Saturn 5 Question

wrote:
We don't *want* them back into space work.

Then who would do it? If you wipe out 99% of those who know anything
about the practicalities of spacecraft design, manufacture and
operation, one of the *first* results will be to turn off investors.

laughs For the first two, they are already long gone from the
Shuttle program. The activities of the third are so unrelated to a
practical and rational spacecraft that they won't be missed.

The Shuttle program, compared to a rational program, is overmanned by at
*least* an order of magnitude.

A rational program would be *vast* in capability and flight rate
compared to Shuttle. But we got what we got. Lobotomizing your industry
is not a good idea if you want the capability to continue, much less
improve.

This is so disconnected from reality that I don't know where to start.

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

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

Kevin Willoughby wrote:

In article .com,
says...

Yes, get rid of the do-nothing management types,

As much as this engineer hates to admit it, for large, complex projects,
good management is more important than good engineering. (Personally,
I'm working in a company with less than 20 people for just this reason.)

nods And when we look at individuals held up as exemplars of the
space programs of the 60's, we see astronauts and managers - and one
lone engineer. (Max Faget.)

Many of the people held up for admiration as engineers (Von Braun for
example) are actually engineers wearing their management hat.

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

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

wrote in message
oups.com...
What I think is worse is that the country has lost the collective
engineering know-how that built Apollo/Saturn.

That's the nature of space engineering. It's too small of a field to
retain complete capability

Look on the sci.space.* groups at all the people who want to trash NASA
and lay off everyone who works on Shuttle. These people will all find
jobs in other fields, and getting them *back* into space work would be
one hell of a challenge.


I'm worried that the next generation of
space engineers will have to "re-invent the wheel" to accomplish any
big projects.

Yup. Once an entire industry has dried up and blown away, getting it
back means starting from square one.

Isn't that showing now with the new lunar plans?

It's going to take over 10 years to get us back to where we were 40 years
ago!

"Max Turner" wrote:

Yup. Once an entire industry has dried up and blown away, getting it
back means starting from square one.

Isn't that showing now with the new lunar plans?
It's going to take over 10 years to get us back to where we were 40 years
ago!

Of course the fact that we are doing it on a budget this time, rather
than with nearly a blank check has *nothing* to do with it?

Idiot.

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

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

A rational program would be *vast* in capability and flight rate
compared to Shuttle. But we got what we got. Lobotomizing your industry
is not a good idea if you want the capability to continue, much less
improve.

This is so disconnected from reality that I don't know where to start.


You can start by explaining why a mission rate of two or three or four
a year is as much as we should want. Last I looked, even cruise liners
did more than that.

In article ,
says...
Kevin Willoughby wrote:
If the existing industry has a track record of wildly overspending and
under-delivering, not really achieving any useful results (has ISS
achieved anything that Skylab and MIR didn't already demonstrate?), why
would we want that capability to continue?


Because it's not the fault of the bulk of those in the industry. A lot
of NASA programs have been ruined for *political* reasons. Pork-barrel
projects the pols don;t actually have any desire to see finished. But
even within those whirlpools of doom, the people slaving away often show
great skill and creativity and talent. Give them something *proper* to
do.

If you really belive this, you should be advocating that NASA be shut
down. Free up those good engineers from the evil Washington politicians.
Let a dozen new startups be born from the ashes. At least
one of the startups should be successful...


When NASA finally is in the business of doing more than going in
circles fulfillign State Department diplomacy missions, then you'll see
progress.

Do you really think the current Administration is going to think about
anything in other than a political way? Or the previous Administration??
Or the one before that, or.....

To depoliticise these guys, you have to get them out from under the
politicians.
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

The loss of the American system of checks and balances
is more of a security danger than any terrorist risk.
-- Bruce Schneier

Kevin Willoughby wrote:

In article ,
says...


Kevin Willoughby wrote:


If the existing industry has a track record of wildly overspending and
under-delivering, not really achieving any useful results (has ISS
achieved anything that Skylab and MIR didn't already demonstrate?), why
would we want that capability to continue?




Because it's not the fault of the bulk of those in the industry. A lot
of NASA programs have been ruined for *political* reasons. Pork-barrel
projects the pols don;t actually have any desire to see finished. But
even within those whirlpools of doom, the people slaving away often show
great skill and creativity and talent. Give them something *proper* to
do.



If you really belive this, you should be advocating that NASA be shut
down. Free up those good engineers from the evil Washington politicians.


To do what? Anyone who believes that they will form their own aerospace
firms is living in a fantasy land. They'll go work electronics or some
such. The fraction of engineers working in the aerospace field who, like
me, will move all over the damned continent to find work in the space
field is pretty slim.

Let a dozen new startups be born from the ashes.



Yeah, video game startups, internet startups, automotive startups...
anything but space, which just bit 'em in the ass again.


--
"The only thing that galls me about someone burning the American flag is how unoriginal it is. I mean if you're going to pull the Freedom-of-speech card, don't be a hack, come up with something interesting. Fashion Old Glory into a wisecracking puppet and blister the system with a scathing ventriloquism act, or better yet, drape the flag over your head and desecrate it with a large caliber bullet hole." Dennis Miller

wrote:

A rational program would be *vast* in capability and flight rate
compared to Shuttle. But we got what we got. Lobotomizing your industry
is not a good idea if you want the capability to continue, much less
improve.

This is so disconnected from reality that I don't know where to start.


You can start by explaining why a mission rate of two or three or four
a year is as much as we should want. Last I looked, even cruise liners
did more than that.

You seem to lack reading comprehension so I'll spell it out for you
much more clearly:

EVERY CURRENT SHUTTLE WORKER COULD VANISH INTO THIN AIR AND THE
AEROSPACE INDUSTRY WOULD HARDLY NOTICE. THE SHUTTLE IS NOT THE BE ALL
AND END ALL OF THE AEROSPACE INDUSTRY, AND IN FACT IS THE BUTT END OF
WHAT LITTLE PART OF THE INDUSTRY IT IS.

*Now* do you understand you moron?

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

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

Taylor and Dyson.

In article ,
says...
Kevin Willoughby wrote:
Let a dozen new startups be born from the ashes.

Yeah, video game startups, internet startups, automotive startups...
anything but space

You are aware of who funded SpaceShipOne, aren't you?
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

The loss of the American system of checks and balances
is more of a security danger than any terrorist risk.
-- Bruce Schneier