Re: shuttle & ISS mistake news article


"George Evans" <georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:BF93A065.173B%georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> in article Bl1bf.522597$_o.499288@attbi_s71, George at
> george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 11/5/05 4:13 AM:
>
>> "Jorge R. Frank" <jrfrank@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9705986014D6jrfrank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>> "George" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>>> _vWaf.520178$_o.14389@attbi_s71:">news:_vWaf.520178$_o.14389@attbi_s71:
>>>
>>>> "Jorge R. Frank" <jrfrank@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns9704BEFA35162jrfrank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>>> "George" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>>>>> NPCaf.515468$_o.248298@attbi_s71:">news:NPCaf.515468$_o.248298@attbi_s71:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but I think history has also shown that it is much more
>>>>>> expensive to
>>>>>> try to reuse the craft in the first place than it is to simply build
>>>>>> another one.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Only if you make the extremely foolish mistake of trying to fit a
>>>>> curve
>>>>> through a single data point.
>>>>>
>>>> The facts are what they are. The shuttle program has cost tens of
>>>> billions
>>>> more than it was ever intended to cost,
>>>>
>>> That does not necessarily make it true of all reusable vehicles. It is
>>> quite
>>> arguable that the shuttle is expensive not because it's partially
>>> reusable,
>>> but because it's not reusable *enough*. That is only to be expected,
>>> since
>>> it's the first of its kind.
>>>
>> Umm, it is so expensive because of its unwieldy design, obsolete
>> technology,
>> its fragility, repeated delays and cost overruns, etc. As for other
>> reusable
>> vehicles, I cannot speak for any of those, since no other reusable
>> vehicles
>> are currently flying (or have ever gone fully operational). I'm not
>> against
>> the concept of a reusable craft, in theory. The fact is that no
>> operational
>> one has ever proven to be cost effective.
>
> I'm not sure Jorge is going to want to continue this past this point
> where
> you just shot yourself in the foot. So it the event you didn't feel any
> pain, the variable of which there is only one point is the vast panoply
> of
> possible reusable vehicle configurations. As you have pointed out, thus
> shooting yourself, the shuttle is the only one we know anything about.

Care to repeat that is something other than ad hominem scribblese?

>> The point is that the Shuttle was originally rated to have no more than
>> 1
>> catastrophic disaster per 100 flights. After Challenger, that was
>> downgraded
>> to 1 in 25. The Shuttle has always been an experimental vehicle. It is
>> time
>> that experiment ended, and we get on with the business of building a new
>> system that will carry us well into the 21st century.
>
> You are a data point juggler so you should appreciate this. Two accidents
> in
> 118 flights *is* one in each 100. There has been one in flights 1 through
> 100, and there has been one in flights 101 through 200.

2 incidents out 118 flights is just under 1 in 60, not one in 100, unless
of course, you went to the Evilynn Woodhead school of mathematics. At any
rate, the number of actual incidents is far more than was advertized when
the craft was being sold to Congress and to the American people.

>> Only because of the vast sums we throw at it at the expense of many
>> other
>> equally worthy projects. Where the shuttle is concerned, reusability
>> has
>> never meant efficiency nor cost-effectiveness. I think we can do much
>> better.
>>
>>> The shuttle is more expensive than expendable vehicles. Therefore all
>>> reusable vehicles are more expensive than expendable vehicles." With
>>> that
>>> line of logic, you could convince yourself that "all men are Socrates."
>>>
>> The fact remains that no one has yet to build and use a fully
>> operational,
>> cost-efficient, reusable space vehicle. If this is incorrect, you are
>> free to
>> show me where it is incorrect.
>
> And there goes an arm. See you later stumpy.
>
> George Evans

Ad hominems again? Is that all you've got?


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: shuttle & ISS mistake news article
    ... The shuttle program has cost tens of billions ... >> That does not necessarily make it true of all reusable vehicles. ... reusability has ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: Japans Moon Ambitions - Theyre KIDDING, Right ?
    ... and losing vehicles and pilots occasionally ... >> Because of the absurdly low flight rate, and the fact that it's not ... if you want to have low costs. ... >And if reusability is good, why isn't some reusability better than ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Rules Set for $50 Million Americas Space Prize
    ... >expendables were the only way to go, at least for the next umpteen ... We were talking about launch vehicles, not payloads. ... lifetime argue for reusability. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Cheap Access to Space
    ... Your proposal amounts to the proposition that reusable vehicles are ... Reusable vehicles are going to cost more per pound than ... expendables. ... Just invoking the word reusability does not ensure ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: shuttle & ISS mistake news article
    ... > That does not necessarily make it true of all reusable vehicles. ... > quite arguable that the shuttle is expensive not because it's partially ... So the shuttle is over three times more unsafe than Soyuz and more ... reusability has ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
Quantcast