Article View: sci.space.shuttle
Article #3938Re: Things aint so bad
From: lad
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1987 17:42
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1987 17:42
60 lines
2961 bytes
2961 bytes
In article <8583@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
> > I don't know where you're getting your information...
>
> Aviation Week, Flight International, Spaceflight, JBIS, Space World,
You mean Avaition Leak.
> Quite true: they have *no* launch systems that are grounded for 2+1/2
> years after a single failure. After the last Proton failure, the delay
The shuttle was grounded for a good reason, and when it flies again I'd
send my own grandmother up on one, with me sitting right next to her.
> before the next Proton launch was (as I recall) a whole 11 days. The
> Soviet hardware indeed cannot compare to the shuttle; when it comes to
What does that prove? That the Soviets are more advanced than we are?
Hardly.
> on the Soviet program, there is an Energia with a shuttle on its back on
> the pad at Baikonur as we speak. (Doesn't mean a launch will happen soon,
>
So? When will it fly. Others beleive the Russian Shuttle is a mockup, a
non-working hoax. I think you're years away from a launch. Years.
> Net shuttle performance for the last year and a half: zero. Or negative
> if you count all the money going into it. There have been 15 or so Proton
No kidding. And I beleive there's good reasons for it. But when it flies
again, we'll see regular shuttle launches and a VERY reliable system.
> > The Soviets do not have the capability of transporting payloads into space
> > and returing with other payloads.
> They don't have the capability -- until the Energia-shuttle goes up -- of
> *returning* major payloads to Earth. But even the US shuttle didn't do a
> whole lot of that.
You might as well hope for the Second Coming, becuase it'll happen before
the Soviet Shuttle flies.
> > > However, our most fundamental problem -- the damn boosters cost too much
> > > and fly too seldom -- will NOT be solved this way...
> >
> > 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)...
>
--
Lawrence A. Dziegielewski | E.I. Dupont Co.
{uunet!dgis!psuvax1}!eplrx7!lad | Engineering Physics Lab
Cash-We-Serve 76127,104 | Wilmington, Delaware 19891
MABELL: (302) 695-1311 | Mail Stop: E357-318
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<477@eplrx7.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!linus!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!ukma!uunet!eplrx7!ladReferences:
<13312@amdahl.amdahl.com>, <7973@think.UUCP> <8561@utzoo.UUCP>, <8583@utzoo.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!linus!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!ukma!uunet!eplrx7!lad From: lad@eplrx7.UUCP Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space Subject: Re: Things aint so bad Message-ID: <477@eplrx7.UUCP> Date: Wed, 16-Sep-87 13:42:20 EDT Article-I.D.: eplrx7.477 Posted: Wed Sep 16 13:42:20 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 19-Sep-87 05:11:38 EDT References: <13312@amdahl.amdahl.com>, <7973@think.UUCP> <8561@utzoo.UUCP>, <8583@utzoo.UUCP> Organization: E.I. DuPont Co. Engineering Physics Lab Lines: 60 Summary: More of the same...