ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Guest Blog

Guest Blog


Commentary invited by editors of Scientific American
Guest Blog HomeAboutContact

Dad, the Apollos and the End of Space Shuttle Era Sadness

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



I can’t even recall a time that I wasn’t cognisant of the fact that I lived in a country that actively pioneered space exploration. I remember sitting on wicker hassock in my Dad’s study, as a child and asking lots of questions. Dad would light his pipe, lean back in his big red chair, blow circular smoke rings and try his best to answer them.

Our conversations spanned space, time, eliptical orbits and the outer reaches of the solar system. When the Viking landed, a panoramic Scientific American centerfold displaying the rocky Martian surface was scotch taped to the wall next to Dad’s desk.

When fly-by Voyager images of Jupiter became available, the close ups detailing stormclouds and volcanoes were taped to the wall, as well. As the Voyagers, Pioneers and Vikings made their way across the solar system, astronauts hovered between a mythical past and an uncertain future. Yes, there were reasons but they were reasons I was reluctant to accept. If cameras could go there, why couldn’t astronauts?

On the white credenza, behind the heaping stacks of manila file folders and reporter pads, white model Saturn V rocket towered just out of my reach. Dad could occasionally be persuaded to take it down and demonstrate how the liquid fuel jets, chambers and motors dropped off after lift-off. Entering the moon’s orbit, the rocket was further disassembled enabling two Apollo Astronauts to explore the lunar surface.

Before I was born, Dad’s push to terminate the Apollos had an additional component that never got realized. Reducing the number of annual manned moon missions from three times a year to one would have saved NASA the equivalent of $10 billion a year. This saving, according to the numbers that he crunched at the Office of Management and Budget, would be enough to fund unmanned visits to every planet except for Pluto (which was a planet back then). The proposed alternative, however, never came to pass and by the time I was born Dad had transferred over to the National Arts Endowment.

Shortly after Columbia launched the Shuttle Program, Dad’s criticism of it made the New York Times and my third grade teacher asked me to summarize this for the class:

Richard Speier, an analyst who reviewed the space budget for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research organization, says it may even be time to consider abandoning the shuttle effort.

”The shuttle’s problems are much deeper than a fuel cell not working,” he said in an interview. ”Very likely the program is not a good buy. I shrink from saying it should absolutely be terminated until I see the cost of putting the same missions on expendable rockets. But even at this point in the game, I wouldn’t be surprised if we could afford, with less than a single year’s shuttle budget, to develop a better expendable that could launch payloads greater than the shuttle’s.”

Mr. Speier notes that expendable rockets are highly reliable, while the reliability of the shuttle has yet to be determined. Should a single shuttle crash, he says, the size of the proposed fleet of four would be cut 25 percent. Belated discovery of a safety problem common to all shuttles, he adds, could disrupt the entire space program. Mr. Speier believes there should be a prompt and quick reassessment of whether the shuttle commitment is worth continuing. ‘It Is Not Routine’

Even today, years later with degrees, productions and publications under my belt, I doubt it would be any easier to summarize. Two shuttles were lost along with their crews. The program went way over budget and NASA, once again, faces a problematic future.

At the same time, how can I ever forget the day my elementary school librarian wheeled the television set into the hallway where the entire school had gathered on April 12th 1981. The wait was long and the lift off brief but oh, the plume…

Late Thursday night after the tweets announcing the Atlantis rolled onto the launch pad appeared on my stream, I burrowed under the covers and cried. I cried because my country’s dream of human spaceflight was coming to an end.

Images: Model of Saturn on the floor at Udvar-Hazy photo by Todd Palino, Saturn schematic from Wikimedia Commons, First launch of Columbia shuttle in 1981 from NASA, Last launch of Atlantis shuttle in 2011 from NASA.

About the Author: Susanna Speier is not a scientist. The "ear" for layman-friendly science explanations, that The New York Times deemed "excellent," however, helps her gain back door access. She talks to scientists whenever she can and conversations sometimes turn into collaborations. Five of her plays have been produced; over 100 of her articles have been published and one of her screenplays remains in liminal purgatory. She dayjobs as a freelance social media specialist and digital journalist.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Take a look at the complete line-up of bloggers at our brand new blog network.






Comments 5 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. letxequalx 7:07 am 07/10/2011

    Manned space missions are costly but they have a hidden value that you really can’t put a price tag on. The period of time that life will exist on this planet is finite. One day, sooner or later- life will no longer be able to survive on this planet. If we don’t move on to the solar system life as far as we know it ends here. There is a window we have to make this transition to the stars. If we don’t start now, when will there be a better opportunity. We are going to have less complicated problems in the future? I don’t think so. If this country gives up the dream in this decade we may never make it. Also the psychological effect of giving up the dream of space. As a nation we are no longer aspiring to great things. We are giving our dreams. We really need to think about what we are doing here. Consider what we are saving by doing this- all so we can avoid taxing our nations top one percent of wealthiest people. We are giving up our dreams so somebody can have another mansion, another yacht, maybe a seat on a stock exchange? Selling our dreams as a nation for the greed of a handful of people. It’s too much to give up.

    Link to this
  2. 2. tedcampbell 9:10 am 07/10/2011

    Why the tears? A number of technological developments are supported initially by governments and continue to flourish when privatized. Privatization does not mean that our "country’s dream of human spaceflight [is] coming to an end." It simply means that it succeeded in making a set of technologies deployable to the extent that private enterprises can now carry them on.

    Link to this
  3. 3. geojellyroll 7:37 pm 07/10/2011

    There is so much happening in science but SA fills it’s page with a silly piece of fluff journalism

    Link to this
  4. 4. Unbeliever 10:39 am 07/25/2011

    It figures that SA has a back door connection to the New York Times.
    Scientific American has recently published an explanation of why Global Warming (TM)hasn’t materialized to a degree to their liking. Apparently, human meddling with the our environment knows no bounds, and particulate pollution is to blame for the anti-climatic (no pun intended)and unsatisfactory lack of predicted warming. Yet this lack of predicted warming represents just one more failed prediction in an increasingly long line of failed predictions. Likewise with SA’s vouching of Obama as POTUS. Nothing has materialized to justify their election day enthusiasm. Except for the gutting of our manned space program. Don’t forget, Bush did sign off on Constellation. Obama eliminated that in exchange for empty promises of asteroid landings, or more accurately, asteroid flybys – which have absolutely no value when it comes to human spaceflight. Mars? Well, that is something so far in the future it can be called a pipe dream of the sincere. Obama is not sincere, so we can safely call his proposals a lie. Our human spaceflight capability has been gutted in exchange for socialist domestic interests. Fortunately, Obama is a one-termer. If you value NASA’s primary reason for existence, you should help insure that Obama vacates the White House by voting against him in November 2012.

    Link to this
  5. 5. SusannaSpeier 5:46 am 07/26/2011

    The goals of the Constellation program are being handed over to private companies now: http://nyti.ms/qOJOMv

    Hoping the a Mars plan will be officiated soon. Here’s a great piece by Neil DeGrasse Tyson on the importance of astronauts:

    http://bit.ly/naJQ1C

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Holiday Sale

Limited Time Only!

Get 50% off Digital Gifts

Hurry sale ends 12/31 >

X

Email this Article

X