"Old, unsafe and costly" - The Economist on the shuttle

edward ohare wrote:
"Old, unsafe and costly" - The Economist on the shuttle


"It has always been a bad design: expensive, inherently
risky and - as two fatal accidents have demonstrated -
unsafe. It cannot launch satellites at a sensible price,
and it lifts people into orbit only because of America's
very deep pockets."


Inherently risky? Walking across the street is inherently risky. The
Economist is pandering to current sentiments. Looks like the just read
the CAIB report and jumped on a bandwagon.


...

"And later this year, while the shuttle is still firmly
grounded, China may launch astronauts for the first time.
A situation could arise where China, Russia and an
entrepreneur called Burt Rutan, based in a shed in the
Mojave desert, constitute the world's entire potential
for launching astronauts."

No...the U.S. will continue to have the "potential" to send people into
space. I'm not sure what they're trying to say...in one moment, the
U.S. shouldn't send people to space; in the next, the world's space
program will be run by some guy in a shed...

Never having read the Economist, I can't form general opinions. But I
can decide never to read the Economist.

In article , stmx3 wrote:
edward ohare wrote:

Never having read the Economist, I can't form general opinions. But I
can decide never to read the Economist.

It's amazing enough that one would admit one is provincial enough to
have never read The Economist, let alone make such pronouncements!

Nick

edward ohare wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 20:29:25 GMT, stmx3 wrote:



I can't agree with your "pandering to current sentiments" comment.
The President is in favor of continued shuttle operation and I've
heard no comments from average Americans disagreeing with this. The
Economist is promoting a minority view.



I should have said "current *media* sentiments". I'm fully aware the
populace is willing to charge full speed ahead. We'll see how much the
President backs up his committment...funding a hab module maybe?


No...the U.S. will continue to have the "potential" to send people into
space. I'm not sure what they're trying to say...in one moment, the
U.S. shouldn't send people to space; in the next, the world's space
program will be run by some guy in a shed...



They're saying the US should not send people into space on the
shuttle, and that by putting all its eggs in one basket, NASA now has
a basket of broken eggs.



Sounds like an omelette is in order, then. In any case, it's difficult
for the U.S., much less any other country, to have more than one manned
spaceflight egg basket.

Nicholas Fitzpatrick wrote:
In article , stmx3 wrote:

edward ohare wrote:

Never having read the Economist, I can't form general opinions. But I
can decide never to read the Economist.


It's amazing enough that one would admit one is provincial enough to
have never read The Economist, let alone make such pronouncements!

Nick

I must be showing my knickers.

stmx3 wrote:

In any case, it's difficult
for the U.S., much less any other country, to have more than one manned
spaceflight egg basket.

Which should be a blazing red flag in itself. Any activity with growth
potential should have numerous competing paths.

Paul

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote ...
stmx3 wrote:

In any case, it's difficult
for the U.S., much less any other country, to have more than one manned
spaceflight egg basket.

Which should be a blazing red flag in itself. Any activity with growth
potential should have numerous competing paths.

Paul

Given the size of the market, at the moment, that might only be achieved if
U.S. / Russia could have programmes that compete for manned space-flights.

Suppose the space station had been designed _from the start_ to be capable of
full operation given at least one of a healthy Shuttle / healthy Soyuz programme.
Then _theoretically_ there could have been 'true' competition.

Paul F. Dietz wrote:
stmx3 wrote:

In any case, it's difficult for the U.S., much less any other
country, to have more than one manned spaceflight egg basket.


Which should be a blazing red flag in itself. Any activity with growth
potential should have numerous competing paths.

Paul



That's true...I'll agree with you on that. It sounds like you're
arguing for a commercialized manned space program. I don't see that
being likely within the next decade or so, and the only competition for
this government/institutionalized egg basket is China. Oh, and Rutan.

The Economist does have a point if it becomes necessary to send troops
into space...then yes, the US is at a definite disadvantage for the next
year. But, without offering meaningful suggestions, they are not adding
anything new to the debate.

stmx3 wrote:

edward ohare wrote:
"Old, unsafe and costly" - The Economist on the shuttle


"It has always been a bad design: expensive, inherently
risky and - as two fatal accidents have demonstrated -
unsafe. It cannot launch satellites at a sensible price,
and it lifts people into orbit only because of America's
very deep pockets."


Inherently risky? Walking across the street is inherently risky. The
Economist is pandering to current sentiments. Looks like the just read
the CAIB report and jumped on a bandwagon.

...

"And later this year, while the shuttle is still firmly
grounded, China may launch astronauts for the first time.
A situation could arise where China, Russia and an
entrepreneur called Burt Rutan, based in a shed in the
Mojave desert, constitute the world's entire potential
for launching astronauts."

No...the U.S. will continue to have the "potential" to send people into
space. I'm not sure what they're trying to say...in one moment, the
U.S. shouldn't send people to space; in the next, the world's space
program will be run by some guy in a shed...

Never having read the Economist, I can't form general opinions. But I
can decide never to read the Economist.

Why??? Because it does not agree with your
cookie-cutter views???

stmx3 wrote:

edward ohare wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 20:29:25 GMT, stmx3 wrote:



I can't agree with your "pandering to current sentiments" comment.
The President is in favor of continued shuttle operation and I've
heard no comments from average Americans disagreeing with this. The
Economist is promoting a minority view.



I should have said "current *media* sentiments". I'm fully aware the
populace is willing to charge full speed ahead. We'll see how much the
President backs up his committment...funding a hab module maybe?


No...the U.S. will continue to have the "potential" to send people into
space. I'm not sure what they're trying to say...in one moment, the
U.S. shouldn't send people to space; in the next, the world's space
program will be run by some guy in a shed...



They're saying the US should not send people into space on the
shuttle, and that by putting all its eggs in one basket, NASA now has
a basket of broken eggs.



Sounds like an omelette is in order, then. In any case, it's difficult
for the U.S., much less any other country, to have more than one manned
spaceflight egg basket.

So far, from stmx3, all we get is some half baked
cookie cutter dough, but no real ideas.

Pulver wrote:

stmx3 wrote:

edward ohare wrote:

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 20:29:25 GMT, stmx3 wrote:



I can't agree with your "pandering to current sentiments" comment.
The President is in favor of continued shuttle operation and I've
heard no comments from average Americans disagreeing with this. The
Economist is promoting a minority view.



I should have said "current *media* sentiments". I'm fully aware the
populace is willing to charge full speed ahead. We'll see how much the
President backs up his committment...funding a hab module maybe?


No...the U.S. will continue to have the "potential" to send people into
space. I'm not sure what they're trying to say...in one moment, the
U.S. shouldn't send people to space; in the next, the world's space
program will be run by some guy in a shed...



They're saying the US should not send people into space on the
shuttle, and that by putting all its eggs in one basket, NASA now has
a basket of broken eggs.



Sounds like an omelette is in order, then. In any case, it's difficult
for the U.S., much less any other country, to have more than one manned
spaceflight egg basket.


So far, from stmx3, all we get is some half baked
cookie cutter dough, but no real ideas.

I was just commenting on the article. The central point, which I guess
I didn't elucidate clearly, is that, following the CAIB report, there is
a dirth of criticism from the media which sometimes doesn't make sense.
It is either poorly written, based on false facts/assumptions or is
generated merely to ride a current wave and sell magazines. This last
"idea" is what I wanted to get across *in this particular case*.

This is not the thread for ideas on space flight commercialization, the
shuttle safety program, whether or not we should develop nuclear
propulsion for interstellar travel...

And yes, it does sound like cookie cutter dough. Hopefully it's baked a
little more.