Article View: sci.space
Article #7093Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
From: Craig Keithley
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 17:24
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 17:24
41 lines
2754 bytes
2754 bytes
In article <1993Jan2.043524.15196@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) wrote: > > NASA is chartered as a research organization, not an operational agency. > Shuttle is operations, not research. > And NASA also owns a wide variety of aircraft (ie: T-38, Gulfstreams, Lears, etc.) and capital equipment (buildings, computers, wind tunnels, etc.) that it uses for operations. I'll ignore the capital equipment. But if I follow your argument, all flights not related to research should be provided by a private firm? What about training? What about flights in and out of Edwards? I'd bet that NASA owns a few flight articles that are used for operations and not for research. Do we apply your argument against using the shuttle for operations to those areas as well? The Shuttle supporters (for the most part) continue to question whether or not the DC-X/Y/1 supporters are suggesting that we cancel Shuttle before DC-X/Y/1 is operational. I've requested that the DC-? proponents put up a straw man proposal of exactly when the Shuttle would be phased out. This request was ignored. I'll reiterate the request: Exactly when do you propose discontinuing Shuttle operations? Exactly when do you believe DC-1 will fly? Exactly what will happen if DC-1, for whatever reason, is years late, or turns out to be as problematical or more problematical as the Shuttle? Its my impression that the Shuttle supporters are against shelving the United States' manned space program merely to save a few billion a year. They aren't against saving money, they aren't against DC-1, they just believe that there are unacceptable risks associated with depending on a system that isn't flight ready, let alone exist. I will not support a position that requires the cancellation of the US's manned space program years in advance of a replacement from the private sector. But if you continue to believe that the supporters of the Shuttle are, by definition, anti DC-X/Y/1, then continuing any discussion is pointless. Craig Keithley Apple Computer, Inc. keithley@apple.com "I have absolutely no responsibility in this matter, what-so-ever"
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<keithley-050193083234@kip2-59.apple.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!olivea!apple!goofy!mumbo.apple.com!gallant.apple.com!kip2-59.apple.com!userReferences:
<1992Dec28.172953.26161@ke4zv.uucp> <1992Dec28.202920.5932@iti.org> <1993Jan1.030602.21051@ke4zv.uucp> <1993Jan2.043524.15196@iti.org>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!olivea!apple!goofy!mumbo.apple.com!gallant.apple.com!kip2-59.apple.com!user From: keithley@apple.com (Craig Keithley) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements) Message-ID: <keithley-050193083234@kip2-59.apple.com> Date: 5 Jan 93 17:24:18 GMT References: <1992Dec28.172953.26161@ke4zv.uucp> <1992Dec28.202920.5932@iti.org> <1993Jan1.030602.21051@ke4zv.uucp> <1993Jan2.043524.15196@iti.org> Sender: news@gallant.apple.com Followup-To: sci.space Organization: Apple Computer, Inc. Lines: 41