Jed: The leap too far point is incorrect. That had little to do with the shuttle's issues.
The main problem was that it was designed to be everything. A truck, a car, a lab all rolled into one. You wouldn't design a passenger carrier and add a large truck carrier to it. It makes both complicated. The energetics to take humans to orbit is significantly less then taking 40,000 lb payloads. The whole thing was incompetently designed to do all things for all people, because there was no will at the time for multiple projects. That was it's big problem. Now maybe that added complexity which you point out but it was a process problem not a technology problem. Ransom > This was featured in Slate magazine. I read it years ago. It is a damning > critique of the Space Shuttle written before the first Shuttle flew: > > http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/8004.easterbrook-fulltext.html > > Many people consider the Shuttle a technical triumph. I always had my > doubts, and after the first accident I thought they should scrap it. This > article shows that may people were aware of the shortcomings. The problem > with the Shuttle was that it was a leap too far. They tried to accomplish > too much in one generation of improvements. There have been many similar > failures in the history of technology, such as the IBM Stretch Computer. > The Stretch caused no harm. It lost a lot of money, but within a decade > IBM > recouped the loss by using most of the technology developed for it in > other > machines. > > Rossi has tried to make far too big a leap. His megawatt reactor reminds > me > of the flying boats with multiple engines of the 1930s such as the Dornier > Do X: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_X > > And the Caproni Ca. 60, probably the most ambitious and worst airplane > ever > built: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Ca.60 > > Come to think of it, the Shuttle also had multiple engines of different > types. That is a hallmark of bad technology. > > - Jed >
