Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- From: "Tom Cuddihy" <tom.cuddihy@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 29 Oct 2005 12:07:24 -0700
Derek Lyons wrote:
> "Tom Cuddihy" <tom.cuddihy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >They still fly 80s computers on the Shuttles, right?
>
> So, what? A Trident-II SLBM flies with 80's computers, as does the
> Minuteman-III... And all three still do the job more than adequately.
>
That's right, they do the job they were originally designed to
do--unfortuantely nuclear deterrence is not the only kind of strategic
capability we need these days. Minuteman and Trident II do NOTHING for
the war on terror.
> >Not to mention the thing was designed in the early 70s.
>
> So what? The 688 and 725 class submarines were designed in the 70's.
> They both perform more than adequately today.
>
> The age of a design or a system is all but meaningless *so long as the
> system still performs to it's design specs'. Obsessing on the age of
> the system is a sign of fuzzy headed thinking.
You should know that this is not so. I was stationed on THE 688 for
three years. Keel laid 1971, 5 years before I was born. Supposed to be
decommissioned in 1995. Kept alive instead, refeuled because we
realized when we cut off the Seawolf program at 3 that we still needed
more submarines. Refeuling LA cost somewhere between $300-$400 million.
Extending the Seawolf program for one more hull would have cost about
$800-million--1 billion. Great trade right? The Pentagon saved $600 mil
with that trade, right? Wrong. Since 1995, LA has needed several major
overhauls just to keep working, as various large components not
designed to last for 30 years have stopped working--never mind upgrades
just to maintain enough capability to remain useful. Those total
somewhere between another 800-13000 million by my estimate from the one
I participated in. Meanwhile, the sub has somewhere around half the
operational rate of a newer submarine. To top it off, at those use
rates, the hull rating will wear off at least a DECADE and a HALF
before the reactor comes close to running low on fuel. Of course, in
that time the newer Seawolf would have needed at least one
overhaul--but that still doesn't come close to an even tradeoff.
When a system's design specs are 'for 30 years' and you're going on 35
or 40 years, that's when trouble strikes, big time.
>
> >If it takes you 10 years to design and declare working your reusable
> >vehicle, by the time your first commerical satellite was delivered to orbit,
> >the entire infrastructure might be obsolete.
>
> Hardly. See above.
>
> D.
> --
> Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
>
> -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
> Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- From: Derek Lyons
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- References:
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- From: Pete Lynn
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- From: Len
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- From: Fred J . McCall
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- From: Len
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- From: Monte Davis
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- From: Len
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- From: Derek Lyons
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- From: Tom Cuddihy
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- Prev by Date: Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- Next by Date: Presumed payload of last T4B spotted
- Previous by thread: Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- Next by thread: Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|