View Single Post
  #4  
Old September 2nd 08, 04:12 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Martha Adams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 371
Default Shuttle program extension?

"bob haller safety advocate" wrote in message
...
On Sep 2, 2:59�am, (Derek Lyons) wrote:
J Waggoner wrote:
As for the facilities if necessary Launch Pad C could always be
built.


Between the great expense and difficulty for very little return, the
chances of that are roughly equal to the chances I'll sprout wings and
fly to the moon under my own power.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL


The current pads have lived a proud and historic life. Perhaps its
time to retire them as exhibits and build new pads for whatever
replaces the shuttle?

a add on to existing ewxpendable pads would likely cost way less than
rebuilding 39 a and b.

so how much would a new pad set cost in comparison to the program
cost?

its likely low, and new pads could be built with a retractable roof so
rockets sitting stacked at the pad arent out in the weather...
something every pad rat would likely appreciate

================================

A launch pad with a retractable roof? ?? ...!!

I think the problem here has two prime roots.

Root1 is the nontechnical/religious character of far too many
Americans. America is not a spacefaring nation.

Root2 is the system has politicians making engineering
decisions. Politicians make *really* bad engineers.

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2008 Sep 02]