Re: I'm Back *cough*

In article <1x27ja5otkbk6.dvaptfy2911o.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx>,
warlocke@xxxxxxxxxxxx says...
> People I admire and trust put forth arguments on both sides, and I don't
> know enough about the subject to have more than a prejudice that diversity
> is a good thing. What I get a little bitter with NASA about is my
> perception that their desire for One Big Project is more driven by
> bureaucratic concerns than technical ones. It seems to me that the function
> being optomized in their proposal is employment for GS13 program managers.

Once upon a time the One Big Project might have made sense. The goal was
a fleet of reusable craft with one going up every week, so it seemed
cause effective to cut Dyna-Soar and let the Air Force use the shuttle or
even have its own. Unfortunately the shuttle has never had that sort of
turn around. They made significant design changes as development costs
ballooned. The shuttle was intended to go up on a manned lift vehicle
which was essentially a flying gas tank. The lift vehicle was intended to
land on a runway, just like the shuttle. But development cost over-runs
ditched that idea and we wound up with foam-covered external fuel tanks,
which may or may not have had the CFC formulation changed to mean EPA
guidelines.

The elephant in the room, though, isn't the fuel tank or that it still
sheds foam after a billion dollars spent by NASA. No, it's the unspoken
fact that for two and a half years the U.S. had no means to sent people
into space or even supplies to the space station. Not so much as an
Apollo style capsule that could be mounted on an existing booster. The
fact that getting people into orbit is, well, rocket science, doesn't
excuse the fact that we don't have a real fleet of space vehicles ready
to fly at will. If anything the complexities of space flight demands a
variety of vehicles so that when something goes wrong with one you don't
end up grounding your entire fleet to sort things out.

I'm starting to think that the space shuttle has held the U.S. space
program back for thirty years, not because it's the shuttle, but because
NASA wouldn't tolerate anything else. Because of the shuttle-only vision
of NASA, chunks of Sky lab ended up in the Australian outback instead of
remaining in orbit as part of the U.S. space program. Not to mention the
years wasted when we actually have done something in space rather than
figuring out a brand new way to get there.

What NASA most needs is intra-government competition. It needs different
units, ones for smaller manned vehicles as well as the Big Project. It
need competition from the Air Force, the Army, the Navy, the Marines,
heck, even from the Rhode Island National Guard if that's what it takes.
A bit of service rivalry is probably a good thing in that it gives
aerospace companies multiple markets. The fact that the Air Force might
buy something NASA doesn't want might generate a bit more incentive for
investing in spacecraft development. And if NASA's Big Project unit had
to stay on their toes lest the light manned space unit ate their lunch,
then we might see some improvement. Not to mention that it gives plenty
of nitches to keep the bureaucrats happy.

> As for Gerry's question, below, I make at least two people who worry about
> trying to tweak things that haven't been tweaked before. Missing tiles and
> creeping gap fillers are not what resulted in the destruction of Columbia.

Make it three. I'm wondering how much the creeping filler problem has
happened before without NASA's knowledge. This is the first flight that's
ever given the shuttle this sort of scrutiny.

--
-Kevin J. Cheek
Remove corn to send e-mail.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?
    ... The best thing the US government did for telecommunications was to ... Why should NASA ... year and see what kind of vehicles private industry comes up with. ... the ET on the shuttle included a vent on the nost to ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?
    ... The best thing the US government did for telecommunications was to ... Why should NASA ... year and see what kind of vehicles private industry comes up with. ... the ET on the shuttle included a vent on the nost to ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • OT NASA death glider. truly unbelievable
    ... Behind Chunks of Foam, ... NASA was never forced to attack shuttle debris peril, ... Discovery's external fuel tank during Tuesday's launch shows that the ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Re: Space Shuttle Grounding....depressing....
    ... eat up most of the discretionary budget. ... At it's peak, NASA could, in one year, fly five Gemini ... money to do cool Apollo-style stuff but has done so at a much lower ... the shuttle, a wonderful accomplishment but a lousy space tug. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)
  • NY Times Blockbuster: NASA Officials Loosen Acceptable Risk Standards for Shuttle.
    ... NASA Is Said to Loosen Risk Standards for Shuttle ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)