🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <474@eplrx7.UUCP> lad@eplrx7.UUCP (Lawrence Dziegielewski) writes:
>In article <8561@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) 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

  On the contrary, the next launch of Energia will probably be carrying
 "Shuttleski".  Satellite photos of Tyuratam have shown shuttle vehicles
 for years.  Looks like they're ready to launch.

>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
  ^
   Define "better".  Even ignoring the fact that right now, the shuttle
 doesn't perform at all, hasn't for a year and a half, and probably
 won't for another year yet.   *Potential* performance doesn't orbit any
 satellites.  At least the Sov's are actually *flying* their hardware.
 Anyway, Energia is a Saturn V-class launcher (ignoring the minor detail
 that the only Saturn Vs left are being used as lawn ornaments) and can
 put a hell of a lot more payload up than can Shuttle.  Or, it can put
 the Russian Shuttle and payload up.
   Are you talking about Shuttle's man rating?  Okay, it can stay on-orbit
 for a bit over a week.  Mir has been continuosly manned for nearly a year
 now.

>it. 
>
>The Soviets do not have the capability of transporting payloads into space
>and returing with other payloads.  They do not have the capability of
      ^
       Certainly they do.  The Progress vehicles (essentially unmanned
  Soyuzs) used to resupply Salyut and Mir have been bringing back down
  film packages,  expermental data, zero-G processed materials (not just
  experimental results, the Sovs are using zero-G processed crystals for
  sensors in military hardware) etc for years.

>sending teams of scientists and technicians into space all at once like we
>can with the shuttle.  
      Hmm, there are probably half a dozen people up there now even
   as we speak, er, type.  If you can launch a Soyuz a week with a couple
   or three people each, and have a couple of space stations up there
   (Salyut is still up) for them to work in, is that really worse than
   sending up seven at once in a vehicle that can, with maximum effort,
   only be launched every 5 or 6 weeks?
>> 
>> However, our most fundamental problem -- the damn boosters cost too much
>> and fly too seldom -- will NOT be solved this way.  This is a big, nasty,
>
>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
     ^
	   Sorry, but it doesn't.  *Operation* costs for shuttle are far higher
  than originally promised, or that NASA would have you believe.  There's
  just too much expensive hand labor (actually, most of that is management)
  involved.  It still costs $4-$5000/lb to launch on shuttle, plus
  $50,000 an *hour* to get an astronaut to do anything.

>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.
                           ^ As a research vehicle, perhaps.  *NOT* as
   a way to get us routine access to space.  Shuttle is also the most
   expensive space vehicle in the world today.   Certainly, do the
   research for the next generation of launchers.  But we *NEED* cheap,
   reliable launch technology today.   NASA has seen that as threatening
   their precious (it pays there salaries) Shuttle, to the deterioration
   of US launch capability.
         NASA also does research on aeronautics, and has some pretty
   fancy, advanced (expensive!) research aircraft.  You don't see them
   trying to compete with Fed-Ex or American Airlines or any of the
   other dozens of air cargo and air passenger companies do you?  You
   don't see NASA telling the airframe manufactures that they can't
   sell airplanes to anyone they want to.  You don't see NASA trying
   to run the airports the way they do half the spaceports do you?
         NASA's role in space should be research.  The Shuttle is OK
   as a research vehicle.  As a commercial "space truck" it sucks
   dead bunnies.

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

    Not a bad idea.  Have you taken your own suggestion?
 
>	Lawrence A. Dziegielewski	|	E.I. Dupont Co.
>	{uunet!dgis!psuvax1}!eplrx7!lad	|	Engineering Physics Lab


-- 
 Alastair JW Mayer     BIX: al
                      UUCP: ...!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair

Let's build a base on the Moon on our way to the asteroids - forget Mars.