Re: It's just wierd
- From: George Evans <georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 02:40:08 GMT
in article 1130440996.513886.63690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
ytyourclothes@xxxxxxxxxxx at ytyourclothes@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 10/27/05
12:23 PM:
> Mark Lopa wrote:
>
>> With Bush and Griffin still hard set on dumping the shuttle in August 2010 no
>> matter what, it just seems odd that testing and improvements continue to move
>> ahead for something that's supposed to be dead in less than five years.
>>
> Why is that odd?
>
> The shuttle is (has always been) an experimental craft, who's purpose is much
> more "learning how to do certain things" than "transporting stuff". We had the
> "transporting stuff" thing figured out during apollo. But we'll never be
> finished with learning.
>
>> I'm really starting to wonder what's going to happen. My gut feeling is
>> either the shuttle program is going to be extended to allow people to slow
>> down and do things right and get the shuttle flying the way it should be
>>
> "should" by whos assessment?
>
> Before the first bolt was placed on the shuttle, the design spec'ed a 98%
> reliability. One catastrophic failure every 50 flights. That's what the
> designers said they could achieve within the budget. That's what congress
> ordered. That's what they got. That's as it "should" be.
>
> You want somehting else? Go ahead and order it. It'll be even more expensive.
>
>> or we're going to see far less than 18 flights. In fact, I would not be
>> completely surprised if the shuttle does not fly again.
>>
> Given the the per-flight cost decreases drastically the more often you fly, I
> see no reason to go that route. The major part of the cost is the personell
> that you can't exactly hire at home-depot on an hourly basis.
>
> The first launch of the fiscal year costs a lot of money, the second is
> comparatively cheap, the third nearly free.
>
>> I still think we should forget this moon and Mars craziness and improve on
>> what we have.
>>
> Depends on who you mean with "we". The shuttle is at the end of its mission --
> a mission to explore the engineering-reality of a regular earth-to-orbit
> commute. If "we" want to continue flying shuttles, the "we" should definitely
> not include NASA. It is not NASA's job to do routine operations. It is NASA's
> job to push the envelope, to expand what is known and what can be done. NASA
> has definitely done this. If Boeing or Lockheed or whoever would like to buy
> the hardware and fly it from here on, I do not think anybody would complain.
> But why would they? Why not take the knowledge gained and build something
> faster/better/cheaper?
>
> Meanwhile NASA will continue to do the cutting-edge stuff. The stuff for which
> there might not be a current market. The stuff where we are guaranteed to
> learn something in the process. The stuff where you can't just look up the
> formula in the book and plug in the numbers -- because the book isn't written
> yet.
>
> I have no quarrels with that. Why do you?
Hear, hear to everything you said.
George Evans
.
- References:
- It's just wierd
- From: Mark Lopa
- Re: It's just wierd
- From: ytyourclothes
- It's just wierd
- Prev by Date: Re: How Rockets Differ From Jets
- Next by Date: Re: Magnetic levitation for launch ?
- Previous by thread: Re: It's just wierd
- Next by thread: Re: It's just wierd
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
