Talk:Criticism of the Space Shuttle program

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. sinewave^Talk   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 .
• 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)

Nah, I disagree with some of this. 137.188.108.55 (talk) 06:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

References

This really needs to be rewitten.

This whole page reads like a flame war on a forum board. It is also not based on any information from reliable sources, unless you consider the "I hate the shuttle" crowd reliable. T.A. Heppenhimer wrote two very detailed books on this subject and they contain the reasons for the "flying brickyard" becoming what it was.

However this is simple shuttle bashing, and IMHO it should be deleted from the site, or rewriten from a neutral standpoint. If I wanted to read this type of su-standard article, I go to any of the major "news" websites.

How 'bout it? Milspecsim (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you re-write it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.188.108.55 (talk) 06:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)