Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah
From: kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Sanger
Summary: total redesign time.....
Message-ID: <82@enuxha.eas.asu.edu>
Date: 16 Mar 89 22:41:26 GMT
References: <1989Mar14.172237.29235@cs.rochester.edu> <15877@cup.portal.com>
Organization: Arizona State Univ, Tempe
Lines: 34

In article <15877@cup.portal.com>, mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
> >This seems like a better idea than HOTOL or NASP: no need to take the
> >entire vehicle to orbit or to make the first stage capable of flight
> >at extreme hypersonic speeds.
> >
> If I'm not mistaken, the original concept for the space shuttle called for
> a manned, reusable plane to carry the shuttle to an altitude from which it
> could make orbit by itself.
> 
> Wouldn't a re-activiation of this design objective be one of the least
> costly and most safe ways of turning our technological duckling into a
> technological swan?

The idea, while quite noble on the surface, is ignoring one basic fact.
We would have to admit that the shuttle is not the best system possible,
dig up the old designs, then sell them to Congress, which controls the
purse-strings.  Remember Congress?  That's the same group which gave us
the shuttle-as-we-know-it in the first place through budget cutting and
other political tricks, resulting in a less-than-optimal, compromised
vehicle.

A better idea would be, in the words of Henry Spencer, to have a private
vehicle which "embarrassed NASA and the Air Force" by its operation.
I.e., cheap, simple, and reliable.  (Sorry if the quote isn't quite
perfect, Henry! :-) :-) )


**********************************************************************
Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

standard disclaimer implied

Useful criticism always appreciated.  Senseless flames always discarded.