Xref: utzoo sci.space:11424 sci.space.shuttle:3137
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!polyslo!jmckerna
From: jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dr. Dereference)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: heavy launchers
Message-ID: <11483@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>
Date: 16 May 89 10:27:07 GMT
References: <1989May11.050951.11130@utzoo.uucp> <136@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> <11316@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> <1989May13.201437.23217@utzoo.uucp> <11401@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> <1989May15.171856.2563@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John McKernan)
Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo
Lines: 37

In article <1989May15.171856.2563@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>You've missed my point slightly, I fear.  Note the date I gave.  This
>particular decision was made long before the shuttle was seriously looked
>at, and long before any serious post-Apollo planning was done.  The fateful
>decision was made in the middle of Apollo, over NASA's strenuous objections.
> [deleted]
>Many people date the decline of the Saturn V to NASA's post-Apollo decision
>not to retain Saturn V launch capability.  This is wrong; the original
>Congressional decision to terminate production after 15, made much earlier,
>was the real killer.  The loss of production capability made the inability to
>launch the last two Saturn Vs a relatively minor issue.  

I believe I understood the point you were making Henry. My points, right or
wrong, were:
1. Congress (for whatever reasons) rarely funds a long production run for an
   expensive item. Thus while it was certainly both desirable and possible
   for congress to fund a true production line, it's not surprising that
   congress only funded 15 Saturns.

2. While congress refused to fund a true Saturn production line, it was 
   certainly possible for congress to restart Saturn production when post
   Apollo launchers were being considered.

3. Given that the Saturn was expensive, the idea that moving to a reusable
   launcher would save money in the long run had some theoretical merit.
   Congress would very likely have funded only a short production run again,
   and with reusable launchers you only need a short production run.

I don't think these points are strictly wrong, but I now agree with those who
have posted that abandoning an already proven and capable technology for one
difficult to develop was a very bad idea. That bad decision has done immense
damage to the US space effort.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The future is rude and pushy. It won't wait for us to solve today's problems
before it butts in with tomorrow's.