🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <246da016@ralf> Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>In article <11316@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John McKernan) writes:
>> With 20/20
>>hindsight a big dumb booster made with relatively low performance parts was
>>probably the way to go.
>
>Compared to the Shuttle, the Saturn *is* a BDB  [deleted]
>Why, oh why do we have to throw away proven hardware before the new technology
>proves itself (or is even available, for that matter)? [deleted]

The Big Dumb Booster idea was not formulated as relative to the shuttle.
When it was built the Saturn used a lot of very advanced technology for its
time. It was a very complicated and high performance system. The BDB idea is
to make a booster using only a moderate level of technology with as few parts
and as simple a design as possible. This reduces performance but should
reduce cost and improve reliability. This idea has merit.

I stated in a recent posting that the major principle NASA violated in
developing the shuttle was developing new technology when existing technology
(Saturn V) was well suited to their needs. Indeed, since the BDB is an idea
that has not been developed, probably the best thing NASA could have done was
to continue work on the Saturn V. The shuttle project has resulted in immense
damage to the US space program.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The future is rude and pushy. It won't wait for us to solve today's problems
before it butts in with tomorrow's.