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

Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>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.

Or, you use well proven methods (in operational use back as early as
the early 1960's) and shut them down.

>I don't think that can be dismissed as a "so what".

If the argument against SRB's didn't amount to "but rockets ALWAYS
BLOW UP" you'd have a point.

>>> 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.

True - but the imprecision by the OP is but one symptom of his
reliance on repeating dogma over actual familiarity with the issues.

>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.

On the other hand, you introduce additional systems and additional
failure modes with a [capsule on top] design.  TAANSTAFL.

>>>> 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.

Only if you define "value" as "does not blow up", rather than by more
conventional and useful metrics such as tonnage delivered or
passengers delivered, etc...

>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.

It's not clear that one follows from the other.  It's equally not
clear that designing and flying multiple vehicles to replace one
vehicle will end up being significantly cheaper _or_ more reliable.

D.
-- 
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL