DC funding-hypocritical whining?
Marcus Lindroos INF
>
> > While the deficiencies of STS are clear to many engineers, criticism of STS
> > does not equate with political support for DC-X or Y. Furthermore, it would
> > seem to be fallacy to compare a flying/operational system to a paper
> > project.
> What are you talking about? DC-X is NOT a paper project. It was tested
> and flown last summer. In contrast, the future ELV and other alternatives
> are based on paper.
Aw, DC-X has barely left the ground yet. What is the altitude record - 100
meters?! You are in no way in a position to say DC should replace STS, the
latter can deliver 29 ton payloads TODAY...
> > The position paper should identify the technical goals of the DC-X program,
> > lay a technical foundation for the program, and identify the technical
> > milestones needed to be met. It should center its arguments on SSTO designs
> What makes you think that Congress understand anything about a "technical
> milestones?" Congress don't know diddly.
This is a pet peeve of mine. Here we have these diehard supply-siders blasting
NASA, Congress and the Shuttle left and right. The almighty private sector is
supposed to conquer space, NASA is a rathole for mediocre government
bureaucrats that are "stifling competition" etc.. And what happens?! Suddenly
it turns out the corporate sector isn't at all too excited about splashing out
even the tiniest amount of money (="only" a few 100 million $s) on DC!
*NOW* DC afficionados are miffed with Congress/NASA because the "dinosaurs"
refuse to come to their rescue!
---
The current state of space exploration is so bad one can't afford to feel
malicious about it...but some DC supporters should be more humble
about their project and its overall importance.
> > I would suggest that DC would have met with greater support on the Hill if
> > it was presented in this manner, rather than as a competitor to STS.
> > Reasonably, at some point, STS will be phased out. The issue is when and how.
> > It is silly to phase out STS now, since we are just beginning to understand
> > the vehicle's capability and have finally concluded agreements for STS-Mir
> > operations, which will have significant scientific results. DC could replace
> We have the stupid space shuttle for over 10 years and you are saying that
> we still haven't figured the capabilities out yet??? It failed. Period. Ok?
> STS should be phased out when SSRT is proven & flying.
^^^^
*IF* DC works - a big "if" according to experts such as Harry O. Ruppe and Alan
Bond. And even if it does, it still won't be able to launch 18m long payloads
weighting 29 tons - only STS can do that.
---
The root of the Shuttle's problems were lack of funds when it was conceived &
approved more than 20 years ago. Congress insisted on putting a $5 billion
budget limit on it, forcing NASA to design a partially reusable and impractical
system instead. Yet aerodynamics and complex technical problems cannot be
solved by political decisions and cost-cutting schemes. It now looks as if
everyone had saved a lot of money and trouble if the original 2-stage fully
reusable shuttle had been approved...
---
Yes, NASA certainly deserves some criticism for its recent string of failures.
But the root of the problem is insufficient funding and risk aversion in
Congress. NASA couldn't fail in the 1960s because virtually limitless
resources were available. Today, they have to save costs by not examining
Hubble as carefully as they should before launch, by designing Mars probes
around RCA Satcom satellites (=Mars Observer)... As Gus Grissom(?) used to say:
"no bucks - no Buck Rogers".
> --
>
> Larry Trutter
> Sangamon State University
> tru...@eagle.sangamon.edu
> Larry_...@thequest.com
MARCU$
Richard A. Schumacher
I think you've missed a few points:
DC-X is strictly a test vehicle, hopefully the first of
a series of test vehicles. No one is claiming that we
can go straight to an operational system. That was the
Shuttle's biggest mistake.
People carp about NASA because it's turned into a giant
welfare agency for aeronautical engineers and bureaucrats.
The cost of a single Shuttle mission would pay for the
entire DC-X2 test program, which would (with any luck)
tell us exactly how to build a launch system that would
cost ten times less than Shuttle. But NASA won't spend the
money, because it would, if successful, throw 2/3 rds
of NASA out of work.
There are very few payloads that have to go up in 50,000
pound chunks. If one comes along, launch it on an Energia
and put the $200 million savings into the bank.
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey
>
> isn't there something a little odd about a Finn telling american
> taxpayers how they should lobby their legislature.
Not at all. If Marcus knows a better way to run our country, there's no
reason he should keep his mouth shut about it.
Also, I don't recall you complaining about political advice offered by
certain Canadians in this newsgroup...
Moreover, Pat, you are free with your opinions about other people's
nations and their politics. It's part of the fun.
This belongs in sci.space.policy, though. Isn't sci.space supposed to
wither away?
"After you've read through a few hundred volumes | Bill Higgins
you'll find that it's okay as a space opera." | Fermilab
--Christian 'naddy' Weisgerber |
(na...@mips.ruessel.sub.org) | hig...@fnal.fnal.gov
on the 1670-book Perry Rhodan series | hig...@fnal.Bitnet
Pat
isn't there something a little odd about a Finn telling american
taxpayers how they should lobby their legislature.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No matter how dire the situation, don't panic -- LLIB #280
Marcus Lindroos INF
>
> isn't there something a little odd about a Finn telling american
> taxpayers how they should lobby their legislature.
What does my nationality have to do with this...? *OPINIONS* matter - not race,
sex, color or creed.
MARCU$
Pat
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <hig...@fnalv.fnal.gov> wrote:
>In article <2ijsnr$5...@access2.digex.net>, p...@access2.digex.net (Pat) writes:
>> isn't there something a little odd about a Finn telling american
>> taxpayers how they should lobby their legislature.
>Not at all. If Marcus knows a better way to run our country, there's no
>reason he should keep his mouth shut about it.
Telling us what he thinks, is fine. Telling us what to
tell our legislators is just out of line.
>Also, I don't recall you complaining about political advice offered by
>certain Canadians in this newsgroup...
Henry is an honorary american, in my book. He probably won't like
hearing this. but, the CSA is a partner organization on numerous
inter-governmental agreements, and I don't recall henry telling us
how to lobby. he just states what he believes to be the correct
analysis of situations. a slight difference, but important.
the rather fine difference between news and political activism.
>Moreover, Pat, you are free with your opinions about other people's
>nations and their politics. It's part of the fun.
i sure am, but i don't think i've been telling our japanese
readers how to talk to the members of the diet. I've just
pointed out that as an observer i thought the H-2 program
was a poor use of DDTE dollars. it's their money.
About the same as my stating that canada probably has a greater
need for comm sats and earth sensing sats then launchers.
>This belongs in sci.space.policy, though. Isn't sci.space supposed to
>wither away?
who knows. isn't someone supposed to send out a rm-group?
pat