How Should We Remember the Space Shuttle

There are a lot of self-described shuttle huggers who lament the disappearance of the space shuttle. It will certainly change the backdrop of daily life. While I’m part of the generation who has grown up with the Shuttle regularly launching and landing, I would not call myself a shuttle-hugger. It is a fascinating spacecraft, particularly in the way that it lands, but it has always seemed like a technology without a purpose.

Proponents of the shuttle will vehemently disagree with my opinion, lauding the vehicle as the bridge between the politically-driven Apollo program and the illustrious future men are sure to have in space as we expand our reach as a species beyond our solar system.

The shuttle, fans argue, has enabled humanity to take its first true steps towards leaving the Earth. Only on long-duration shuttle missions have astronauts faced and addressed many of the challenges associated with interplanetary travel—possible solutions to problems of radiation exposure in space. Astronauts have even been hitting the shuttle's gym in an effort to stave off muscle and bone density loss associated with extended periods without gravity.

Shuttle mission have also solidified man's place in space – astronauts have spent extended periods living and working in orbiting laboratories thanks to the space shuttle. Far more important than lab work is the practice astronauts have had repairing their spacecraft both inside and out—a necessary skill for any long term journey. If something broke one a crew's journey to Mars or an asteroid, they would need to fix it. The shuttle program has proved that, with the right tools and know-how, they can pop out and play mechanic if need be. Perhaps the most important and least expected benefit of the shuttle is its role in soothing international relations in space. The International Space Station—one of the most frequently visited spots of the shuttle—has gone further than proving man's ability to work in space. It has proved that men of different races, nationalities, and religions can work together in space. This, in turn, has done wonders to answer questions on the emotional and psychological requirements of long-duration missions. There's no sense sending a crew to the red planet if one of them is going snap and kill everyone else.

The diplomacy exercised on the ISS stands in stark contrast to the fierce and fearful competition that motivated the space race during the 1960s. A real step forward in thinking about future planetary missions.

But are a further understanding of men's ability to live in space and international cooperation enough to call the three-decade long program a success? The end of the shuttle's run forces us to take stock of its accomplishments and answer the all-important question: did it deliver on the promises it made?

When NASA designed the space shuttle in the 1970s, it answered the need for a cheaper, reusable spacecraft; the single-use Apollo spacecraft and costly Apollo launches (nearly $1 billion each) were simply unsustainable.

The new spacecraft was a low-Earth orbital vehicle with the capacity to place satellites into orbit as well as enable astronauts to make orbital repairs, testing how much physical work an astronaut could reasonably accomplish during a space walk. Beyond satellites, the shuttle would support continued manned space exploration as well; spacecraft designed to take men to the Moon and Mars, as well as orbital research stations, could be lifted into orbit in pieces by the shuttle and assembled by astronauts.

But the most appealing aspect of the shuttle over Apollo was its reusability. Each shuttle orbiter, according to initial as specifications published in the early 1980s, would make at least 100 flights.

NASA planned the start the nee program with a bang. One of the shuttle's first proposed tasks was to carry into orbit the pieces that would assemble to make the European Space Agency-designed Spacelab, an orbital zero-gravity environment for all sorts of scientific research.

The shuttle was also expected to put into orbit the "building blocks" for constructing large solar power stations. Such an undertaking could effectively convert the unlimited solar heat and sunlight of space into electricity for an increasingly energy- hungry world.

Manned spaceflight was expected to experience a boom from the ease of access to space afforded by the space shuttle program. The vehicle was expected to carry into Earth orbit the modular units for self-sustaining orbital settlements that astronauts could inhabit for prolonged stays. But it wasn't only men in space that were going to benefit, men on Earth were going to reap the benefits of the astronauts' tenures in orbit as well. The orbiting labs would promote the construction and maintenance of solar power stations, the astronaut-scientists could work on the manufacturing of drugs, metals, electronics crystals, and glass for lenses. All this work would be easier in zero gravity, potentially reducing the cost of certain drugs on Earth. These orbiting scientists were expected to create new alloys, produce new medicines, lenses of unusual purity for eyeglasses, and monitor the growth of very large crystals.

Not only could the shuttle achieve these lofty goals, it could do so at an impressive rate. The initial plans for the program anticipated launching at least 50 missions a year. It gets better. Multiple flight monitoring systems in multiple control centers with round the clock staff could support simultaneous missions. The shuttle would always be working, giving NASA and the tex payers the most bang for its buck. 50 launches a year – nearly a launch a week – would be a new record. Previously, NASA's second-generation Gemini program held the record with 10 successful manned launches in only 20 months.

So compared to the original program goals, how does the shuttle measure up?
Well it's certainly fallen short of the planned launch schedule – the upcoming 135th flight is far from the 1,500th or so flight it ought to be as originally planned. The program did get off to a slow start with only two launches in its first year and twenty-three launches in its first five.

And then the shuttle hit its first major setback in 1986 with the loss of the Challenger space shuttle in January. The subsequent investigation and the time spent addressing and correcting the problem set the program back; the next mission launched nearly three years later in September of 1988. Between 1988 and 2003, the shuttle program averaged about six launches per year. The loss of a second crew and the shuttle Columbia in 2003 again set the program back. Only 21 missions have flown since, following a two-year hiatus after the loss of Columbia.

The 130-plus shuttle missions have not delivered on the initial promises made. Repairs made to the Hubble telescope have certainly helped the satellite retain its central importance for astronomers. But what about the proposed cheaper drugs and more perfect glasses?

Even the The International Space Station hasn't quite come to fruition – contruction began on the station in 1998, and it is still incomplete. No spacecraft destined for the Moon or Mars have been assembled in orbit.

As the shuttle faces retirement, NASA seems to be back in the same position as it was towards the end of Apollo. With the lunar landing goal complete, the cost of spaceflight was becoming prohibitive, and the near-loss of the Apollo 13 crew brought the risk to human life to the forefront. Forty years later, the cost of spaceflight hasn't diminished significantly, and the risk to human life has been more obvious – the Apollo 13 crew made it home alive. The crew of Space Shuttles Challenger and Columbia were not so lucky.

The shuttle is a spectacular vehicle with great potential, but the program never had a truly concrete goal and certainly lacked the impetus to force a stunning technological achievement. The next generation of NASA spacecraft will have to be to the shuttle was it was to Apollo: a better, cheaper, and safer way of making spaceflight routine. In my opinion, a driving achievable goal wouldn't hurt either.

Live Broadcasting by Ustream