Re: Enough is Enough: Stand Down the STS and Get Gov't Out Of Way

[Jason Rhodes]

"Captain Chuck" > wrote in message
om...
> The honeymoon phase of space flight is over and it's time for the
> United States to do the right, tough thing, as the Europeans finally
> did with Concorde, and that is to secure shuttle operations and put
> them in museums where they belong.
>
> If you believe, as I do, that space flight is a long term imperative
> to our species, it's time to acknowledge the fact that in general our
> species is going backward and not forward in terms of aerospace
> operations. Far less than one in one hundred people in the United
> States can fly a J-3 around a grass strip, and it's a percentage that
> is declining. Personal aviation is dead in most of the world and dying
> in the United States. Commercial aviation is not looking at higher,
> faster and farther but at more leveraged, more capital-intensive and
> more interdependent on government as a way to feather-embed
> careerists.
>
> The space shuttle is an awkward, ridiculous system that might have
> made sense once and now no longer does. Patch the problem, fly one or
> two more missions for national pride if we must, and send the
> Shuttles, the Boeings that fly them around, and anything else of
> interest to museums.


You have presented a "solution" without stating what problem this solution
is supposed to solve.

Jason

[Dosco Jones]

"Jason Rhodes" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Captain Chuck" > wrote in message
> om...
> > The honeymoon phase of space flight is over and it's time for the
> > United States to do the right, tough thing, as the Europeans finally
> > did with Concorde, and that is to secure shuttle operations and put
> > them in museums where they belong.

> You have presented a "solution" without stating what problem this solution
> is supposed to solve.
>
> Jason
>


I think he wants us all to stop using fire and move back into the trees.

Dosco

[Jorge R. Frank]

"Dosco Jones" > wrote in
arthlink.net:

> "Jason Rhodes" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Captain Chuck" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > The honeymoon phase of space flight is over and it's time for the
>> > United States to do the right, tough thing, as the Europeans
>> > finally did with Concorde, and that is to secure shuttle operations
>> > and put them in museums where they belong.
>
>> You have presented a "solution" without stating what problem this
>> solution is supposed to solve.
>
> I think he wants us all to stop using fire and move back into the
> trees.

Or perhaps he thinks it was not such a hot idea that we left the water in
the first place?

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[Terrence Daniels]

"Jason Rhodes" > wrote in message
...
> You have presented a "solution" without stating what problem this solution
> is supposed to solve.

"STOP IT! STOP IT WITH YOUR CRAZY LOGIC! THE WHOLE WORLD IS AGAINST ME! FIRE
THE MANAGERS! BLACK HELICOPTERS! AAAAH!!!!"

Whoever he was (forgot the name already) he's trolling for attention, and he
fell right off his soap-box into my killfile. I'd suggest a similar
strategy, because I don't really sense any good debate potential in arguing
with him. ;)

[Brian Gaff]

"Captain Chuck" > wrote in message
om...
| The honeymoon phase of space flight is over and it's time for the
| United States to do the right, tough thing, as the Europeans finally
| did with Concorde, and that is to secure shuttle operations and put
| them in museums where they belong.
|
| If you believe, as I do, that space flight is a long term imperative
| to our species, it's time to acknowledge the fact that in general our
| species is going backward and not forward in terms of aerospace
| operations. Far less than one in one hundred people in the United
| States can fly a J-3 around a grass strip, and it's a percentage that
| is declining. Personal aviation is dead in most of the world and dying
| in the United States. Commercial aviation is not looking at higher,
| faster and farther but at more leveraged, more capital-intensive and
| more interdependent on government as a way to feather-embed
| careerists.
|
| The space shuttle is an awkward, ridiculous system that might have
| made sense once and now no longer does. Patch the problem, fly one or
| two more missions for national pride if we must, and send the
| Shuttles, the Boeings that fly them around, and anything else of
| interest to museums.

Ahem, this sounds like a troll post to me, but...

in case its not...



Firstly, Concord never was that viable as it shifted so few people, and
hence at high cost. The problems over overflying land with sonic booms made
the next generation SST really a bit of a hot potato for anyone financing
it, so it was never built.

More recently, the need for same day to US and back travel has receded as
more can be done via teleconferencing etc, than used to be possible, and
anyone going for a long period really does not have to get there in four
hours.

However, the problem of why they won't sell them to Virgin seems to be
political, and I despair sometimes, Branson is a hard nosed business man and
if he thinks he can make Money from it, you can bet he has worked out how.

I'm afraid BA and Air French could not manage their way out of a paper bag!

As for the Shuttle, well, I agree that its out of date and not as good as it
might be, but it is the only game in town because bad management and vested
interests have conspired to never get a new vehicle off the ground, as it
were! Too many folk with money in ELVs methinks.

As it stands, the risks are, I think a hell of a lot less than the early
space flights, and people were happy to take those risks.

I think we are learning all the time as a race, and stopping now even with
outdated hardware would stop any hope of learning more.

Just my few thoughts.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 18/07/03

[Mark]

"Brian Gaff" > wrote in message >...
> Firstly, Concord never was that viable as it shifted so few people, and
> hence at high cost.

Wasn't Concorde close to profitable in operation, and actually
profitable at some points in the past? It would never have made enough
money to pay back the development costs, but I believe it was viable
to operate until the maintenance costs became too high due to lack of
parts availability.

> The problems over overflying land with sonic booms made
> the next generation SST really a bit of a hot potato for anyone financing
> it, so it was never built.
> More recently, the need for same day to US and back travel has receded as
> more can be done via teleconferencing etc, than used to be possible,

You also need to consider that an SST with Concorde's range doesn't
really buy you much in this "homeland security" era: if you have to
arrive three hours before the flight after an hour spent getting to
the airport, and spend an hour faffing around at the other end with
immigration and customs and an hour getting to your destination, then
reducing the actual flight time from five hours to two isn't a real
benefit worth the cost to many people.

> However, the problem of why they won't sell them to Virgin seems to be
> political, and I despair sometimes, Branson is a hard nosed business man and
> if he thinks he can make Money from it, you can bet he has worked out how.

Agreed: I think they'd just be embarassed if they shut them down and
someone bought them up and continued to run them as a profitable
venture.

Mark

[Paul F. Dietz]

Mark wrote:

>>However, the problem of why they won't sell them to Virgin seems to be
>>political, and I despair sometimes, Branson is a hard nosed business man and
>>if he thinks he can make Money from it, you can bet he has worked out how.
>
> Agreed: I think they'd just be embarassed if they shut them down and
> someone bought them up and continued to run them as a profitable
> venture.

Understand that they'd need continued support, which is expensive.
I'll hazard a guess that this support was more expensive than was
let on, and rather than admit how big the subsidy was they're just
rejecting Branson's offer outright.

Paul

[Dan Foster]

In article >, Paul F. Dietz > wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>
>>>However, the problem of why they won't sell them to Virgin seems to be
>>>political, and I despair sometimes, Branson is a hard nosed business man and
>>>if he thinks he can make Money from it, you can bet he has worked out how.
>>
>> Agreed: I think they'd just be embarassed if they shut them down and
>> someone bought them up and continued to run them as a profitable
>> venture.
>
> Understand that they'd need continued support, which is expensive.
> I'll hazard a guess that this support was more expensive than was
> let on, and rather than admit how big the subsidy was they're just
> rejecting Branson's offer outright.

....and to that effect, Richard Branson (founder of Virgin Airlines, a major
competitor to British Airways) is also most likely not expecting to
actually land a Concorde, but most likely planned on getting loads of free
publicity at British Airways' (BA) expense -- the ultimate insult. The two
have a bit of an history that goes back a while :-)

Incidentally, about a month after the Gonessee, France crash of the
Concorde in July, 2002... the chairman of BA went on the record as saying
that they had made a profit on the Concorde... but a *small* one at the
time of the crash -- it was approximately 1% versus operating expenses for
that programme.

So it seems pretty clear that the higher maintenance costs brought up
(post-crash) was enough to sink the already slim profit margin... and
there's ever so far you can take a flagship product as a loss leader before
wanting to can it entirely. The maintenance support costs quoted by
EADS/Airbus was pretty significant - enough to take pause at, as I seem to
have a vague recollection of.

Not an uncommon phenomenon... at work, we retire older machines, not
because they are old per se, but because their maintenance support costs
rises to the point where it outweights the economical benefits of running
and maintaining them so we retire them and replace with newer, faster,
cheaper, overall better designed machines.

-Dan