🚀 go-pugleaf

In <ggm2ljr@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:


>	I think we differ big-time when it comes to DC-1.  Allen seems
>to me to be saying, "Things will work out, and this is how it will be."
>I think that is the attitude that bothers me the most.  That is the
>exact same thign that was said with the Shuttle.  

What bothers me is the attitude that, "If NASA couldn't do it,
nobody can."

Okay, NASA built one airplane, the Shuttle, that doesn't work
very well.

Boeing, Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, and other companies quite
regularly build airplanes as advanced and complex as the Space
Shuttle (the Shuttle has 6 main computers, the B-757 has over
200) that work quite well.

This does not suggest, to me, that NASA is so all-efficient
and omnicompetent that if they can't do it, no one can. 
  
If anything, it suggests the project will work as long as
you keep NASA the hell away from it.


>Also, I believe that Henry pointed out
>that it ieasier to do a direct re-entry than a return to orbit.  (I can't
>recall why, and wasn't clear at the time I read it, so I may be wrong.)
>If so, will you have enough fuel to do this.  

"Easier," in this context, means more economical in terms of fuel. 
If you have enough fuel to return to orbit, you have more than
enough for direct reentry.