Re: Alt Hist--NASA done right?

In article <Xns9C466F8018B7Fdershemcoxnet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Carl Dershem <dershem@xxxxxxx> wrote:

"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:zIydnYKMeJyCYcTXnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx:


"Derek Lyons" <fairwater@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4a5a7b90.219627656@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Sure, a lot of SF is set in the future, in space, implying space
exploration
advanced, but are there good Alternate History chronicling how NASA
made all
the right moves?

Well, first you have to handle the Really Hard part... Defining what
exactly constitutes 'all the right moves', and separating those that
were NASA's fault from those where the 'failure' stems from external
circumstance.

1) Kept Skylab; delayed the Shuttle (bird in the hand = two in the
bush).

Ack. No. Skylab was as much an experiment as Mercury was. Built to be
disposable. Now if thay'd learned from it and followed up properly, that
would have been better.

But that would have required keeping the Apollo technology and keeping it
updated. With Saturn V lifters, a decent space station could have been
lifted faster and better. And without a space station, permanent bases
on the moon and mars are just not workable.

And as for the Shuttle - if they'd built and designed it better, it
would have been the proper first step to space, not the overly
militarized truck with multiple breakdowns it became.


IMS, the Shuttle has a fairly high cross-range ability (which gives
it some flexibility in landing) because the Air Force wanted that.
But the Air Force ended up not using it after the Challenger was
destroyed (they also were rather laggard in getting ready to even
use it even so). So if the Shuttle is a pure NASA project (the Air
Force is told to design it's own toys), what would the design be? I
think the cargo bay capacity could still be there (because wasn't
supposed to put the pieces of a Mars Mission into orbit?), but the
wing shape will be considerably different. Would it still need
those tiles which have to be checked after ever mission (I have
heard that this is the single biggest cost item in the shuttle
program).

--
Robert Woodward <robertaw@xxxxxxxxxxx>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: shuttle & ISS mistake news article
    ... > always run the risk of things falling off and damaging the vehicle. ... I think the big advantage of the "stick" design is that the orbital ... As long as NASA is told it can't fly until it fixes the foam, ... People complain about the shuttle being a 1970s vehicle. ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: In two years time...
    ... prefer a different word) of the Air Force, NASA was now about to reap ... when Air Force Secretary Seamans ... the Air Force will provide a strong recommendation that Shuttle ... "The 15 foot diameter by 60 foot length payload bay size previously ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: Space Shuttle Grounding....depressing....
    ... >>> If the shuttle really is a death trap, ... >>> design and build something newer and better then put it out there to ... the Air Force came in and told NASA that they'd support the ... But, as you say, it was really an experimental vehicle ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)
  • Re: Here We Go Again!
    ... :mean that the Air Force spent its money actually developing the shuttle. ... The Air Force wanted to develop bigger payloads and wanted a bigger launch ... NASA to the Air Force displays a profound lack of understanding of the ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Space Shuttle: Was it worth it?
    ... Interesting discussion on the accomplishments of the Space Shuttle ... It's true that after Apollo NASA thought it would need both a space ... How strange than that almost all subsequent designs for a manned Mars ... NASA could've used the $209 billion to design an even bigger rocket ...
    (sci.space.policy)