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

On Dec 31 2008, 10:10 pm, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
<anonym...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://us.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/12/30/columbia.shuttle.disaster/ind...

Once the Shuttles have been retired in 2010 you will hear more and more stories about what a POS the Shuttle really was. It's simply too dangerous a vehicle to fly in, much too fragile, since a small defect can (I would say 'will') immediately lead to the loss of the entire crew. Because of this, NASA needs to spend enormous amounts of money to keep the Shuttles in tip-top shape, and even then there's a chance some unforeseen defect will kill the crew.

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).

If you followed the entire program like I did from concepts in 1971 to
today, you see why the shuttle ended up the way it is. My view is that
Congress and Nixon shoved the eternal tank SRB design down NASA's
throat because they were unwilling to fund the original concept of a
mothership with the orbiter attached. The development costs would have
been higher, but the operational costs would have been lower due to
the complete reusability of the original concept.
Do not blame NASA for a vehicle design constrained by the poor policy
decisions politicians made at that time.
.