Re: Space funding (was Re: Hillary needs to quit)

Derek Lyons wrote:
> pv+usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (PV) wrote:
>> SSRBs SUCK. Period. They can't be throttled, they can't be shut down,
and
>> they can't be aborted without jettisoning them and blowing them up. To
the
>> devil with them. 
> 
> So what if they can't be throttled, shut down, or aborted? 

It means that if anything major goes wrong while the boosters are still 
firing, you're either stuck with them until they burn out on their own 
or you have to throw live uncontrollable rockets overboard from a 
vehicle that's already in trouble. I don't think that can be dismissed 
as a "so what". Most other rockets that use SRBs to get off the ground 
use a cluster of much smaller ones that I assume burn out quicker and 
are easier to get rid of.

I've read that SRBs tend to have vibration issues, too.

>> Not any more they're not. And they're so freaking fragile that you can
>> damage one by throwing a piece of foam at them
> 
> No, you can't damage them by 'throwing' a piece of foam at them.  You
> can damage them by hitting them with the equivalent energy of a small
> artillery shell however.  (You are aware of the velocity with which
> the foam hits the tiles are you not?)

During the Shuttle's ascent there are plenty of things falling past the 
heat ****eld with that amount of energy, so it's still a problem 
regardless of how imprecisely the issue was worded.

The issue is entirely moot for an Apollo-style capsule because the 
capsule's at the top of the stack and the heat ****eld isn't exposed to 
the outside during launch, so even if you use the exact same tiles the 
geometry makes it much safer.

>>> Especially since it is the vehicle responsible for 70% of the people
>>> who have ever travelled into space and has done so with a failure
>>> record statistically no worse than its chief rival, Russia's Soyuz.
>> At many times the cost.
> 
> Here in the real world greater performance and greater capacity almost
> always implies greater cost.

But if its record is "no worse", that means you're getting about the 
same value for that greater cost.

I think it's generally accepted at this point that the Shuttle is not a 
very cost-effective means of accompli****ng the tasks that it 
accomplishes. It was designed to do too many different things at once.