Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!amdahl!uunet!mcvax!ukc!eagle.ukc.ac.uk!icdoc!brwk From: brwk@doc.ic.ac.uk (Bevis King) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: Soviet Shuttle Summary: if the soviets are behind, how come they can test it unmaned? Keywords: shuttle soviet nasa Message-ID: <500@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk> Date: 18 Nov 88 10:30:54 GMT References: <704@sas.UUCP> <1600@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> Reply-To: brwk@doc.ic.ac.uk (Bevis King) Followup-To: <1600@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> Organization: Dept. of Computing, Imperial College, London, UK. Lines: 55 Distribution: In Message: <1600@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org(David Messer) says: > >Hardly. It shows that the Soviets are almost a decade behind >in this area at least. > >I applaud the fact that they are catching up though The Soviets Behind?... boy, have you got a shock coming! Just think for one moment before speaking... how much quicker could NASA have had THEIR shuttle back in business if they had been able to: 1. Fly the US shuttle craft unmanned 2. Test the US launcher without a shuttle craft attached Furthermore, take a look at the plans for Shuttle-C... why is it even a valid idea? Simply because the US shuttle is a seriously flawed design. There is no point in linking a heavy-lift rocket (or whatever) exclusively to a manned spacecraft, even in a predominately manned space programme. Take a detailed look at the shuttle craft available or planned: Shuttle Craft Lift Assistance Independantly Usable ------------- --------------- -------------------- US Shuttle Solid Boosters/External Tanks No USSR Shuttle Energia Heavy-Lift Rocket Yes ESA Hermes Arianne 5 (?) Rocket Yes BAe Hotol None Required - To me, the most inexplicable part of the grounding of the NASA shuttle is that they did not use the chance to improve the computer systems to allow unmanned testing of the craft. Surely, in a country such as the States, where the space programme is so throttled by the emotional whims of the public, that it can be grounded for achieving a 96% launch success rate; an unmanned testing ability is more important than ever. If you examine the rocket types in use, there are few with a success rate as high as 96%. I wonder when the American public will become mature enough to accept the risks of space flight without the incredible histrionics we have seen over the last few years. To be part of the dream, one must learn to take the risks. The Russians have known this for years... don't imagine that the cosmonauts don't know when accidents happen, they understand that to be part of the greatest adventure yet, they must take the risks. The Americans don't seem to really believe that yet. Regards, Bevis. Bevis King, Systems Programmer | Email: brwk@doc.ic.ac.uk Dept of Computing, Imperial College | UUCP : ..!mcvax!ukc!icdoc!brwk 180 Queens Gate, London, SW7 2BZ, UK. | Voice: +44 1 589 5111 x 5085 "Never argue with a computer" ... Avon (Blake's 7)