Criticism of The Space Shuttle Program

Criticism of the Space Shuttle program stems from claims that NASA's Shuttle program has failed to achieve its promised cost and utility goals, as well as design, cost, management, and safety issues. More specifically, it has failed in the goal of reducing the cost of space access. Space Shuttle incremental per-pound launch costs ultimately turned out to be considerably higher than those of expendable launchers: by 2011, the incremental cost per flight of the Space Shuttle was estimated at $450 million, or $18,000 per kilogram to low Earth orbit (LEO). By comparison, Russian Proton expendable launchers, still largely based on the design that dates back to 1965, are said to cost as little as $110 million, or around $5,000/kg to LEO. When all design and maintenance costs are taken into account, the final cost of the Space Shuttle program, averaged over all missions and adjusted for inflation, was estimated to come out to $1.5 billion per launch, or $60,000/kg to LEO. This should be contrasted with the originally envisioned costs of $118 per pound of payload in 1972 dollars ($1,400/kg, adjusting for inflation to 2011).

It failed in the goal of achieving reliable access to space, partly due to multi-year interruptions in launches following Shuttle failures. NASA budget pressures caused by the chronically high NASA Space Shuttle program costs have eliminated NASA manned space flight beyond low earth orbit since Apollo, and severely curtailed more productive space science using unmanned probes. NASA's promotion of and reliance on the Shuttle slowed domestic commercial expendable launch vehicle (ELV) programs until after the 1986 Challenger disaster.

Read more about Criticism Of The Space Shuttle Program:  Purpose of The System, Costs, Cultural Issues and Problems, Shuttle Operations, Accidents, Retrospect, Future

Famous quotes containing the words criticism of, criticism, space, shuttle and/or program:

    However intense my experience, I am conscious of the presence and criticism of a part of me, which, as it were, is not a part of me, but a spectator, sharing no experience, but taking note of it, and that is no more I than it is you. When the play, it may be the tragedy, of life is over, the spectator goes his way. It was a kind of fiction, a work of the imagination only, so far as he was concerned.
    Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)

    It is the will of God that we must have critics, and missionaries, and Congressmen, and humorists, and we must bear the burden. Meantime, I seem to have been drifting into criticism myself. But that is nothing. At the worst, criticism is nothing more than a crime, and I am not unused to that.
    Mark Twain [Samuel Langhorne Clemens] (1835–1910)

    The flattering, if arbitrary, label, First Lady of the Theatre, takes its toll. The demands are great, not only in energy but eventually in dramatic focus. It is difficult, if not impossible, for a star to occupy an inch of space without bursting seams, cramping everyone else’s style and unbalancing a play. No matter how self-effacing a famous player may be, he makes an entrance as a casual neighbor and the audience interest shifts to the house next door.
    Helen Hayes (1900–1993)

    And the shuttle never falters, but to draw an encouraging conclusion
    From this would be considerable, too odd. Why not just
    Breathe in with the courage of each day, recognizing yourself as one
    Who must with difficulty get down from high places?
    John Ashbery (b. 1927)

    Religious fervor makes the devil a very real personage, and anything awe-inspiring or not easily understood is usually connected with him. Perhaps this explains why, not only in the Ozarks but all over the State, his name crops up so frequently.
    —Administration in the State of Miss, U.S. public relief program (1935-1943)