E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Mark Wilson / Getty Images
Retired senator-astronaut John Glenn is surrounded by other space veterans in front of the space shuttle Discovery during its handover to the Smithsonian at the Udvar-Hazy Center in Chantilly, Va., on Thursday. Glenn says the shuttles were "prematurely grounded" but accepts the shuttle program's end.
For some veteran astronauts, today’s transformation of the shuttle Discovery into a museum exhibit is a cause for celebration. For others, it’s a reminder of their regrets. But for John Grunsfeld, the one-time “Hubble Hugger” who is now NASA’s science chief, the dominant feeling is a sense of relief.
Discovery's handover to the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum has re-ignited questions about the end of the 30-year space shuttle program. Why did they have to be retired? The short answer is that in the wake of the 2003 Columbia tragedy, policymakers decided that once the job of building the International Space Station was finished, it would just be too risky and expensive to keep the shuttles flying.
Instead, President George W. Bush decided to re-target the space program on destinations beyond Earth orbit. For Bush, the first focus was going to be the moon. President Barack Obama shifted that initial focus to near-Earth asteroids, but the endpoint is the same: eventually getting to Mars. And the shuttles could never do that. They weren't built to go beyond Earth orbit.
Nevertheless, some of America's best-known astronauts think the shuttles should have been kept around a while longer — particularly because NASA will be dependent on the Russians for rides to the space station for the next three to five years.
'Unfortunate decision'
"The unfortunate decision eight and a half years ago to terminate the shuttle program, in my opinion, prematurely grounded Discovery and delayed our research," retired senator-astronaut John Glenn said during today's handover ceremony at the museum's Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Virginia.
Former senator-astronaut John Glenn speaks as the Smithsonian formally accepts space shuttle Discovery for permanent exhibition.
Another retired astronaut who rode on Discovery, Tom Jones, voiced similar frustration during an interview conducted before today's ceremony. "I'm reliving the disappointment that the shuttles are retiring without a rapid successor," he told me.
Jones wishes that the White House and Congress had revved up NASA's plan for new spaceships capable of going to the space station and beyond: the Constellation Program, which initially aimed to put U.S. astronauts back on the moon by 2020. Instead, Constellation was so cash-starved and technically challenged that the Obama White House scrubbed the program and reworked elements of it into the current plan to visit an asteroid by 2025.
"We dropped the ball on this," Jones said. "If we just went from 0.5 percent of the federal budget to 0.6 percent, this would all be a non-issue."
The benefit of retaining an American system for resupplying the space station is what motivated Glenn's call to keep the shuttles flying. Glenn made his pitch to the White House in 2010 — but Obama didn't go for it, and the former Democratic senator told me today that he accepts the verdict.
"No need crying over what happened in the past," Glenn said. "Let's get on with the future."
The 'Hubble Hugger' and his pin
Grunsfeld thinks the White House made the right call, at least on the question of grounding the shuttles. He's best-known for his role as a spacewalker on Hubble servicing missions in 1999, 2002 and 2009. During that last mission, Grunsfeld was the one who bade the Hubble Space Telescope goodbye forever. Now he's NASA's associate administrator for science. The way Grunsfeld sees it, keeping the shuttles flying might have led to another disaster like the 1986 Challenger explosion — or the loss of Columbia and its seven STS-107 crew members in 2003.
"There's a possibility we could have flown them for a little bit longer, or extended them at some cost," Grunsfeld told me. "I'm actually extremely thankful that we are rolling Discovery into the Air and Space Museum, and not burying its parts. We flew out the space shuttle program gracefully. We didn't lose another one. It would have been tragic. The fact is that the space shuttle program was ended with dignity — it was an amazing accomplishment, and I'm just thankful for that."
Then he shared what he called a "small, personal story."
"Just this morning, on my flight suit for the first time since the loss of Columbia, I took my STS-107 pin off. I felt like this was an apt celebration, that we flew out the program safely after Columbia, and that affected me very deeply," Grunsfeld said. "Now that we are where we are, I'm looking forward to getting the next space vehicle going."
The end ... and the beginning
Retired astronaut Eileen Collins, who became NASA's first woman shuttle pilot during a 1995 mission on Discovery and went on to command shuttle missions in 1999 and 2005, has some firsthand knowledge about the risks associated with flying the shuttles.
The 2005 mission on Discovery marked NASA's "return to flight" after the Columbia tragedy. She and most other people at NASA had thought they had solved the foam-loss problem that led to the Columbia's doom — but mission managers were shocked to see that the fuel tank shed a substantial piece of foam insulation during Discovery's ascent. No significant harm was done, but it took another year for NASA engineers to rework the problem to their satisfaction.
This week, retired NASA shuttle manager Wayne Hale recounted the episode in a blog item headlined "How We Nearly Lost Discovery."
Today, Collins noted that each shuttles was originally designed to fly for 100 missions or 10 years, whichever came first. Discovery, the most traveled of the shuttles, flew 39 missions ... over the course of 28 years. She recalled that she agreed with the shuttle retirement plan that was announced in 2004, but was disappointed when the Constellation Program was canceled in 2010.
"At that time, I would say yes, we should keep the shuttles flying — with one major exception. Back in 2006, we at NASA made major decisions to start shutting down the pipeline for parts. In 2010, to reverse the decision and continue flying the shuttles was going to be very expensive and take a very long time. So it wasn't realistic to fly them again," she told me.
"The worst thing we can do to our people is to constantly change things ... so in the end, the right thing to do was to fly out shuttle. I am personally very sad to see it go. But the big problem is, we don't have anything to follow on right now. We're going to get there. It's just that right now, we don't have it."
It's not the end of the shuttle program that bothers Collins. Rather, it's the possibility that NASA won't be able to follow through on the beginning of the next program.
"I don't want to see any more canceled programs," she told a school group after today's ceremony. "If we have problems, we need to fix those problems and press on. We can't just cancel and walk away from them. I go to schools, and I talk to kids, and I say, 'If you have problems, stick with it, fix it, don't give up.' We don't want to continue to give up on programs that are going to be taking us out into space, whether it's with robots or with people. We need to keep working on those programs."
What do you think? Here's your chance to weigh in on the end of the shuttle program and the beginning of the next chapter in exploration. Just leave a comment below.
More about what's next for NASA:
- NASA gives all-clear for commercial launch to space station
- NASA's chief says end of shuttle era could usher in new age
- NASA unveils giant rocket design for future space odysseys
- NASA retools spaceship design for missions beyond Earth orbit
- Next steps in a commercial space race
Alan Boyle is msnbc.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding Cosmic Log's Google+ page to your circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.
Leave a Comment:
I'll miss the shuttle, but the real problem is that we had nothing waiting in the wings to replace it! Worse yet, it appears the current administration cancelled the "return to the moon" project largely because George Bush initiated it. If Bush created it, it must be a bad program - right? Mr. Obama's behavior seems to suggest he wants to close down NASA (perhaps so he can instead give that money to his political buddies). One way to ensure that NASA fades into oblivion is to simply keep cancelling or changing programs. That way, NASA will be unable to make any progress, will eventually be considered to be irrelevant, and will be closed down. Heck, Obama can even claim to be budget cutting that way. Given the way the present administration is behaving, it's pretty hard to believe anything they say. Does anyone really think Mr. Obama's asteroid landing makes any sense, or that he really intends to pursue that goal?
If fear that America's interest in space exploration will continue to wane until China puts someone on the moon and we all realize that this is just one more area that we've fallen behind in.
And get into another 'race?' Nonsense. Go with the way events seem to be going, and encourage commercial space development, that will be self-sustaining, on our own schedule, and not dump money into merely putting a few more boots on the Moon in the shortest possible time, just for its own sake, and just to be abandoned again.
In any case, we were using the Shuttle to support space research, but not using it to support space exploration. (could have, but didn't) And exploration is a subset of research, in this case. Not all research needs to be in deep space, just being beyond the atmosphere and/or in microgravity for indefinite periods is enough for some science. That's what ISS does. Still having it would mean little, if we didn't also design deep space craft it could carry to LEO for assembly and checkout.
As for China, you give a lot of credit to a country that currently does one manned flight to LEO, every two or more years...
"Back in 2006, we at NASA made major decisions to start shutting down the pipeline for parts. In 2010, to reverse the decision and continue flying the shuttles was going to be very expensive and take a very long time. So it wasn't realistic to fly them again," she told me."
Those who know better than to say 'Obama cancelled the Shuttle/manned space/The Space Program, etc. (they're not all the same, BTW), but do still blame him for not reversing the 2005 retirement decision under Bush (and with what money, exactly?), need to read that passage again and again until it sinks in, and get over it...
Thank you astronauts for your services. However I realize your feelings maybe justifiably biased.
Having the Shuttle do a 360 back flip to inspect for broken tiles every time and not knowing whether you can repair it safely in orbit is a bit much.
I guess you lost this round to the unmanned scientists. Oh well you had a good run.
I think history will judge Obama as the president who unintentionally killed the space program, by haulting the Consellation program with now real alternative. All great nations explore and discover, when they are unable to do so, they begin losing their status. Sadly, the American Swagger on the world stage, is slowly being reduced to a shuffle
The American "swagger" on the world stage was lost years ago.
It was lost when the world past us by on educating their young. It was lost when we spent ourselves into endless debt with wars we couldnt afford. It was lost when our federal politicians stopped governing and resorted to blaming the other party to get elected.
The space program is a symptom of our problems, not the cause.
We must examine why the program was stopped. Was it due to flaws in concept, or flaws in execution. I contend that it was flawed in execution. The shuttles weren't cheap to maintain/operate, which was the core goal of the program. It sucked so many resources away from other pursuits at NASA that running the program became the end instead of the means.
I loved the shuttle program with all my heart. The anguish here is not that they're being retired prematurely, but that there is nothing to follow on, and our engineering capabilities will atrophy if left to languish. We didn't build one car or boat or telescope and expect it to be absolutely perfect, to never build another one after finding that it wasn't. We've got to improve on the shuttles, review alternative designs for what might've been a smarter approach, based on what we've learned.
Yes, we lost two shuttles, but that doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater. If the concept is valid, then fix the flaws, improve the design, continue the legacy. It's the only way to get better at this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_design_process
This is describes the design process, showing a whole series of considerations and trade-offs, each assumes the lowest cost, reduces complexity and uncertainty for a dozen or so alternatives. In review of this "design process" the process was a success[1], the design was success[2] in the sense that few major changes were made afterwards, the results were also a success[3] that ungainly looking machine flew, where it should have been impossible.
One look at the craft and seeing that it was operational, should have been amazing to start the creative juices flowing. If this awkward looking beast could be lifted into orbit, by solid rocket boosters know for control problems, and by the hugely oversize hydrogen fuel tank know for dynamic load problem, then what other variations of launch configurations were possible?
However the "design process" was the first causality, it ended, while this is expected, given all the conventional excuses, this is one major avoidable loss. The "design process" that produced this one single design was done so well, that it should have launched a major project of its own, how did it work, examined, studied, documented, analyzed the "design process" should have animated if not automated circa 1975.
The design process team could have continued to work on new designs, which could be redesigned dozens of times, on nothing more expensive than paper, and as new important features came along they could be build and tested. Example a 3SRB arrangement launching a bulky looking unmanned cargo container - a shuttle free lift vehicle. But primarily a design team could have, made new designs, every year or years, on paper and eventually computers. In this length of time SST 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0, …, 29.0 could provide ready-made successors.
The basic problem was to convince men perusing a mission, which it wasn't the mission that was of end-all important, but the idea that a "design team" had made come very critical objective decisions in a relative short time was the product. The mission driven example is fine, but it never considers the future, the "design team" as process example could have meant a succession of players, as design is exhausting, but by having the pervious design complete, the next generation designers, following better technology have created a new "design process" methodology.
Now we bid a tearful farewell, to an imaginative legacy, that left a limited imagination.
In order for the US to become a space faring country, in the near term (next 50 or so years). We will need to develop multiple spacecraft. Manned craft will need to accomplish these tasks, to repair satellites and other spacecraft in orbit and up to geo-sync. orbit. Manned spacecrft to explore the inner solar system and quite likely some type of refueling station/replenishing stores station. At least on a semi occupied basis.
With the design life of some of these systems akin to what the US taxpayers got out of the B-52 bomber in lifetime of use. With a supply station there won't be a need for some of these spacecraft to return to the earth. We'll just park'em in orbit waiting for the next crew, that'll save some wear and tear on the craft because it won't get soaked by 5000 degrees every time it's used.
But we'll need a vast fleet of robotic spacecraft to haul fuel/lox and supplies to orbit. One machine will not do all of the tasks tha I have mentioned above, I think once we start parking some of our spacecraft in orbit. That's when I believe we'll start to see the price of operation drop. When we begin to see the most important astronaut being launched into space is a "mechanic". That's when we will truly become a space faring society
The step to the moon makes so much more sense.
Both the ISS and Space Shuttle programs were "white elephant" programs. ISS was begun in order to justify the shuttle which didn't meet its design constraints as far as reliability and cost. Before attempting to build something as elaborate in orbit as ISS we needed to lower the payload to orbit costs dramatically. The very little science that has been accomplished on the ISS could have been accomplished with much smaller payloads that were operated on with telerobotics. Frankly just about the only reason to have humans in orbit at this stage of development would be to do simulation of mars and lunar gravities with a large centrifuge. Ironically, a small version of this was cancelled on ISS.
If we had diverted the massive resources that were used to launch the shuttle and build the ISS towards robotic craft and new launch capability we would be in a much better place now. I believe we will one day colonize the solar system and access the relative ( to the earth) infinite resources out there. However, we seem to approach this goal with the most inefficient methods possible. Only when private space finds a profitable path (possibly beginning with space tourism) will we bootstrap ourselves off planet. In the near term, unless they pay their own way, there is little justification to have humans go off world instead of robotic tools (just like the deep ocean). Before humans go off world we need to do the necessary work to 1)Understand minimum artificial gravity with which humans can function and a reasonable way to create that artificial gravity environment and do the research to understand if humans can tolerate lunar and mars gravity for extended periods, and 2) how to do proper radiation shielding for long duration flights and any exposed colony habitats. Just about all other aspects of going off world should be prepared using telerobotics first and then populating the habitats as a final step. I think a corporation like SpaceX is our best chance for increasing reliability and lowering payload cost to orbit. NASA has often triumphed technologically in its manned space program, but its goals seem to always have been political rather than practical. In then near term, I think kids could be inspired by driving lunar rovers telerobitically as much as astronauts on the ISS.
Given we have the white elephant ISS flying, lets do the one experiment that is justified on such a manned station...artificial gravity experiments with a centrifuge.
The shuttles should be retired.
The lack of a follow on program just shows how incompetent the federal government has become. It basically cant do anything, anymore.
When it decides to do something, it underfunds it to the point that it starves.
We were right to retire the shuttles. Even if they had lived up to the hype, which they did not, it was time to kill them.
I agree with the notion that once we decide on a program, it should be funded to succeed.... but that implies that we must say NO to, well, almost everything.
Yes, it was a wonderful day when we landed on the moon. It will be apart of our history forever. We're in a new era now with robots and camera's. Each month we are shown something new about space. To the point it's not rare or exciting as the origional moon landing years ago. The only thing today it would excite people would be the discovery of living people or animals on another planet. Finding dirt,rocks or possibility of water 50,000 years ago just don't excite us. I rather see another country spend trillons of dollars on landing at any planet finding rocks and dirt. So what, they are first. I'm more worried about getting our tax-payers money being in the welfare of American people. Instead of wasting our money elsewhere like spored little boys that have lost the concept of what made America strong in the past. When you can run off and cause two useless wars spending trillions of dollars while telling the American people later. We don't have money to fund your benefits. Something is very wrong on these little boys in power spending our tax-payers money.
Lets try and move forward with all of this
As a US Citizen I have been so proud of the USA my whole life because of the accomplishments of NASA. It is hard to be number one in the world, in space. It is rocket science. Once we have lost or given away our position, can we ever get it back? Pray for American science because it is on the ropes and going down.
Saying Constellation was cash staved--very poor choice of words. It is like saying you need to go from LA - Phx every 3 months for a party of three. What did NASA choose--not one but TWO launch rockets. If you had the money--fine--but people then were saying it was a bad choice. Maybe you remember 'Safe, Simple, Soon" for Ares I? You forgot to tell your audience why Delta or Atlas were not selected. :-( The new NASA administrator wanted two new rockets. You also forgot to mention the commission that said even if the rockets were given for free they were too expensive to operate. Yes--most people are "cash strapped"..if they decide to build their own Ferrari and it needs expensive parts and gas. One last thing--you also failed to mention there was a serious proposal last year for a private group to purchase at least 1 or 2 shuttles. The only reason that did not work out--too much equipment had already been discarded or promised to SLS. One thing we sometimes forget--space is dangerous and people will be killed. People die in car accidents every day--what is so different about astronauts? You do a dangerous job--sometimes the risks catches up with you. People die in coal mines every year. We should be willing to accept people will die--and try not to make things 100 safe.