Replies

(Change the tires - NOT the car ...)

Having worked R&D for NASA, I can personally attest to the fact that the fleet needs to be rebuilt. Until 5 years ago, the processors in your VCR were more powerful than those in the shuttle. To add a single wire to the shuttle takes MONTHS. Believe me, I know, I added 4 inches of wire (rebent a paper-clip, actually) to the on-board printer to prevent paper-jams. It took MONTHS. Material sciences has grown considerably in the past 40 years, we can make a better, safer and more efficient vehicle today that we did 30 years ago. Supercomputers now exist (thanks Cray, IBM and others) that can model EXACTLY what the shuttle will encounter as it goes from vacuum to light atmosphere, to dense atmosphere. We can predict and better simulate and control today, than we could 30 years ago.

Add to the fact that the Spin-Off technologies from the shuttle have far exceeded the costs of the program. How many materials and metalurgical processes do we enjoy today, that were a spin-off from a NASA need? Computer chips got their start from NASA, as did various OS's. As we continue developing, improving and researching, the spin-off technologies initiated at NASA will pay back to the USA many times the investments.

Face it, sometimes it's easier to simply throw a project away and start fresh, than to continue using obsolete designs. Would you continue to throw money into a 1970 Chevy (bottom of the line, using parts made from the cheapest vendor), or buy a new car and start fresh?

Until 5 years ago, the processors in your VCR were more powerful than those in the shuttle

How exactly does this change the fact/the physics that A) you have to get into space and B) you have to re-enter the earth's atmosphere, preferably via non-powered flight (like the shuttle - little cost in extra required fuels, etc.)?

What's plugged in back there in the electronics bay and doing control of the flight surfaces is rather irrelevant - if it gets the job done.

Face it, sometimes it's easier to simply throw a project away

Riddle me your answer on the re-entry 'phase' - do you have a better material or re-entry method in mind rather than the present scheme that requires heat tiles as presently used (a cite, a paper, a web site would do your arguments good too).

Evolution is the technique nature has used to 'solve the problems' of life in various life forms, yet man thinks he can can create techically comparable miracles from scratch? Ha ha ha ha. Even innovation in industry doesn't work that way (witness Jack Kilby's invention of the IC for instance).

Come to think of it - wasn't the shuttle the result of 'clean slate' throw-out-the-huge-non-resuable launch vehicle thinking too? Ans where has it gotten us ...

Would you continue to throw money into a 1970 Chevy

THIS argment is wholly lame.

We have, even during the 20 odd some years of the STS made *substantial* improvements and changes to the shuttle "series" - in *all* areas: TPS (heat tiles), propulsion, cockpit instrumentation, computers, APUs, basis frame design - *you* name it and tht system has been redesigned and improved *based* on actual operation.

A *new* system - one based solely on concept will have to undergo this *same* 'learning of lessions' that the contracters and NASA have had to learn - and here, with the shuttle, we have already learned those IMPORTANT lessons, drawn up the prints, designed the gear, written the test and operational procedures, tested it and FLOWN it ...

Again, this arg is wholly lame and not in any way comparable to the reality of the situation ...

Face it, sometimes it's easier to simply throw a project away and start fresh, than to continue using obsolete designs.

I agree. I also think that it's time to review the idea of a reuseable payload section, and go to far cheaper big dumb boosters built for a tiny fraction of the cost of a reuseable shuttle.

What sense does it make to bring back to earth after every flight a huge empty payload bay? How many times have we needed a shuttle sized bay for bringing a cargo back down to earth?

Big boosters which are one shot deals could be built in shipyard type settings for pennies on the dollar compared to reuseable shuttle type vehicles that are built in "clean rooms". IOW, you can buy 50 Ford F-250s for the price of one Formula One race car.

The booster gets the payload and crew into orbit, then you ditch it in the ocean! Enormous, and very safe boosters can be CHEAP to build...if they are built for one shot instead of 100.

Bring the crew back in an Apollo type capsule purpose built for safe reentry and recovery, without the vulnerable wheel wells etc.

Would you continue to throw money into a 1970 Chevy (bottom of the line, using parts made from the cheapest vendor), or buy a new car and start fresh?

If the '70 Chevy had been well maintained and retrofit with high-quality aftermarket components over the years (wherever possible), why not? It'd still be quite functional.

I have no problems with taking a good look at newer shuttle designs at this point in time. I'm just not prepared to assume that a "new" design is going to be a panacea for the challenges that face the "antiquated" design. Let's face it, both a '70 Chevy and a '03 Chevy still have 4 wheels. But it's the '70 Chevy that is likely to have space for a full size spare tire. Plus you have a little extra elbow room to change the spark plugs and oil filter.