Space Shuttle Folly of Our AgeThe space shuttle.

John Derbyshire couldn't come up with a better topic this
week.

"The Folly of Our Age: The Space Shuttle"

"Like the monster in some ghastly horror movie rising from
the dead for the umpteenth time, the space shuttle is back
on the launch pad. This grotesque, lethal white elephant -
14 deaths in 113 flights - is the grandest, grossest
technological folly of our age. ...."

"http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire200506160749.asp"

- Ed Kyle

ed kyle wrote:
John Derbyshire couldn't come up with a better topic this
week.

"The Folly of Our Age: The Space Shuttle"

"Like the monster in some ghastly horror movie rising from
the dead for the umpteenth time, the space shuttle is back
on the launch pad. This grotesque, lethal white elephant -
14 deaths in 113 flights - is the grandest, grossest
technological folly of our age. ...."

"http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire200506160749.asp"

He's a wordsmith, that John.

- Ed Kyle

It is a really dumb design - we could make blackbirds out of pure
titanium but couldn't spare any for our astronauts? What a load of BS -
let me think back... Wasn't it a mainly Repbulican congress that
defunded NASA in favor of the military after Apollo? Gee - go figure
how we're racing down the same hole now..

Brilliant! BUSH IS THE BIGGEST DUMBASS PRESIDENT EVER!! AND HE TAKES
ADVICE FROM DUMBASSES THAT DUMBASSES TOLD HIM TO APPOINT. I THINK CARL
ROVE WILL BE SPIT ON PRETTY SOON.

Rick


ed kyle wrote:
John Derbyshire couldn't come up with a better topic this
week.

"The Folly of Our Age: The Space Shuttle"

"Like the monster in some ghastly horror movie rising from
the dead for the umpteenth time, the space shuttle is back
on the launch pad. This grotesque, lethal white elephant -
14 deaths in 113 flights - is the grandest, grossest
technological folly of our age. ...."

"http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire200506160749.asp"

- Ed Kyle

Rick Nelson wrote:
It is a really dumb design - we could make blackbirds out of pure
titanium but couldn't spare any for our astronauts? What a load of BS -
let me think back... Wasn't it a mainly Repbulican congress that
defunded NASA in favor of the military after Apollo? Gee - go figure
how we're racing down the same hole now..

Brilliant! BUSH IS THE BIGGEST DUMBASS PRESIDENT EVER!! AND HE TAKES
ADVICE FROM DUMBASSES THAT DUMBASSES TOLD HIM TO APPOINT. I THINK CARL
ROVE WILL BE SPIT ON PRETTY SOON.

Rick

Let's review the facts about who controlled Congress after the Apollo
program:

1968 Democrats controlled the Senate and House.
1969 Democrats controlled the Senate and House.
1970 Democrats controlled the Senate and House.
1971 Democrats controlled the Senate and House.
1972 Democrats controlled the Senate and House.
1973 Democrats controlled the Senate and House.
1974 Democrats controlled the Senate and House.
1975 Democrats controlled the Senate and House.
1976 Democrats controlled the Senate and House.
1977 Democrats controlled the Senate and House.
1978 Democrats controlled the Senate and House.
1979 Democrats controlled the Senate and House.
1980 Democrats controlled the Senate and House.
1981 Democrats controlled the House, Republicans controlled the Senate.
1982 Democrats controlled the House, Republicans controlled the Senate.
1983 Democrats controlled the House, Republicans controlled the Senate.
1984 Democrats controlled the House, Republicans controlled the Senate.
1985 Democrats controlled the House, Republicans controlled the Senate.
1986 Democrats controlled the House, Republicans controlled the Senate.
1987 Democrats controlled the Senate and House.
1988 Democrats controlled the Senate and House.
1989 Democrats controlled the Senate and House.
1990 Democrats controlled the Senate and House.
1991 Democrats controlled the Senate and House.
1992 Democrats controlled the Senate and House.
1993 Democrats controlled the Senate and House.
1994 Democrats controlled the Senate and House.
1995 Republicans controlled the Senate and House.
1996 Republicans controlled the Senate and House.
1997 Republicans controlled the Senate and House.
1998 Republicans controlled the Senate and House.
1999 Republicans controlled the Senate and House.
2000 Republicans controlled the Senate and House.
2001 Republicans controlled the Senate and House.
2002 Republicans controlled the Senate and House.
2003 Republicans controlled the Senate and House.
2004 Republicans controlled the Senate and House.
2005 Republicans controlled the Senate and House.

Bzzzzzzzzzz Wrong. Thanks for playing.

Looks like Democrats had control of Congress through most of the first
20-years
of the Space Shuttle program.


Rusty

"Rick Nelson" wrote in message
...
It is a really dumb design - we could make blackbirds out of pure
titanium but couldn't spare any for our astronauts?

Actually, it was other programs that were using up titanium at the time, not
the SR-71 program. Besides, what metal the structure was made out of
wouldn't have made much of a difference, since the design is flawed in so
many other ways. If you're thinking that titanium would have helped
Columbia, think again. Titanium loses strength at a higher temperature than
aluminum, but it's thermal conductivity is much lower, so it's easier to
have a localized burn through with titanium than aluminum.

If anything, with titanium, the TPS could have been made thinner and
lighter, because the structure could take more heat. Unfortunately, this
would also make the debris tolerance lower, which could actually make the
likelyhood of tile damage that could lead to a burn through higher rather
than lower.

What a load of BS -
let me think back... Wasn't it a mainly Repbulican congress that
defunded NASA in favor of the military after Apollo?

The reduction of NASA's budget started before the first moon landing, and as
Rusty points out, you're wrong about the Republicans controlling congress
during that time period.

Gee - go figure
how we're racing down the same hole now..

Not exactly. NASA's budget is essentially steady these days. It's just
that NASA has never gotten used to this lower level of funding. This is
compared to the "glory days" of Apollo R&D when they could essentially waste
anything but time. NASA keeps hoping that their funding will increse by
leaps and bounds, but I doubt it ever will.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

"ed kyle" wrote in
oups.com:

ed kyle wrote:
John Derbyshire couldn't come up with a better topic this
week.

"The Folly of Our Age: The Space Shuttle"

"Like the monster in some ghastly horror movie rising from
the dead for the umpteenth time, the space shuttle is back
on the launch pad. This grotesque, lethal white elephant -
14 deaths in 113 flights - is the grandest, grossest
technological folly of our age. ...."

"http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire200506160749.asp"

He's a wordsmith, that John.

He's apparently also read and mastered "How To Lie With Statistics."


--
JRF

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

Jeff Findley wrote:
"Rick Nelson" wrote in message
...
What a load of BS -
let me think back... Wasn't it a mainly Repbulican congress that
defunded NASA in favor of the military after Apollo?

The reduction of NASA's budget started before the first moon landing, and as
Rusty points out, you're wrong about the Republicans controlling congress
during that time period.

Gee - go figure
how we're racing down the same hole now..

Not exactly. NASA's budget is essentially steady these days. It's just
that NASA has never gotten used to this lower level of funding. This is
compared to the "glory days" of Apollo R&D when they could essentially waste
anything but time. NASA keeps hoping that their funding will increse by
leaps and bounds, but I doubt it ever will.




Acording to Space.com the U.S. Space Shuttle program cost has been:

"The data show that over the entire lifetime of the the space shuttle
program the cost has been $145 billion, and about $112 billion since
the program became operational."

"Furthermore, the average cost per flight has been about $1.3 billion
over the life of the program and about $750 million over its most
recent five years of operations."

http://www.space.com/news/shuttle_cost_050211.html

$ 33-billion dollars was spent building and developing the Shuttle. If
people believe that wasn't enought money, then how much would have been
enough?
$ 50-billion? $ 75-billon? $ 100-billion?


Rusty

Rusty wrote:

$ 33-billion dollars was spent building and developing the Shuttle. If
people believe that wasn't enought money, then how much would have been
enough?
$ 50-billion? $ 75-billon? $ 100-billion?


Rusty

Well, then if the system was completly risk-free people would just
complain that we spent too much on it.

Anyone know if they have these debates in Russia BTW?

-A.L.

"Andrew Lotosky" wrote in news:1119068471.009650.180020
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:



Rusty wrote:

$ 33-billion dollars was spent building and developing the Shuttle. If
people believe that wasn't enought money, then how much would have been
enough?
$ 50-billion? $ 75-billon? $ 100-billion?


Rusty

Well, then if the system was completly risk-free people would just
complain that we spent too much on it.

Anyone know if they have these debates in Russia BTW?

"Comrades, we spent HOW many millions of roubles for a rocket
that cannot fly?"

Such must have been the debate over the failed N-1 program.

So they built a new super-system that did fly.

Twice. And abandoned it.

Of course they also were in the process of wrecking their economy and
throwing out 75 years of government.

--Damon

Andrew Lotosky wrote:

Well, then if the system was completly risk-free people would just
complain that we spent too much on it.

We're making that complaint even now, so this is a safe
prediction.

The problem with the shuttle is not that it is risky.
The problem is that it is uneconomical. If shuttle
were a factor of ten cheaper to launch, but no safer,
it would be worth keeping around. If it were a factor
of ten safer, but no cheaper, it would not be.

Paul