Talk:Criticism of the Space Shuttle program

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] New Article

I just dumped most of the criticism sections from Space Shuttle program here. I have not made any other mods. Hopefully this article can turn into a valuable collection of criticism from mainstream and respected sources. Cjosefy 14:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Previous criticisms

This article is far too hagiographic. There are plenty of people out there who have spilled plenty of ink arguing that the shuttle program is a failure, a waste of national resources, and a prime example of a government program completely out of control. we have phrases like "While the Shuttle has been a reasonably successful launch vehicle..." popping up, and no one is even thinking to ask if this is even remotely true! 2 out of 5 have crashed in just over 100 flights! that sounds to me like a piece of junk and waste of tax dollars. what if your car blew up every 50th or 60th time you drove it? or airplanes crashed after 50 or 60 flights? and what about public response to the shuttle? does anyone even care anymore? some viewership of launches/ public opinion numbers/ etc. should be included. You engineers don't have to go up in that piece of junk, and it's quite immoral to knowingly endanger the astronauts. ?Unknown Author?

?Unknown Authors?

We should remember that the Shuttle's only purpose was CHEAP and RELIABLE access to low earth orbit: A 'Space Truck'. By that standard, e.g. the cost per pound to orbit, the shuttle is a miserable failure (at over a billion $ per launch, over $20k per pound). It would have been much cheaper to use ULVs (like Saturn), and have avoided the entire Shuttle program.

  • . Capsules are inherently safer than the Shuttle, since the shuttle requires a perfect launch, reentry, and landing to avoid loss of vehicle/crew. Capsules have a launch escape tower, and a fool proof re-entry mode.

There's other dirty shuttle secrets/laundry:

. The Shuttle program cost has bled and hobbled the un-manned program, where true science and exploration is done. . The Shuttle has delayed the improvement of ELVs, since for a period all space cargo was forced to use the Shuttle . The Shuttle has accomplished little or no science that could have not been accomplished better and cheaper with unmanned vehicles. . The Shuttle exists to service the Space Station, and the Space station exists to give the shuttle something to do. It's de-humanizing to risk people's lives unnecessarily for mundane tasks. . After the glories of exploring the moon, the NASA manned program has not gotten 300 miles from earth in 30 years. . Why can't the shuttle launch and land unmanned? Shouldn't the first shuttle test flights at least have been un-manned? The shuttle is completely automated for all of the precise launch, reentry, and approach phases too delicate and complicated for humans, and the shuttle is capable of auto-land. Is this a union-like attempt to perpetuate the astronaut core? . What is the actual cost of a Shuttle cost today, in $/lb in orbit compared to a competing US or USSR ELV? $1 billion per launch, divided by the 50,000 pound 'theoretical' payload,is at least $20k per pound! . Isn't NASA's return to the ELV concept a repudiation of the shuttle? Those of us who love space exploration should expose and face the depths of NASA failures and mistakes with the shuttle program, and properly celebrate the successes of other programs. At least a listing of shuttle program critic's points is appropriate. To do otherwise is “emperor’s new clothes”.--Wrwhiteal 21:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Capsules are inherently safer because:

. The launch escape tower permits recovery from almost all launch failures. What happens to the shuttle if the booster structure or SSMEs fail at launch? . The heatshield is so much smaller and more sheltered than the shuttle, and does not require active re-entry guidance Why do you think NASA is returning to the Capsule model?Wrwhiteal 21:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC).

I'm not sure the same neutrality argument should be applied to a page specificially titled criticisms. It is obvious the intent of the page is to present only one side of an argument and, therefore, could not be assumed to be neutral. A single link near the top of the page to Supporting arguments for... would, in my opinion, make this page neutral given its context. sinewaveTalk   20:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


Much of what you've written here is fundamentally flawed.

  • First, comparing a space vehicle to an airplane or car is not valid. Space missions are inherently more dangerous than either of those. Imagine if your car carried half a million gallons of explosive fuel, how safe do you think it would be then?
  • Second, what makes a capsule 'inherently safer'? The higher G loading? The narrower entry corridor? The higher heat fluxes? The limited control ability? The water landing? An escape tower isn't useful in all situations either. It's simply one abort mode. The shuttle has similar abort modes, and for both there are situations where no abort mode can save the crew.
  • I don't see how the shuttle cost ELV's, since they have been developed and used continuously alongside the shuttle. And that "for a period all space cargo was forced to use the Shuttle" is blatantly wrong. See [1].
  • Next, perhaps the astronauts should tell us whether it is 'de-humanizing' to go into space aboard the Shuttle. The only astronaut I've ever talked to thought it was well worth going, and other things I've heard lead me to believe that is true of other astronauts. If they thought it wasn't worth it, they wouldn't go.
  • As for science, I would call Hubble science. And I don't think another vehicle could have completed the Hubble repair mission (especially an unmanned one as you indicated).

anonymous6494 21:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Separate article for criticisms

Perhaps it is time to have a separate article for the myriad criticism/retrospective content that is continually added and then reverted on this page. Of course there needs to be some of this information on this page, but it seems that there is a constant addition of POV pushers with almost all of the added content anti-Shuttle. The most recent additions are just an example of this. Right now the later part of this article reads like a diatribe against the shuttle. Imagine if they took the moon landing hoax article and just added it to the bottom of the Apollo 11 page! Certainly criticism of the program is valid, but instead of well-researched, legitimate criticism, we seem to get anti-shuttle rants. Cjosefy 13:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to describe the topic, not criticize it. An encyclopedia isn't the editorial page of a newspaper where editors can lambaste the topic. See Britannica or Encarta articles on the shuttle, space program, or virtually anything. Automobiles have killed more people than all 20th century wars combined and harmed the environment. Yet you don't see anti-automobile diatribes in the Wikipedia automobile article. You don't see a long criticism section in the Adolph Hitler article. In the machine gun article, you don't see a long section bemoaning how many people it has killed. Why? Because that's not an encyclopedia's purpose. An encyclopedia's main job is to describe what the topic is, the origin and how it works, not make social commentary and criticism on it (nor reprinting such commentary and criticism by others). Joema 02:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I made Criticism of the Space Shuttle program and took a bunch of stuff out of this article and put it into there. There is now a criticism section in this article that point to the new article. Cjosefy 05:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm more than a bit worried about this new page - you've just created a page that a) doesn't have nearly as many watchers as this page, to revert NPOV additions, b) basically invited NPOV additions with the title ("Criticism of ...'). Would it not have been better to have left the content on this page and gone through the criticism, trimming it down until it is encyclopaedic and well-referenced, and ensure that it stays that way? Mike Peel 08:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I can understand that concern, but felt that trying to do that on this page was a losing battle since the amount of criticism was about 1/3 of the article and growing. It seems that the Space Shuttle program has attracted a devoted group of critics who seem to view the program with a fanatically biased perspective. The closest analogy to these people is the moon hoax people. There are legitimate criticisms of the program from highly respected individuals, and that is why I mentioned the Columbia and Challenger boards. Other than those high profile criticisms, almost all of what was on this page was from the core group of anti-shuttle "no matter what" people. Cjosefy 14:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I see Cjosefy's point. Certain topics invite criticism, esp by editors who view Wikipedia as an editorial page to vent every negative thing they've heard about a topic. Unfortunately the NPOV wording can be interpreted to even encourage this, under the rubric of "including all viewpoints". This is a Wikipedia structural problem the foundation needs to address. It's hurting the quality and respectability of Wikipedia as an unbiased reference. As Mike Peel said, you could "stand your ground" and just hash it out within the main article. That is the ideal solution. However given determined opposition, that can become very time consuming and sometimes fruitless. I have spent hundreds of hours on such cases, and (sadly) it's often a losing battle. Until the foundation fixes the underlying problem, we'll sometimes have to take measures like this as a stop gap. Joema 15:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have closely watched NASA, the space program, and the Shuttle for 40 years. The basic Space Shuttle Program article contains many interesting and worthy facts and figures, but the overall evaluation of the program’s and the vehicle’s success is another matter. As I and others read it, the editorial part of article is NASA/Space Shuttle cheerleading and excuse making, is not objective or balanced, and glosses over the fundamental failure of the vehicle and program to achieve it’s objectives of advancing the national interests of cheap and reliable access to space, science research, technology development, inspiration, and space exploration. Obviously there are an increasing number of sincere critics of the program, and I think the attempts to portray them as biased, extremist nuts is unworthy and counterproductive. There are legitimate questions to ask and points to make. Readers of the article deserve to be served a balanced view, and those of us with a sincere desire for a robust, efficient and effective space program want a fair and objective analysis. Many of the criticisms are objective. E.g. what is the cost per pound of payload for the shuttle vs ELVs, has the launch rate of shuttles been reliable, were the NASA estimates of required shuttle launches accurate, etc. Others are bound to be judgmental, e.g. to what degree has the shuttle been inspirational as Apollo was, to what degree has Shuttle funding reduced funding for other worthy (e.g. un-manned) programs, to what degree are the Shuttle shortcomings due to NASA inefficiencies, lack of productively, and wasteful administration vs insufficient funding, how large have been the science contributions from the shuttle. Others are historical/political; to what degree has the shuttle program retarded the development of ELVs, is the shuttle mainly a jobs program, has the shuttle really advanced technology, has NASA efficiently administered the shuttle program, could private enterprise be more efficient than NASA. As necessary, the SS Program Criticism can be presented as ‘Many people think’ items, not as factual assertions.

I suggest that it will best serve the public interest to stop trying to defend and excuse the program, and instead, since it appears a Space Shuttle Criticism article is necessary, to work together to make it the best Space Shuttle Criticism article it can be, rather than just denying or rejecting all program criticism.Wrwhiteal 15:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Great. Please start by finding some legitimate sources for the criticisms. I won't argue that what you added to the article may be valid, but it is completely without sources. When you add something such as "the primary criticisms of the shuttle are" that is YOUR opinion unless you find a source. Then by phrasing the criticisms in a manner such as "the degree to which it failed" is so POV as to border on ridiculousness. Perhaps there are some pro-Shuttle POV people pushing back at you in this article (although most of the article is simply a summary of how the machine works which is what it should be), but this looks to be necessary when it appears by your wording that you think the Shuttle failed at everything --> "fundamental failure of the vehicle and program to achieve it’s objectives of advancing the national interests of cheap and reliable access to space, science research, technology development, inspiration, and space exploration." Cjosefy 18:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I want to amplify and expand on what Cjosefy said. On Usenet, blogs, etc there's plenty shuttle criticism, just like there is for any other subject on Usenet. However for an encyclopedia, those are not adequate sources. Each criticism must be authoritatively sourced, e.g, New York Times editorial page, Aviation Week, etc. "Many people think" isn't sufficient. See Weasel words.
Separately, for the sake of credibility it's important to avoid Straw man arguments. Wikipedia must retain the appearance of a credible, unbiased source, even while being critical. This is especially important since there are so many criticism-laced urban myths and incorrect statements about the shuttle. These may not even exist or may be out of date. There is no shortage of valid points with which to criticize the shuttle and shuttle program. However these should not include items that are provably (or even arguably) incorrect. E.g, the SSMEs require overhauling after each flight, which contributes to extreme cost. They do not. Another example: the shuttle design is a compromise forced upon NASA by the Air Force. According to testimony before the CAIB, it was not [1]. To repeat, there's no shortage of valid criticisms to make about the shuttle, and I'll try to contribute to those as I have time. However it's important they be authoritatively referenced and currently valid. Joema 18:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I get your point about weasel. However, I think it's worthwhile to process pervasive criticisms, and summarize those which make sense and have some substance. Many of the criticisms seem pretty objective to me. For example, what cost/pound for LEO was promised for the shuttle, and what was delivered. Did NASA force all commercial, internal, and DOD payloads to shuttle for a period, in an attempt to justify it's fixed costs? Other points may be harder to source/prove. Did this suspension of ELV programs retard US ELV development and competetiveness? The CAIB and the 1972-73 Congressional report support that NASA delibertly over-promised shuttle payload costs. As to the 'to the degree to which it failed' issue, I offer some defense. Suppose the shuttle missed it's cost to LEO by 2%, that's a small margin, perhaps not to be criticised. On the other hand, suppose it missed it by over an order of magnitude? So, I think extent does matter.

At least I hope we can remove, modify, or counter those sections of the Shuttle article which I read as unfair pro-shuttle spin which most inflamed me and others. I have edited the Criticisms section, removing some items such as 'the shuttle is essential for building and maintaining the space station', and 'the shuttle has the ability to orbit loads no other vehicle can', and some other incorrect pro-shuttle comments. I have structured, formatted, and bullet-ized some previous points in the Criticisms article. I also added text to the shuttle followup section indicating NASA's option to use commercially available boosters, and modified the previous 'what if NASA had stayed with Saturn' part to be more balanced (IMO). I am accumulating sources, and will go back and add them.

I appreciate the patience and guidence as I learn the Wikipedia guidelines, policies, and procedures.

[edit] Outline Notes re SS Criticisms article structure

Consider renaming the Criticism article to Space Shuttle Criticisms?

I believe it's possible to present objective and reasonable criticisms of the Shuttle Program. The following is my preliminary attempt to cut/paste information from the overall Space Shuttle Program article dealing with Shuttle Criticisms, so they can be organized into the Criticisms article: Categories of Space Shuttle errors: Conceptual Errors:

. The role of and need for humans in space?
. The very high ratio of orbiter weight to useable payload
. Economics of a reusable orbiter, reusable main engines, etc.
. Manned Space Truck and the relative economics of manned boosters vs unmanned
. The shuttle has a max 50K lb payload LEO, Saturn had a 260K lb earth orbit payload

Design Errors:

. Putting the heatshield where it could be hit by foam or ice was a design error. Other vehicles don't have the reentry shield where it could be damaged by falling debris
. Lack of SRB thrust termination

Operations/management errors:

. Richard Feynman, Diane Vaughan: NASA and shuttle program management and engineering errors
. It takes over 25,000 people to launch a space shuttle?
. NASA as a top-heavy self-perpetuating bureaucracy
. The conflict of manned space cost vs un-manned programs

Philosophy of manned access to low earth orbit:

. Burt Rutan on the NASA's top heavy organization, and failure to provide cost effective access to space for the American people

Future Manned Space:

. Rely on commercially available ELVs to launch. Commercial ELVs have an excellent safety record, and, combined with the escape tower, should produce a safer launch vehicle.
. Minimize NASA top-heavy administration. NASA should be watched carefully to prevent it's organizational self-interest from inteferring with the national space interests.

[edit] Costs w/ inflation

Not that it makes a huge difference, but context needs to be given when costs are mentioned. Several quotes reference the $118 per pound estimate, but that was in 1972 dollars. That's more than $500 per pound today. I haven't gone through the entire article looking for this stuff, but it can get confusing (and be misleading) when we compare 1970's estimates with 2000's reality without accounting for inflation. Cjosefy 23:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discuss recent changes

I've made several changes; please discuss here if necessary. The edit summaries (under history tab) should adequately describe each, but if further questions, please post here. Joema 14:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title - "Critical thinking" or "Critical analyses"?

It's sad the subject of this article isn't something like "Critical thinking about the Space Shuttle program." The mindset implied by that title might help improve the article's WP:NPOV. Admittedly it sounds a bit overly politically correct. "Critical analyses of the Space Shuttle program" might avoid that pitfall. Sdsds 22:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'n not really sure what either of those proposed titles adds to the article. If you are going to have an article solely devoted to the discussion of perceived problems with the Shuttle program (and the existence of this as a separate article may well be the source of the POV problem), then it seems to me that you want to give it the simplest title possible. MLilburne 23:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - the KISS Principle seems to be a good method here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." --Einstein. Sdsds
As MLilburne suggests the existence of this separate article, if it is solely about negative criticism of the program, inherently creates a POV trap. The term criticism sometimes implies hostility or disagreement with the object of criticism. But Critical thinking has a meaning of its own, which avoids this pitfall. (Eventually, it would be great if this article's title could be, "Criticisms and Defenses of the Space Shuttle program".) Sdsds 09:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the title "Criticisms and Defenses of the Space Shuttle program". Personally, though, I hate the term "Critical thinking" and don't particularly want to see that in the article title. So if we need to go that direction, I'd prefer the "Critical analyses" route. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
This article is merely an expanded version of the former Criticism section in Space Shuttle program. When in that article, it was labeled "Criticism", just like many Wikipedia articles have sections so labeled. The current title is consistent with that. I don't agree encyclopedia articles should generally have criticism sections, much less entire articles devoted to that. Exceptions are artistic and literary criticism, where the word has a different meaning (see dictionary). However since there's an almost unrestrainable tendency for editors to criticize certain topics at great length, that content may as well go in a separate article. Joema 13:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

The quotes section, although useful, is rather unwieldy. It's basically a solid paragraph of quotes. Can we parse it down to something more useful? How about arranging the quotes by type of criticism (section 1 - costs, section 2 - safety, etc.) That or some other method would really help out. 170.201.180.136 16:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've completely removed the quote farm from the article, but I have preserved it at Talk:Criticism of the Space Shuttle program/Quote farm, because they're all cited, and I think some of the quotes are possibly still useful if used in a more proper way. But the quote farm is gone from the article in its present form. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Want Quotes

Rm idiotic quotefarm tag. This section is exactly what I want to read -- the stated, public opinions of professionals. Do not chew them up, spit them out, put them in a blender, pee on them, or otherwise munge them into wikipe-tan cruft. I don't really give a dud explosive bolt for the opinions -- or the editing skills -- of anyone who thinks these real facts -- the true, measured opinions of those who know -- can be made "better" by Sunday-morning quarterbacking. Feh. Leave it alone, exactly as it is now, revert any changes on sight. — Xiong熊talk* 06:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a quote farm, so I'm restoring the tag. The section needs to be converted to proper prose. It's all cited, so we can certainly cite these people, but it's actually not of proper encyclopedic quality in its present form. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)