The end of the space shuttle AKA the "flying deathtrap"

This week marks the end of one of the most dangerous and expensive vehicles in American history.  The (sometimes) reusable launch system and orbital spacecraft.  


Yes it's NASA's own Space Shuttle.

Space enthusiasts worldwide view this as a tragic scientific regression.  A backwards step in the history of mankind.  
But I would argue that these people are willing to overlook an atrocious safety record, spiraling costs and limited scientific advancements.


I do not intend this to be anti-science or anti-exploration, let me say firstly that the space shuttle has achieved many things.  The launch of the Hubble space telescope for example and the assembly of the International space station to name but two.
However consider that the Space shuttle is not a requirement to launch instruments into space.  Russia was able to build and maintain the Mir space station over a 10 year period with no space shuttle and no loss of life.  In fact the Russians/USSR have not lost a man in space in 40 years.


Lets take a look at the safety record of NASA's Space Shuttle.
In 1986 seven brave astronauts died in the Challenger disaster, on only it's 10th mission.  The failure was a simple technical problem that was overlooked


Repeated warnings from design engineers voicing concerns about the lack of evidence of the O-rings' safety when the temperature was below 53 °F (12 °C) had been ignored by NASA managers.

The shuttle was grounded for 3 years while the incident was investigated.
17 years later the Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated on re-entry, killing all 7 crewmen.  Once again the disaster was avoidable.


Ground control engineers had made three separate requests for high-resolution images taken by the Department of Defense that would have provided an understanding of the extent of the damage, while NASA's chief thermal protection system (TPS) engineer requested that astronauts on board Columbia be allowed to leave the vehicle to inspect the damage. NASA managers intervened to stop the Department of Defense's assistance and refused the request for the spacewalk, and thus the feasibility of scenarios for astronaut repair or rescue by Atlantis were not considered by NASA management at the time.


Taken as a whole, it might seem that 30 years of service and 2 accidents is an acceptable statistic.  But there were, in total only 135 missions.  If you consider the chance of an accident are 2/135 (1 in 67.5), it really hits home how dangerous this vehicle is.  To put this in perspective, for all space flight only 18 people have ever died.  14 of those were in the space shuttle.  


Compare this to other forms of travel, e.g. passenger jets, your odds vary from 1 in 9.2 million to 1 in 843744 depending on the airline.
Source: OAG Aviation & PlaneCrashInfo.com accident database, 1985 - 2009 


Ok sure, passenger jets are low risk, they are not cutting edge science.  Let's compare it to something more risky, how about fighter pilots (fixed wing) in Vietnam?  Flying a variety of the latest tech in unfamiliar territory, with limited training, in the 60s and 70s while people shoot at you?  Chances of crash?  About 1 in 2333.
Source: Schlight, John. "A War too Long: The USAF in Southeast Asia 1961–1975" (PDF). Air Force History and Museums Programs. Retrieved 20 February 2007. Page 103

So in 2011, is it acceptable for NASA to continue to launch people into space given they have a 1 in 67.5 chance of disintegrating?
During war we can accept losses.  With huge risk we should see huge reward.  But what benefit are the citizens of the United States seeing from the space shuttle program?  Are some stunning pictures from Hubble worth lives?  Is the completely worthless, designed-by-committee, "ISS" producing tangible real-world benefits equal to the risk of death and monetary cost of putting it in place?

The actual total cost of the shuttle program through 2011, adjusted for inflation, is $196 billion. The exact breakdown into non-recurring and recurring costs is not available, but, according to NASA, the average cost to launch a Space Shuttle as of 2011 is about $450 million per mission.

With 134 missions, and the total cost of US$192 billion (in 2010 dollars), this gives approximately $1.5 billion per launch over the life of the program.

Source:  Nasa.gov

You be the judge.  
Am I against a space program?  No.  I am simply intellectually honest enough to recognise that the Space Shuttle is an overpriced deathtrap.  The risk/reward ratio is completely unacceptable and the project would have been axed many years ago if billions of dollars hadn't already been sunk into it.
One motto we should all live by is "Don't throw good money after bad".


Many science bloggers are lamenting the fact that there is no NASA replacement for the shuttle, and the USA will have to rely on other countries to launch people into space.  
To me, this is a good sign.  For years NASA have stubbornly refused to decommission a dangerous space vehicle, with everyone expecting them to eventually phase in a replacement.
This lack of a new reusable space vehicle could be the start of a new era in which NASA might think before they act, assess risk, stop cutting corners, stop jumping the gun (see Mars bacteria), and refrain from pandering to impatient space geeks who value pretty pictures over the lives of astronauts.

We can only hope.