🚀 go-pugleaf

Summary:

Expires:

Sender:

Followup-To:

Distribution:

Keywords:


In article <474@eplrx7.UUCP> lad@eplrx7.UUCP (Lawrence Dziegielewski) writes:
>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.

    I'm glad you present so many independently verifiable facts to go
with the snide comment. At least some Russian hardware does in fact
perform better than ours. Compare the launch rate and downtime of
Proton versus the space shuttle or Titan, for example.

>And 'glitz' or 'zippiness'  has nothing to do with it.

    Exactly. That's one reason the Soviets are launching payloads and
we aren't. They don't go for 'zippiness' but for functionality.

>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

    What, from $200 million/flight to $100 million? Don't forget to
factor in the amortized replacment cost for shuttles, too. Only one so
far, but that's going to change as we keep flying them.

>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.

    Since we had no alternatives (unlike the Soviets), we were forced
to use the shuttle whether it was worth it or not. Hopefully we will
have more choices once the new unmanned boosters come on line.
-- 
    Jon Leech (leech@dopey.cs.unc.edu)
    __@/