khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida) writes:  >Rockwell International in Downey, California, in conjunction with the >other shuttle contractors delivered the world's most important and >most revolutionary space vehicle.  Ha!  >One cannot argue with the fact that >it flies, lands, and is reusable.   Watch me. It flies. It lands. It gets rebuilt.   >In my opinion, these were the only >appropriate specifications for this program.  That's not what they told us back in the '70's.  >It has been a test program from the start, a logical follow to the >X-15 program and the later X-series lifting bodies.  1. It isn't a logical follow-on. A logical follow-on would have been either a Russian "snowfox" type thingey (for the lifting bodies) or something like MMI's Space Van (or Boeing's TSTO, or the airbreathing TSTO the military is allegedly _using_ now that probably cost less to develop than the shuttle does to fly for a year).  >The engineering specs that the guys in the trenches had were to >develop a system which was man-ratable, could land reliably, and could >be reflown.  These goals were quite visionary for the 1970's, and I >would argue that they are challenging even today, including for the >DC-X program.  Keep that attitude, and it'll be a couple centuries before we get real access to space, unless another country without all that baggage comes along and kicks our ass in the space race.  >I do not recall a 1 flight/week specification in the final NASA specs for the >space shuttle program.  If you have such documents, I would find them most >revealing and interesting.  As far as I can tell, the only people touting a  >1 flight per week flight rate were people on Capitol Hill or selling books  >to the general public.    Or NASA HQ. That doesn't give the rest of the program plausible deniability if we deceide that it wasn't worth the money we've spent, which is by now probably a lot more than Apollo.  >IMHO, political statements in the halls of the US Congress are not >admissable as engineering specs because specs should be determined by >NASA/DOD and contractors, not by Congressmen, Senators, or Presidents. >Missions are defined by political leaders, but not the engineering >specs.  Yes, but it gets sold on the basis of the political statements. You're saying basically that it met the engineering specs (which is questionable, IMHO) so it's a success, never mind that you couldn't get the funding the shuttle eats with those engineering specs in a thousand years.  >The shuttle is the only reusable space vehicle.  This automatically >qualifies it as an unparalleled engineering success.  You could argue >about its political success.  But engineering wise, it is clearly the >most advanced machine ever flown.  I argue that engineering and >technical data for hypersonic flight is valuable in and of itself. >Shuttle should be justified or criticized on the basis of economics.  You can get hypersonic flight data with an X-15 or a follow-on X-15 type vehicle for much less.  And economics and engineering are interchangable; engineering in the absense of economics is basically just physics, and in terms of physics, the shuttle looks like a failure next to the X-15.   Then Henry wrote:  HS>Sorry, support that I can arrange for launchers all goes to launchers HS>that I have some hope of riding some day.  At the moment, that's HS>DC-X's hoped-for successors.  >I was disappointed by this and other similar statements from those vocal in  >support of the DC-X program .  Your support of DC-X is based on hopes. >My support for the shuttle program is based on record.   The shuttle program has a bad record. I _once_ had hopes for the shuttle program. By now I know those hopes were false.   All I have for DC-X and similar and dissimilar experimental vehicles are hopes. But at least I know they aren't false hopes yet.  I did support the shuttle, way back when. It didn't do nearly what it was supposed to. It's time to move on to something that might do the job of orbital delivery better. Or at all.   >I think that it is  >also important to note that I do not object to DC-X.  It is visionary.   >I originally posted:  >> I like the DC-X idea...  and I am really hopeful that it'll be a stunning success   >Unfortunately, DC-X'ers are not willing to return that support the >proven Shuttle program.  Explain why you folks criticize shuttle when >shuttle is exactly what you guys need in order to learn how to operate >DC-X on-orbit.  We don't want to learn how to operate on orbit. It launches, it shoves out the payload, it lands. It doesn't waste payload hauling up and down EDO pallets and the like.  The only thing to be learned from shuttle is how *not* to build a launcher.  Finally: that bit about the "proven" shuttle. Are you hoping you can tell a lie enough times and get someone to believe it?  >I enjoyed your later postings regarding the comparisons between the shuttle >and the Soyuz project.  Although, I may disagree with your method >of analysis.  You probably will disagree with mine. 8-)  I think that >the total impact of the shuttle program must be judged on the scientific and >technical merit, not on timelines and schedules (do you agree?)   How much science and technology could have been done is the money spent on shuttle had been spent differently?  ... >As for now, we need to stop thinking of DC-X and shuttle as mutually exclusive.  Learn about economics and the current budget realities in the United States, please.  >Thanks for your time.