Re: Here We Go Again!

"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmccall@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
:news:oidh63t0j46fecfpkk612qiceqglu7ibtm@xxxxxxxxxx
:> simberg.interglobal@xxxxxxxxx (Rand Simberg) wrote:
:>
:> :On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 10:02:18 -0700, in a place far, far away, surfduke
:> :<surfduke2001@xxxxxxxxx> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
:> :a way as to indicate that:
:> :
:> :>What I was getting at is:
:> :>
:> :>The Shuttle design, & construction got all criss-crossed, when the Air
:> :>Force started helping with funding.
:> :
:> :The Air Force never helped with funding the Shuttle.
:> :
:> :>That is when the escape rockets,
:> :>(and burn cord), got thrown out, (as well as many other items that got
:> :>in the way of the lbs. to orbit target)).
:> :
:> :No, that happened when the requirements (some of which were driven by
:> :the Air Force) grew to exceed the available development funding.
:> :
:>
:> You're being just slightly disingenuous here, don't you think? Just
:> why did the Shuttle *have* any requirements driven by the Air Force,
:> Rand?
:
:More than anything else, to gain political support for the program. With
:the Air Force backing the project, it was far more likely that NASA would
:get the funding it needed to actually build and fly the thing. It doesn't
:mean that the Air Force spent its money actually developing the shuttle. It
:did, however, spend money on programs which planned to use the shuttle, once
:its development was completed.
:

Still disingenuous. What it meant was that money that would otherwise
have been put in the USAF budget for development of launch capability
went into Shuttle instead, which is why Shuttle had USAF requirements
all of a sudden.


--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Here We Go Again!
    ... :The Air Force never helped with funding the Shuttle. ... :the Air Force) grew to exceed the available development funding. ... why did the Shuttle *have* any requirements driven by the Air Force, ... Discounting the DoD's expenditures on payloads, the IUS, and SLC-6 (all of which they did for their own, not for shuttle development), they did cover some overhead charges related to NASA's use of DoD facilities during shuttle development. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Here We Go Again!
    ... :>:the Air Force) grew to exceed the available development funding. ... :mean that the Air Force spent its money actually developing the shuttle. ... The Air Force wanted to develop bigger payloads and wanted a bigger launch ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Here We Go Again!
    ... :The Air Force never helped with funding the Shuttle. ... :the Air Force) grew to exceed the available development funding. ... why did the Shuttle *have* any requirements driven by the Air Force, ... the Air Force backing the project, it was far more likely that NASA would ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Here We Go Again!
    ... simberg.interglobal@xxxxxxxxx (Rand Simberg) wrote: ... :The Air Force never helped with funding the Shuttle. ... :the Air Force) grew to exceed the available development funding. ... "False words are not only evil in themselves, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: What if we still had Saturn V
    ... The Air Force got told to move funding ... > from expendables to the Shuttle (funding transferred to NASA). ...
    (sci.space.policy)