View Single Post
Old September 17 2012, 09:41 PM   #155
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Envisioning the world of 2100

publiusr wrote: View Post
Because, last time I checked, the STS is no longer operational and its replacement won't be ready before the end of the decade.

And its enemies would love to kill it thereby wasting money when they should be supporting it.
Flawed logic. The first thing they tell you in systems analysis is that bad money is bad money and throwing good money after it won't change that fact. If the system you're developing isn't feasible in the first place, terminating future development is a savings, not a waste.

Apollo was thinking big. STS was thinking reusable.
STS was thinking "let's build five space stations and use them as construction docks to build the Battlestar Galactica and then cruise around the solar system in style!" As such, the space shuttle was the first in a SERIES of big things NASA was dreaming about but never bothered to secure funding for.

We are not just starting out
Yes we are. We never got past the starting stages because our various big projects never develop into anything sustainable. We essentially have to start over from scratch every single time, because we can't afford the kind of incremental development timescales enjoyed by the rest of the aerospace industry.

Of course, the EELVS could, and for the most part they have. Mainly because they operate on a smaller scale, spreading experience and technical knowledge over a higher flight rate allows them to make developmental improvements a few at a time and evolve their capabilities into new technologies. Thus the EELV program has made technical and capability improvements in the past two decades, during which NASA has made no technical progress whatsoever and wound up REDUCING the shuttle's capabilities due to safety concerns.

In more familiar terms: when you move to a new area and start a new town, you start with houses, not skyscrapers.

What does NASA doe when any rocket blows up?
Suspend any further launches, pending two years of handwringing, technical reviews, theatre and apologia in front of congress, committees, consultations, more committees, studies, and a billion dollars worth of safety upgrades that reduce the rocket's capabilities by 30%.

Significantly, that means NASA's entire manned spaceflight program will come to a screeching halt until their Next Big Thing comes out of its mourning cycle and is cleared to fly again 25 months later at severely increased cost and severely reduced capacity.

So Griffin--who wrote AIAA texts is unsourced.
When you fail to provide the name of the person you're quoting or the context of that quote, yes, that means the quote is unsourced.

A man on Augustine who trashed HLVs, gave us the Roton.
A man on Augustine who supported HLVs is still beating his wife.

See, I can do that too.

what do you think launches heavy reactors--Delta IIs?
Delta-IVs, or IV heavies, probably.
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote