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!ihopa!riccb!rjnoe From: rjnoe@riccb.UUCP (Roger J. Noe) Newsgroups: net.space Subject: Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine Message-ID: <601@riccb.UUCP> Date: Fri, 6-Dec-85 09:58:03 EST Article-I.D.: riccb.601 Posted: Fri Dec 6 09:58:03 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 7-Dec-85 05:24:17 EST References: <8511302156.AA10294@s1-b.arpa>, <594@riccb.UUCP> <6202@utzoo.UUCP> Organization: Rockwell International - Downers Grove, IL Lines: 134 > > ... 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 [your company's] > 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. . . . Same principle. > . . . . US voters may perhaps be > blamed for inadequate NASA funding, but not for NASA making promises that > it can't keep. Point 1: I work for a publicly-held industrial concern, not a government agency. So it's not at all the "same principle." My employers are not elected public officials. If you lived in the U.S. you might understand the difference. (-: Seriously, I do appreciate that individuals are accountable for their actions. But here in the USA we are fortunate enough to have a measure of responsibility for our government's actions. These actions are mainly what the government chooses to fund and by how much. Pay attention to our next presidential campaign and you'll see that most of the talking the candidates do is along the lines of which programs will be cut, which will be started, and how much our taxes will change to accommodate these changes. Point 2: I maintain that the only macro-mistake in the STS program was by how much it was funded and for what reasons. This decision drove all the others, including the design of the STS. That is why the shuttle costs more than was projected. That is all the NASA officials were doing, making projections that if this much money was spent on development, then it would at some specified point cost this much to launch this payload, etc. I don't recall ever reading in any of the congressional testimony that NASA guaranteed such things. Only that, to the best of their experience, it would come to pass. It is a rare engineering project indeed that accomplishes some- thing never done before and does it in the time and within the budget originally projected. How can anyone say they "promised" something they couldn't deliver? And, even if one does aver that they made promises, wasn't it incredibly naive to believe that they could do something that incredible with such limited resources? > > 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's not because we pay the bills that I made that statement. It's because no other country has equalled U.S. accomplishments in space. You think we failed in the shuttle program? What has Canada done better? Oh, yeah, you made the robot arm. Impressive (I'm serious). You've sent one astronaut into space, but then that was on a U.S. space shuttle. How many communications satellites would Canada have up were it not for the U.S.? Take off, eh. (In your nonexistent shuttle, that is.) > > Reducing the cost of reaching Earth orbit was > > a primary MOTIVATION for the Space Transportation System program. It was > > never a justification . . . > > 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. No, I've got it right, you've got it backwards. NASA was directed by the President of the United States to develop a system which would lower these costs. They presented what ideas they had and stated their belief that it would in fact lower launch costs. Since this occurred before they began the program, it is a motivation (stimulus to an action), not a justification. Clearly, the word "justification" is entirely misplaced here because that is denoted to be an after-the-fact demonstration of correctness. NASA has not maintained that they accomplished what they originally projected. > 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. They claimed (even after budget cuts) that they thought it would still reduce costs. Again, that was just a projection. In any event, they had no choice but to build that which was funded. > > 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. > > 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. Read again: the context was that the shuttle can be built better; because of this, the current project is a failure. You're mistaking someone else calling NASA a failure versus calling the shuttle a failure. > 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. Again, you're saying they made promises when all they did was make projections based on almost no data. Once they began operating, they knew how much things would cost and they told everyone. So who could have done better? Who HAS done better? > 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 I agree with you on almost all that paragraph. But NASA does not now claim that the shuttle is a cheap payload truck. That was what it was supposed to be, but because the funding and politics went awry, it's not what we have. But it was, for the last time, NOT justified on that basis. NASA has not claimed for years that's what the shuttle does or will do. It should never have been the emphasis. I should also point out that there are generally accepted accounting principles which do show that the shuttle is an economic success. It's all in how you want to look at it. -- These ideas are mine and, it appears, nobody else's! Roger Noe ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe