From: bondage@frontiernet.net   
      
   Zoltan Szakaly wrote:   
   >   
   > dynamics@vianet.on.ca (Ken S. Tucker) wrote in message news:<2   
   02379a.0401171930.71e7c27a@posting.google.com>...   
   > > The excellence of the shuttle system.   
   > >   
   > > The orbiter part of the shuttle is a great machine   
   > > and has never failed (big time). The two catastophes   
   > > are from the SRB and the HO tank, and these appear   
   > ...   
   > > Regards   
   > > Ken S. Tucker   
   >   
   > The shuttle is an excellent and reliable system. Two failures of about   
   > 100 flights is pretty good reliability. There are two problems with   
   > the shuttle.   
      
      Don't you ever consider designing commercial/military aircraft,   
   please!   
      
      And the argument that 'it's a spaceship' doesn't change mine.   
      
   > 1. The lack of plan B in case of failure. During launch there should   
   > be an apollo style LET system to remove the cabin from the fireball.   
      
      So you now need to redesign the cabin to come away by design...how   
   much does this weigh? Are parachutes pratical? And you also must now be   
   able to survive coming down on land or water...   
      
   > During reentry there should be ejection seats as a safety backup.   
      
      Unless you have re-entry worthy enclosures similar to the bailout   
   system of the B-70, what does ejection get you during re-entry? You just   
   toast seperately from the ship.   
      
   > These are not hard to implement.   
      
      That's very easy to say...   
      
   > 2. The utter stupidity of shuttling a heavy vehicle up and down when   
   > the cost of launch is so high.   
      
      It's not the weight of the vehicle that causes that. What does a   
   fully fueled 747 weigh?   
      
   > The only thing the shuttle is good for   
   > is bringing something back from orbit. This is not something we need.   
   >   
   > We should use the existing shuttles to continue launching payloads   
   > while we develop a vehicle like Buran where we could replace the   
   > orbiter with some other payload.   
      
      The idea's not new, we call it Shuttle-C. Some like it, some don't.   
   and it isn't necessairily cheap, either.   
      
   > After all we do have a heavy launch   
   > vehicle. The shuttle system without the shuttle.   
   >   
   > Zoltan   
      
      
   --   
      
      You know what to remove, to reply....   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)