Article View: sci.space
Article #7341Re: Fabrication (was fast track failures)
From: Edward V. Wright
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1993 19:13
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1993 19:13
52 lines
3076 bytes
3076 bytes
In <1993Jan7.060559.805@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: >You'll notice that after Saturn achieved it's Cold War objective of >oneupmanship against the USSR, it was promptly dropped because no other >missions could justify it's expense and there was never a hope of >recouping it's development costs. With your talent for rewriting history, it's too bad the Soviet Union is no longer in business. :-) In fact, there were plenty of missions that could have justified its expense: the follow-on Apollo missions, additional Skylabs, Space Base, nuclear-powered space tugs, and the manned Mars mission, to name a few. The Saturn was cancelled because Congress didn't want to do those missions and NASA didn't want anything to compete with Shuttle. >We should never again make the mistake of killing our only operational >system in favor of a paper spacecraft that hasn't established a solid >track record of meeting it's performance and cost goals. Instead, we should make the new mistake of funding a system whose managers seek to crush any potential competition? >Thus I champion continuing to fly Shuttle until there are proven >systems on line to replace it. And, like the Shuttle managers, bad-mouth any potential systems that *might* replace it. (Or seek keep them limited to research programs only.) >Neither the paper DC-1 nor the proposed Soyuz on Titan have that >track record yet. Why did you avoid mentioning Soyuz on Soviet launchers? >Meanwhile Shuttle continues to maintain a presence in space for >the USA that does worthwhile missions. At the cost of how many worthwhile missions we can't do with the Shuttle but could with a true space-transportation system? Since you talk about the opportunity costs that would be incurred by cancelling the Shuttle, why do you fail to consider the opportunity costs involved in continuing it? >Unlike Allen, I am completely convinced that killing Shuttle now will >not cause any money to be reprogrammed to his pet schemes. So am I. I am also completely convinced it would wipe out a major political base opposed to alternative launchers.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<ewright.726434023@convex.convex.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hermes.chpc.utexas.edu!news.utdallas.edu!convex!ewrightReferences:
<1993Jan4.171213.11272@ke4zv.uucp> <1993Jan4.202421.11388@cs.ucf.edu> <1993Jan5.212935.21012@ke4zv.uucp> <ewright.726276409@convex.convex.com> <1993Jan7.060559.805@ke4zv.uucp>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hermes.chpc.utexas.edu!news.utdallas.edu!convex!ewright
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Fabrication (was fast track failures)
Sender: usenet@news.eng.convex.com (news access account)
Message-ID: <ewright.726434023@convex.convex.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:13:43 GMT
References: <1993Jan4.171213.11272@ke4zv.uucp> <1993Jan4.202421.11388@cs.ucf.edu> <1993Jan5.212935.21012@ke4zv.uucp> <ewright.726276409@convex.convex.com> <1993Jan7.060559.805@ke4zv.uucp>
Nntp-Posting-Host: bach.convex.com
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
not necessarily those of CONVEX.
Lines: 53