Of course I speak for myself. Do you think that anybody else would allow me
to speak for him ?????? =========== * ==================================== ***
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 22:04:03 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
Subject: Over zealous shuttle critics
Newsgroups: sci.space
In <1sp319$ai5@hsc.usc.edu> khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida) writes:
>Henry, my statement is not illusion. I am pleased that you understand the
>importance of maintaining the shuttle program as is. (or am I misinterpreting
>your post?). Yet, I am concerned about your assertion; how can you honestly
>say that the shuttle hasn't met "any" of its specifications? What specs
>are you talking about?
I suspect he is referring to costs, reflight rates, cargo capability,
and any number of other things that were in the original plan for the
vehicle.
>Rockwell International in Downey, California, in conjunction with the other
>shuttle contractors delivered the world's most important and most revolutionary
>space vehicle. One cannot argue with the fact that it flies, lands,
>and is reusable. In my opinion, these were the only appropriate specifications
>for this program. It has been a test program from the start, a logical follow
>to the X-15 program and the later X-series lifting bodies. The engineering
>specs that the guys in the trenches had were to develop a system which was
>man-ratable, could land reliably, and could be reflown. These goals were quite
>visionary for the 1970's, and I would argue that they are challenging even
>today, including for the DC-X program.
The Shuttle is a clean break with the X-plane work and has nothing to
do with it. Nothing with a solid motor on it would ever have been
considered 'man ratable' -- they bent the rules for Shuttle. A can
can 'land reliably' and 'be reflown'. It would probably require no
more refurbishment than Shuttle does -- in fact, probably less.
>I do not recall a 1 flight/week specification in the final NASA specs for the
>space shuttle program.
Shuttle flight rates were supposed to be *at least* 24 per year (which
is the figure that was used to justify costs and amortization). It
has never flown that often and never will fly that often.
>The shuttle is the only reusable space vehicle.
Untrue. It is one of several *refurbishable* space vehicles.
>But engineering wise, it is clearly the most advanced machine ever
>flown.
I don't think so.
>I argue that engineering and technical data for hypersonic flight is
>valuable in and of itself. Shuttle should be justified or criticized on the
>basis of economics.
A several billion $$ per copy space vehicle is *not* the way to get
engineering and techincal data for hypersonic flight. Shuttle takes
too much refurbishment. It is a failure at its intended mission for
that reason, if for no other.
>I was disappointed by this and other similar statements from those vocal in
>support of the DC-X program . Your support of DC-X is based on hopes.
>My support for the shuttle program is based on record.
A record of high expense, low flight rate access to space which
suffered a total loss of vehicle and all aboard in one of the first 25
flights.
>Unfortunately, DC-X'ers are not willing to return that support the proven Shuttle program. Explain why you folks criticize shuttle when shuttle is exactly
>what you guys need in order to learn how to operate DC-X on-orbit.
Sorry, but Shuttle tells us nothing about operating DC-X on orbit, and
DC-X isn't an orbital vehicle anyway. People who are interested in
fast, inexpensive, routine access to space (DC-1) are not going to be
interested in supporting a vehicle which is costly, requires a
standing army, suffers from low flight rates and high maintenance
requirements.
--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
