🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: sci.space
Article #7093

Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)

#7093
From: Craig Keithley
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 17:24
41 lines
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!user
References: <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