🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <474@eplrx7.UUCP> lad@eplrx7.UUCP (Lawrence Dziegielewski) writes:
>> > Even granting its problems, we DO have the shuttle; no-one else
>> > presently has anything nearly as zippy...
>> 
>> Anything nearly as zippy, no.  This has nothing much to do with usefulness,
>> though.  The Soviet hardware consistently does almost everything better than
>> the Shuttle does it, albeit less glamorously.  Almost the only thing the
>> 
>I don't know where you're getting your information,  but the Soviets have
>NOTHING that can compare to the shuttle.  There is nothing on the pad
>anywhere in the Soviet Union that even remotely resembles the shuttle.  And
>there's no way you can get me to beleive that ANY Russian hardware performs 
>better than the shuttle. And 'glitz' or 'zippiness'  has nothing to do with
>it. 
>
Your absolutely right. The Soviets DO NOT have anything anywhere near
as advanced as a high-tech shuttle that won't fly. All they have is old,
low-tech stuff that does fly. A lot.

>The Soviets do not have the capability of transporting payloads into space
>and returing with other payloads.  They do not have the capability of
>sending teams of scientists and technicians into space all at once like we
>can with the shuttle.  

You're almost right. The Soviets do not have the cabability of flying lots
of people into space all at once. This is compared to the US, which has
the highest-tech method in the world which can't fly anyone into space.
The Soviets, while they do have the ability to transport payloads into
space on a weekly basis, do not have the ability to return large payloads
from space. We, on the other hand, having a paltry ability at best to send
payloads into space, probably don't need ta have an ability to return what
we can't get up there to begin with, so the shuttle, being the high-tech
grounded solution that it is, is admirably suited to NOT carrying payloads
into space, and NOT returning them when they're not their to begin with.

>
>Cost too much?  Maybe,  but if flown like they were in '85 and '86 the cost
>comes way down.   The cost of flying the shuttle will remian high until we
>get them going regularly again (soon,  I hope).  Besides,  high technology
>is expensive,  and the shuttle is probably the most advanced space vehicle
>in the world today.  IT'S WORTH IT.
>
Especially if they are flown the way they were in '86. After a while, we'll
loose the three remaining shuttles (they way we did in '86) and the cost
will eventually reach zero, it might be argued. (Let's see, we flew 2
shuttle missions in '86, right?, one blew up at a replacement cost of
1 billion plus, let's ignore the operating costs, it will simply perturb
the last few digits anyway, that means than that each flight cost about
500 million plus. Such a deal, I should live so long.)

>Get on the stick and get with the program,  man.  Or at least get the right
>information.
>
Et tu...

Dick Pierce