🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1993Jan4.214819.14834@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>In article <1993Jan4.191452.12294@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>>>Which is indeed half the battle. But since you back Shuttle no matter what
>>>it costs, I don't see your point.

>>I back Shuttle because it's flying *now* and nothing else flying *now*
>>has it's capabilities at *any* price. 

>I say again, since you back Shuttle no matter what it costs what's your
>point?

Allen, are you seriously calling for an almost exact repeat of what
happened with Shuttle development?  Do you seriously believe we should
toss the current system before we have a working, proven replacement?
I'm sorry, but if that's the case, I have to agree with Gary on this
one.  Keep flying what we're flying until we have something else to
fly IN HAND.  Paper birds are great, and I would not be at all
surprised to see DC work pretty much as advertised, but no matter how
good it eventually turns out to be, we can't use a paper bird for
current jobs.

This is how we lost things like Saturn V, remember?  Proponents of the
next system, which looked great on paper, calling for stopping current
flights "because the new bird will be so much better RSN".

Let's not make the same mistake again.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.