Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: net.space Subject: Re: Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine Message-ID: <6202@utzoo.UUCP> Date: Tue, 3-Dec-85 19:38:07 EST Article-I.D.: utzoo.6202 Posted: Tue Dec 3 19:38:07 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 3-Dec-85 19:38:07 EST References: <8511302156.AA10294@s1-b.arpa>, <594@riccb.UUCP> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 84 > > The fact that other countries are developing reusable vehicles in > > no way redeems NASA's failure... > > ... 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. Nonsense. If you foul up, it is *your* fault, not that of the Rockwell shareholders. They may perhaps be responsible for tolerating situations that encourage fouling up, and thus share some of the blame, but you are most definitely still accountable for your actions. (Ask your boss about this if you don't believe me.) Same principle. US voters may perhaps be blamed for inadequate NASA funding, but not for NASA making promises that it can't keep. > 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. Utter nonsense. It may disqualify us from demanding answers from NASA brass, on the grounds that they don't work for us, but calling a failure a failure is not the exclusive prerogative of the people who pay the bills for it. > > 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! ... > > 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... The whole justification for undertaking an expensive development program in the first place was that existing expendable boosters were not adequate to do the job. In what way? They were too expensive. I fail to see the fine line you are drawing between "motivation" and "justification". If anything, you are drawing it the wrong way: NASA's motive for the shuttle was a combination of the development of space and bureaucratic self-preservation, while the justification offered was lower launch costs. Check out the Congressional testimony if you don't believe me on the latter. > Had the original design > concepts (fully reusable) been adopted AND FUNDED we'd be much closer to this > goal than we are now. Agreed. But it remains true that even the partly-reusable shuttle was claimed by NASA to greatly reduce launch costs; it hasn't, and won't. > 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. "fail, v.t. 1. attempt without success. 2. not to do. 3. disappoint. ..." [from the little dictionary in my desk] The issue at hand is not whether the Wrights could build an SR-71, but whether they could make good on their claims, i.e. whether they could build something that would fly. They did not claim to be able to reach Mach 3; NASA most definitely did claim to be able to drastically reduce launch costs, with the shuttle. > ... 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. ... Nobody is claiming that NASA wasn't (a) working under difficult conditions to (b) achieve a rather difficult goal. That does not change the facts: they failed. The promises they made *after* the scaling-down occurred have not been kept. Probably nobody on Earth could have kept them -- although there are some people I'd have given better odds than I'd have given NASA on the job -- so the blame rests with those who made the promises in the first place. NASA. Understand, I think the shuttle is a winner on the whole (although I mourn for what it could have been, and isn't). Routine manned access to space is definitely worth having, and that's what the shuttle is good at. Alas, not as good as something that didn't claim to be a cheap payload truck too -- a larger fleet of smaller orbiters would do a much better job on routine manned access to space -- but a little is better than none. NASA probably couldn't have sold the shuttle on that basis only. But let us be honest: the shuttle was justified as a cheap payload truck, and it's not. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry