Derek Lyons wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
(Derek Lyons) wrote in news:44b272fd.242789375
:
"Skylon" wrote:
Shuttle as an X-series program though? For whatever reason I see that
like this. Maybe fly the first two orbiters, for a good few years with
minimum crews, if you want to launch some payloads, fine but see how
the vehicle works and don't treat it like an operational beast. Then by
the late 1980's/early 90's prepare for two new shuttles based off the
data learned from the first two.
You miss the point.
Jorge proposes picking up in the early 70's where we left off in the
early 60's - start with X-15 derivatives and work towards Shuttle.
I propose something even more radical - Mercury et al *should never
have flown in the first place*. We never should have taken that
propoganda driven route of cheap disposable capsules *in the first
place*.
Well, I was talking in terms of 1972 "what-if" scenarios. If we're talking
1959 "what-if" scenarios, I'd take yours as well.
I'm not talking a "what-if" scenario Jorge. I'm seriously proposing
that, historically speaking, we messed up our space policy big time
somewhere around 1958. We had a second chance - but then Kennedy
backed away from 'space supremacy' as policy, and replaced it with a
policy of meeting the Russians where they chose to compete rather than
defining the competition on our own terms. (Not, mind you, that I can
see any reasonable way the decisions could have gone differently.)
We've been living with the consequences of both decisions ever since.
Worse yet, the fanboys insist that the current situation is
inevitable... (Mostly because alternate scenarios don't allow a
return to Apollo and the Heroic Days of Yesteryear.)
Wow. I find myself in violent agreement with one of your posts, Derek.
The departure of NASA from its NACA roots was apparent as early as
1958/1959. I went from the satellite office of the National Academy of
Sciences to NASA HQ in March 1959. I remember a comment in 1959
by one of my colleagues who came from NACA: "We used to complain
about how bureaucratic the Air Force is, we've already become worse."
The "propaganda-drive approach" that you note was rather obvious
during the Apollo program. By 1960, I had moved from NASA HQ to
North American/Los Angeles Division, where I was project engineer for
space transportation systems. We were rather convinced that about
1 percent of the people in our sister division managed to make Apollo
work, in spite of the other 99 percent. There were bad decisions along
the way, because of a monopolistic strangle hold on independent
thinking. There was no reason why the Apollo I wiring could not have
been
engineered and manufactured within the available time limits; however,
there was no way such a decision could make it through all the layers
of management that, in all probability, was one of the results of the
"propaganda-driven approach."
All this doesn't mean that I wasn't just as excited and pleased as
anyone else about Apollo's basic success. The sad part was that
it was, in essence, a detour from the better road not taken. One of
my colleagues at the LA Division of North American Rockwell noted
at the time that the it would be an incredible disaster, if the Apollo
management approach became accepted as the model for future
space endeavors.
Space Shuttle was a natural aftermath of the Apollo detour. Shuttle
was an economic fraud from day 1. When Rockwell won the Shuttle,
I quit Rockwell, where I was then project engineer/manager for fighter
systems at the LA Division. (In fairness, only part of my decision was
due to disgust at the Shuttle design; I was also under a conflict-of-
interest agreement, since I was independently pursuing commercial
space transportation; my Windjammer concept had been revised by
Boeing as their RASV and offered as an alternative to other Shuttle
designs).
Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com
You realize, of course, that we're *both* committing heresy this time,
since in that timeline Apollo would never have occurred...?
These groups would benefit greatly from more heresy being added to the
mix. The quality of thought has steadily declined, and the level of
Party Lines and Groupthink has raised considerably, over the last few
years.
Of course, the compensation is considerable - we'd likely have had frequent
and relatively) affordable access to LEO since the mid-80s to early-90s, and
would by now probably be on the moon *to stay*...
That's a rosy scenario - I'd rate it as "probably certain" myself.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL