Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site riccb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe
From: rjnoe@riccb.UUCP (Roger J. Noe)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
Message-ID: <594@riccb.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2-Dec-85 09:53:29 EST
Article-I.D.: riccb.594
Posted: Mon Dec  2 09:53:29 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 3-Dec-85 08:00:51 EST
References: <8511302156.AA10294@s1-b.arpa>
Organization: Rockwell International - Downers Grove, IL
Lines: 50

> The fact that other countries are developing reusable vehicles in
> no way redeems NASA's failure; indeed, if the other countries are
> using lots of NASA's technology then NASA's failure to develop
> a better follow-on is even more damning.

Just a minute, here.  Where do you get off calling it NASA's failure?  They
have done remarkably well considering the miniscule budget Congress has given
them.  Are you a U.S. citizen and were you able to vote back in the very early
1970's?  If so, any "failure" that can be assessed is yours, not NASA's and
not even your congressional representatives'.  If you can vote in the U.S.
now, then any future "failure" will also be your responsibility.  If you never
have been extended the privilege of voting for this country's legislative and
executive positions and never will, then you have no basis whatsoever to
criticize this country's space program.

I'm all for a more economical shuttle AND a permanently manned station AND
a lunar base AND a manned mission to Mars, etc.  I'd be happy to allocate
ten per cent of my yearly income for these projects if it would help bring
them to fruition.  But until such an atmosphere of public opinion prevails
I think NASA is correct in pursuing the station and keeping the current
shuttle.

> It is eminently fair to criticize the shuttle on the basis of
> cost/pound to orbit.  Reducing this cost was the primary justification
> of the shuttle program!  Even if a later design works, the current
> shuttle is, by this criterion, a failure.

That's entirely incorrect.  Reducing the cost of reaching Earth orbit was
a primary MOTIVATION for the Space Transportation System program.  It was
never a justification, nor was it ever meant to be.  Had the original design
concepts (fully reusable) been adopted AND FUNDED we'd be much closer to this
goal than we are now.  Calling the present shuttle a failure even though a
future design will work better is like standing in front of the SR-71 and
saying that Orville and Wilbur Wright were incompetent boobs.  When it comes
to research and development, it can only be done in small steps unless you
have someone else's design to learn from.  The quantum leap from V-2 to
space transportation system could probably not have been achieved in anything
less than twenty years and that presumes one moves directly and consistently
toward STS during the entire two decades AND that there be sufficient funding
for such efforts.  Ground-breaking engineering is a very capital-intensive
undertaking.  It happens all too frequently that a project is made more
expensive rather than the reverse when engineers are denied the resources to
achieve what they have planned and are forced to scale it down.  I am not
suggesting for a moment that all engineering problems can be solved merely
by throwing enough money at them, but I do think it makes sense to commit
resources to R&D if one really wants to achieve something significant.
--
"It's only by NOT taking the human race seriously that I retain what
 fragments of my once considerable mental powers I still possess!"
	Roger Noe			ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe