🚀 go-pugleaf

>In article <72527@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) w
r
>ites:
>
>>  Space Shuttle is also the only system designed to be used repeatedly,
>
>The design goal was to build a vehicle which would provide cheap, routine
>access to space. Reusability was simply the method selected. Shuttle failed
>all of its major objectives.

    I would add the word 'manned' to that first sentence. Don't forget
    this unique capability.

>>  is the only system capable of returning very heavy payloads to Earth,
>
>Considering that there are no heavy payloads to return to Earth, this
>cannot be considered an advantage. Especially for the billions it costs
>us.

    GRO and UARS are both candidates for return to earth. LDEF and
    EURECA already did/are flying. EURECA is the biggest satellite
    yet built outside the US or USSR.
    
    The Hubble repair could still prove too much for orbiting
    astronauts and thus require return to Earth for mirror replacement,
    although this is unlikely. The decision not to return heavy payloads
    is not an engineering decision.

>>  Shuttle is also as much a technology demonstrator as it is a launch
>>  system.
>
>Not according to NASA. To them Shuttle is *THE* Space Transportation
>System. To them it is an operational vehicle.

    True enough, but it was a Space Transportation System which used
    technology and ideas never before flown. It was as much a new way
    of thinking as the DC is today. All I'm saying is that Shuttle
    did not meet its objectives, so don't be so sure about DC.

>>  That the technology proved to costly to replace the expendable
>>  market is beside the point.
>
>Execpt that it's function WAS to replace expendables.

    No it wasn't, that came along because NASA had to justify the
    Shuttle's existence. They would have been perfectly happy
    flying only Spacelabs and building Freedom, but politicians
    demanded that it do everything. True though, that NASA said
    'okay'.

>For a long time it even did replace expendables. That was because the
>satellite makers found a bunch of suckers willing to fork over the
>subsidies.

    As do Ariane customers today, and granddaddy of them all looks
    like the Russians selling Proton launches. Cut rate, cheap.

>BTW, another accomplishment of Shuttle was to turn over 60% of the free
>world launch market to Airiane. Funny how Shuttle supporters never
>mention that one.

    A few weeks ago I mentioned one way that we could have kept some of
    that market in the U.S. until NLS, DC or whatever was ready. You
    said that it (maintaining Shuttle launches of commercial payloads)
    was too costly. Maybe so (definitely so) but those subsidies would
    have at least kept customers in the U.S. instead of going to France.
    Then when DC was ready (earlier than currently projected, thanks to
    no wasted efforts on Atlas II, Titan IV et al.) we would still have
    a working relationship with those customers to sell them DC.

    In any case, if General Dynamics resurrected Atlas, Martin resurrected
    the MOL solids for Titan IV, and MD upgraded Delta, what was to stop
    them from developing a brand new system? Why wasn't DC-X built in 1983
    instead of 1993? It was clear back then that Shuttle was neither
    cheaper nor more reliable than the expendables. Afterall, isn't it
    your argument that the next generation of boosters be a commerical
    endeavor? What is it they say about building a better mousetrap?

    -Brian
    
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------