading to a substantial backlog of payloads, both scientific and applied, awaiting launch. The resulting delays in science programs reached a crisis when the Challenger orbiter was lost, in effect putting America's scientific space effort on hold for over two years. Fortunately for the country, the Air Force had maintained its own Expendable Launch Vehicle capability, and the high priority surveillance satellite programs were not grounded during that period.

It is difficult to estimate the overall direct and indirect cost of the Space Shuttle program, but it must be well over $100B. As these overruns occurred, funds to pay for them were extracted from the science projects the Shuttle was intended to support.  Costs of science experiments launched by the Shuttle were also inflated by the need to certify the instruments as "man rated." Even such unique feats as repairing the Hubble Space Telescope seem less meritorious when one realizes that the repair mission expense was $1B and put astronauts lives at risk. That same $1B could have been used to build and launch a new Space Telescope. In short, the Space Shuttle Program was enormously expensive, led to a tragic loss of human life, and contributed little to science other than launching of scientific payloads which could have been placed in orbit better by expendable vehicles.

The debate on the value of the Space Shuttle Program is but one facet of the manned vs. unmanned space flight controversy that has raged for decades. Proponents of the unmanned or robotic approach to space exploration cite the vastly lower cost, the lack of astronaut risk, and the ability to make one-way trips to distant places. It follows that unmanned programs are essential for the advancement of science in space. 

By contrast, manned space enthusiasts assert that having human intelligence on-site is important, that man's destiny is to explore, and that young people are inspired by the challenge of putting humans in space. They also claim that public support for the space program, both manned and unmanned, would decline if humans were not involved in flight.  The merits of these arguments are debatable, but perhaps there is a role for human beings in some space experiments. However, the Shuttle Program illustrates the dangers, both financial and programmatic, of making humans the central feature of our outer space endeavors. Unfortunately, we seem likely to repeat this mistake with the International Space Station, and if we do, the United States will spend enormous sums and talent for few tangible results.

NASA via Getty Images

EXPLORE:NORTH AMERICA, DISASTERS, GUEST BLOGGER, SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, WINNERS & LOSERS
 

SCORAD

8:18 PM ET

March 22, 2011

A matter of priorities

You seem to think that only purpose of space exploration is to send up your satellites. Such near term observations are still important and unmanned craft should and will remain a substantial part of the space program.

However, many of us think that the primary purpose of space exploration is to get people out there. Yeah it's, hard. And from our ignorant perch on our little rock it's hard to see what the pay-off is gonna be. But given this myopic post, I find it easy to imagine some Walt ancestor standing on a beach watching some villagers build an early boat. He is decrying the waste of energy and the finest stone tools on such a pointless, dangerous exercise. Why go out there anyway? Only a few moons ago we lost a strong warrior when the last one sank! And anyway, we can explore the ocean just fine by going to the top of the volcano on a clear day.

 

GRANT

9:35 PM ET

March 22, 2011

Really? Because those people

Really? Because those people who went out on boats had fish to go after and the ability to travel to resources just across that sea. We've got a lot of smart people who have been looking at asteroids, planets and natural satellites for quite some time now and they can't find a single economic reason to send people up.
Also you haven't countered the point about robotics, which would do just as good a job of being 'strong warriors' and more importantly would be just as good (if not better) at the task of long term exploration without logistical support from Earth.

 

ISHOULDAKNOWN

5:07 PM ET

March 24, 2011

PRIORITIES

Well put. Especially the ancestor analogy.

 

ERICL.

2:00 AM ET

March 23, 2011

A Matter of Priorities

While the Shuttle program has ultimately proven to be a boondoggle, it is no reason to dismiss manned spaceflight. The unprecedented technological advances that have opened space to us have also dramatically increased the possibility of planet-wide calamities. The shuttle program abandoned the successes of Apollo, focusing our ambitions within Earth's orbit. An international effort to colonize the moon or land on Mars are far more inspiring and important than the ISS.

Manned space programs must rededicate themselves to a sustained human presence beyond Earth, before civilization inevitably recedes. I think this is a goal worth pursuing.

 

UBOAT53

5:30 PM ET

March 23, 2011

Agree and Disagree

As a "rocket scientist" myself (BS Aerospace Engineering (concentration Astronautics) and BA Physics, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo), I certainly agree with the assessment of the space shuttle as an extremely costly boondoggle. It's raison d'etre was the idea that a reusable vehicle distributing fixed costs over multiple missions would be cheaper than a disposable vehicle and the program should have been ended as soon as it became apparent that this was not the case.

Where I part ways with the elder Mr. (Dr?) Walt is on the issue of human space exploration. As capable as robots are, there are certain explorations that are only capable of being performed with a human being on the scene with their judgement and situational awareness. Most advocates of an entirely unmanned exploration strategy refuse to take into account the limitations of modern robotic technology. The simple fact is that if robots were actually capable of doing everything a human being could do, we would already be obsolete in all fields.

What we have to remember about human exploration is many of the lessons from the original exploration surge; that of European explorers in the 14-1700s (yes, I'm aware of the arguments that these people were only finding places that were already inhabited, but the fact remains that to them, the areas they explored were unknown). One might take notice of the fact that these expeditions were largely unprofitable until self-sustaining colonies were established in the New World. In my opinion, it is unwise of us to judge the cost-benefit ratio of human space exploration based on the equivalent of a "sight-land-then-leave" mission.

 

SCOTTINDALLAS

2:05 PM ET

March 29, 2011

I don't disagree with you, but

What is the extra cost of human transport in space? Robots don't need clean water, their waste sealed off, or recycled, they don't even need oxygen to breathe, or food to eat. All those, especially the water are extremely heavy. I agree this isn't and needn't be an either or, but what is the extra cost in weight, of these materials themselves and the extra compartments, and fuel and profile?

 

PETER N W

9:31 PM ET

March 23, 2011

Go Badgers

I might have to temper some of my criticism of your son now that I see his father is a fellow Badger alum...but I know he wouldn't want me to. Thanks for the thought provoking post Martin.

 

ITONLYSTANDSTOREASON

10:47 PM ET

March 23, 2011

Debate, No Debate

There really is no debate that we could have obtained a lot more science for a lot less money with resources diverted to unmanned flight.

What I would like to hear is the debate over what that space science has and would bring us, in comparison the technological benefits and science achieved from the shuttle program. Do you want to know the effect on materials of the repeated strains of launch and exposure to space, for example? Mistakes are marvelous opportunities for learning, often more than successes. What lessons have we learned from the "mistake" of the shuttle program?

 

GRANT

12:27 PM ET

March 24, 2011

I can't say what the space

I can't say what the space shuttles have brought us but our work has created the satellite communications networks that so many Americans depend on today, not to mention weather and spy satellites. That alone might be worth the costs of the space program. When you consider how durable the robots we've put on Mars are and how commonplace robots and autonomous vehicles are getting on Earth I'd say that ultimately it was worth the costs.

 

SCOTTINDALLAS

5:15 PM ET

March 29, 2011

it only,

I wanted to make the same point on repeated strains on equipment. Though the Shuttle might have new gut put in each flight. I would love to know, certainly we've learned from the process.

 

MRPOLITISHQ

2:03 AM ET

March 26, 2011

Correction?

"What troubled me was the suspicion that future museum exhibits would depict the whole shuttle program in laudatory terms, instead of treating it as an foolish diversion of national resources."

Now, shouldn't that be "...a foolish diversion of..."

 

SCOOBYMAN95

1:36 AM ET

March 28, 2011

I disagree with you

I am sorry but I have to say that I disagree with everything that you said. Yes NASA had to make certain decisions like take funding from science projects, but everything NASA did, was for a good reason and usually had a good outcome!

“The Space Shuttle Program was enormously expensive” First of all, EVERYTHING is expensive!

“Put astronauts lives at risk” Everything we do puts our lives at risk. Going to space puts our lives at risk, a construction worker puts his life at risk. Flying an airplane puts your life at risk. Skiing puts your life at risk. Not wearing a seat belt puts your life at risk. EVERYTHING WE DO PUTS OUR LIVES AT RISK!

“The Cost of the Space Shuttle Program must have been well over 100 billion dollars” As I already said, EVERYTHING is expensive. Even so, the 100 billion dollars were put into great use! If we hadn’t flown into space we wouldn’t know half the things we know today about space. The 100 billion was used to create an amazing program that surpassed anything anyone had done at the time! ........**I would like to quote Neil Armstrong: “No Government program in modern history has been so effective in motivating the young to do what has never been done before” **

“Inappropriate use of humans where robots would have been better” How would you know if robots would have been better? For all we know, the use of a robot instead of an astronaut during any of the missions might have caused the mission to be a complete failure, because there are things that only humans can do.

“The Space shuttle expected to provide in expensive and reliable access to space” Name one form of transportation more reliable in getting people to space than a space shuttle! In the beginning, nobody was really able to tell how expensive or inexpensive it would be to make a space shuttle, because it was the first time that we had done it!

“Repair mission expense was 1 billion dollars” If we hadn’t repaired the Hubble Telescope, we wouldn’t have made a significant amount of our discoveries.

“Funding was extracted from the science projects the Shuttle was intended to support” Would you rather the take the money out of your pay check in order to pay for the funding? I didn’t think so.

Honestly I could go on and on criticizing you about your remarks, but I have a research paper to finish.

 

SWISSY13

1:05 AM ET

April 18, 2011

Waste of money?

It goes without saying that the amount of money spent on the research and the carrying-out of the space shuttle mission has been excessive. $100 billion? Too much. Unmanned trips would cost so much less and be so much safer, as well as advance space travel greatly.

 

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.

Read More