bap@DOGHEN.BOLTZ.CS.CMU.EDU (Barak Pearlmutter) (11/15/90)
People have been doing some serious space shuttle bashing on this
forum for a while now, and I don't think it's fair.
The basic argument against the shuttle runs like this:
(1) What we need is:
(a) the ability to lift big satellites into orbit
(b) the ability to lift small numbers of people into orbit
(c) the ability to get small numbers of people down from orbit
(2) Need (a) is met much more economically by big dumb rockets than by
the shuttle; (b) is likewise met by small dumb rockets; and (c) is
met by simple space capsules.
(3) Since the shuttle is so much more expensive to operate than these
alternative means of meeting our space transportation needs, we
should scrap it, or at least be sorry we built it.
The reason I do not find this argument convincing is that I don't buy
the premise! Remember back when the shuttle was being designed; back
in the 70s. Way back then, the militarization of space seemed
inevitable, and the Soviet Union was a threat to our security rather
than the meek client state it has now become.
NASA has always been a dual purpose agency, pursuing civilian goals
which frequently have clear and important military utility, and
coordinating their activities closely with the military. For
instance, many of our ballistic missiles are based on civilian
launchers, many of the shuttle's missions are military, and most
astronauts are members of the armed forces.
Viewed in this context, the shuttle should be seen as a dual purpose
vehicle. Rather than a space truck, it's more like a space pickup or
jeep. In a space battle, it would be a formidable weapon. It is
manned, giving it flexibility and the ability to operate when command
and control structures have failed, which would be likely if a war
escalated into space. The shuttle's electronics are certainly proof
against EMP, with core memories and high redundancy. The large cargo
space can hold a couple weapons, allowing the shuttle to act as a
roving satellite killer. In the event that manned space stations are
important, people could be tossed in a pressurized can in the cargo
compartment, allowing a considerable boarding party to be transported
to an enemy space station if necessary. If our spy satellites have
been taken out, and our ground stations are in disarray, the shuttle
can just fly by with a telescope and a couple 35mm cameras. If we
think a satellite is nasty but aren't sure, or aren't sure what it's
for, the shuttle can just mosey on over and have a look. And--here's
the coup de gras--it can just reach out it's arm and plop an enemy
satellite in the cargo bay! This would be of incalculable
intelligence benefit.
So we want a utility vehicle use in space warfare. Now, how can we
get it debugged and gain operational practice during peacetime? Well,
the most reasonable thing to do is to put it to civilian use in the
meantime, thus getting some practical benefit from the beast while
gaining operational experience and maintaining readiness.
For this reason, it is unfair to charge the full operational and
depreciation costs of the shuttle to civilian cargoes, as the
experience being gained, and the practice at getting the shuttle
serviced and turned around quickly, is of considerable military
importance, is primarily of benefit to the military, and should
therefore be charged against a military budget. Besides, the military
would have to run the shuttle anyway to keep the cobwebs off, and any
civilian benefit is pure gravy. As I see it, this is the primary
reason that the full costs of running the shuttle are being hidden
from users: because that's the fair thing to do.
Of course, things didn't quite work out the way we thought they would.
Space has not become militarized, and is unlikely to be. So the
scenario that motivated the construction of the shuttle hasn't come to
pass, and the shuttle is left without it's intended military role,
obsolete due to future shock. Same goes for most of our nuclear
forces, for that matter.
Well, if the shuttle is really obsolete, we should just run them into
the ground, and not replace them as they bust, because the up front
costs are already spent, and after all we're not going to get the
construction or design costs back if we mothball them, and
depreciation is one hundred percent if we decide not to fly them at
all, so you can't count depreciation against them. We're in a shuttle
wind-down phase now, eking out the last dregs.
It is cause to rejoice when a weapon system we had every reason to
fear we'd need turns out to be unnecessary. On the other hand, maybe
we should have been able to figure out that space wouldn't become
militarized; the reasons, namely vulnerability and expense, seem
pretty obvious in retrospect. That would certainly have saved some
money. But military projects frequently outlive their motivating
scenarios; that doesn't make the projects pigs. It's an inevitable
consequence of being just human. And maybe the shuttle actually
prevented the militarization of space, by being such a big gun that
the USSR would have been crazy to try to fight it. If so, maybe it
actually saved us a lot of money and anxiety.
So, to those of you criticizing the shuttle for not being a Space Mac
Truck or a Space Yugo: sorry, but it wasn't meant to be. It's a Space
Jeep. With a place to bolt on extra seats, or light artillery, or
haul a double handful of tents, as the need may be. Not as cheap as a
civilian vehicle. But after all, it's mil spec.dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Fraering Philip) (11/15/90)
You don't get it. The shuttles cost billions a piece, and would cost only a couple million to destroy. Look at the old U.S. Asat design: You know, the one that launches from a F-15? It would very easily punch a 20-foot hole though whatever part of the shuttle it happened to hit. And if you don't think the Russians could build anything comparable, well, there's lots of sand in California you can bury your hand in. All they need is a large phased-array radar and a rocket. They launch the rocket (which has a warhead like a claymore mine 50 feet long) to the shuttle's altitude in its path and blow it up. What happens when the shuttle hits the cloud of ball bearings at orbital velocity is an exercise for the reader. Simply scale up (it is linearly dependent on mass) the effect of paint chips that weigh significantly less... Then the Russians have wonders of wonders destroyed 25% of the entire fleet. Their next _expendable_ shot would destroy another billion dollar jeep... Think before you post next time. Phil Fraering dlbres10@pc.usl.edu