You could have replaced the Hubble many time over for the cost of the Shuttle and its operation.
Sent from my iPhone On May 26, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Chemical Engineer <[email protected]> wrote: > Condemning the shuttle program is like condemning jet fighter aircraft & > bombers now that we have drones to do the dirty work. > > http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/08/secret-air-force-x-37b-space-plane-mission-pectacular-success/ > > Without the shuttle & crew Hubble would be a piece of space junk. > > > On Saturday, May 26, 2012, Ransom Wuller wrote: > 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 > > >
