Shuttle/Space Policy Historical Development (Was: What good is the Shuttle?)

"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.)

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

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

On 11 Jul 2006 07:59:10 -0700, "Len" wrote:

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).

....Ok, before Derek jumps your ass and chases you off, howabout giving
us an overview of Windjammer, and how it differed from the other
Shuttle proposals?

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

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.)

What would space supremacy look like today had we taken that route, that
you say we missed? How different would it look that what we have now?

: 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.)

No, that's because we haven't done anything like Apollo in 37 years!

: 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.

Yes, the Democrats want to have both parties working together so they can
get back into the mix. Whereas the Republicans want to continue to do it
alone as they feel they don't need the Democrats.

: 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.

It is easy to play Monday morning quarterback and hindsight is indeed
20-20. Given that you can't go back and the only possiibility to shape the
furture is in the present, tell me what you would do right now to get us
on a better path WRT to this space exploration we appeared to have missed.

Eric

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

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

OM wrote:

...Ok, before Derek jumps your ass and chases you off, howabout giving
us an overview of Windjammer, and how it differed from the other
Shuttle proposals?


This page, about 3/4 of the way down:
http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld039.htm

Pat

(Derek Lyons) wrote in
:

"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.

I don't see the two as being mutually exclusive, Derek. We can both agree
that space policy was messed up and "what-if" about the possible outcome if
the mistakes had not been made. I think you're being unnecessarily
argumentative here.

--
JRF

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

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:27:05 -0600, Rand Simberg
wrote:

So what else is new?

....Pot. Kettle. Rand.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

Rand Simberg wrote in
:

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
(Derek Lyons) wrote in
:

snip


I think you're being unnecessarily
argumentative here.

So what else is new?

Yeah, I'd half intended that statement for laughs, kind of like telling
Brad Guth he's being unnecessarily insane, or G. L. Bradford he's being
unnecessarily wordy.

Whoa... Back to the Future again, Rand? Your posting dates are once again
about two hours ahead... did you just move time zones without resetting
your CPU clock?


--
JRF

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

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

s 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.



I don't see the two as being mutually exclusive, Derek. We can both agree
that space policy was messed up and "what-if" about the possible outcome if
the mistakes had not been made. I think you're being unnecessarily
argumentative here.



Lockheed "Star Clipper".
That's the ticket, laddie!
Smaller payload, smaller cargo bay, no SRBs.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote in
:

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

s 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.

I don't see the two as being mutually exclusive, Derek. We can both
agree that space policy was messed up and "what-if" about the possible
outcome if the mistakes had not been made. I think you're being
unnecessarily argumentative here.

Lockheed "Star Clipper".
That's the ticket, laddie!

Well, one possible ticket, anyway. We know the flaws of the space shuttle
quite well. We don't know the flaws of the Star Clipper because we never
built one. But rest assured, it *would* have been flawed, especially if it
were designed as an "operational" vehicle from the get-go. That grass over
there only *looks* greener.

Smaller payload, smaller cargo bay, no SRBs.

Eliminate the cargo bay altogether, shrink the overall vehicle
appropriately, give it an X-plane number and a set of flight test
objectives, and I'm sold.


--
JRF

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