NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/sci/space/18752

Text File | 1993-01-05 | 3.4 KB | 73 lines

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: sparky!uunet!enterpoop.mit.edu!mojo.eng.umd.edu!cadlab.eng.umd.edu!SYSMGR
From: [e-mail] (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 17:55:46 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Lines: 61

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>> It should also be
>>>possible to use Soyuz on an Atlas or Titan for US manned space.
>
>>They didn't study the latter possibility.
>
>No they didn't. But they did find that operating a Soyuz using US
>standards for docking, power, and life support was possible. This
>strongly indicates that interfacing with Atlas or Titan is practical.
>Especailly when you realize that US launch providers routinely re-
>design their payload interface to suit the payload.
>
>If I'm wrong, then it won't be the first time. If I'm correct then
>we can free up billions to do important space research (including manned
>space). Why does that bother you so much?

Because you continually fail to recognize the lobbying power of Rockwell
International, Lockheed, and Thiokel <sp> to keep the Shuttle going.

You have no imagination of the outcry which would occur to use Soyuz as a
primary piece of hardware in an American program.

"Look, we really don't give a damn about our own technologies anymore, so we
will become depending on the Russians."

If you don't believe me, wait until the fight occurs to kill Freedom dead and
rent space on Mir, which is a MUCH more likely scenario than killing a symbol
of technological pride and replacing it with a tin can.

Symbolism. So where can I FTP a picture of a Soyuz and Mir on the net? Posters
of Shuttle decorate the walls of Aerospace departments and children's bedrooms
across the country. Not many of Soyuz.

Why does Henry get so huffy about CanadARM on Shuttle flights? :-) Symbolism.
"My country built this; it is a symbol of what we CAN do."

>>And if you're going to be a tightwad, why don't we just contract out launch
>>services to the Russians, for that matter?
>
>Well I don't have your pesamistic view. I think US launchers can compete.

>But why the black and white view? I think we can make intelligent use of
>SOME Russian hardware to save us a lot of money. That doesn't mean we
>must use ALL Russian hardware.

No, Allen, if you're going to use cost as a driver to save money, the penny
pinchers on the Hill are just as likely to take it to extreme and send our boys
out to the steppes. Why waste the money of building our own launchers? We'll
just buy the already integrated package and assemble it here, like we do
Japanese cars, and launch it into space. After all, it will save sooo much more
money than trying to integrate a Soyuz on Titan or Atlas.

Your idea is a piss poor solution, other than (I suspect your TRUE agenda) to
stimulate the revival of Made in the U.S. tin cans as an alternate to the
Shuttle.


                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --