Re: Space Shuttle criticizing will start once it has been retired

"Derek Lyons" <fairwater@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:495c91ee.894498984@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer <anonymous@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

NASA, when they designed the Shuttle, forgot that during the Apollo and
Gemini
flights, many things went wrong. The only reason the crew survived was
because
of the toughness of the capsules, their simple designs, and their inherent
safety
(no active stabillization needed during reentry).

Toughness? Maybe, compared to the average *** of newsprint. Simple
designs? Maybe when compared to your average nuclear submarine.
Inherent safety? ROTFLMAO.

Now now, let's look at the facts....

Number of fatal shuttle flights... hmm.. 2
Number of fatal capsule flights... hmm.. 2

Ok.. so it's a tie.

Number of re-entries that landed at a different sight than planned once
de-orbit was initiated:
Shuttle: 0
Capsule: 3 (at least that I can think of off the top of my head.)

(of course I know Derek is aware of this, since we've often made this
point.)

And as others have pointed out, Apollo for example had two stable positions,
one of them fatal.

The reality is, both designs have their merits, but neither is in my opinion
fundamentally better than others.

And regardless, we're still well below the learning curve for building
spacecraft. I think in 100 years this argument will be better settled.



D.
--
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.


.

Loading