Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!hellgate.utah.edu!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!cory.Berkeley.EDU!navas
From: navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Why 3 SSME's?
Message-ID: <18349@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 13 Oct 89 20:54:41 GMT
References: <538.252A3A3B@mamab.FIDONET.ORG> <9941@thorin.cs.unc.edu>
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (David C. Navas)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 35

In article <9941@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@alanine.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>In article <538.252A3A3B@mamab.FIDONET.ORG> Mike.Pompura@f49.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Pompura) writes:
>>I submitted a proposal to NASA and Rockwell that involved the escape
>>sequence for a shuttle PES system.
>>...
>>This is one chance that apparently the powers-to-be deam
>>non-cost-effective.
>
>    It isn't cost-effective because of the enormous payload penalty.
>--
>    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
>    "Opossums ran amok in Chapel Hill this weekend..."
>	_The Daily Tar Heel_, 11/1/88

Hang on a minute.  Do cars have ejection seats?  Do passengers carry
parachutes into airplanes?  It seems to me that one of the original design
considerations was *safe* entry into space.

IE, to pilfer a semi-quote from Gary Hart, the idea is not to  make the
system safe to use whether it fails or not, but to make the thing free
from failure to begin with.

What we need is a completely new design, not merely a re-hashed version of
a proven /unreliable/ spacecraft.

That's not to put the SS down -- I happen to like the idea.  I liked the
original shuttle much better, of course.

The time for the immature/veteran-pilot approach to space flight has to end
someday -- why not now.  Of course, that makes it easier for weenies like
myself to go there.... :-)

David Navas
navas@cory.berkeley.edu
I'm not even responsible for the things I say.... :-)